Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Chirps (Some Would Say Rants)

12/21/24 Supreme Court Defiance

President Biden announced yesterday that he is canceling $4.28 billion in student loans for nearly 55,000 public service workers as he prepares to exit the White House. As I have written in my Chirp on "04/13/24 Promises Made and Promises Not Capable of Being Kept", this issue has been resolved by a Supreme Court decision. A president has no authority to expend monies not allocated and approved by Congress. Thus, President Biden’s continued attempt to provide student loan debt forgiveness is Unconstitutional unless legislation is passed by Congress allowing for this expenditure. In President Biden’s continued attempts to provide this student loan debt forgiveness, he is acting in defiance of the Supreme Court. Such defiance is an assault on our Constitution in the separation of powers doctrine and a violation of his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

This student loan debt forgiveness is also immoral, as it takes money from the taxpayers (those who have earned the money) to give to the student loan holders (those who have not earned the money). To claim that it is the government that is paying off the debt is dubious and deceptive, as it places an amorphous entity (the government) between the taxpayer and the person who spends the money on student loans. This is done in the hopes of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" to hide the plain facts. The plain fact is that someone knowingly encumbered themselves in debt, and in facing the consequences of repaying the debt, they wish for others to pay off their debts. This raises the question of the moral justification for making someone else pay for another person’s bad decision. It is also the same principle that Abraham Lincoln espoused in his opposition to slavery:

“You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
  - Abraham Lincoln

This student loan debt forgiveness is an act of redistributing wealth that is only worthy of an authoritarian government or a socialist state. It is also nothing but a hollow promise, as Congress is very unlikely to pass such student loan debt forgiveness. This is but another example of the Bread and Circuses approach to electioneering and governance for which the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are notorious. This action will again be slapped down by the courts as Unconstitutional, and it is time for the American people to slap down the Bread and Circuses actions of Democrats and Progressives.

Update – It was announced late yesterday that the Biden Administration is scrapping its proposed plan to provide student loan forgiveness for upwards of 25 million borrowers. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said that given the limited time and resources available in the final weeks of the administration, and the legal challenges facing the proposal, the department would focus instead on “helping at-risk borrowers return to repayment successfully.”

12/20/24 A Continuing Resolution

Secret, comprehensive, and bipartisan are code words used by politicians to ramrod legislation through which would not be acceptable if done in the light of day. Legislative agreement to do the wrong thing does not make it the right thing to do. Necessary and needful does not mean for the purpose of funding special or political interests, nor for the garnering of voter support. A debt ceiling is no ceiling if it can be raised capriciously to meet capricious spending. The failure to provide adequate time for legislators and the public to read and review legislation before it is voted upon is an attempt to muzzle opposition before the fact. A Continuing Resolution (CR) by Congress is a continuation of all these practices.

12/19/24 Putting an End to Lawfare and the Weaponization of Government

The Georgia Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis election interference case against Trump, the New York Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan ‘hush money’ case, and the exorbitant $83.3 million civil verdict against Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case of dubious allegations, were all Lawfare against Trump to thwart his election for President. The continuation of these cases after his election victory is but attempts to continue to harass him, and they all have negative Constitutional issues and impacts.

The recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on Presidential Immunity has a direct bearing on the Willis and Bragg prosecutions, which call into doubt their prosecutions, and the fine imposed in the E. Jean Carroll case has implications for a violation of Amendment VIII to the Constitution that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In the continuation of the Willis and Bragg prosecutions, it appears that they are being pursued in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling, and the excessive E. Jean Carroll fine is an assault on the equal rights and protections of all Americans.

All three of these cases, in their continuation, have concerns about possible interference in the Presidential office duties and responsibilities. Given the dubious nature of all these cases, it is best that they be dropped, as was done in the Federal Indictments against Donald Trump by Jack Smith in the mishandling of national security documents and the attempt to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election cases. All these cases were driven by lawfare, which resulted in the weaponization of government, and all should be dropped. All Lawfare and Weaponization cases should cease and desist in the future, as they are all an assault on the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". In addition, the perpetrators of these cases should be harshly condemned and perhaps lose their law licenses for their dubious legal actions and infringements on our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

12/17/24 Psychological Disorder of Compliance to Authority

In the YouTube Video by The Tanya Rabbi, “Watch Carefully: Jordan Peterson Drops BOMBSHELL Findings on Adolf Hitler”, he makes an observation that not only did Hitler and the Nazis have a psychological disorder, as Professor Peterson suggests, but that they were driven by a distaste by the Jewish people's affinity for charity to other, less fortunate people. I would suggest that there is also a third and very important reason for the Nazi's hatred. The Nazis believed in a pure Ayran race that was compliant to the will of a strong leader such as Hitler, his minions, and their possible successors.

This can be attested to as the Nazis were not just Anti-Semitic, but other people were also targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their nationality, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. This can be authenticated by the numbers from the Wikipedia article on Holocaust victims:

• Jews 6 million
• Soviet civilians 5 million
• Soviet POWs 3 million
• Poles 8 million
• Serbs More than 310,000
• Disabled people 270,000
• Romani 250,000–500,000
• Freemasons 80,000
• Slovenes 20,000–25,000
• Homosexuals 5,000–15,000
• Spanish Republicans 3,500
• Jehovah's Witnesses 1,700
• Total 17 million

The Nazi Gestapo was used to focus upon political opponents, ideological dissenters (clergy and religious organizations), career criminals, the Sinti and Roma population, handicapped persons, homosexuals, and, above all, the Jews. All these people were considered as disobedient to the will of the Fuhrer and, therefore, needed to be eliminated. Their primary target was the Jews, as they knew that the Jewish people, through their religious beliefs, would not be compliant to any person but only to the will of God. The other people on the above list were also considered to be non-compliant with the will of the Fuhrer.

This psychological disorder of compliance to authority is what despots, dictators, tyrants, totalitarians, authoritarians, aristocrats, autocracies, and oligarchs utilize to obtain, retain, and weld power over a people. The American Revolution from the British was in part due to their unwillingness to be compliant with the will of the English King and Parliament. Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All are antithetical to compliance, and individualism is contrary to compliance. Accordingly, compliance with authority is anti-American, as it conflicts with our American Ideals and Ideas.

Alas, this psychological disorder of compliance can be seen in today’s Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in their anti-Christian and now Anti-Semitic attitudes. Their cozying up to Islamists is but a ploy to attract votes, but if the American Islamists should disavow the Democrat Party and its leaders, it is almost certain that they will become anti-Islamists. The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders tactics of Cancel Culture, Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, and Wokeness are but an attempt to intimidate their opponents into compliance. The Administrative State also utilizes compliance to authority to impose its will on Americans.

Consequently, Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, and the Administrative State are operating outside of the bounds of our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and they should be opposed by all Americans who treasure our Liberties and Freedoms.

12/15/24 A Wall of Separation

Most people are familiar with Thomas Jefferson's statement about a “wall of separation between church and state”. This phrase is but a small part of what he said and meant, and this small part is often improperly utilized to rationalize the exclusion of religious thought and religious persons in government. However, the full quote gives a greater meaning to what he wrote:

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
  - Thomas Jefferson

Thus, it can be seen that he was warning about state intrusion into religion and not religion intrusion into the state. Our Founding Fathers were very cognizant that a moral and religious people were necessary for our government to survive, as the following quotes illuminate:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
  - John Adams

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”
 - Thomas Jefferson

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
 - George Washington

"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel."
  - Benjamin Franklin

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his “Democracy in America” observations, published in 1835, he wrote of the New World and its burgeoning democratic order:

“Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?”
 - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Thus, de Tocqueville believed that a religious foundation was necessary for liberty to thrive. The question is what manner of religious faith is necessary for liberty to thrive. There are many religious faiths throughout the world and in the history of the world. Most of these faiths have been imbecilic to liberty, and they have often demanded obedience to their beliefs and tenets regardless of liberty. As to my opinion as to the best religion for liberty to thrive, I would agree with one of our Founding Fathers:

“The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see.”
 - Benjamin Franklin

Today, in America, we see the competing forces of agnosticism, atheism, secularism, and the major religious faiths competing for dominance in American society. To this competition, I would respond with the thoughts of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who persuasively argues in her Profession of Faith:

“Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the “God hole” — the void left by the retreat of the church — has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma. The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet. The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

In this nihilistic vacuum, the challenge before us becomes civilisational. We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do. We can’t fight woke ideology if we can’t defend the civilisation that it is determined to destroy. And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools. To win the hearts and minds of Muslims here in the West, we have to offer them something more than videos on TikTok.”

As well as:

“…we can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that “God is dead!” seems insufficient. So, too, does the attempt to find solace in “the rules-based liberal international order”. The only credible answer, I believe, lies in our desire to uphold the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That legacy consists of an elaborate set of ideas and institutions designed to safeguard human life, freedom and dignity — from the nation state and the rule of law to the institutions of science, health and learning. As Tom Holland has shown in his marvellous book Dominion, all sorts of apparently secular freedoms — of the market, of conscience and of the press — find their roots in Christianity.

And so I have come to realise that Russell and my atheist friends failed to see the wood for the trees. The wood is the civilisation built on the Judeo-Christian tradition; it is the story of the West, warts and all. Russell’s critique of those contradictions in Christian doctrine is serious, but it is also too narrow in scope.”

Consequently, the Judeo-Christian values upon which our country was founded are still the proper religious foundation for Liberty to thrive. It should also be remembered that liberty without proper moral constraints on liberty is a recipe for licentiousness and anarchy and that Judeo-Christian values are the proper moral constraints on liberty. We do not need government involvement in religious affairs, as Thomas Jefferson has said, but we do need proper religious people and thoughts in our governance to maintain a free society.

12/14/24 The Core Moral Question of Abortion

With the angst amongst the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists about their recent losses in the election, many have returned to the abortion issue as an electoral concern. They do not seem concerned about reexamining the moral issue of abortion but only about how to better exploit the abortion issue for electoral gain. But it is this moral issue of abortion that must be reexamined to resolve the issue of abortion. Moral issues in America have a long history, from the issues of Independence to Abortion. In all these American moral issues, we can see a pattern of Americans' perceptions of moral issues.

John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers and the second President of the United States, famously responded to a question about the American Colonists support for Independence that about one-third of them were for it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion. In my readings about the Antebellum period prior to the Civil War, I believe that the same proportion of the American public were for, against, or of no opinion about slavery. This same one-third, one-third, one-third pattern can be discerned at the start of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s. Today, in modern America, I believe that approximately the same proportion of the American public are for, against, or of no opinion about Abortion.

In all four of these issues, Independence, Slavery, Civil Rights, and Abortion, the core issue was and is one of a moral nature. A moral issue that could not, and cannot, be decided by a majority or by individual States. Morality cannot be decided on anything except the bedrock moral principles of Natural (i.e., Human) Rights. The Declaration of Independence outlined the moral justification for Independence, while Abraham Lincoln’s many speeches laid out the immorality of slavery, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches and writings laid out the immorality of bigotry and discrimination. I would now like to lay out the core moral question of Abortion.

The bedrock moral principle of the abortion question is that no person may unjustly take the life of another person. To unjustly take the life of another is murder, and murder is never permissible, as it is a violation of the Natural Right to Life of a person. Thus, the core moral question of abortion is that of the status of an unborn child as a human person. If an unborn child is a human person, then it is immoral to take their life. Thus, you must first examine the question of the human status of an unborn child before you can take a stance on abortion.

To this question of the human status of an unborn child, there are only three possible answers: 1) their humanity begins at the moment of conception, 2) their humanity occurs sometime during their gestation, and 3) their humanity begins after their birth. To properly answer the abortion question requires a good person to unflinchingly determine the human status of an unborn child, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/08/24 A Good Person”.

All other questions surrounding abortion cannot be properly answered until you make a determination of the human status of an unborn child. All of the other questions of abortion, without answering the core question of the human status of the unborn child, involve utilizing "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to be answered. When you make a determination of the human status of an unborn child, then these other questions of abortion can be properly answered.

This is why I have become weary and disgusted by the political rhetoric on abortion. In this political rhetoric on abortion, there is little or no discussion of the core question of the humanity of an unborn child, and all politicians seem intent on avoiding answering this core question. Until the core question of the human status of an unborn child is resolved, there can be no definitive answers to the abortion question, and the political rhetoric will reign supreme on the abortion question.

As to my opinion of the human status of the unborn child and to the other questions of abortion, I would direct you to my thoughts on abortion in my articles on "The Abortion Question", "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery", "The Constitution and Abortion", and "The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion".

12/13/24 Not Reparations but Extortions

Once again, the talk of reparations for the sins of slavery in America is being discussed in California. To this, I would say that just as the sins of the father shall not be vested upon the son, so shall reparations not be vested on the son. I would also remind all of what Abraham Lincoln said about slavery:

“You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
  - Abraham Lincoln

To take someone’s earned money and give it to another is the same concept. No one has the right to take the fruits of a person’s labor and bestow those fruits on another person. Such an act is an act of tyranny. Thus, all talk of reparations should end unless it is of reparations to those who were inflicted by those who so caused the infliction.

Consequently, these are not reparations but extortions. An extortion with an implied threat that if they are not paid, there will be serious political and social consequences that would harm Americans. Giving in to extortionists is neither moral nor ethical, and the only virtuous responses to extortionists are acceptable.

12/12/24 Double Standards and High Expectations

Actress and Singer Sabrina Carpenter has stated, to wild applause from her audience, “I read something today that said that men shouldn’t have birthdays because they never grow up.” This begs the question of what if a male actor or singer had stated, “Women shouldn’t have birthdays as they never mature beyond the age of sixteen.”

Many women also have high expectations and ridiculous demands for men that they will date, such as  every man must be at least six feet tall, with six-pack abs, a six-figure income, and a six-inch you-know-what to be worthy of their attention. What if men had the same high expectations as women in that every woman must be at least five and a half feet tall, with a least a 34C-24-32 figure, an income at least the same as the man, and that a woman must put out at least six times a day for her man to be worthy of his attentions.

Such comments and expectations on both sides are ridiculous. It is also a sign of narcissism by those who would believe such statements. But narcissism seems to be all the rage in today’s society. This is especially true in modern Feminism. Modern Feminism is all about the female, to the exclusion and detriment of the male.

However, this may be changing, as many young women are speaking up about the problems they are having in their relationships with men because of modern Feminist attitudes. Many men are also beginning to voice their displeasure with these attitudes. A YouTube channel, MenNeedToBeHeard, speaks about men's issues with a focus on the hypocrisy and double standards that society has towards men.

PragerU’s short documentary, MIA: Masculinity in America, encourages men to embrace the power of masculinity and its positive impact on relationships, families, and society as a whole. This video answers the question of ‘What does it mean to be a man in America today?’. Young men are told that masculinity is “toxic”, traditional gender roles are oppressive, fathers are unnecessary, and women are no different from men. This is leaving young men grappling with questions about their identity and purpose. This video by Aldo Buttazzoni searches for the truth and speaks with respected experts about the critical role men play in society. This video features interviews with:

• John Gray (author of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus)
• Cassie Jaye (investigative filmmaker and director of The Red Pill documentary)
• John Rosemond (family psychologist and author of The Bible Parenting Code)
• Chloe Carmichael (clinical psychologist and author of Nervous Energy)
• Brian Echevarria (father, husband, and activist who went viral for his anti-CRT speech at a school board meeting)

Hopefully, intelligence and rationality will prevail, and we can fashion a society of politeness and equal respect between the sexes.

12/11/24 Democrat’s Ethics

The ethical challenges of the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians, along with their Progressive commentators, are great. They claim that there are no excuses for the Republican Party and Republican politician's lapses of ethics as they are abject and ignominious, while they also claim that the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians are to be forgiven or ignored as they are righteous, and their goals are noble (i.e., the ends justify the means). In these claims, they are supported by most of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate".

From the Obama Administration spying on the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign and to Hillary Clinton’s funding of the Steele Dossier, along with the the false FISA warrants against the Trump Campaign and his supporters and appointed officials, to the Russian Collusion Delusion and the President Trump Impeachments, to the Biden family corruptions as revealed by Hunter Biden’s laptop and their denials of such corruption, to the improprieties of the 2020 presidential election and the January 6th, 2021 mob actions as an insurrection, to the disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation on the COVID-19 Pandemic, to the demonization, denigration, or disparagement, along with the assaults on the Constitutional and Civil Rights of those Americans who  disagreed or opposed them, to the Donald Trump indictments and trials, to the overturning of Joe Biden’s primary election in 2024 and the cover-ups of  President Biden’s mental health deterioration, and now the preemptive Presidential Pardon of Hunter Biden, they have shown that they have no ethics and are only concerned with themselves and their lust for and the attainment and retainment of political power.

The falsehoods, deceptions, and denials about their own elected and appointed officials' unethical conduct are too numerous for this Chirp, but they are widespread and deep. In an article by Jonathan Turley, “The Wild World of Democratic Ethics”, he states:

“None of this matters in the Wild world of Democratic ethics. It is very simple. Whatever Democrats are attempting cannot be “wrongful ends.” More importantly, it is the ends, not the means, that are the measure of ethics. Since they are only fighting for what is right, the ends justify the means from cleansing ballots of Republicans (including Trump) to supporting a massive censorship system to ignoring court decisions to count invalid votes.”

In the last dozen years or so, the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians have shown they are unworthy to lead a people dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Their support of violent mob agitators and their race hustling, in their support of illegal immigration and the resultant gang crime and illegal drug and human smuggling, in their blaming America on the international stage, and in their propagation of The Biggest Falsehoods in America is demonstrative of an anti-American attitude. Their political tactics of "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", "Wokeness", "Doxing", and "Lawfare", and their "Hyper-Partisanship" are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas.

Such a party and its politicians need to be relegated to the ash heap of history, and until they totally reform themselves, they need to be kept as far away from political power as possible.

12/10/24 Pronounced In Law

Pronounced in Law may be an argument against the Presidential Pardon of Hunter Biden. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, dealing with Presidential Pardons, states:

“. . . he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

There are three words in this statement that could be utilized to negate the pardon of Hunter Biden and restrict future Presidential Pardons:

• Reprieves - (law) the act of reprieving; postponing, or remitting punishment.
• Pardons - (law) a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense.
• Offences – (law) A transgression that constitutes a violation of what is judged to be illegal.

Reprieves and Pardons deal with punishments, and the word Offences is ambiguous in what determines when a legal offense has occurred.

From the webpage “Understanding the Legal Definition of Pronounced in Law”:

“To have a matter ‘pronounced in law’ is to have it formally and authoritatively declared. It represents the culmination of a legal process and marks the beginning of its implementation. Understanding the significance of this term is crucial for anyone engaged in legal proceedings, as it shapes the course of actions and consequences that follow.”

It is possible that the meaning of these words could be determined by a Sense of Congress Resolution that is upheld by the Supreme Court, that offenses against the United States can only be established after the guilty party has been Pronounced in Law, and that only after such a pronouncement could a reprieve or pardon be issued by the President of the United States.

If this is true, then preemptive presidential pardons would be unconstitutional, and therefore, the presidential pardon of Hunter Biden would be null and void, as he has not been pronounced guilty by law. It would also constrict future Presidential Pardons to only occur after a pronouncement of law is formally declared by a judge or a court of law.

Such a course of action would be beneficial to Justice and The Rule of Law in America and help constrain government officials to constitutional actions that I expressed in my Chirp on “12/07/24 No Virtue in Preemptive Pardons”. Otherwise, we run the risk of runaway Presidential Pardons that are anathema to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

12/09/24 Trump Proofing

Trump proofing is all the rage amongst many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists as an attempt to thwart President-elect Trump’s plans to deport illegal immigrants, along with other Trump policies with which they disagree. Trump proofing is but an attempt to thwart the will of the people, as expressed in the last election. If President Trump and his administration are acting lawfully and constitutionally, such Trump proofing is an obstruction of justice against the lawful actions of the federal government. Anybody has the right to challenge the actions of the government as unconstitutional or unlawful in a court of law, but such resistance to government actions needs to be restricted to a court of law; otherwise, they could be considered an insurrection against the lawful and constitutional authority of the government.

However, the courts need to expeditiously consider if the lawsuits brought forth are with merit or just an attempt to utilize the courts for the purposes of delaying Trump’s constitutional and lawful actions. They also need to bring these lawsuits to federal courts as they are federal issues. Bringing the lawsuits to state or local courts would only be for the purposes of delay or to judge shopping for a judge who is sympathetic to their cause. We also need to be concerned that Federal judges may rule not on the merits of the case but on their antipathy to President Trump or his political agenda.

Trump proofing is also being done by the outgoing Biden Administration to protect the federal bureaucracy from the incoming Trump Administration plans to scale back the federal bureaucracy to institute efficacy, efficiency, and the rooting out of corruption in the bureaucracy. As such, the roadblocks that are being instituted by the current Biden Administration can also be considered an insurrection against the incoming Trump Administration, not to mention that it should be considered sinister actions on the part of the Biden Administration.

Thus, Trump proofing is an insidious form of insurrection against the constitutional and lawful actions of the Trump Administration. It is insidious because the insurrection is being waged from inside the government rather than from forces outside the government. But it is an insurrection regardless of its origination. Consequently, it must be opposed by all who believe in constitutional government, our democratic republic form of government, and our Liberties and Freedoms. To do otherwise is to allow those who can not, nor will not, accept the results of the last elections as a referendum to change the course of government in America.

12/08/24 A Veneer to the Smear

The Department of Justice has a very checkered history in the Obama and Biden Administrations regarding the politicization of the DOJ and FBI against their political opponents. This politicization even continued to occur at the start of the Trump Administration, but it was directed against President Trump and his administration. These actions called into question the honesty and integrity of the leadership of the DOJ and FBI, and until this situation is corrected by the next Trump administration, all should be wary of the DOJ and FBI.

The nomination and confirmation of Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Kash Patel as FBI Director, as well as their commitment to reforming the DOJ and FBI, should be applauded and supported. However, until this corruption in the DOJ and FBI is corrected, there should be little reliance on the current DOJ and FBI leadership to provide accurate and unbiased information regarding President-elect Trump’s nominees (i.e., FBI Background Investigations).

The current calls by some Senators and many Progressive commentators for a thorough vetting of the nominees before confirmation hearings and a vote for approval, while appearing noble and with fidelity to the Constitution, is but a sinister attempt to delay and hobble the new Trump Administration on its pursuit of reforming the efficacy and efficiency, and the rooting out of corruption in the Executive Branch. In addition, to rely on FBI Background Investigations of the nominees before the FBI is reformed would lead to the potential of biased FBI reporting, which could put a veneer to the smear of some of the nominees that are adamantly opposed by the forces of the deep state, Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders. As I have Chirp on "11/22/24 The Smears", these smears are destructive not only to the nominee and their families but also to the body politic.

Thus, utilizing FBI Background Investigations as a basis for confirmation and/or as a tactic of delay is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The American electorate has spoken, and they desire an expeditious and honest confirmation of President-elect Trump’s nominees to begin the process of reforming government.

12/07/24 No Virtue in Preemptive Pardons

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

In constructing the Constitution, our Founding Fathers assumed it would be administered by wise and virtuous people, for as the “Father of the Constitution” has said:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold their public trust.”
 - James Madison

With the pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden has shown that he is a person without wisdom or virtue. This comes as no surprise to those who have dispassionately examined the history of Joe Biden and his family. A family history of corruption, lies, deceptions, duplicitousness, vindictiveness, and retributions. All the things he accuses Donald Trump of are but projections of his own flawed character and lack of virtue. Those who support, condone, excuse, or justify the Presidential Pardon of Hunter Biden also have no concept of virtue, and thus, they have disgraced themselves.

In addition, the use of preemptive pardons, whether for private individuals or government officials, raises the likelihood of people behaving in an unlawful manner. If they know that they will face no consequences for their unlawful actions due to an (expected) preemptive pardon, then they will not feel constrained in their actions. Alas, these preemptive pardons also raise the specter of government officials behaving unlawfully with political motives, as they may expect a preemptive pardon for their actions if their actions were politically advantageous.

We should all remember the words of another Founding Father:

“When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled the republic is lost in essence, though it may still exist in form.”
 - John Adams

Allowing these preemptive pardons to become commonplace means allowing for public virtue to be vanquished in America. Although America will still exist in form, it will be lost in essence.

12/06/24 The Transitive Property of Greatness

In mathematical reasoning, there is something known as Substitution Property vs. Transitive Property, defined as follows:

“In the field of mathematics, properties play a crucial role in establishing relationships and making logical deductions. Two such properties that are frequently used are the Substitution Property and the Transitive Property. These properties are fundamental in various branches of mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and calculus. While both properties serve distinct purposes, they share some similarities and differences.”

And:

“The Substitution Property and Transitive Property are both fundamental principles in mathematical reasoning. The Substitution Property states that if two quantities are equal, then one can be substituted for the other in any equation or expression. This property allows for the simplification and manipulation of equations. On the other hand, the Transitive Property states that if two quantities are equal to a third quantity, then they are also equal to each other. This property allows for the chaining together of equalities, making it possible to establish relationships between multiple quantities. While the Substitution Property focuses on the replacement of equal quantities, the Transitive Property focuses on the establishment of equality between multiple quantities.”

However, in the field of human endeavors, this reasoning does not apply and is faulty. Given the extent of human knowledge in any endeavor, it is exceedingly difficult to obtain knowledge, experience, and wisdom in more than one endeavor. While some people may have expertise in two or three endeavors, these different endeavors are usually closely related and share a common knowledge base. Those people who are intelligent and wise in more than one endeavor and do not share a common knowledge base are very few and far between.

In an article by Alan Joseph Bauer, “Brains Ain't Everything”, he utilizes these concepts to help explain why some people believe that if they are great at one human endeavor, they believe that they are great in other human endeavors, and many people believe that greatness in one endeavor implies greatness in other endeavors. 

“There is something I call “The Transitive Property of Greatness.” It posits that if a person is great in one thing, we might as well expect that he will succeed in something else. It is the basis for Hollywood stars telling us about climate change: if they are such good actors, they must also know what they are talking about regarding carbon dioxide spewing out of the back of their private jets. The problem with the theory is that it generally does not work. Superstar guard Isiah Thomas was a lousy coach. GOAT Michael Jordan was so-so in his brief professional baseball career. While there are people who have truly succeeded in multiple fields such as doctors who became outstanding investors or Donald Trump, who arguably succeeded both in business and as president, the overall trend is that people do best when they stick to their areas of expertise.”

My own life experience is but a good example of this. I have managed to become very knowledgeable, experienced, and an expert in but a few areas of my computer profession. Outside of these areas, I have learned to ask for the advice and direction of those people who have the knowledge, experience, and expertise that I lack. Outside of the computer profession, I have become knowledgeable on a few other topics only through decades of autodidactic study. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on these other topics, but I believe I have become knowledgeable enough to comment on these topics. I have also gained the wisdom, as Benjamin Franklin said, to "Doubt a little of your own infallibility." and to examine arguments of multiple experts on different sides of an issue and change my mind based on another Benjamin Franklin quote of wisdom:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

In doing so, I have learned to discern between an intelligent person and a wise person, as I have written in my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom", and to pay greater heed to a wise person. I have also learned not to comment on things for which I am not knowledgeable and to listen to other knowledgeable people and research what they have said before voicing my opinion.

Thus, I expect that few people have expertise outside of their knowledge base, and if they venture into other endeavors, they often do not know what they are speaking of. Ergo, as only a fool would seek medical advice from a financial advisor—and vice versa- nobody should listen to the opinions of someone who is not an expert in what they are saying. This speaking outside your expertise seems to occur frequently on matters of politics, sociology, and science. Everybody has opinions and beliefs on various issues and concerns within these topics, but as I said, "Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."

Consequently, listening to people sound off on topics in which they are not knowledgeable, even when they reference other intelligent people (who may or may not be a wise person), is a fool’s errand. Accordingly, most political endorsements, social policy prescriptions, and science affirmations by unknowledgeable people are useless, and we should pay no heed to them.

12/05/24 A Special Kind of Stupid

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor, neo-orthodox theologian, and anti-Nazi dissident who was a key founding member of the Confessing Church. In his pondering about the evils of Nazism and the German people who supported the Nazis, he came to an astounding conclusion. The German people were not evil, but stupidity was allowed to overcome them by adopting a collective viewpoint.

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless.”
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer from his book “After Ten Years: An Account at the Turn of the Year 1942–1943”.

Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people were more dangerous than evil ones, as while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones, we are defenseless — as reason falls on their deaf ears.

Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian economic historian. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. Cipolla wrote an essay in 1976, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”, which explores the controversial subject of stupidity. In this essay, Cipolla postulates five fundamental laws of stupidity.

In pondering Bonhoeffer's thoughts on the stupidity of the German people and Cipolla's thoughts on stupidity in general, I am reminded of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders attitudes regarding President Trump and his MAGA supporters, as well as their general attitude about Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. Their rhetoric about Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, as I have examined in my Chirp on "09/22/24 Democrat Extreme Rhetoric", betray their Bonhoeffer collective attitude of stupidity. In thinking about Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity, I realized the dangers of their special kind of stupidity.

As such, I have written a new article, “A Special Kind of Stupid”, which examines the special kind of stupidity of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders”.

12/04/24 The Success of Donald Trump

Tucker Carlson had one of the most perceptive comments about the success of Donald Trump in American politics:

“If the people in charge had done a half-way decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than themselves, even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting Celebrity Apprentice. But they didn’t. Instead, they were incompetent, and narcissistic, and cruel, and relentlessly dishonest. They wrecked what they didn’t build, and they lied about it. They hurt anyone that told the truth about what they were doing.”
 - Tucker Carlson

Eventually, the majority of the American people recognized the truth about these politicians and their supporters and rebelled against their corruption. But such politicians will not fade easily into that good night of insignificance or irrelevance, as they are too addicted to power. Thus, the American people who elected Donald Trump must continue to support Donald Trump to prevent the recovery of those politicians who have so failed the American people. Do not let these politicians and their supporters’ prevarications, duplicitousness, and deceptions vacillate your support of President Trump. For the love of power always breeds corruption to obtain and retain power.

In their lust for power, they will utilize all the tools to of the English language to obtain and retain power. Some of the more common means that they utilize to sway the American people are:

• bamboozle, bamboozlement - Concealment of one's true motives by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end.
• blather, blathering - Idle or foolish and irrelevant talk.
• chicanery - The use of tricks to deceive someone.
• crickets - An idiom that means no reply or reaction at all; no spoken or written answer.
• deceptions, deceptiveness - A misleading falsehood. The act of hiding one's true feelings or intentions.
• duplicitous, duplicitousness - Marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another.
• gaslighting - Manipulate someone psychologically so that they start to question their own sanity.
• gibberish - Unintelligible talking.
• gobbledygook - Incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists.
• hoodwink, hoodwinking - Influence by slyness.
• hypocrisy, hypocritical - Professing feelings or virtues one does not have.
• insincerity, insincerely - The quality of not being open or truthful; deceitful or hypocritical.
• mealy-mouthed - Avoiding the use of direct and plain language, as from timidity, excessive delicacy, or hypocrisy; inclined to mince words; insincere, devious, or compromising.
• pablum - Worthless or oversimplified ideas.
• prevarications - Be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information.
• self-righteousness - The quality of being overly convinced of one's own righteousness or moral superiority.
• shenanigans - The use of tricks to deceive someone.
• slyness - Shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception.
• sophistry - A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

Do not be fooled by these means, and when you encounter them, you can be sure that they are done for the purposes of obtaining, retaining, and exercising power for ignoble purposes.

12/03/24 Rules To Live By

In my young adulthood, I once ran across ten humorous sayings about life that I have tried to keep in mind throughout my adult life:

Rule number 1 and 2, “Never wrestle with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig likes it!” and “Never argue with an idiot; people watch may not be able to tell the difference!” have been especially important in my life. I have also tried to keep these two rules in mind whenever I write my Chirps and Articles.

“This too shall pass” is the fable of a powerful king who asks assembled wise men to create a ring that will make him happy when he is sad. After deliberation, the sages handed him a simple ring with the Persian words "This too shall pass" etched on it, which had the desired effect. In my Chirp on "02/04/24 This Too Shall Pass", I have written about the wisdom of this fable in regard to the various Forms of Governance that have passed through history.

In this Chirp, I ponder the best response to pigs and idiots when they pontificate without rationality and reasoning in their blathering. Like the assembled wise men, I wished to create a simple phrase that encapsulated a central truth about their blather. The only phrase of wisdom that I believe encapsulates a central truth is: “What a load of crap!”. A somewhat harsh phrase, but necessarily harsh to counter their blathering. Without this phrase, I would be wrestling with a pig or arguing with an idiot, which I am loath to do.

Many of these pigs and idiots believe that they are rational and reasoned, but in examining their blather, I see that their reasoning is faulty for the reasons that I espouse in my article on Reasoning. Their rationality is also suspect for the reasons that I espouse in my article on Rationality. They certainly are not philosophical in their blathering, as I have explained in my article on A Philosophical Approach.

Accordingly, “What a load of crap!” is the most succinct and accurate phrase that describes their blathering. I, therefore, will be utilizing this phrase in my future Chirps and Articles whenever they blather.

12/02/24 The Three Most Important Personal Rules of Life

In my webpage, Pearls of Wisdom, I recount many of the lessons I have learned in my life in the form of rules to live by. Many of these rules were formulated to help me live a Moral, Ethical, and Virtuous Life, something which I vowed to do early in my adulthood. Early in my adult life, I encountered many situations, by personal involvement or observation of others, in which I was dismayed by my own words and the words and deeds of other people. This dismay led to my vow in the hope that it would allow me to Be the Better Person in my interactions with others. It took many years and many bitter experiences to formulate these rules and learn to live by them, but as I have often said, "True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!" Upon doing so, I had much more satisfaction in my life, and I also believe that following these three rules helped significantly advance my professional career. These three most important Personal Rules of Life that I learned were:

• Do Not Lie, Misinform, or Conceal
• Be Prepared to Admit Your Mistakes, Listen to Others, and Change Your Mind
• Be Prepared to be a Good Person

While I have previously written about these three rules in my Chirps and Articles, I thought it appropriate to post a webpage of these rules so that others can learn from them and perhaps help them avoid my mistakes. I also hope that by following these rules, you will be able to lead a Moral, Ethical, and Virtuous Life.

12/01/24 A Christmas Carol

Mostly every American and English-speaking person is familiar with the book ‘A Christmas Carol’ by Charles Dickens. This familiarity is mostly through the many fine adaptations for movies, television, and the audio readings of the book. But no adaptation for movies and television of a great book can do full justice to a great book, so I would suggest that all read the book. There are many life lessons to be gained by reading this book, and this reading should give us all to pause, reflect, and consider our own ghosts of Christmas past and present, as well as to consider what we want our Christmas future to look like. Thus, this month's Book It selection is, therefore, only one book.

American society, too, has its own Christmas Carol. The ghost of Christmas past is the previous Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations, while the ghost of Christmas present is the Trump election and transition, and the ghost of Christmas future is the upcoming Trump Administration.

With the overwhelming election of President Trump, the American people have looked at the ghosts of Christmas past and decided to correct the course of America for a better ghost of Christmas future. The Ghost of Christmas Present is in the transition, too, and there are nominations for the future Trump Administration.

Let us hope that the incoming Trump Administration can Make America Great Again, and in the final lines of A Christmas Carol:

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

He had no further intercourse with Spirits, but lived upon the Total Abstinence Principle, ever afterwards; and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!”

11/30/24 The Golden Rule

All major religions and many cultures and societies had/have a “Golden Rule“, more often invoked in spirit rather than in practice. The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you). Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages. Indeed, many religious scholars have commented:

“…numerous studies show that it (Golden Rule) has been endorsed in all of the major and most minor religions.”
- Neil Duxbury

“The golden rule is shared by virtually all the world’s religions.”
- Jeffrey Wattles

Interestingly, Jeffrey Wattles calls it “The principle of the practice of the family of God.” which sounds like a Hindu Sanskrit phrase meaning “The World Is One Family”.

In my new article, “The Golden Rule”, I examine the history of the Golden Rule and the reasons for the consistent violations of the Golden Rule throughout human history. The three main reasons for these violations are:

• Obsessive Passion or Compartmentalization
• Indulging in the Seven Deadly Sins
• The evil of trying to impose your will upon another person or persons

I end this article by stating that trying to obey the Golden Rule is very difficult. You need to be consciously and consistently aware of the Golden Rule in all your behavior, and you need to craft your words and deeds with the Golden Rule in mind. While this is very difficult, the satisfaction of doing so is very psychologically rewarding. Consequently, by following the Golden Rule, you are living a life of morals and ethics. A life that is self-satisfying and well worth living.

11/29/24 Free Will and God’s Knowledge

Free Will, the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies, is that characteristic of intelligent beings that distinguishes them from animals. Free Will means that no one can predict the future with any certainty when it comes to the choices that an intelligent being makes. It also means that the words and deeds of an intelligent being are their own, and they must take full responsibility for their words and deeds. There is no ‘The Devil Made Me Do It’ nor any other excuse that would mitigate their words and deeds. Mitigation should only be utilized to understand the circumstances of their choices and to make a judgment of their choice. The only exception is for anyone who suffers from severe mental illness and is incapable of making an intelligent decision. Anyone else who uses mitigation to absolve their choices is not acting responsibly and is not deserving of our sympathy.

It has often been said that God knows all that has happened, all that is happening, and all that will happen. With this statement, I must disagree. While I agree that God knows what has happened, and he knows all that is happening, he cannot know all that will happen. God’s knowledge of what has, is, and will happen is true based upon the physical properties and physical laws of the Universe, as he established these physical properties and the physical laws that constrain the Universe. What God doesn’t know is what will happen when an intelligent being exercises their Free Will and then makes a decision. As individuals have the free will to take any action, God cannot know what action they will take. God can only observe their words, deeds, and thoughts and then render judgment of them after their body passes away and their spirit joins with God.

For more of my thoughts on God, I would direct you to the section “Religiosity” on my website.

11/28/24 A Thanksgiving for America and Americans

The Harris campaign lied to the American people about her true policy positions and political agenda. The Harris campaign lied to her donors about her prospects for election. The Harris campaign is lying to themselves about the reasons for her overwhelming defeat. Kamala Harris herself has built a career on deceptions and lying about her life, career, and her policy positions and political agendas. But such lying is all too common in modern America by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. For if they told the truth about their policy positions and political agendas, they knew they could not garner the support of a majority of the American people.

Fortunately, the American people saw through their lies and deceptions and elected someone who spoke truthfully of his vision for America. For this, we should be thankful on this Thanksgiving Day. We should also be hopeful that the new Trump Administration can implement its policy positions and political agendas and right the course of America to become a better society for America and Americans and bring peace to the rest of the world.

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

11/27/24 Questions and Answers

Life is full of questions and answers. Most questions are not fully nor properly structured to reveal the true nature of the question, and most answers are not fully or properly answered. Questions that are incomplete or biased will lead to wrong answers, and answers that do not consider all the rational possibilities will lead to wrong conclusions.

A properly constructed question is one that is unbiased and not leading, as well as comprehensive enough to be constructive. A proper answer is unbiased and not prejudicial to an outcome. Asking a proper question and properly answering the question requires that you be aware of and exclude your Cognitive Biases and eliminate Logical Fallacies in both your question and answer. Both are knowledge and intellectual skills that are difficult to acquire and practice, as I have written in my Article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

A truly intelligent and wise person will pose questions and answers in the following manner:

1. Having the courage, intelligence, and wisdom to ask the proper question.
2. Knowing that you do not have (all) the proper answers (or perhaps any answer) to the proper question.
3. A willingness to listen and consider (all) the proper answers and the courage to reject improper answers.
4. The intelligence, Rationality, and Reasoning to evaluate the costs and benefits of each proper answer.
5. The wisdom to choose and the courage and fortitude to implement the optimal answer as the solution to the proper question.

Courage is necessary for both the question and answer, as most people only want to listen to what they want to hear, and often, the proper questions and proper answers are what they need to hear. The costs and benefits analysis goes far beyond the financial, business, or economic sphere but into the personal, family, and societal impacts of any proper answer. The personal, family, and societal impacts often have non-tangible costs and are difficult to quantify, but they are often the most important impacts that need to be considered. In these societal impacts we always need to consider the "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" of individuals, as well as "The Law of Unintended Consequences" in choosing the proper answer to implement.

Thus, we must all evaluate the questions and answers for these qualities and the way they were attained before we reach a conclusion and implement the answer.

11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials

With the lawfare we have seen under the Biden Administration against President Trump and his supporters, as well as ordinary Americans who have opposed government policies, the existential question is how can we protect the rights of citizens against government violations of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

The U.S. Code, Section 242, Title 18, “Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law”, makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States:

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

As the aforementioned webpage on the U.S. Code states:

“For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.”

Yet it is exceedingly difficult to prosecute government officials under this act, as various Supreme Court rulings have given government officials considerable leeway in their actions against citizens in pursuit of justice. This is how it should be, as without this leeway, the government could be paralytic in its pursuit of justice, or the government may be deprived of competent persons who would not wish to serve as government officials under the threat of prosecutions under this U.S. Code.

An individual suing the government for violations of their rights is time-consuming and expensive, and they are rarely successful in these lawsuits. Such lawsuits are also ineffective in preventing systemic violations of our rights by government officials. Thus, we need to enforce this U.S. Code against current or former government officials who are or have systemically violated our rights. Without the enforcement of this U.S. Code against government officials we run the risk of lawfare against citizens who lawfully oppose the government or are deemed a political threat to any current administration. This is exactly what has happened in the Biden Administration.

As the Declaration of Independence stated, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Let us not throw off our government for the Biden Administration abuses and usurpations, but instead, let us prosecute those government officials who were responsible for the systemic violations of our rights.

We must be careful and judicious in applying this law against current and former government officials, as inappropriately applying this law could damage government functioning. However, appropriately applying this law against former or current government officials would go a long way to answering the existential question of how we can protect the rights of citizens against government violations of their rights. It would also act as a deterrence of government officials in their considerations of (dubious) prosecutions.

This is not retaliation nor revenge, but retribution against those government officials in the Biden Administration who willfully violated the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of any American. Without this retribution, we run the risk of continued violations of the rights of Americans by any administration in the future, as government officials will be aware that they can violate our rights without retribution. To do otherwise, we will see the continued violations of our rights by government in which it may become necessary to throw off our government or become ruled by despotism.

11/25/24 Criminal Acts by State and Local Officials

Tom Homan, President-elect Donald Trump's "border czar" nominee, threw down the gauntlet to Democrats who plan to defy Trump's mass deportation of illegal aliens, underscoring that to do so is a federal crime under the Criminal Resource Manual “1907. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens” which defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Most telling is the paragraph on:

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

Homan made it clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty to help federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution and Federal Laws are the supreme law of the land, and under several Supreme Court rulings, immigration is the sole prerogative of the Federal government. Thus, State and Local officials can have no say on immigration or the actions of the Federal government concerning immigrants, illegal or otherwise, if the Federal government is acting constitutionally. They can only constitutionally challenge such laws in a federal court of law, and to have such laws overturned is unconstitutional.

Consequently, sanctuary city and state laws are unconstitutional and a violation of the aforementioned U.S. Code. In addition, State and Local official who obstructs Federal officials in the performance of their legal duties and responsibilities in apprehending illegal immigrants are engaged in Federal criminal acts subject to arrest and prosecution. If these city and state officials do obstruct Federal law officials in the apprehension of illegal immigrants, I would recommend that they be cuffed, arrested, prosecuted, and fined and imprisoned if found guilty. Otherwise, the rule of law is being violated by city and state officials, which invites nothing but chaos in our society.

11/24/24 Senate Confirmations

There is no doubt that Senate confirmations of Presidential nominees play an important role in the checks and balances of our government. However, in recent decades, these Senate confirmations have become somewhat of a roadblock for a new president to enact his political agenda, as it takes considerable time for the confirmation process to conclude. Much of this logjam is because of the number of nominations to be processed by the Senate, but some of it is because of political grandstanding and obstructionism by the opposite party.

The current system of Senate confirmation of nominees is badly broken and needs to be addressed. The process to nominate and confirm appointees takes longer, and fewer nominees get confirmed expeditiously by each successive president. As a result, many of the most essential leadership positions across the federal government sit vacant for too long. This situation hobbles a new President in enacting the goals that they were elected upon.

This situation is exacerbated by the current nominees of President-elect Trump, as he has rather quickly decided on a large number of persons he wishes to nominate, and these persons are dedicated to reforming the government in ways that the Democrat Party opposes. Thus, we can expect the Democrat Senators to slow-walk these nominees to hamper President-elect Trump’s implementation of his agenda. An agenda that the American people supported by his overwhelming election.

The incoming Senate Republican majority needs to be prepared to address this situation and change the laws and rules to streamline this process before President Trump is inaugurated. Otherwise, they will be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, to the reforms for which President-elect Trump was elected.

11/23/24 Meritocracy in Government Employment

In a recent YouTube Short Video, Elon Musk commented that he terminated a Twitter employee for lack of performance. While interviewing her, he discovered that she was a DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hire. He ended the interview by terminating her, commenting that “DEI stands for Didn’t Earn It.” and that all of his employees had to earn their employment.

This “earning it” is the basic concept of meritocracy that seems to have been lost in modern America. Perhaps, with the election of Donald Trump as President, this concept will again be first and foremost in America. America would be far better off if meritocracy regained its prominent role in society.

Such an attitude about personnel “earning it” should be utilized by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the new Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) when they review government personnel. These personnel decisions must be balanced by need and efficiency, but excess bureaucracy, when efficiencies are obtained and/or bloat is determined, must result in government personnel reductions.

Some have complained that reducing government personnel will increase unemployment in our current stagnant economy. While this may be true, if the economy recovers with less government bureaucracy and more efficiencies, this will be a temporary situation. It should also be remembered that government employment is not for the purpose of reducing unemployment. It should also be remembered that government employment is not a guarantee of lifetime employment and that need and meritocracy should be the determinants for government employment.

Civil Service laws and regulations were enacted to prevent the excesses of the Spoils System, but in doing so, we now have the excesses of government bureaucracy. An excess of bureaucracy in which once they are hired by the government, they are always employed by the government. Civil service laws and regulations must be reformed to prevent the spoils system, allow for government personnel reductions, and weed out those who have not earned it.

Consequently, Civil Service reform must be a priority for D.O.G.E., for without this reform, it would be exceedingly difficult to reduce government bureaucracy.

11/22/24 The Smears

In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty—in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, it is often the opposite, especially in politics. The tactic of character attacks with unsubstantiated or false accusations for political advantage or financial extortions has become all too common in modern American politics. Such accusations are often bereft of evidence, and in the case of sexual misconduct allegations, they are often of a he-said/she-said nature, or someone saw something that is open to interpretation. In many cases, the person making the allegations is of dubious character that calls into question their assertions.

Many times, a politician will often reach a financial accommodation with a non-disclosure agreement rather than defend their reputation in an open environment that would damage their political career and/or reputation, despite the truth or falsehood of the allegation. This has been proven to be true when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders smear a political appointee with whom they strongly dislike or fear. Very rarely do Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders engage in such smear tactics, as they view character attacks without substantiation to be reprehensible, having seen many of their appointees being the target of such smear tactics. Often, the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders engage in policy attacks against their opponents rather than character attacks, as policy attacks are fair game in the political arena.

Most nefarious is when the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" report, without substantiation, on these allegations as if the politician were guilty of the misconduct until they prove themselves innocent. Proof of innocence is almost impossible, as it requires someone to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do.

Another problem is that to prove their innocence; the politician would need the ability to cross-examine the witnesses against them in a court of law, where perjury by the witnesses would have serious negative legal repercussions. Such legal proceedings are often protracted affairs, and the politician’s reputation is damaged despite the outcome of the proceeding. This is a lose-lose situation for the politician, and it often results in the end of their political career while damaging their reputation, even if the allegations are shown to be false. As Raymond James "Ray" Donovan, an American businessman and former Secretary of Labor under President Reagan, who was the first sitting Cabinet officer to be indicted, had said when he and seven other construction executives were charged with fraud and acquitted, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

Consequently, political smears are not only destructive to the politician but also to the body politic. I do not expect the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to abate their smear tactics, but I would hope that all fair-minded Americans would pay no heed to such smear tactics and spurn those who would engage in such smear tactics.

11/21/24 The Spell

Once a spell is broken, it is exceedingly difficult to recast it. For more than the last decade, there has been a spell that if you say anything politically incorrect or you are not sufficiently woke, then you will suffer negative consequences to your livelihood and/or personal life. With the overwhelming election of President Trump, this spell has been broken. People feel free to speak their minds without fear, and it shows in their jubilant expressions of joy. The Trump shuffle is but one sign of this joy, and another is the cheers that accompany President Trump at his public appearances. Another sign is the expressions of patriotism and a sense of optimism that the problems facing America can be resolved and that the fundamental transformation of America is over and has failed. Consequently, the era of wackiness in America is over, to which I say— Good Riddance.

This spell that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders placed over the American people shows the dangers to our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights by the despotism that they engaged in. A nefarious despotism in that it was cloaked in “Saving Our Democracy” and protestations of eliminating disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation while they themselves engaged in falsehoods and deceptions. We Americans should always stand up for facts and truths and do the right thing morally and ethically and in a virtuous manner. The lesson to be learned by Americans dedicated to Liberty and Freedom is never again to allow this spell to be cast over America. Fight, fight, fight whenever someone attempts to cast this spell, and never allow your Liberties and Freedoms to be impinge.

11/20/24 Human Intelligence (HI) vs. Artificial Intelligence (AI)

I have often said that AI is mostly artificial and only somewhat intelligent. When utilizing AI, it should always be remembered that human beings developed the AI computer systems, and humans make mistakes, are subject to Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases, and have been known to be manipulative to achieve a desired outcome. Consequently, AI is imperfect and should be utilized with caution.

Additionally, AI is Different in intelligence from Human Intelligence, as the following chart illustrates:

These differences between AI and HI are important in the following three ways:

In human creativity, these differences can be stark. While AI may mimic and combine pieces of human creativity, it cannot create something truly new. Ai cannot create something entirely different from what Mozart, Beethoven, and Stravinsky did in music, DaVinci, Michelangelo, or Picasso did in fine art, along with other artists who broke new ground in their art. In the field of literature, Leo Tolstoy, Charles Dickens, James Joyce, the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen, and a host of other authors have created truly original works of literature beyond the capability of AI, while Shakespeare cannot even be approached by AI. The same could be said of Newton and Einstein in the sciences, as well as many other scientists, engineers, and technologists. While AI may be able to solve complex mathematical problems, it cannot create a new branch of mathematics. In questions of philosophy, theology, morals, and ethics, AI is mute and incapable of even asking the questions. Human creativity knows no bounds, while AI is constrained by what is and has been.

Thus, AI is a powerful tool to help humans solve problems, but it cannot be a replacement for HI in creativity in all forms. Humans are necessary for creativity, and a world of AI without HI would be sterile and without progress, as I discussed in my Chirp on "05/31/23 A Sterile World".

11/19/24 The Shrinking of Our Psyche

I have occasionally written about the Mainstream Information Conglomerate and its pernicious impacts on our politics. However, their impacts go far beyond politics and into our personal knowledge base. When they disseminate falsehoods (knowingly or unknowingly), disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, we often retain the information as “factual” and utilize this information in our decision-making. Decisions that will have an improper conclusion because they are based on improper information, which directly impacts our lives. Regrettably, there are hidden impacts on the deepest levels of our psyche, which is a result of the ubiquitousness of Smartphones and the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to process information.

Today, wherever we may be or go, the presence of smartphones in everyday life is noticeable. This usage of smartphones is taking up more and more of our time and reducing our time spent thinking about the information being provided. It is making us more dependent on the information being provided as factual rather than questionable, therefore making us more dependent on the information being provided to guide our decision-making. It is this dependence that is impacting us at the deepest levels of our psyche.

Many people’s personal information base is shrinking as they resort to using their Smartphones to look up information on their Smartphones, which queries the Mainstream Information Conglomerate to search for and retrieve information. Often, they do not question the results but simply accept the results as factual. Many people are now resorting to AI provided by the Mainstream Information Conglomerate to answer their questions on complex topics, and again, they accept the AI results as factual. In this, they are not exercising their own cognitive abilities but are depending on the AI to reach a proper conclusion. Thus, they are not becoming more knowledgeable, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

This dependency also robs us of our creativity as we allow AI to supersede our own creativity. AI has some basic limitations that most people are not aware of, as I shall discuss in more detail in my next Chirp. AI is only intelligent in how it processes vast quantities of information and how it organizes the information query results. AI, however, does not have the capacity to derive new insights into the query results, which requires creativity. This creativity requires a human brain that retrieves and processes information differently than AI. The human brain learns through experiences and senses, while AI learns from data that is limited to its information base, as the following diagram illuminates:

Thus, when we become dependent on Smartphones and AI, we are foregoing our creativity. Smartphones and AI have their place in our modern technological world, but their place is not to displace human creativity. Human creativity is a major factor that differentiates humans from animals. This human creativity is a major reason that we have evolved and gained control of our lives, rather than just reacting to circumstances, as is true for animal species. Consequently, when utilizing smartphones and AI, we should all be wary of the results that they provide and not forgo our own creativity when utilizing these results.

Regrettably, this is often not the case, and we blithely accept the results of Smartphone and AI queries. This has resulted in a degradation of our psyche, as an article by Makai Allbert, “When Smartphones Get Smarter, Do We Get Dumber?” adroitly explains.

11/18/24 Institutional Neutrality

The New York Sun article “Dozens of Universities Are Embracing ‘Institutional Neutrality’ — Will the Policy Do Any Good?” has reported that:

“As the anti-Israel student protests that roiled college campuses in the spring have started up again this fall, scores of American universities are hoping to temper the political climate by embracing a policy known as “institutional neutrality” and refraining from offering official positions on world events which don’t impact the school.”

Neutrality, however, can be interpreted and implemented in many ways. Unfortunately, given how universities and colleges have dealt with campus dissent in the last several years, we can expect that they will interpret and implement neutrality in a self-serving manner that will attempt to avoid conflict and mollify the protestors. To respond to these protestors that they raise difficult questions to answer and, therefore, they will be tolerated is the response of those that lack morals, ethics, or virtue, for these questions are not difficult to answer for those that have morals, ethics, or virtue. Universities and Colleges are supposed to be the repositories and disseminators of knowledge, intelligence, and "Reasoning" and "Rationality" for the betterment of their students and society. Neutrality that conflicts with these goals or conflicts with morals, ethics, or virtue should not be implemented nor tolerated.

The basic issue is whether Universities and Colleges are neutral when it comes to the question of evil. Will they insist on neutrality on the evils of Nazism, Fascism, Imperial Japan, Communism, Racism, Torture, Slavery, Anti-Semitism, Child Prostitution, Sexual Assault, and Religious Zealotry? Will they remain neutral on the issues of Natural/Human Rights, Liberties, Freedoms, Equalities, Equal Justice, Self-Government, and the rise of Despotism, Dictatorialness, and Tyranny? When the facts and truths of human oppression are revealed, will they remain neutral?

Neutrality in the face of evil is a cowardly position that allows evil to fester and grow. Universities and Colleges must be proactive in opposing evils. The historical nature and purposes of Universities and Colleges were in opposition to ignorance and malevolence, as well as the liberation of the human spirit to explore the facts and truths of our world and universe. Remaining neutral when evil rears its ugly head and distorts the facts and truths or attempts to suppress the human spirit is not an acceptable stance for Universities and Colleges.

Consequently, Universities and Colleges must be proactive in opposing evil and confronting and not tolerating those who would advance evils. Thus, the expulsion of students and professors from Universities and Colleges that advance evil is an acceptable response to evil sayers and evildoers.

11/17/24 The Manipulations of Wikipedia

The world needs an online encyclopedia that provides factual, accurate, and unbiased information that everybody can rely upon. Knowledge is power, but incorrect, insufficient, or tendentious knowledge corrupts power. I have often relied upon Wikipedia to research and write my Articles and Chirps, and I often hyperlink to Wikipedia articles in my articles and Chimps.

I have, however, noticed that Wikipedia has drifted to the left in many of its political, social, economic, and current history articles, and even some science articles, as I explain in my Chirp on “05/03/22 The Fall of Wikipedia”. Therefore, you should be cognizant of this drift in these articles and cautious in your acceptance of the information on Wikipedia. As always, you should never rely on one source, such as Wikipedia, when researching a topic or subject. The Conservapedia website has a good introduction of Examples of Bias in Wikipedia with more specific details.

This is especially obvious regarding Democrat Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Walz's controversy about his military record and charges of Stolen Valor. After this controversy erupted, Wikipedia changed its webpage about Republican Vice-Presidential nominee JD Vance as follows:

At the same time, Wikipedia has retained information on Democrat Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Walz that we now know is incorrect:

One can wonder what other information on these Wikipedia web pages has changed to reflect Wikipedia's political biases.

Therefore, regarding political, social, economic, current history, and some science Wikipedia articles, you should be wary of the factual and truthfulness of these articles. Remember—Buyer beware and double-check from outside sources when reviewing these articles.

11/16/24 Arrogance

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America". In this attitude, they are demonstrating their arrogance and their self-righteousness, something that was amply demonstrated in the last presidential election when they utilized vituperations against their opponents.

As from the web article, 50 Arrogance Examples: “Arrogance is an overbearing behavior characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and superiority over others. It often manifests as a dismissive attitude, presuming one knows more or is better than others, typically without the merit to justify such beliefs. Arrogant individuals may underestimate or undervalue the opinions and feelings of others.” and “Arrogant people tend to be hard to get along with because they often assume they’re better than everyone else. As a result, they fail to listen to other people’s points of view.” Such arrogance is often demonstrated by the attitudes of:

1. Refusing to admit when you’re wrong.
2. Interrupting others while they speak.
3. Talking over someone in a meeting.
4. Assuming you’re the smartest person in the room.
5. Dismissing others’ ideas without consideration.
6. Refusing to ask for directions when lost.
7. Taking credit for someone else’s work.
8. Looking down on others because of their job or income.
9. Not accepting feedback or criticism.
10. Bragging about personal achievements unsolicited.
11. Ignoring advice because you believe you know better.
12. Not waiting your turn in a queue.
13. Mocking someone for not knowing something you do.
14. Not apologizing because you believe you’re always right.
15. Treating service staff disrespectfully.
16. Showing off expensive possessions to make others envious.
17. Name-dropping to gain status.
18. Thinking rules don’t apply to you.
19. Always trying to one-up someone’s story.
20. Ignoring or dismissing experts in a field you know little about.
21. Not listening in a conversation, just waiting for your turn to speak.
22. Making decisions for others without consulting them.
23. Assuming everyone is interested in your opinion.
24. Patronizing someone for their choices.
25. Refusing to acknowledge others’ successes.
26. Giving unsolicited advice.
27. Thinking your way is the only right way.
28. Overestimating your own importance.
29. Treating certain people differently because of their background.
30. Boasting about connections or networks.
31. Thinking you don’t need to study or prepare because you’re naturally talented.
32. Looking down on others for their taste in music, art, or literature.
33. Not valuing other people’s time.
34. Belittling someone’s feelings or experiences.
35. Making fun of someone’s accent or way of speaking.
36. Assuming you’re a preferred guest and inviting yourself to events.
37. Correcting minor mistakes just to show superiority.
38. Using complex jargon to confuse or belittle someone.
39. Judging someone’s worth by their attire.
40. Taking the largest portion for yourself without considering others.
41. Being dismissive of someone’s problems because you think yours are bigger.
42. Laughing at someone’s dreams or ambitions.
43. Not giving others a chance to speak in a group setting.
44. Thinking you’re too good for certain tasks or chores.
45. Dismissing someone’s concerns without truly listening.
46. Speaking about a topic without proper knowledge, but acting like an expert.
47. Taking up more than your fair share of space in public areas (e.g., manspreading).
48. Never considering you might be the source of a problem.
49. Ignoring someone’s boundaries or personal space.
50. Regularly making conversations about yourself.

An arrogant person also has forgotten or never knew the American Proverb:

“Arrogance is a roadblock on the highway of wisdom.”

Thus, while arrogant people may be intelligent, they are often not knowledgeable, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

Such arrogance and self-righteousness are often regularly displayed by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in their dealings with those who disagree with them. When they display such arrogance, we should all remember that:

"Never mistake arrogance for intellect."
 - D.B. Harrop

Consequently, their arrogance and self-righteousness should be a warning that they are attempting to camouflage their intellectual shortcomings, and we all should be wary of whatever they are saying.

11/15/24 Ash Heap

Kamala Harris embarrassed herself and the left, and she will be tossed onto the ash heap as George McGovern, Al Gore, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Hillary Clinton have been. Add in the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, and you have a not-so-pretty picture of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists leadership in America.

Such it is for the modern Democrat Party. They have chosen style over substance, identity politics over mass appeal, and disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation over facts and truths. They should not be spreading falsehoods about themselves and their opponents. The American people are also demanding solutions to the problems that we face, and not banalities and clichés. Biased media coverage and celebrity endorsements can no longer put lipstick on a pig. The American people demand positive results and do not accept excuses.

Until the Democrat Party reforms itself, it has no credibility and deserves to be consigned to the ash heap.

11/14/24 Rage and Resistance

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, ‘Second Resistance to Trump’ has already begun, but it won’t work so well this time:

“The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem.

That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years.”

And:

“After a crushing electoral defeat and the loss of the White House and likely both houses of Congress, one would think that Democrats would be ready for that first step to recovery. However, those hoping for a new leaf on the left do not understand the true addictive hold of rage.”

We first saw this rage and resistance in the election of President Trump in 2016, and we now see it in his election of 2024. The most disturbing threat to our democracy is the rage and resistance of both elected and appointed officials and the bureaucracy. Our democratic republic was instituted to have the government reflect the will of the people, with safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and groups. Whenever the government does not reflect the will of the people while protecting their rights, we no longer have a democratic republic but some form of a minoritarian government.

Rage allows those who are enraged to engage in words and deeds that are unacceptable in a civilized society. While these words and deeds may be legal when done by non-governmental people, when they are done by governmental people in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, they are subversive to our democratic republic and a true insurrection.

We have seen how this rage by governmental persons was subversive during the first administration of President Trump. The Russian Collusion Delusion, the two impeachments, endless Congressional investigations aimed at President Trump and those surrounding him, along with the lower-level administrators and bureaucrats hindering, slow walking, or obstructing President Trump’s initiatives are all symptoms of this rage. Such rage limited his agenda and policy goals, which the American people elected him to implement.

During the Biden Administration, we have seen this rage manifest itself in governmental actions against Republicans, Conservatives, and opponents of the Biden Administration in their rules, regulations, and lawfare leveled against them. Thus, the safeguards to protect the rights of individuals were violated by the Biden Administration and the bureaucrats.

As we enter into the next Trump Administration, we are again seeing this rage and resistance manifest itself. The comments by various elected officials that oppose President Trump, saying that they will not cooperate and indeed resist President-elect Trump’s lawful policies, is an insurrection against the federal government. It should also be remembered that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that no State or local government can contravene or ignore the Constitution or Federal law. Thus, any attempt by any State or local government to resist lawful actions by President Trump is an insurrectionist action. They have every right to challenge the lawfulness of a policy, but they have no right to resist when the policy is lawful.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the mental illness that fuels this rage. As with all mental illnesses, there is no reasoning with the mentally ill. And, as with all mentally ill persons, you should not pay heed to their delusions but instead chart a course that is sanity-driven.

11/13/24 Dismantling the Deep State

In one of his first announcements, President-elect Trump has announced a plan to dismantle the Deep State. This plan has ten points as follows:

1. On Day One, re-issue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats.
2. Overhaul federal departments and agencies, firing all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus.
3. Fundamentally reform the FISA courts, ensuring that corruption is rooted out.
4. Establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to declassify and publish all documents on Deep State spying, censorship, and abuses of power.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with the media to create false narratives, pressing criminal charges when appropriate.
6. Make every Inspector General’s Office independent from the departments they oversee, so that they do not become protectors of the deep state.
7. Establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies to ensure that they are not spying on our citizens or running disinformation campaigns against the American people.
8. Continue Trump administration effort to move parts of the federal bureaucracy outside of the Washington Swamp, just like President Trump moved the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado.
   Up to 100,000 government positions could be moved out of Washington.
9. Ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate, such as Big Pharma.
10. Push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.

More information about this plan can be found at “President Trump’s Plan to Dismantle the Deep State and Return Power to the American People”.

11/12/24 Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness amongst the political elites, journalists, self-proclaimed intelligentsia, and other elitists is not a trait to be expected of them. Self-Awareness requires that you be introspective and admit your faults and shortcomings, and as Benjamin Franklin has said, “Doubt a little of your own infallibility.” They are not self-aware because they are self-righteous, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct.

Self-Awareness is also not to be expected of them as they are never confronted by others about their faults, shortcomings, and fallibilities. They can say or do whatever they please, secure in the knowledge that they will not be called to task. They can propagate disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, as well as spread falsehoods and deceptions, without fear of exposure by their supporters in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". Such is the state of America, where facts and truths hold little sway with the American public. Slogans, catchphrases, catchwords, catchlines, and other jingoisms have replaced intelligent thought, and "Rationality" and "Reasoning" have been superseded by emotional appeals.

Thus, you can be assured that as Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists assess their losses in the recent election, it will not be done utilizing self-awareness but by incriminations or fabricating excuses for their losses. Such a lack of self-awareness will doom them to wander in the wilderness of lost elections for many years to come.

11/11/24 A Red Wave

The dominant win of President-elect Trump is even more obvious in the following three charts:

Shift of Voters since 2020

Shift of Voters by Demographic since 2020

I would venture that the reason for this shift is that the Democrats nominated a disliked and incompetent candidate for President, who chose a disliked and incompetent candidate for Vice-President. The Democrat's policy positions were vague and unpopular and ignored their record during the Biden Administration. The American people did not like the pejoratives leveled against them by the Democrat candidates, political elites, journalists, self-proclaimed intelligentsia, and other elitists. The American people are not chumps, and they will not support a candidate that attempts to hoodwink and bamboozle them. Thus, a Red Wave of votes for Trump ensued, and he is now the President-elect.

11/10/24 We Did It

In an article by Everett Piper, “We did it: Trump will be our 47th president”, he explains how Trump won the election. He explains, “Yes, Mr. Trump did it, but there’s more to the story. Not only did he do it, but so did we.”:

We, the “basket of deplorables.”

We, the “irredeemable rubes.”

We, the farmers who “lack gray matter.”

We, the ranchers accused of destroying the planet with our horses and cows.

We, the “toxic males” who still act like men.

We, the “weak and unintelligent” women who still like biological males.

We, the backwoods Christians who “cling to guns or religion.”

We, the ones they’ve called racists, sexists, fascists, bigots, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes, transphobes, Nazis, crazy, stupid, intolerant and hateful.

This past week, we stood up en masse and said we’ve had enough.

We’re tired of their arrogance.

We’re tired of their insults.

We’re tired of their condescension.

We’re tired of them.

This article is well worth the read, as he elaborates on how “We the People of the United States” took control from the political elites, journalists, self-proclaimed intelligentsia, and other elitists who would rule rather than lead the American people. Yes, We Did It, and we need to continue to do it to right the course of America.

11/09/24 Pearls of Wisdom for the Trump Administration

In my Pearls of Wisdom, one of the most important pieces of advice is to “Do the Right Thing for All”, for as I have said:

“When faced with a dilemma or predicament,
choose to do the right thing for all,
not the right thing for yourself.
For, although it may not work out well in the short term,
it will work out well in the long term.”
- Mark Dawson

As Donald Trump enters into his term of office, I would ask him and the members of his administration to remember this pearl of wisdom. As he is a lame duck and cannot run for reelection, he has the opportunity to put aside political considerations and do the right thing for all Americans. Doing the right thing for all Americans will right the course of America.

He and his administration should always keep in mind another of my Pearls of Wisdom, Promises Made and Promises Kept, and keep the promises he made to the American people during his election campaign. After all, his promises were a major reason why he was elected in a landslide, and they should be the standard, along with his performance, by which his administration is judged.

Finally, as in another Pearl of Wisdom, he and his administration should Be Prepared to Change Your Mind as circumstances warrant, for as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
- Benjamin Franklin

and

“Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”
- Benjamin Franklin

If he and his administration should change their mind, the American people should be honestly and truthfully informed as to the reasons for their change of mind, and hopefully, they will gain the support of the American people for their change of mind.

Keeping these three Pearls of Wisdom in mind will make for a prosperous and peaceful America in the future.

11/08/24 Political Polling and Mainstream Media Bias

Once again, the cognitive and intentional biases of Political Pollsters and the Mainstream Media have been revealed in the 2024 Presidential election.

Except for two pollsters (Trafalgar & Insider Advantage), the polls all erred on the side of a close race rather than a dominant win for President Trump. One wonders if the pollsters are trying to affect rather than reflect the public mood. The pollsters and their supporters claimed that they were all within the margin of error, but they all erred, on average, to a tight, closely contested election. This illusion of a tight, closely contested election only bolstered the campaign of Kamala Harris while inhibiting the chances of a Donald Trump dominant victory. Such widespread errors reveal that polls are mostly inaccurate and, I believe, show a cognitive bias in favor of Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" were in the tank for Kamala Harris. The Media Research Center press watchdog said the big three networks that dominated TV coverage ended up giving Harris coverage that was 78% positive to just 15% positive for former President Donald Trump. That 63-point advantage is the biggest in history and about three times what 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry had over former President George W. Bush. Thus, the intentional biases for Democrats and Progressives have once again been illuminated.

As the Trump transition and administration begins, we can expect to see these cognitive and intentional biases to continue in an attempt to thwart his policies and political goals. Do not let them succeed! Discount their polls and do not believe their spin, for they have proven that they cannot get it right, and they will say anything to thwart President Trump.

11/07/24 Political Parties Change

The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are not your parents and grandparents’ parties. Parties change over the decades, and the last several decades have seen major shifts in both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. The political goals and policy agendas of both parties are different now than they were in the past.

The recent election of Donald Trump has solidified these changes in the Republican Party with its shift to a more centrist and populist orientation of the Republican Party, while the Democrat Party has shifted more leftward. With the coalition of voters for President Trump, Identity Politics has been loosened in the Democrat Party, and it will continue to be loosened as President Trump institutes changes that are beneficial to all Americans. Rural Americans, so often ignored by the modern Democrat Party, have risen in prominence in the Republican Party. Manufacturing businesses and the jobs they create will be a focus for the modern Republican Party. Foreign policy in the Republican Party will be redirected to what is best for America and Americans, while internationalism will continue to be central to the Democrat Party. Economics, which seems to be an unknown or disregarded in the Democrat Party, will guide all Republican Party decisions. The rich and famous have little role in the modern Republican Party, while they have and will gain more prominence in the Democrat Party. Finally, and most importantly, the worth and dignity of the individual person and the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans will be central to the Republican Party, while "Socialism" and "Social Engineering" will be dominant in the Democrat Party.

Thus, all Americans should be aware of these changes to the Republican Party and the Democrat Party and adjust their voting accordingly, if not outright changing their party affiliation.

11/06/24 Not Rocket Science

Well, the chaos of voting that occurred in previous presidential elections seems to have been averted in the 2024 presidential election. While there are still problems to be resolved for future presidential elections, these problems can be resolved with diligent and proper corrective actions.

As I have written in my articles "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", the way we conduct voting in America is an invitation to cheating. Cheating is the disenfranchisement of a legitimate voter by negating their vote when an illegitimate vote for the other candidate is counted. It is also an invitation for lawyers and judges to become involved in the election results. Getting the lawyers and judges involved in deciding elections, rather than the voters deciding elections, often leads to disenfranchisement.

As Jonathan Turley has written, “This is not rocket science. Rocket science is Elon Musk catching a massive booster rocket on what looked like a giant barbeque fork. Getting the staff and computers in place in a historic election should not be a great challenge.”

Let us hope that these problems will be addressed and resolved to assure free and fair elections in which Americans can be confident of the election results.

11/05/24 It is Time to Elect Someone Who Understands the Working Person

It is well past time to elect someone who understands and loves the American people. As former President Trump has said, “You can’t lead America if you don’t love Americans—and you can’t be president if you hate the American people!” Any person or party that makes derisive comments about their political opponents does not understand nor love the American people.

Barak Obama saying that when “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”, Hillary Clinton saying that “you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables” and that “Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable”, Joe Biden saying that “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters”, and Kamala Harris calling Trump supporters fascists and likening them to Nazis betray that they do not understand nor love all Americans, but only their supporters.

My choice, then, is a person who understands and loves all Americans, even his opponents, who he believes are wrong for America and Americans. That person is, without further comment:

11/04/24 American Patriotism

Many people across the world are patriots of their country. They love their country, they believe in their country, and they want their country to succeed. This is also true of most American people, but patriotism in America needs to be much more.

Patriotism in America should be about a belief and support for our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the striving for "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" through the equal implementation of our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights". To believe otherwise is not American Patriotism but simply country patriotism, as is common in the rest of the world. When I speak and write of my own patriotism, I speak and write of my commitment to our American ideals and goals, and not just as a country patriot.

Americans should not become country patriots, as Americans should serve as an example of a higher patriotism, a patriotism that John Winthrop wrote of as a “shining city upon a hill.” If we become common patriots, then we will become ordinary people like the rest of the world. American patriotism should be a beacon and call for the other peoples of the world to emulate and strive for in their country. To abandon this American Patriotism is to become one of many common country patriots as is customary across the world, and we will cease to be, as Abraham Lincoln has said, “the last best hope of Earth”.

11/03/24 Uselessness and a Bad Example

“No one is completely useless. You can always serve as a bad example.”
 ― Jim Beaver, Life's That Way

This quote perfectly encapsulates what has become of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists—they serve as a bad example and are completely useless. As I have stated in a previous Chirp, Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article “Kamala's Insane Talking Points”:

“On the one hand, is the prior Trump 2017-20 concrete record: border security, no major wars abroad, calm in the Middle East, a deterred Russia, Iran, and China, low inflation, low interest rates, lower crime, lower taxes, strong deterrent military -- and opposition to mandatory electric vehicle mandates, biological males competing in women's sports, and the woke/DEI agenda.

On the other hand, is the Biden-Harris 2021-2024 record: the unchecked entry of 12-20 million illegal aliens and a destroyed border. People still struggle under Biden-Harris's earlier hyperinflation and high interest rates. The horrific regional wars in Ukraine and the Middle East continue. Biden-Harris embraces the unpopular DEI/Woke agenda.”

Such a comparison has shown the complete uselessness and bad example of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in leading America. They have gotten it completely wrong on their political goals and policy agendas, to the detriment of America and the world. They have alienated half of the American public with their charges of racism, sexism, and fascism against them and have pitted groups of Americans against other groups of Americans. They have not solved the problems of America but have exacerbated the problems.

Consequently, they are deserving of repudiation by the American public in the upcoming election. They must be swept out of power so they cannot stall nor halt the changes needed to solve the problems of America. Until the American electorate sweeps them out of power, we can only expect the continuation or worsening of the problems in America. While the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are not perfect, they are far better than the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in leading America and making the changes needed to solve the problems in America. Thus, I would encourage all Americans to vote Republican in the upcoming election to right the course of America.

11/02/24 Who Are You Going To Believe?

The famous Marx Brothers quote by Chico Marx, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”, should be updated for the Mainstream Media coverage of Biden-Harris-Walz to “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes and ears?”.

Spin, editing, and non-coverage of outrageous comments by Biden-Harris-Walz have reached epic proportions in the Mainstream Media. On the other hand, any offensive comment made by Trump or Vance, or by their supporters, is blown out of proportion, or the comments are twisted to appear outrageous by the Mainstream Media when they are not that excessive.

Such is the case for Modern Journalism in its adoption of Advocacy Journalism, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/18/24 Advocacy, Not Journalism”. Their advocacy for the Harris-Walz ticket and for other Democrat Party candidates has risen to the point that they should be considered in-kind contributions to the Democrat Party and their candidates. We have also seen the usual shenanigans of the "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" to mislead, deceive, or cover up the true nature of the Democrat candidate's record, policies, and agendas. These shenanigans should also be considered in-kind contributions to the Democrat Party and their candidates. This Advocacy Journalism and shenanigans are a major contributing factor to the closeness of the polls in the current election cycle. If the American people were properly informed, I do not believe that the polls would be this close.

To be a participant in this Advocacy Journalism and shenanigans requires that you believe that the American public is either fools or chumps that can be manipulated into voting for the candidate of their choice or that the American public is too unintelligent to make a wise choice for whom to vote. Either way, they demonstrate a self-righteous attitude that they are better educated, more intelligent, wiser, and morally superior than the American public.

To this, I would say they are not, and I advise the American people not to be swayed by their Advocacy Journalism and shenanigans. Instead, you should utilize other alternative sources to uncover the Democrat candidate's authentic record, policies, and agendas before casting your vote.

11/01/24 Leave the Democrat Party Behind

The modern Democrat Party has become one of intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own. As I have often said, as they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them rather than what is best for all Americans.

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat Congressperson for eight years, has seen and heard all from an inside perspective. She has written a book, “For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind”, which is this month’s Book It selection. This book is an expose of their lust for power and their utilization of any means necessary to obtain power, which has become the modern Democrat Party. In their self-righteousness, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Liberties and Freedoms, and any person who disagrees with them be dammed.

I would highly recommend that all Americans read this book and then take her advice to leave the Democrat party behind. I would also ask you to consider the words of RFK Jr. in a recent interview in which he tells the TRUTH about the current Democrat Party:

"The party that I grew up, with the party of John F Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, that doesn't exist anymore. In fact, there's been a complete inversion. The party that I grew up with was the party of peace. My father ran for president against the Vietnam War. President Kennedy never sent a combat troop abroad to die during his administration. He told his best friend the primary job of a president of the United States is to keep the country out of War. Today the Democratic party is the party of War, and the Republican party is the party of Peace. The Democratic party I grew up with was the party of civil rights, of constitutional rights, of freedom of speech, particularly the First Amendment. Today, it's the party of censorship and surveillance. The Democratic party that I grew up with was the party of women's sports. My uncle Ted Kennedy wrote Title IX to make sure that women had an equal shot to men in colleges, and the Democratic party today is not the party of women's sports. The Democratic party was the party that was skeptical of the domination of our government by corporate power. Today the Democratic party is the party of big Pharma, big Tech, big AG, big food, the military industrial complex, Wall Street, and it's the party of Dick Cheney and John Bolton. These are, it's a party that I absolutely do not recognize. These are the guys who wrote The Patriot Act."

10/31/24 Vacuousness, Deceptions, Falsehoods, and Fearmongering

As the 2024 Presidential election closes, we have seen one of the most unusual presidential campaigns in modern American history (sans the COVID-inhibited campaign of 2020). On one side, the Trump campaign has run a standard campaign of rallies, town halls, news conferences, journalistic interviews, and now, in today’s modern technological world— podcasts, while the Harris campaign has tried to avoid, minimize, manipulate, and/or constrain such campaigning. The Harris campaign has also tried to institute a basement campaign without being in a basement, as I have written in my Chirp on 08/10/24 The New Basement Strategy and Tactics.

The Harris campaign has been one of vacuousness, deceptions, falsehoods, and fearmongering. In doing so, she is trying to bamboozle and hoodwink the American public into believing that she is something that she is not. She also uses chicanery to paint her opponent as something that he is not. Her gibberish and pablum are an insult to the American public’s intelligence. Thus, her campaign has revealed the character of a person with a deficiency of morals, ethics, virtue, and intelligence. It has also been revealed that she will do or say anything to obtain and retain power.

Such a person is not fit for leadership of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom. As such, we should not risk placing in the White House a power-hungry, vapid nothing like Kamala Harris. If you can’t vote for Donald Trump (which I can understand), then you should not vote for such a person as Kamala Harris. America will survive a Trump presidency (as it has previously), but it will forever be detrimentally changed by a Harris presidency.

10/30/24 Vote Your Conscience, Not Your Identity

The Harris campaign and her surrogates have begun to chastise various people of identity groups for not supporting her. Large segments of black Americans and smaller segments of Hispanics, Asians, Women, Jewish, young voters, and other demographic voters have begun to express concern and displeasure with presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

This is a manifestation of Identity Politics in the Democrat Party, in which all members of an identity group are expected to think, believe, act, and vote alike. Such an attitude amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists demonstrates their disregard for the individual and favor for the collective. Group thinking is encouraged, and individual conscience is discouraged. Indeed, when individual conscience is voiced by members of these identity groups, they are roundly condemned and disparaged.

This attitude by the Democrat Party is an insult to the intelligence of the members of an identity group. It is also antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas in which our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights are based upon the rights of the individual. Thus, the Democrat Party is acting in an un-American manner. They also have the propensity to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", and rulers believe that they should be obeyed and not challenged. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists also believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, any dissent from their viewpoint by the members of an identity group is considered wrong and harmful, and it is to be silenced.

Much of this behavior by the Democrat Party is for electoral advantage, but also because of their belief in a Democratic political theory of the Constitution. I do not mean a Republican Party or a Democratic Party Constitution, but a Republic or a Democratic political theory of the Constitution, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

In America, individual conscience reigns supreme, and it is a cornerstone of our Freedoms and Liberties. Disregarding your conscience for your identity group affiliation chains you to the will of others, and it makes you subservient to others. Consequently, it is very important that you vote your conscience, not your identity.

10/29/24 A Campaign of Vileness

The presidential campaign of Kamala Harris, which started out with pronouncements of joy and a new way forward, has turned into a campaign of vileness as her poll numbers have declined. She, and her surrogates, have accused Trump and his supporters of being racists, misogynists, Nazis, Fascists, and Stalinists, along with other pejoratives, as I have written in my article on "Divisiveness in America". Harris has also asserted that Trump is a "fascist," a "dictator," an "insurrectionist", and "unfit" for office, and he is somehow "exhausted," "senile," and "confused."

All these accusations are morally reprehensible (i.e., vile), as they are all based on unsubstantiated beliefs, as I have Chirped on “10/28/24 Reality and Unreality Beliefs”. Such a campaign demonizes her opponents, which ends up pitting one group of Americans against another group, further diving Americans into bitter hyper-partisanship.

Accordingly, she and her campaign stumpers, her endorsers, her supporters in the various media, and all those who repeat these vile remarks are reprehensible. They should be condemned and ostracized by all people of morals, ethics, and virtue. The American people should certainly not cast their votes for her or candidates that support her comments, as these comments will do nothing but denigrate Americans and degrade and destroy America.

10/28/24 Reality and Unreality Beliefs

The Russia collusion hoax, lies about “good people on both sides,” impeachment one, impeachment two, the January 6th committee, multiple frivolous indictments, a handful of civil cases, charges of Nazism, Fascism, and dictatorialness, comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, and other extreme rhetoric as I have examined in my Chirp on "09/22/24 Democrat Extreme Rhetoric”, are but some examples of the unreal beliefs of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article “Kamala's Insane Talking Points”:|

“On the one hand, is the prior Trump 2017-20 concrete record: border security, no major wars abroad, calm in the Middle East, a deterred Russia, Iran, and China, low inflation, low interest rates, lower crime, lower taxes, strong deterrent military -- and opposition to mandatory electric vehicle mandates, biological males competing in women's sports, and the woke/DEI agenda.

On the other hand, is the Biden-Harris 2021-2024 record: the unchecked entry of 12-20 million illegal aliens and a destroyed border. People still struggle under Biden-Harris's earlier hyperinflation and high interest rates. The horrific regional wars in Ukraine and the Middle East continue. Biden-Harris embraces the unpopular DEI/Woke agenda.”

In all these unreal TDS claims, there have been charges that Trump is a threat to “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy". However, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and "Despotism in America", these have been the greatest danger to “Our Democracy” that is based on our "American Ideals and Ideas". As I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", the greatest practitioner of these threats to our democracy has been the Biden-Harris Administration.

Consequently, it can be said that the believers of TDS live in an unreal world, an unreal world that, if acted upon by electing those who believe in TDS, will have detrimental impacts on America.

10/27/24 Women Voters in America

A majority of women voters in America do not like Trump, and they will not vote for him. Much of this dislike is in his mannerisms, which can be uncouth, coarse, crude, rude, impolite, or improper for a politician. I, myself, am sometimes offended by his mannerism, but I understand that much of this is done for shock purposes to break through the barriers of the prejudicial "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" that politicizes or inhibits thoughtful discussions on the issues and concerns facing America.

It is not necessary to like a politician to vote for them. The important reason to vote for a politician is that you agree with their political goals and policy agendas. It should also be remembered that there is no such thing as total agreement with another person, and a politician may have some stances with which you disagree. Thus, when voting you need to consider the pluses and minuses of a politician’s stances, then decide which political candidate you believe has, on balance, the better stances.

When evaluating a candidate’s stances, you also need to examine their record and then compare their record to their stances to determine their true political goals and policy agendas. When you compare the record of the Trump-Pence Administration to the Biden-Harris Administration, you can see a stark contrast. During the Trump-Pence Administration, we had border security, no major wars abroad, calm in the Middle East, a deterred Russia, Iran, and China, low inflation, low interest rates, lower crime, lower taxes, a strong deterrent military, and the lowest unemployment and highest real income increase for both minority and non-minority Americans in many decades. During the Biden-Harris Administration, none of this continued, and the situation in America and the world worsened to the detriment of the American people.

If you remove the last year's statistics of the Trump-Pence Administration and the first-year statistics of the Biden-Harris Administration due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacts, the contrast is starker. Thus, the Trump-Pence Administration record was much more beneficial to America and Americans than the Biden-Harris Administration. This is what the women voters of America need to consider when casting their votes. What will be a better America for them, their loved ones, their families, and for America and Americans—a Trump-Vance or a Harris Walz Administration? It is for this reason that you should cast your vote and not for any dislike of Trump’s mannerisms.

10/26/24 Just and Unjust Actions

The Declaration of Independence's second paragraph is the foundational principle of American society:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Any violations of these principles are a betrayal of the American people and a corruption of the natural rights of the people. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the base, but not the only, natural rights that our government was instituted to protect. The government is instituted to protect these rights, and they are bound in their actions to preserve these natural rights. Any government not so constituted and not so constricted as to not infringe on these natural rights is no legitimate government committed to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In the Declaration of Independence, a list of the particulars of the history of repeated injuries and usurpations of the natural rights of the American Colonists is enumerated, and in this list, we find the basis for restrictions on government actions. In particular, the five most basic natural rights that can never be violated are:

1. No person or government may unjustly take the life of another person.
2. No person or government may unjustly encroach on the Liberty and Freedom of another person, i.e., the right of a person to act freely without interference by, or violence against, others.
3. No person or government may unjustly interfere with the right of any person to acquire, possess, and dispose of personal property.
4. No person or government may unjustly infringe upon another religious belief and practice unless such religious beliefs and practices infringe upon others’ beliefs and practices.
5. No person or government may unjustly restrict the right of another person to freely speak their mind and associate with other people.

The American Constitution was crafted to protect these and other natural rights and to ensure that government is not arbitrary, despotic, or tyrannical, which leads to violations of natural rights. We must also be mindful that, as the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Hence, the Constitution does not specify all the natural rights that are to be protected, and it directs through the Ninth Amendment that the government must be mindful of natural rights in the crafting and enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations.

To ensure that these and other natural rights are protected, the Constitution establishes an independent Judicial system to adjudicate disputes of Natural Rights violations by the government, as well as other disputes on legal issues of law and enforcement, and to conduct civil and criminal trials. The Constitution also specifies that the government must institute equal protection and due process of law to determine what actions by both government and individuals are permissible. The question is of the meaning of “equal protection” and “due process”. In these questions, the concerns of substance and procedure of law must be addressed to determine what just and unjust actions are by both the government and individuals. Again, the Declaration of Independence forms a backdrop for the answers to the questions of substance and procedure of law.

In my Book It of “07/01/21 The Library of Liberty – Part I”, I recommend the book “The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty” by Timothy Sandefur, which examines these and other questions of natural rights and constitutional government that are raised by the Declaration of Independence. For, as he states:

“When it comes to American Constitutional order, the Declaration of Independence gives us the standard: it stands above our political arguments to explain the basis and limits of rightful government.”

All Americans would do well to ponder the underlying meaning of the Declaration of Independence when thinking about governing principles and to be cognizant of the five most basic natural rights that can never be violated by any government or person.

10/25/24 Inherent Good and Instrumental Good

Most people believe that they are inherently good; therefore, their actions must be instrumentally good. This is especially true for Progressives, as they believe as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always inherently good and that all their actions are instrumentally good. But, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/08/24 A Good Person”, to be an inherently good person requires that you unflinchingly determine and examine the core moral and ethical questions of any situation. After you determine the moral and ethical good of any situation, you then need to determine the moral and ethical response to the situation to do instrumental good. Violating or compromising the inherent good to achieve an instrumental good may achieve some good results in the near term but will always fail in the far term. Such failure will then re-raise the inherent moral and ethical questions and lead to further attempts to do instrumental good, which may lead to more violations of compromises of the inherent good in the implementation of the instrumental good. Thus, a cycle of inherent good/instrumental failures continues. Such a cycle of inherent good/instrumental failures can have tragic consequences.

Domestically, this cycle is exemplified by the major issues and concerns that afflict America and Americans. Racism, Abortion, Immigration, Crime, Addictions, Equality and Equity, along with a host of other issues, have all been caught in this cycle of inherent good and instrumental failures. Much of this cycle begins by not properly addressing the inherent good to determine the instrumental good that is needed to solve these problems. This misunderstanding of the inherent good leads to the failure of the instrumental good, and until we determine the inherent good, it is not possible to implement the instrumental good.

This determination of the inherent good is often obscured by "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", which makes it difficult to determine the instrumental good that should be obtained. Solving these problems requires us to understand the facts and truths to rebut these falsehoods. Unfortunately, because of the misinformation on these falsehoods, this is often not possible. Politicians and activists are more interested in scoring political points, along with other motivations, that interfere with our understanding. Let us all begin to understand the true nature of the inherent good so that we can work together on implementing the instrumental good.

On the international stage, this cycle is exemplified in the conflicts between Israel and the Arab peoples. For over half a century, this cycle has led to much death, injuries, and destruction on both sides of the conflict. The inherent good of peace has led to violations and compromises in the instrumental attempts to achieve peace, and this cycle has continued until the present day. It is time to recognize that the Israel people have the right to exist in peace and prosperity without the constant threats of violence and the destruction of Israel by the Arab peoples. Therefore, no peace is possible without the elimination of these threats to peace. Consequently, Israel must be allowed to destroy these threats before peace can be achieved. This destruction should be the first instrumental solution to the conflict between the Israeli and Arab peoples for peace to be achieved.

To achieve true peace requires that the Arab people recognize that the subjugation or elimination of people who do not believe in Islam is not a legitimate religious goal and, indeed, is a violation of God’s will that all people should live in peace and harmony with each other. The inherent good of proselytizing, rather than violence and threats of violence, is the only acceptable instrumental means for converting a person to what you believe is the true faith in God. Until all Islamic people recognize that proselytization is the only good instrumental means to achieve the inherent good within Islam, there will be no peace across the world between Muslims and other faiths.

Thus, the inherent good and instrumental good both need to be resolved when addressing any problem on the domestic and international stage. Otherwise, the problems will not be properly resolved, and any other approach will result in failure, with the corresponding human suffering and misery that accompanies such failure.

10/24/24 Inanity and Foolishness of Celebrity Endorsements

Megan Kelly recently remarked on the inanity and foolishness of Taylor Swift’s endorsement of the Harris-Walz Presidential candidacy. Like most celebrity endorsements, they are feelings-based rather than rationally rooted. There is also little thought about the negative consequences of their opinions if they should be implemented. Consequently, you can safely ignore almost all celebrity endorsements of political candidates, as they are often bereft of intelligent thoughtfulness.

The transcript of Mega Kelly’s remarks that illustrate this point is as follows:

“Screw you, Taylor Swift. That’s how I would like to begin…

I don’t know whether [her endorsement] will have an effect [on the election]. I mean, supposedly some 350,000 people have rushed to some website to register to vote or express interest in potentially doing that. But young people don’t generally vote, and I don’t think people who at this point in the election cycle had not registered to vote are not going to do it because of Taylor Swift. But let’s set that to the side…

This woman has… is a billionaire. I saw her amazing mansion in Rhode Island. I went to some hotel there, and there it is up on a cliff. You’ve never seen a more beautiful home. It’s one of what? 20? She’s got so many gifts thanks to all of you and thanks to your daughters, who you probably had to drag to her concerts. You want to make your daughter happy, and so you did it and that’s true whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.

And how does she thank this nation? She turns around and not only does she pick a side in a hotly contested presidential election alienating at least half of her fan base, but she says the reason she’s voting for Kamala Harris is because of Tim Walz’s LGBTQ stance.

Do you know what Tim Walz has done on the LGBTQ front?

Let me tell you what’s going to happen… to a little girl sitting in Wisconsin, who is maybe on the spectrum, maybe has acne, maybe is a little heavyset, maybe feels upset because her parents are getting divorced, or something like, and is going to find herself down a rabbit hole on Reddit. And her parents aren’t going to know because they’re getting a divorce and they’re not focused on her right now.

She is going to spend hour after hour on that thing and Reddit is going to tell her she is actually a boy. And she’s going to get sucked into this gender cult, and she is going to say, ‘Mom and Dad, I want puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones’ – which will sterilize her and deprive her of all sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.

And they’re going to say, ‘No, you’re a girl. And she’s going to say, ‘But I want I want top surgery… this double mastectomy where I’ll have tubes coming out of me and I’ll never breastfeed a child. I want that too because I’m a boy.’ And they’re going to say no.

She’s going to go to a judge in Minnesota and, because of Tim Walz, the court will take custody of her use the Medicaid funds in Minnesota to provide her all of those things – chop off her breasts, sterilize her with the puberty blockers into the cross-sex hormones… There’s a law that Tim Walz signed that says the court can take jurisdiction, which in this instance means custody, over minor children who are not getting ‘gender affirming care.’ [And that ‘care’] is a lie. There are only two genders. There are men and there are women. One cannot become the other…

And when this girl inevitably comes to the conclusion that she didn’t want any of this, that it only added to her problems – which were the divorce, and the acne, and the puberty, and not any trans issue – who is she going to go to then?

This is all because of Tim Walz. That’s what Minnesota is doing right now to little girls and boys – taking custody away from the parents so that they can have these procedures without any loving parent there to help. And that’s what Taylor Swift just endorsed for your children.

So screw you, Taylor Swift.”

I would also add that anyone who believes that a minor child has the intellectual capacity to make life-changing decisions are themselves inane and foolish, and they should not be trusted to be involved in any life-changing decisions for anyone.

10/23/24 Religion In Politics

As I have written in the section on “Religion and Politics” in my Religiosity webpage, the purpose of the Wall of Separation is to separate government from religion, not to separate religion from government. This wall of separation is not directly written into the Constitution, but it is inferred by the Constitution in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The phrase itself comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. Thus, it is Unconstitutional for the government to become involved in religion, but it is not Unconstitutional for religion to become involved in government.

As religious people and religious organizations have the 1st Amendment rights of Free Speech and Petitioning the Government for a Redress of Grievances, they can become involved in politics. Indeed, America has a long history of religious people and organizations being involved in politics. From pre-Revolutionary War times through the Civil War and Reconstruction times, religious people and organizations were highly active in politics and were often political leaders. It was with the rise of Progressivism in the 20th century that religious people and organizations began separating themselves from politics. This was mainly due to their opposition to many Progressive policies and the Progressives excluding, shunning, and excoriating them for their opposition. Non-profit and tax laws and regulations were modified to make it difficult for them to practice their religious politics without losing their tax-exempt status. Thus, an era of non-involvement of religious people and organizations in politics arose.

With this non-involvement of religious people and organizations in politics, we lost much of our moral and ethical foundations in the crafting of legislation and governance. This has been to the detriment of our society, as without religious, moral, and ethical foundations, we have seen a deterioration of the foundations of our society and a rise in immorality and unethical behavior of both citizens and politicians. As one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
  - John Adams

Hence, it is time to reintroduce religious people and organizations into politics and governance. The question is about the scope of religious involvement in politics and governance. As religious people and organizations have 1st Amendment rights, there can be no legal incumbrances to their involvement, but self-control by religious people and organizations regarding the issues and concerns of morality and ethics is warranted. As God has bestowed the Natural Rights of all people, any violations of Natural Rights warrant religious involvement. Social issues that conflict with religious morals and ethics also warrant religious involvement. Social issues such as Manual, Sexual, or Child Slavery, Racism, Abortion, and Transgendered Child Care require religious involvement, while other social issues such as Immigration, Crime, Child Rearing, Pedophilia, Sexualizations of Society, LGBTQIA+ Exhibitionisms, Drug or Alcohol Addictions, Prostitution, as well as other social issues, requires inputs from religious people and organizations.

To do this requires a change of Non-profit and tax laws and regulations to accommodate religious organizations in politics. Without these changes to tax laws and regulations, it would be burdensome for religious organizations to become active in the social issues in which they should participate in America. It also requires courage from religious people and organizations to speak their minds and to be unafraid of despotism when they do so.

10/22/24 Bipolar Scenarios

Bipolar scenarios (one or the other, this or that, etc.) are often common in discussions of the issues and concerns facing America and Americans. With bipolar scenarios, it is easier to illuminate the differences between two positions to determine the answers to the question that is under discussion. However, bipolar scenarios are often not the reality of the situation, and they have the inherent possibility of presenting a nonsensical scenario.

In Science, if you ask a question about a situation that can never occur, then science considers the question as nonsensical, and it need not be answered. This is easily understood by the question, ‘What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force?’ If you have a universe that has an immovable object, it means that there is no force in the universe that can move the object, and conversely, if you have an irresistible force in a universe, then there is no object in the universe that can resist the force. Thus, it is not possible to have a universe that has both an immovable object and an irresistible force, and the aforementioned question is not possible; therefore, the question is nonsensical and need not be answered.

In Philosophy and Theology, the same nonsensible questions can occur. In medieval Europe, there was the theological question of ‘How many angles could dance on the head of a pin?’ This question presupposes the existence and physical properties of angles, as well as the physical dimensions of the point at the head of a pin. As none of these things are knowable, then the question is nonsense and need not be answered.

Consequently, whenever a person asks a question about something that cannot occur or is unknowable, then the question is nonsense and needs not be answered. Unfortunately, in modern America, many people ask questions about what cannot occur or is unknowable, especially in politics, sociology, and economics. Therefore, the only answer to these questions is that they are nonsense questions, and they need not be answered until they become knowable or can occur.

10/21/24 Ignorance and Stupidity

Mark Lewis recently made a comment in one of his articles, “Knowledge, Stupidity, Virtue, Immorality”,  that:

“I hate using the word “stupid” because it sounds rude and mean. But there is really no other good synonym that effectively captures the meaning of that word. And to believe certain things is truly...stupid.

Let me clarify the distinction between “ignorance” and “stupidity.” We are all born ignorant, but not stupid. I believe that, as beings created in the image of God, there are some innate qualities (conscience, etc.) that He has put in us, but still, knowledge is learned (even our consciences must be taught and trained). We aren’t born with knowledge. All of us are ignorant about countless things. Most people know virtually nothing about rocket science. That doesn’t make them “stupid,” it just makes them “ignorant”—untaught in that subject. True knowledge is beneficial and can lead to wisdom. False “knowledge” (believed) produces stupidity and foolishness and often horribly tragic consequences.”

I, myself, have tried to keep this distinction between ignorance and stupidity in my Chirps and Articles, as well as in my interactions with others. It would behoove all of us to keep this in mind when we interact with others and to remember that it is best to help the ignorant become more knowledgeable and to criticize those who would remain stupid.

The issue in modern American political thought is that it is easy to remain stupid if you surround yourself with others who are stupid. This leads to a belief that you are not stupid, as you have relied on others’ stupidity to affirm that you are not stupid. In a crowd, thinking for yourself is not encouraged and is often discouraged. This makes you but a lemming following the crowd wherever its leaders may direct you to go. The solution is to become more knowledgeable, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom", and then think for yourself in a "Rationality" and "Reasoning" manner before making up your mind. You may end up reaching a wrong conclusion, but you will not remain stupid.

10/20/24 Truths and Feelings

"Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them."
  - Albert Camus, French philosopher and writer

I can personally attest to the truth of this statement, as when I have admitted the truths about myself to myself, I have had to ponder and then live with the truths about myself. This is not only true for my personal faults and strengths but also for my thoughts on the truths about issues and concerns facing America and Americans. This can be a heavy burden to bear, but it is a burden that has helped me become a better and more thoughtful person about myself and the society that I live in.

This admission about the truths about myself requires an unflinching and honest evaluation of myself, as well as what is occurring in American society. This unflinching and honest evaluation of American society has been reflected in my various Chirps and Articles, which I cannot retract unless I obtain new or better information that would lead me to a different conclusion. If I obtain new or better information that leads me to a different conclusion, then I am quite willing to retract what I have previously written and to explain the reasons for this retraction and my new conclusion in a new Chirp or revisions to my Articles.

Hurting someone’s feelings is an insufficient reason for an apology or retraction if the facts and the truths remain the same. It is up to the person whose feelings have been hurt to adjust their feelings based upon the facts and the truths from the facts.

In many of my recent Chirps, I have written about the unvarnished facts and unpleasant truths about the modern Democrat Party and its Progressive supporters, and I shall continue to do so. Unless you can intellectually dispute the facts and/or rationality arrive at a different truth from the facts, then I shall not apologize or retract what I have written. To do so would display a lack of courage of my convictions or fear of retaliation, which I am unwilling to do. I will also remember that when the devil attacks you, you should take it as a badge of honor. A badge of honor that I shall proudly wear if I am attacked for writing or speaking the facts and truths of the facts.

10/19/24 Foresight

Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz recently participated in a pheasant hunt with his shotgun, in which he demonstrated his ineptitude in handling the shotgun. You would think that if he was going to make this pheasant hunt a photo-op, he would have thought of privately retrieving his shotgun and practicing its handling before he stepped into the photo-op.

This photo-op not only demonstrated his ineptitude but also his lack of foresight. But such is true for many Democrat candidates and incumbents. They often speak and act without foresight of the impacts of their words and deeds. This is not only embarrassing to them but also consequential to the body of politic when they speak or act on matters of public policy and the laws, rules, and regulations of government.

This lack of foresight also explains many of the problems that Americans face due to their not thinking about the consequences of their words and deeds. This is but another example of why most Democrats should not hold elected or appointed office, as foresight is an essential attribute necessary to govern a people.

10/18/24 Advocacy, Not Journalism

Modern Journalism in the 2024 Presidential election campaign has seen a massive rise in Advocacy Journalism. Advocacy in their predilections for Democrat candidates and against Republican candidates. This is evident when a Mainstream Media journalist conducts a sit-down interview with a candidate. In these interviews, they utilize “facts” in their questions that are slanted for the Democrat candidate and “facts” slanted against the Republican candidate. When the candidate is a Democrat, the journalist asks a softball question with the candidate's favorable disputable “facts”, then silently allows the Democrat candidate to respond without interruption. When the candidate is a Republican, they ask hardball questions of the Republican candidate with unfavorable very disputable “facts”, then interrupt the Republican candidate when they try to answer the question and dispute the “facts”. They are also notorious for utilizing gotcha or trap questions against Republicans without any gotcha or trap questions for Democrats.

In the 2024 Presidential election campaign, we have also seen one candidate, Vice-President Kamala Harris, avoiding sit-down interviews and press conferences except by a few friendly Mainstream Media journalists and Mainstream Cultural Media hosts, while the other candidate, President Donald Trump, has had many sit-down interviews and press conferences with an unfriendly Mainstream Media. The only exception to this was the recent formal sit-down interview of Kamala Harris by Fox News anchor Bret Baier. This very short interview of about 20 minutes (at the candidates’ insistence) was contentious and combative in that Kamala was intent on not directly answering the question while drawing out her non-answers to consume as much time as possible. This forced Mr. Baier to often interrupt her to get a proper answer (which he never obtained) or to move on to the next question.

This advocacy journalism is a disservice to the American public, as it keeps them ill-informed, which often leads the American public to make bad decisions about which candidate to vote for. It also leads to much Divisiveness in America, as each side is bitterly arguing with the other side based on improper information reported by Advocacy Journalism. Thus, this Advocacy Journalism should be considered by the American public as falsehoods, disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation perpetrated by the Mainstream Media.

It is also one of the primary reasons that the American public does not trust the Mainstream Media and, in many cases, despise the Mainstream Media. It should also be considered as an in-kind contribution to the Democrat Party and their candidates, and it should be treated so by the Federal Election Commission (which is not possible given the protection of a Free Press in the First Amendment to the Constitution).

Consequently, Advocacy Journalism is a major contributor to the ills that face America. Until Advocacy Journalism ends, it may not be possible to calm the stormy waters that inflict modern America. Advocacy journalism may not end until it collapses under the weight of its deception of the American public, who will no longer pay any attention to it.

10/17/24 The Moral Failures of the West

Led by Progressives/Leftists, and supported by Democrat Party Leaders, we have seen a decay of morality and ethics and a rise of anti-Americanism in the world. Judeo-Christian values are often mocked and certainly disparaged. This moral decay is especially evident in the anti-Israel demonstrations following the 7 October 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel on innocent civilians. This attack was immoral and perpetrated by evil people that should have been roundly condemned by all moral people. Instead, what we have seen is:

“The West's moral failures in the aftermath of 7 October were of an entirely new order. They exceeded even my grim fears. They shone a harsh, inescapable light on the retreat from reason and abandonment of Enlightenment many of us have warned of for years. ... The delirium of our post-civilizational era emerged into broad daylight. It was undeniable now: The West is in the stranglehold of a profound moral crisis. ... The sympathy for Hamas on our campuses and streets is fundamentally an extension of the West's own crisis of meaning, of our denial of our own insights, of our betrayal of our history.”
 - Brendan O'Neill, former editor of the British libertarian magazine Spiked

The people involved in these anti-Israel demonstrations lack morality and are despicable. Any leader who has not unequivocally condemned this attack and these demonstrations is unfit to lead a moral people. These leaders have become immoral and spineless, as evident in their silence or support of these demonstrators. Any politician who has not unequivocally condemned this attack and these demonstrations is unfit to hold an office or any position of power in a government dedicated to Freedom and Liberty based on the value of a single human being.

10/16/24 The Value of a Single Human Being

Judgment at Nuremberg is a 1961 film set in 1948, in which an American court in occupied Germany tries four Nazi judicial officials for war crimes. The presiding judge, Dan Haywood, makes a statement near the end of the movie before pronouncing the guilt and sentencing of the defendants:

“There are those in our own country too who today speak of the 'protection of country,' of 'survival'. A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: Justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.”
 - American Judge Dan Haywood in “Judgment at Nuremberg”

At the end of the movie, the guilty defendant, Ernst Janning, asked Judge Dan Haywood to come to his holding cell to explain himself, with the following dialog:

“Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, you must believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”

This movie, written by Abby Mann, was also a condemnation of McCarthyism that had just swept America, in which many Americans were persecuted and prosecuted for speaking their minds.

Alas, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders with their Tribalism via Identity Politics and Intersectionality, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/09/24 Tribalism”, and their utilization of "Political Correctness", "Cancel Culture", and "Wokeness", have forgotten the value of a single human being. In my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and "Despotism in America", I have outlined how these are assaults on individual Liberties and Freedoms and the value of a single human being. I have also discussed, in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", that these are all assaults on democracy.

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' persecution, and sometimes prosecution of Americans that disagree with them and speak their minds is despicable and reminiscent of McCarthyism, and it is equivalent to the NAZI persecutions and prosecutions of their opponents as depicted in the movie. The perversion of the justice system for political purposes that has occurred under the Biden-Harris Administration is evocative of what happened in NAZI Germany as depicted in the movie. The Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, with all of their deceptions and falsehoods, and all their proclamations of joy and a new way forward, is the same type of rhetoric that Adolf Hitler used to obtain power over the German people. NAZI Minister of Propaganda Joesph Goebbels's co-option of the German news media is similar to the corruption of the American "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party policies, agendas, and candidates. The governmental takeover of our economy by excessive laws, rules, and regulations is but a start to full control of the economy, as was done by the Reich Ministers of Economics and Finance. The support for the Democrat Party by many American Modern Big Business leaders to give them a competitive advantage and favorable government scrutiny is the same as the support of the German Industrialists for the NAZI party.

While America's current status is not as bad as that of NAZI Germany, as it has only started in its downward slide, it is a downward slide that could end up as bad as NAZI Germany if it is allowed to continue. This is also not to say that there is a conspiracy in modern America, but only that of like-minded American people thinking and behaving alike and then pursuant to the same goals for American society. But when these goals take precedence over the value of a single human being, they are Un-American goals. The only question is what will become of it if it is allowed to continue and succeed. It is time for the American people to make a corresponding “Judgment at Nuremberg” for those who would lead America on our current path and to reaffirm the value of a single human being.

10/15/24 Leave the Democrat Party Behind

The modern Democrat Party has become one of intolerance for any viewpoint other than their own. As I have often said, as they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them rather than what is best for all Americans. As such, they also have the propensity to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat Congressperson for eight years, has seen and heard all from an inside perspective. She has written a book, “For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind”, that is an expose of their lust for power and their utilization of any means necessary to obtain power, which has become the modern Democrat Party. In their self-righteousness, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Liberties and Freedoms, and any person who disagrees with them be dammed, as their lust for power knows no bounds. The publisher’s description of her book is a good recap of the book:

“Tulsi Gabbard was the rising star of the Democrat Party. But the growing wokeness, fomenting racism, and intolerance were more than she could stomach, and she left. This is her story and a call to action to Americans who love our country and cherish peace and freedom.

Today’s Democrat Party is controlled by an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by woke ideology and racializing everything. They are a clear and present threat to the God‑given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

A soldier, former member of Congress, and a former presidential candidate, Tulsi loves her country: “I answered the call to serve and swore an oath, dedicating my life to supporting and defending the Constitution, both in uniform and in public office. I have always been an independent-minded person but became a Democrat when I first ran for office because I saw a party that stood up for the little guy, free speech, and civil liberties. That party is no more.”

Today that party is unrecognizable: undermining free speech, antagonistic to people of faith, hostile to the police and law and order, suspicious of law‑abiding Americans, supporting open borders, and using our national security apparatus to target political opponents.

Now an Independent, Tulsi calls on those who love America to stand up for peace, defend freedom, and protect our democratic republic from those seeking to undermine it at every turn. It’s time to leave the Democrat Party behind.”

Normally, I would make this book a Book It selection for the month; however, given the current presidential election campaign, I believe it is important to promote this book as soon as possible. I would encourage all Americans to read and ponder this book before they cast their votes.

If we allow the Democrat Party to remain in power in any branch or level of government, then our "American Ideals and Ideas", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" will be shunted aside to be replaced by a Democrat Party Oligarchy and governmental despotism. While this situation in modern America is serious, it can become grave, as I have discussed in my next Chirp on “10/16/24 The Value of a Single Human Being”.

10/14/24 Accomplishments and Consequences

As usual for political campaigns, a candidate makes claims of their accomplishments without discussing the consequences of their accomplishments. Often, these accomplishments are generic or inflated, and they often improperly utilize statistics in their claims. They also have built-in assumptions that may be misleading or incorrect. This is amply demonstrated in the following two charts on the Biden-Harris Administration, in which the first chart is the accomplishments, while the second chart is the consequences of the Biden-Harris Administration:

Of course, both charts are slanted for or against the Harris candidacy, and thus, they should be taken with a grain of salt. My point is that you should always determine the facts and proper statistics, question the assumptions, and then consider both the accomplishments and consequences of any candidate's claims before casting your vote for a candidate.

10/13/24 Kamala as a Self-Made Woman

As in all presidential elections in modern America, we have seen a slew of celebrities endorsing Progressive Democrat candidates. Given the Progressive predilections of most celebrities, this is not unexpected. However, in regard to Democrat Kamala Harris’s election, there are more than Progressive predilections that should be considered. I will use the Oprah Winfrey endorsement as an example.

Oprah was born and raised in a lower-class family and became a self-made woman who used her intelligence, skills, abilities, talents, willpower, and perseverance to achieve her success. Nothing was handed to her, and she demanded nothing in return except for the recognition of her talents and abilities. She is a shining example of self-made success in America. She should be an example to all Americans, and especially young American women, of what can be achieved in America.

If we compare her example of success to Kamala’s example of success, we see a different example. Kamala was born and raised in an upper-middle-class family of two college professors who divorced when she was young, and she had some privileges not available to most Americans. Upon graduating college with a law degree, Kamala was hired as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California, and eventually as an Assistant District Attorney in San Fransisco, California, which is not an unusual start to a public law career. Shortly thereafter, she engaged in a sexual affair with the powerful married Speaker of the California Assembly and future mayor of San Fransisco, Willie Brown, which gave her some prominence. Willie Brown arranged for Kamala to be appointed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission, for which she had little knowledge or experience of the board and commission’s responsibilities. One wonders if there was another woman with knowledge and experience to fill both these seats that was passed over because she was not sexually involved with a powerful politician.

When the position of District Attorney for San Fransisco became open, Willie Brown once again arranged for her to be the Democrat candidate without opposition. The same thing happened when the position of Attorney General of California became open, as well as when the position of United States Senator for California became open. In California, selection by the Democrat Party is almost a guarantee of an election, as San Fransisco, Los Angeles, and California statewide voters are overwhelming Democrats. When Joe Biden was searching for a Vice-Presidential candidate, he restricted his search to a woman of color, and Kamala was chosen on that basis. During her political career, she has had to campaign very little, if at all, against opposition within her party, and when she campaigned for the 2020 Democrat Presidential nomination nationwide, she failed so miserably that she dropped out before any votes could be cast for her. Her nomination to be the 2024 Democrat Presidential candidate was also circuitous, as it was appointed rather than democratically obtained.

She has also shown a propensity for political expediency by saying whatever she thinks will help her obtain political power. In this, she has often been disingenuous, misleading, flip-flopping, or outright lying about her background, history, or policy positions. She has also traded in her status as a woman and/or person of color (Indian, Hispanic, or Black as expedient).

Thus, in Kamal Harris, we have a candidate who has never earned her success through her own talents and abilities. This is not a career that should be emulated by anyone, especially by young women. It is not a career based on being a self-made woman to achieve success, as Oprah did. This is not something that any parent or grandparent would want for a daughter or granddaughter. Indeed, it is something that a parent or grandparent would warn their daughters or granddaughters to avoid, as it is denigrating to their personhood. Kamala should, instead, be put up as an example of what not to do in your career, and she should be disparaged and shunned because of her career paths.

So, I would say to the celebrities that have endorsed her, rethink your endorsement based upon her character values and career path that led her to where she is. Character values should be more important than Progressive predilections when choosing our leaders. She is certainly not someone that we should elect to the most powerful political position in America—the Presidency.

10/12/24 A Stupid Incompetent Person

Newt Gingrich recently made a comment in response to questions about Kamala Harris's recent interviews with the Mainstream Media and Social Media that she was a “doofus” (a stupid, incompetent person). While this word may be harsh, it is also accurate. As Byron York has written in his column, “When Kamala Harris' Promises Come to Nothing”, her assigned responsibilities to bring internet service to "unserved and underserved" rural areas and expanding the number of charging stations for electric vehicles have come to nothing. I would also add that her appointment as “Border Czar” has resulted in the largest influx of illegal immigrants in American history. Hence, she proved her incompetence in governing during her term as vice president.

In these interviews, she has exhibited a self-absorbed, self-important, self-involved, self-centered, conceited, egocentric, and prideful persona (i.e., her excessive vanity). Her non-answers to questions always turn to her vain stories without addressing the question that was asked. Her plans are simply goals, as they cannot be plans because they have no details. These goals are bereft of intellectual substance and often have no basis in political, social, or economic realities. Thus, these goals exhibit her stupidity. Her evasions on the questions of the current Israeli conflict have exacerbated the situation, which not only exhibits her stupidity but has also been dangerous to world peace.

Her persona can also be seen in the turnaround of her vice president staff, which has been astounding, and it has been reported that it is her persona that has made working for her emotionally distressing for her staff.

Consequently, Kamala Harris has proven with her own words and deeds that she is a doofus and that she is unworthy of being elected President.

10/12/24 The Reconstruction of Kamala Harris

As Jonathan Turley has said in a recent article, “Kamala’s True Grit: Harris Embraces a Gun Vilified During the Biden-Harris Administration”:

“The reinvention of Vice President Kamala Harris in this election has been a thing to behold. In politics, candidates often reconstruct their records to secure votes, but Harris appears to have constructed an entirely mythical being. Once ranked to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and viewed as among the most liberal members of the Senate, Harris has sought to convince the public that she is actually a frack-loving, gun-toting, border-defending moderate.”

I would also add that the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" are all-in in supporting this reconstruction.

The mythical being of the current reconstructed Kamala Harris is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, intent on bamboozling and hoodwinking the American electorate to elect her as President. But like a wolf who sheds its sheep’s clothing when its prey is trapped, Kamala will revert to her left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders origins and reveal her true self. After all, as she herself has said, her “values have not changed”.

The American electorate should look to her past record to determine her true values and pay no attention to the sheep’s clothing that she is currently wearing. Otherwise, the American people will be her prey that is trapped.

10/11/24 Civil Discourse

In the course of my maturity, I have learned some important lessons that I have attempted to live my life by. Many of these lessons I have incorporated in my webpage Pearls of Wisdom. One of these lessons is the importance of civil discourse when communicating in an individual or group environment. What I have learned is:

Never start a sentence until I know how it ends, for if you don’t do so, you will often say something that you will regret and may have to apologize for.

Learn the importance of remaining silent and listening to others. When they are finished talking then you may speak, but you should only speak when you have something knowledgeable and intelligent to contribute. Keep in mind the adage, ‘It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.’

When listening to others and in your own speech, it is important to differentiate between fact and opinion. Separate the facts from the opinions, and comment on the facts before voicing a disagreement or stating your opinion. As always, as Benjamin Franklin has stated, “Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”

Interrupting another’s speech is rude and does not allow them the opportunity to complete their thoughts, which may be different from what you expect. It should only be utilized when egregious falsehoods are being spoken, and a calm retort carries more weight than an outburst. Do not allow your own speech to be interrupted, but make sure that your facts are correct and your opinions are rational before you speak.

Finally, do not be afraid to change your mind based on what others have stated, or as it has been said:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
- Benjamin Franklin

If you keep these lessons in mind in your own conversations with others, you will be amazed at how civil and friendly your conversations will be.

10/10/24 A Vacation From History

In an article by Ben Shapiro, “One Year Later”, he begins the article by stating:

“In the West, we are on vacation from history.

That's because we are living on the interest earned by our parents and grandparents. The European continent, until the war in Ukraine, had never experienced a more peaceful respite from history than since the end of the Cold War; America has enjoyed its own peace dividend, with spending ballooning to unprecedented levels and our wars fought in distant lands.

When you are on vacation from history, you tend to engage in foolish fallacies. Fallacies like the idea that evil doesn't exist; that negotiation solves all conflict and that weakness brings with it peace instead of war; that apologizing for Western civilization is a corrective to past injustice rather than an incentive for future violence.”

These three paragraphs succinctly state the myopic views of many Americans and most Progressives. Not knowing history or not fully comprehending history leads to the following truisms:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

In three other paragraphs, he states:

“And yet history does not stop.

History does not stop because there is, in fact, no end of history, no conciliation between all cultures. The promises of Isaiah that swords will be beaten into plowshares remain unfulfilled -- and until the coming of a messiah, will continue to remain so. The United Nations' statue depicting a gun with its barrel-end tied into a knot remains more a mockery than a tribute, given the UN's own involvement in terrorism and murder across the globe -- including on Oct. 7 and in southern Lebanon.

History will continue, because human evil is quite real.”

In this article, he explains that the current events in Israel are a wake-up call to the world. He concludes this article by stating:

“But the West must understand a simple truth: Just because Israel is located on the bleeding edge of history doesn't mean that the vacation for the rest of the West can last. In fact, it's already ending. And the more the West insists on turning over and hitting the snooze button, the worse history's wake-up call will be.”

This is an article that all Americans should read and ponder. If we do not learn the proper lessons of history and take the proper corrective actions, we will again slip into worldwide violent conflicts and wars as we did in the 20th century.

10/09/24 Tribalism

Tribalism seems to be inherent in human nature. Since the beginning of human history, we have gathered into clans, tribes, fiefdoms, and nations. Each group competed with other groups (mostly violently) for the natural resources needed to survive, to enslave another group for manual labor purposes, or to enrich themselves at the expense of the other groups. This gave rise to hatred, biases, prejudices, and discrimination against other groups, often based on race, religion, ethnicity, nationalities, and other external factors such as ancestry, socioeconomic status, language, customs, etc., that differentiated one group from another. Thus, much human misery was brought about by tribalism.

America was the first nation formed that tried to eliminate tribalism within government and society by ensuring "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". At times, we have failed to reach this goal, but upon self-reflection, we have also tried to correct these errors. Today, America is the most diverse nation in the world, with the most Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. While hatred, biases, prejudices, and discrimination still exist in America, it is mostly at an individual level and not tolerated in a governmental nor at a societal level.

However, in modern America, we have seen a new form of tribalism emerge—the tribalism of Identity Politics. It is different from the old form of tribalism as it is possible for an individual to be included in multiple identities through a process known as Intersectionality. Wherever you end up in this intersectionality, you are in a tribe of like people. And often, you may have hatred, biases, prejudices, and discrimination against other intersectional tribes. Such a situation in America is despicable, as it is antithetical to American Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Alas, Identity Politics and Intersectionality can be utilized by politicians to gain an electoral advantage, and often is utilized. By gathering different intersectional tribes under one banner, it is possible to win elections to obtain or retain political power. The problem, then, is that you must appease each intersectional tribe under your banner, often at the expense of those that are not under your intersectional tribe banner. This divides Americans into an Us versus Them mentality, which tends to increase hatred, biases, prejudices, and discrimination between the Us and Them. This also leads to constrictions or negations of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Us versus Them can be useful when differentiating between policy positions, but it is divisive when used for any other purpose. Unfortunately, one political party, the Democrat Party, has taken Identity Politics and Intersectionality as a strategy to win elections, and their tactics often exacerbate the Us versus Them mentality. The other party, the Republican Party, does not utilize this as a strategy to gain votes but sometimes uses the tactics of Us versus Them to forward their agenda.

Consequently, supporting the Democrat Party is supporting more divisiveness in America, reductions in Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and an increase in human misery brought about by tribalism. This tribalism in America must end for America to be a peaceful and prosperous nation.

10/08/24 A Good Person

Most Americans believe that they are a good and virtuous person and that they, therefore, make good moral and ethical decisions. However, this is not the proper order of things. To be a good person, you must first make good moral and ethical decisions and then act with virtue in your decision. However, making a good moral and ethical decision requires that you properly examine the morals and ethics of any situation in which you may become involved. Doing this requires that you first unflinchingly determine and examine the moral and ethical questions of the situation, determine the positive and negative consequences of the moral and ethical decision (keeping in mind The Law of Unintended Consequences), and then act with virtue on your decision.

Unflinchingly, determining and examining the moral and ethical questions requires a thorough determination of the core moral and ethical questions of the situation, as often, when you thoroughly examine the situation, you will discover some underlying moral and ethical concerns that you have not considered. After determining the core moral and ethical questions, you must have the fortitude to accept the facts and truths of the situation in reaching your conclusions. After reaching your conclusions, you must be willing to change your previous thoughts and feelings based on your conclusions. In this change of heart, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Virtue then requires that even in the face of harsh criticism, you have the courage to defend and uphold your conclusions.

With core moral and ethical questions, there are often no easy answers. Tough choices need to be made, and repercussions are to be expected. Dealing with these repercussions while remaining virtuous is what makes you a good person.

10/07/24 True Peace

With the world in flames in Ukraine and the Middle East, along with other hot spots, the cries for ‘Peace’ ring loud. But those who cry for peace should remember the true meaning of peace, as the great Dutch philosopher has explained:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

All other definitions of peace fall short of true peace. The cessation of hostilities without benevolence, confidence, or justice is not true peace, and often, that peace will end with future further hostilities. Peace, in the definition of Spinoza, can occur through negotiation or victory of the righteous. Negotiations are preferable but require a desire on both sides for true peace. If one side or the other is not willing to obtain true peace, then true peace can only be obtained by the victory of the righteous. Victory by the unrighteous leads to the oppression and subjection of the defeated and the peace of the dead, dying, and destruction of a society.

I believe that a negotiated peace can be obtained in Ukraine, but only peace through victory by the righteousness of the Israel cause can be obtained in the Middle East. In Ukraine, the leadership of both the Ukrainian and Russian people can be mollified to obtain true peace, but in the Middle East, the anti-Israel forces will not accept true peace but only the defeat of Israel.

As bloody and destructive as a war may be in the Middle East, it is not worse than the blood and destruction that the enemies of Israel have and wish to inflict upon Israel. It should also be remembered that the enemies of Israel are evil sayers and evil-doers, and those who support this evil are complicit with evil. As such, the world must confront their evil and eradicate their evil. Consequently, as Ben Shapiro has said in his Article “The Power of Victory”:

“All of which should remind the West of a simple principle: there is no substitute for victory. Peace results from the credible threat of use of overwhelming force, not from empty words around glossy tables. A strong and more confident West makes for a better and more prosperous world.”

10/06/24 Non-Judgmentalism

In an older column by John Hawkins, “The 6 Big Ways Liberals Are Destroying America’s Culture”, he opines on the various ways that Progressives have degraded our culture. His thoughts have led me to make my own list, based on my various Chirps and Articles, of what I refer to as the degradation of the Soul of America:

• Assaults on Free Speech
• Disparagement of Religion
• Denigration of Labor & Capitalism
• Tribalism via Identity Politics and Intersectionality
• Sexualization, Modern Feminism, and the Demonization of Men
• The Politicization of Everything
• Political Correctness & Wokeism
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), along with Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)
• Victimhood for All but White Males
• Transgenderism
• Non-Judgmentalism

The biggest surprise on this list may be ‘Non-Judgmentalism’, but it is this Non-Judgmentalism that allows Progressives to perpetrate the degradation of the Soul of America. As the people of America are loath to judge others, as they may be judged by other people, they have accepted non-judgmentalism. However, Non-Judgmentalism allows for immoral, unethical, and a lack of virtuous conduct by all. In this environment, anarchy reigns free, and an orderly society ceases to exist. It also allows evils to arise, persist, and grow.

The only question is what the basis for someone is to make moral, ethical, and virtuous judgments. For this answer, we can look at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
 - George Washington

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
  - John Adams

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus....I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

“I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes.”
 - Benjamin Franklin

Accordingly, if your judgementalism is based on solid Judeo-Christian morals and ethics than judgmentalism is appropriate. However, you should always remember to not only adjudge others by these morals and ethics, but to judge yourself by these same morals and ethics.

10/05/24 Reasons to Reject Leftism and Progressivism

In a column by Mark Lewis, “Two Reasons I Reject Leftism”, he gives his reasoning for his disdain for Leftism:

1. I’m not a Leftist because it is philosophically in error from its very roots.
2. I reject Leftism because of the kind of people it produces.

These are also the major reasons why I disdain Leftism, as well as for their disdain for "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights". Regrettably, in the last decade or so, Progressivism has morphed into Leftism to the extent that the major difference between the two is Leftism espouses violence to achieve its goals, while Progressivism condones violence if it helps to reach its goals.

This was exhibited in the 2020 Summer of Love, in which little love was embraced, but many violent riots occurred. This violence by Leftists was condoned by Progressives and by many Democrat Party Leaders. Indeed, the current Democrat candidates for President Kamala Harris and Vice President Tim Walz condoned and sometimes assisted the rioters during and after the riots. This reason alone should be enough not to vote for them.

Mark Lewis concludes his article by stating:

“Leftism is wrong philosophically. And that is further evident by the kind of people Leftist philosophy produces. It needs to be eradicated from the earth.”

A conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree.

10/04/24 For Swine They Have Become, and Swine They Remain

Trigger Warning—while I have always attempted to remain civil in my Chirps and Articles, the following Chirp cannot be civil, as it deals with a topic that needs to be said with directness and forthrightness.

Jesus said, in a portion of the Sermon on the Mount, “Do not cast your pearls before swine” meaning don’t waste your time with people who aren’t going to listen. Alas, it can be said that most Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have become swine, as they refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. They have also become worse than swine as they attempt to silence anyone who would disagree with them with their squeaking, oinking, and grunting. Now, they are seriously discussing limiting the Free Speech of their opponents if they should win the next election.

Despite their lofty words about why they want to do this, there is nothing lofty about restricting free speech. Indeed, restricting Free Speech always ends up with the evils of despotism and tyranny over those of whom they would restrict their Free Speech. Their hubris in their belief that they can determine what constitutes falsehoods, disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation is driven by their vanity and arrogance. Their self-righteousness knows no bounds, and their lust for power to control speech is limitless. Therefore, they are swine. Such swine should never be put into positions of power and responsibility, as they will drag down all into their swine sties.

If they succeed in winning the next election and institute their control of speech, then the American Ideals and Ideas will have been lost. Consequently, it is important for the American people not to elect these swine and to let them slop in their swine sties with themselves.

10/03/24 Mainstream Media Debates

The one thing that is very clear after both the 2024 Biden and Harris Presidential debates with Trump and the Walz and Vance Vice-Presidential debates is that the Mainstream Media should never again be involved in these debates. This was noticeable in the previous 2016 and 2020 debates, but it has become abundantly clear in the 2024 debates. The biased questions, the unasked questions, the incorrect and slanted fact-checking, and the silencing of microphones have shown that Mainstream Media debate moderators are in the tank for the Democrat Party candidates. Thus, these debates are between Republican candidates and Mainstream Media and Democrat candidates.

This is a result of Modern Journalism that does not even try to be unbiased and evenhanded when covering Republican candidates. A biased and inequitable treatment of Republican candidates that is an ultimate disservice to the American public. Consequently, it would behoove the Republican Party to shun all debates in which the Mainstream Media is involved and announce to the American people the reasons for this shunning.

The Mainstream Media has thus become a Fourth Estate in both its explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues favorable to the Democrat Party. History has shown that when Fourth Estates arise, the will of the people declines, and despotic or tyrannical governments arise.

This Fourth Estate is dangerous to the future of America, as it does not allow the American people to make an informed decision on whom to elect or what public policies to implement. In their hubris, the Mainstream Media has taken it upon themselves to decide what is best for America and Americans and bias their journalism to their predilections. If their biases are allowed to continue in America, we also run the risk of despotism and/or tyranny. Thus, the American people should also shun the Mainstream Media and pay no credence to their journalism.

10/02/24 Tooters and Their Fools

“Toot your own horn”, and variations thereof is an idiom commonly used in English to describe someone who’s proudly showcasing their accomplishments, usually to the point of boasting. Politicians, celebrities, and business leaders often practice tooting their own horns as a means to advance their own careers. All too often, though, they toot beyond their accomplishments, and some even toot without significant accomplishments. There is even a few that toot without any accomplishment, which are, therefore, nothing but bold face lies. Such bold-faced liars are people who are not to be trusted or paid attention to.

Bold-faced liars are often people who pay more attention to the praises of others than to their deeds. Such praises are often from fools who are easily deceived. Such bold-faced liars are engaging in vanity, and they should keep in mind the Bible verses:

“It is better to listen to rebuke from a wise person than to listen to the song of fools.
For like the crackling of burning thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.”
 - Ecclesiastes, Chapter 7, Verse 5-6

Today, in America, the biggest tooters without significant accomplishments are President Biden and Vice President Harris. Indeed, they are tooters without any significant accomplishments, and these toots are often accompanied by bold-faced lies. They often disregard the negative consequences of their deeds and attempt to cover up these negative consequences by trying to silence their critics and with the manipulation and willing cooperation of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". Half-truths, incorrect and inappropriate statistics, and bald-faced lies are the tools that they utilize for this manipulation, and they are dependent upon the fools in America to believe these falsehoods. Fools that then go on to sing their praises and stoke their vanities.

As can be seen in the Right Track/Wrong Track polling, most Americans believe that we are on the wrong track in America. A wrong track that is being led by the Biden-Harris tooters and fools. Do not be fooled by these tooters and the fools that support the tooters. America has significant problems that need corrections, and tooters and fools cannot make these corrections and, indeed, will only worsen these problems.

10/01/24 War and Presidential Leadership

The world is a much more dangerous place than it was four years ago. Due to the incompetencies of the Biden-Harris Administration, we have seen a rise in conflicts across the world that endangers the entire world, and some noted commentators and scholars have presaged a coming world war. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the American voters in the 2024 Presidential Election to determine who is the best person to lead us in these conflicts.

Such a judgment should be founded on the past leadership in America in times of conflict. Many people who are interested in war are primarily interested in the battles and the military leadership of the war. But it is much more than this—it is also about the political leadership of the war and the war's impacts on society. In American history, this is amply demonstrated by the leadership of President Lincoln in the Civil War, President Wilson in World War I, and President Roosevelt in World War II. This month’s Book It selections examine the Presidential leadership of Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt during these wars.

Reading these books provides an insight into the complexities of political leadership in times of conflict. Complexities of not only directing military operations but of guiding the American people and our society in obtaining the goals of the conflict without endangering our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", which is all too easy to do during times of armed conflicts.

09/30/24 An Old Book

In cleaning out my garage, I discovered a box of very old books, all of which, except for one book, were worthless and which I threw away. The one book that piqued my interest was by Albert E. McKinley, Charles A. Coulomb, and Armand J. Gerson. Utilizing my own advice in my Chirp on “09/29/24 New Ideas and Old Books”, I read this book and was generally pleased with it. This book was written immediately after the Armistice that ended the hostilities of the Great War (World War I), and it provides a good overall perspective, without much detail, of the events preceding and during World War I. The Table of Contents for this book is:

CHAPTER
I.            Europe Before The Great War
II.           Why Germany Wanted War
III.         German Militarism
IV.         International Law And The Hague Conferences
V.          International Jealousies And Alliances
VI.         The Balkan States
VII.        The Beginnings Of The Great War
VIII.       The War In 1914
IX.         The War In 1915
X.          The War In 1916
XI.         The War In 1917
XII.        The War In 1918
XIII.       The United States In The War
XIV.       Questions Of The Coming Peace
CHRONOLOGY—Principal Events of the War
INDEX

The first six chapters of this book lay a solid foundation for the events that led to World War I, while chapters seven through twelve are a very good recap of the military operations of World War I. It is noteworthy that many of the issues that preceded World War I are still with us today (i.e., as In Alphonse Karr's famous quote, “The more things change, the more they are the same.”). Chapters thirteen and fourteen, from a modern perspective, leave much to be desired. These chapters were written shortly after the Armistice of 11 November 1918, which ended the conflicts of World War I and before the 1919 Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany. As such, they are skewed by patriotic fervor and an unrealistic sense of optimism about the future of European peace. A peace that never came about, and in which the Treaty of Versailles set the stage for World War II. A much better and more modern book, which I will review in next month’s Book It, is about America’s role in World War I and the impacts of the Treaty of Versailles:

The Illusion of Victory: America In World War I by Thomas Fleming
“The political history of the American experience in World War I is a story of conflict and bungled intentions that begins in an era dedicated to progressive social reform and ends in the Red Scare and Prohibition.”

The book, “A School History of the Great War”, may be obtained from Goodreads, Amazon, AbeBooks, or Project Gutenberg or downloaded in a  PDF format from the Internet Archive.

09/29/24 New Ideas and Old Books

William Durant (November 5, 1885 – November 7, 1981) was an American historian and philosopher best known for his 11-volume work, The Story of Civilization, which contains and details the history of Eastern and Western civilizations. It was written in collaboration with his wife, Ariel Durant (May 10, 1898 – October 25, 1981), and published between 1935 and 1975. He was earlier noted for The Story of Philosophy (1926), described as "a groundbreaking work that helped to popularize philosophy". Both he and his wife were jointly awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977.

He and his wife had a keen insight and wisdom on the lessons of history, one of which was:

“[Of] every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society. For these are the wisdom of generations, after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.”
 - Will and Ariel Durant

Therefore, we all must be wary of new ideas and examine them in the light of history. Such an examination should not only be from modern sources but include contemporaneous sources of history, as well as insights from less modern sources. Such an examination from all sources will provide a broader perspective that will lay a better foundation for understanding history. It is also possible that you may encounter ideas that you may not have considered, as illuminated by the following quote:

“If you want new ideas, read old books.”
 - Shane Parrish

Reading old books is a good idea, as examined in the article by Michael Hyatt, “How Reading Old Books Gives Us New Perspective”. As he has stated in the beginning of this article:

“One trait common to leaders is a passion for books. Reading improves our thinking, people skills, and more. Leveraging a library of history, biography, philosophy, business, and psychology can give leaders a competitive advantage. But there’s a hidden bias working against us.

We live in a culture that places a premium on things that are new. Discontent, if not a virtue, is certainly a way of life. Understanding this, marketers highlight “newness” as a primary attribute of their products, assuming that this equates to better.

The implication is three-fold:

• New is more valuable than old.
• New is more relevant than old.
• New is more accurate than old.

The book industry plays along. For as long as I can remember, there’s been a relentless focus on the new. Reporters, reviewers, podcasters, and bloggers mostly cover fresh voices and the latest releases. And bookstores dedicate less and less space for what the trade calls backlist—titles more than a year old.

In fact, booksellers typically give up on new books after sixty to ninety days and ship the unsold ones back to the publisher. Why? To make room on the shelves for the avalanche of still newer books in the pipeline—about a million every year.

There are some signs this is changing. User-directed sites like Goodreads promote old books along with the new. And anyone can now locate obscure, out-of-print books in a few clicks through Amazon, AbeBooks, or Project Gutenberg.

But why read old books in the first place?”

The aforementioned article by Michael Hyatt has the answer to this question, and I would highly recommend that you read and think about his answers, then apply his wisdom to your readings.

09/28/24 The Assaults on the Constitution

Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “The Counter-Constitutional Movement: The Assault on America’s Defining Principles”, on the growing anti-constitutional movement in the United States. This assault on the Constitution is being led by law professors who have lost their faith in the defining principles and institutions of our Republic.

Our Constitution was written to protect "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and the rights of the minority against majoritarian oppressions. As Professor Turley has written:

“Without counter-majoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power.”

A raw power with little constraints and with no protection for the individual as espoused in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. As Professor Turley has written in his article:

“The cry for radical constitutional change is shortsighted. The constitutional system was designed for bad times, not only good times. It seeks to protect individual rights, minority factions and smaller states from the tyranny of the majority. The result is a system that forces compromise. It doesn’t protect us from political divisions any more than good medical care protects us from cancer. Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.”

What Professor Turley failed to mention is that there is an assumption from these Constitutional critics that they represent a majority of Americans in the policies they wish to implement. In poll after poll, the issues of Illegal Immigration, the Economy, Foreign Policy, Violent Crime, Gun Control, Health Care, Abortion, Transgenderism, Climate Change, and Energy Production, etc., as well as the Right Track-Wrong Track polling, show no clear majority for their policy positions, and these polls often show most Americans in opposition to their policies. Therefore, implementing their policies in the form of a democratic government they envision requires that they ignore the will of the majority.

Indeed, to implement their unpopular policies, they would have to ignore their own cries of “Our Democracy” and Implement “Their Oligarchy”, as in the article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. As he explains in this article:

“But you shouldn’t confuse Our Democracy with real democracy. The initial modifier serves to debase the noun—much as “sub-human” means less than human or “social justice” rationalizes acts of individual injustice.”

This article clarifies the true meaning of ‘Our Democracy’ and how it is, in reality, undemocratic. He closes this article with:

“Our Democracy” really looks like “Their Oligarchy.” Or like some of those other “democracies” the left has erected over the years: The Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea comes readily to mind, as does the former (East) German Democratic Republic.

In my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America", I examine how, and how much, America has already drifted into a semi-Oligarchy and the consequences of such a drift. It is also an unfortunate fact that the 2024 Presidential election is also about this Oligarchy. The forces arrayed against former President Trump are the forces of the Oligarchy, while the Trump forces are about the end of this Oligarchy. Thus, the underlying issue of the 2024 Presidential election is the preservation and continued growth of an Oligarchy or the end of this Oligarchy in America. This should be kept in mind as you cast your vote.

09/27/24 Facts About Fact-checkers

In an article by Jack Kerwick, “Epistemology Politicized”, he states:

“Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. It literally means “the study of knowledge.” Epistemologists, then, are those philosophers who specialize in examining questions like: Is knowledge possible? If so, then how so? Does knowledge derive from reason, sense-perception, or some other source(s)? Is there a difference between knowledge, on the one hand, and, on the other, belief or opinion? If so, in what does this distinction consist?”

Epistemology also concerns itself with the nature of “facts”: What is a fact? Do facts exist in the world? How do you determine what is a fact? How is a fact different from an opinion? Do facts lead to truths? These questions lead us to the question of the accuracy of fact-checkers. For persons and/or organizations to profess themselves “fact-checkers”, it is equivalent to them professing themselves “truth-tellers” or “reality-checkers”, which leads us to the other questions of Epistemology. It also raises the question of who fact-checks the fact-checkers.

Fact-checkers get to choose what facts to check and who is to be fact-checked. Such choices are arbitrary and incomplete to determine truths. Indeed, these fact-checks may be misleading of the truth as they often include "Cognitive Biases" and "Logical Fallacies" in their fact-checking. Selective fact-checks are misleading as they do not give a full picture of the truth. Fact-checking based upon statistics is the most misleading, as the fact-checkers often have insufficient knowledge of the topic being fact-checked and insufficient knowledge and experience of the proper utilization of statistics, as I have written in my article on "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Thus, it can be said that fact-checkers are not there to reveal the truth; they can only partially reveal lies. Even those revelations of lies can be biased and influenced by fact-checkers' proclivities, emotions, and personal biases. They can also be influenced by the biases of those who employ the fact-checkers. This is especially true when fact-checkers are checking politicians.

This was most evident in the recent Presidential campaign debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The moderators were obviously biased against Trump as they fact-checked him several times, but they did not once fact-check Harris. Also, their fact-checking needed to be fact-checked, as it was obviously incorrect fact-checking to anyone who knew the realities of what they fact-checked.

Thus, everyone should always be wary of the fact-checkers, as they can often be incorrect in their fact-checking.

09/26/24 Abortion and Religion

In my Chirps and Articles in opposition to abortion, I have always avoided bringing religion into this discussion. This was mainly done because I do not believe that religious arguments are needed to oppose abortion, and I do not think that I have the religious qualifications to comment on religious opposition to abortion. However, recently, NFL Hall of Fame Coach Tony Dungy, who is a religious person qualified to discuss religious issues, called out Vice President Kamala Harris for saying that people of faith can support abortion.

In an X post on September 19th, Kamala Harris @KamalaHarris posted:

“One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree: The government, and certainly Donald Trump, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.”

 To which Tony Dungy @TonyDungy responded:

“Dear VP Harris: I hear you make this statement all the time. Exactly what “faith” are you talking about when you say you don’t have to abandon it to support abortion? Are you talking about the Christian faith that says all babies are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), that God places them in the womb (Jer 1:5) and that we should not take any life unjustly (Luke 18:20)? Are you talking about that faith or some nebulous, general “faith” that says we’re good enough, and smart enough to make our own decisions? What “faith” are you talking about?”

A post by Tony Dungy that has had no reply from Kamala Harris or anyone else. I believe that Tony Dungy’s statement is all that is necessary for me to comment on religious opposition to abortion. I, therefore, shall speak no more about religion and abortion but shall constrain my thoughts on abortion to my articles on "The Abortion Question", "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery", "The Constitution and Abortion", and "The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion".

09/25/24 Vapid and Vacuous

Vapid and Vacuous are the two best words to describe Kamala Harris’s 2024 Presidential campaign. Vapid, a lack of significance, and Vacuous, devoid of intelligence or thought, may not just be her campaign tactic but may best describe her character.

Words cannot begin to accurately describe how vapid and vacuous she can be. However, parody can do justice to her vapidity and vacuousness, as in the following video clip:

Elon Musk - Kamala Harris PARODY Ad

My only response to this video clip was to remember a famous scene from the movie Billy Madison:

Billy Madison - Everyone is now dumber

Thus, everyone who listens to Kamala Harris becomes more dumb because of her vapidity and vacuousness.

09/24/24 The Importance of an Independent Judiciary

In my Chirp on “08/14/24 Judicial Independence”, I explained the importance of Judicial Independence to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and for our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Those who wish to “reform” the judiciary for any other reason than to assure their independence and integrity are posing a danger to our republic. A danger that should be opposed by all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans.

Last month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared in a rare interview where he reacted to President Joe Biden’s agenda to “reform” the high court. Biden’s agenda, and now supposedly Harris’s agenda, would include term limits and ethics codes, among other things. He prefaced his statements by stating:

“Shannon, you’re not going to be surprised I’m not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don’t think that would be helpful,”

Justice Gorsuch then went on to state the core reason why Judicial Independence is important:

“I have one thought to add. It is that the independent judiciary means. What does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you’re unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you’re in the majority, you don’t need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights…it’s there for the moments when the spotlight is on you. When the government’s coming after you. And don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn’t that your right as an American? And so, I just say, be careful.”

Consequently, Judicial Independence means independence for each American to exercise their "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights". Without judicial independence, the government has an easier path to tread when it tries to prosecute or persecute an individual for exercising their rights.

Alas, we have seen in modern America attempts to constrict Judicial Independence when they make unpopular or controversial rulings. And most of these attempts have come from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. This is but another reason why these people should not be elected or put into positions of power, as they pose a danger to all individual Americans' independence.

09/23/24 Selective Justice

In an article by John Nantz, “Selective Justice and the Trump Assassination Attempt: Garland’s DOJ in Crisis”, he comments on Attorney General Merrick Garland's address to the nation on September 12, 2024:

“Last Thursday Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland delivered an address to the workforce titled “An Independent Justice Department.” The speech drew howls of derision from the right, and for good reason. 

In a completely unaware manner, Garland stated emphatically that his Department of Justice (DOJ) operates based on norms that “treat like cases alike.” He pronounced “there is not one rule for friends and another for foes…one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans…” All of red state America waited for the laugh track to queue, but it never did. Garland made these shocking statements with complete conviction. The degree of self-deception or outright arrogance is breathtaking in this bureaucratic screed.”

In my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government" and "The Decline of Free Speech in America", I have outlined just how deceptive the Attorney General’s address was. However, this arrogance is not limited to the head of the Justice Department, as almost all presidential cabinet members have displayed this self-deception or outright arrogance. They all believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Such arrogance is common in the Biden-Harris Administration, as they are mimicking the arrogance of both President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Thus, it can be said that the best thing that ever recently happened in the nominations for Supreme Court Justices was that Merrick Garland’s nomination was never considered by the Senate. His actions, self-deception, and outright arrogance show that he is unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice, and indeed, he is unfit to be the Attorney General.

09/22/24 Democrat Extreme Rhetoric

During the last eight-plus years, we have heard many extreme statements about President Trump and his MAGA supporters as being dangerous to democracy. He and his supporters have been accused of being Fascists, like Nazis, Racists, Dictatorial, and assorted other pejoratives, as I have written in my article "Divisiveness in America". This rhetoric includes, but is not limited to:

• Kamala Harris — repeatedly: "Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms."
• Kamala Harris: "It's on us to recognize the threat [Trump] poses."
• Kamala Harris: "Does one of us have to come out alive? Ha ha ha ha!"
• Joe Biden: "It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
• Joe Biden: "I mean this from the bottom of my heart: Trump is a threat to this nation."
• Joe Biden: "There is one existential threat: it's Donald Trump."
• Joe Biden: "Trump is a genuine threat to this nation ... He's literally a threat to everything America stands for."
• Joe Biden: "Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."
• Joe Biden: "Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic ... and that is a threat to this country."
• Tim Walz: "Are [Republicans] a threat to democracy? Yes. ... Are they going to put peoples' lives in danger? Yes."
• Gwen Walz: "Buh-bye, Donald Trump."
• Nancy Pelosi: "[Trump] is a threat to our democracy of the kind that we have not seen."
• Jasmine Crockett: "MAGA in general — they are threats to us domestically."
• Dan Goldman: "He is destructive to our democracy and ... he has to be eliminated."
• Disgraced Harris staffer TJ Ducklo: "Trump is an existential, urgent threat to our democracy."
• Top Harris surrogate Liz Cheney: "Trump presents a fundamental threat to the republic and we are seeing it on a daily basis."
• Steve Cohen: "Trump is an enemy of the United States."
• Maxine Waters: "Are [Trump supporters] preparing a civil war against us?"
• Maxine Waters: "I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that [Trump] is connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere."
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Trump is an "existential threat to our democracy."
• Adam Schiff: Trump is the "gravest threat to our democracy."
• Gregory Meeks: "Trump cannot be president again. He's an existential threat to democracy."
• Dan Goldman: "Trump remains the greatest threat to our democracy."
• Jake Auchincloss: "What unifies us as a party is knowing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to Democracy."
• Abigail Spanberger: "Trump is a threat to our democracy … the threats to our democratic republic are real."
• Annie Kuster: "Trump and his extreme right-wing followers pose an existential threat to our democracy."
• Becca Balint: "We cannot underestimate the threat [Trump] poses to American democracy."
• Jason Crow: "Trump is an extreme danger to our democracy."
• Raul Grijalva: "Trump is an existential threat to American democracy."
• Michael Bennet: Trump is "a threat to our democracy."
• Stacey Plaskett: Trump "needs to be shot."
• Steven Horsford: "Trump Republicans are a dangerous threat to our state."
• Gabe Vasquez: "Remove the national threat from office."
• Mike Levin: "Donald Trump is a threat to our nation, our freedom, and our democracy."
• Eric Sorensen: "He is the greatest threat to law and order we have in our country."
• Greg Landsman: "The threat is not over."
• Pat Ryan: "Trump is an existential threat to American democracy."
• Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project: "They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump."
• Former Harris-Biden staffer Kate Bedingfield: Democrats should "turn their fire on Donald Trump."

Meanwhile, the deplorable commentary from Democrats and many in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media" in the aftermath of the latest assassination attempts have been even worse:

• Hakeem Jeffries: "We must stop [Trump]."
• Rachel Vindman, wife of disgraced impeachment hoax 'witness': "No ears were harmed. Carry on with your Sunday afternoon."
• Mikie Sherrill: "This really seems to be the confluence of two very bad things going on in the Republican Party ... the attempts to divide, to enrage the population."
• State Rep. Steven Woodrow (D-CO): "The last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil but here we are."
• Lester Holt, NBC Nightly News: "Today's apparent assassination attempt comes amid increasingly fierce rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mr. Trump, his running mate JD Vance, continue to make baseless claims..."
• Alex Witt, MSNBC: "Do you expect there to be calls from within the Trump campaign to [tone it down]?"
• Phil Bump, The Washington Post: "Another chance for Trump to frame Democrats as dangerous has emerged."
• Bill Kristol, The Bulwark: "Vance ... incite[s] potential violence with lies."
• Ron Filipkowski, liberal commentator: "Was the golf course guy with the gun a migrant?"
• David Frum, The Atlantic: "Trump and his running mate have spent the past week successfully inciting violence ... today they want to present themselves as near-victims of violence."
• Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine: "Trump is a threat to democracy, and saying so is not incitement."
• The Cincinnati Enquirer: "The former president, Donald Trump, brings a lot of this stuff on himself."
• USA TODAY: "Hope in America."
• NBC News: "Golf course incident."
• Bloomberg: Trump "seizing on assassination attempt."

If these people believe these statements are true, then they are suffering from the mental illness of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), as the previous Trump Administration bears no relationship to these statements. If they do not believe these statements to be true, then they are playing a dangerous game to obtain and retain political power. A dangerous game that will lead to civil strife and possible civil war. The only threat of a Trump Administration is an end to the Progressive policies of Democrats and the Media. Such an end is but the normal political process of change in America, and as long as the Trump Administration acts Constitutionally to end these policies, they are no danger to America.

Consequently, Democrats and the media must immediately cease their inflammatory, violent rhetoric against President Trump. Otherwise, there will be more assassination attempts in the future.

09/21/24 Kamala’s Repeated Lies

At the Presidential debate between Kamala Karris and Donald Trump, Kamala Harris told lie after lie after lie. She has continued to tell these lies in her campaign rhetoric and advertisements. These lies include, but are not limited to:

• Kamala denied she raised money to bail violent rioters out of jail during the 2020 Summer of Love, while at the same time she verbally supported the rioters.
• Kamala denied she supports a fracking ban which she has repeatedly supported in her previous statements.
• Kamala denied she supports a mandatory gun confiscation although she has supported mandatory gun buy-backs.
• Kamala falsely claimed President Trump supports "Project 2025" — despite the fact that he has never been involved in its creation nor has he endorsed Project 2025.
• Kamala falsely claimed President Trump supports a national abortion ban and wants to ban IVF.
• Kamala falsely claimed that "Donald Trump left us [with] the worst unemployment since the Great Depression."
• Kamala falsely claimed that "Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath if the outcome of this election is not to his liking", when what he said was that there would be an economic bloodbath for auto workers if Kamala was elected.
• Kamala falsely claimed that "not one member of the United States military...is in active duty in a combat zone."
• Kamala falsely claimed that on January 6, 2001 “. . . the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And some died." No law enforcement officers died, most of the injuries were minor (although some were serious), one protester was shot and killed, and Trump asked the protesters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
• Kamala falsely claimed that she does not support a government takeover of health care, although her past statements have supported a government takeover.
• Kamala falsely claimed Tim Walz didn't legalize abortion-on-demand until birth in Minnesota, which is what he did and signed into law.
• Kamala resurrected the Charlottesville hoax that Trump praised the violent rioters, which fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked.
• Kamala said "that's not true" when President Trump highlighted her support for defunding the police — which she has repeatedly called to do.

In addition to repeated lies, Kamal Harris has not directly explained her decisions of:

• Why did she let up to 20 million illegal aliens enter the country.
• Why did she support policies that harmed the economy and drove up inflation.
• Why did she supported law enforcement policies that have endangered many Americans and neighborhoods.
• Why she was fully on board with the gross incompetence of the Afghanistan withdrawal that left 13 U.S. service members dead.
• Why she did not take any actions as Vice-President to solve the problems in America that have occurred during the Biden-Harris Administration.

There is one thing that she said is true: her Radical Left values "have not changed."

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called Vice President Kamala Harris' decision to moderate her views on fracking and "Medicare for All" "pragmatic," saying that Harris is "doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election" and that he still considers her to be "Progressive." This also explains her repeated lies. She is lying to bamboozle and hoodwink the American voter into voting for her. It is incumbent on the American voter not to make her a successful liar by electing her, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/16/24 Successful Lies and Liars”.

09/20/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of a Bigger Government

One of the great moral and ethical questions facing America is abortion, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/18/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion”. Another great moral and ethical question facing America is our national deficits and debt, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/19/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Debt and Deficits”. The final trifecta on the great moral and ethical questions facing America is Big Government.

A big government often becomes a big brother that intervenes in the lives of its citizens. Such interventions often come at the cost of our Liberties and Freedoms. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this dilemma and attempted to limit government to the needful and necessary functions of government while preserving the Liberties and Freedoms of the individual. With the growth of Progressivism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the Founding Fathers' fears of big and intrusive government were proven to be well founded, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

Thus, our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are all under assault by the forces of Big Government in modern America. Attempts to constrict our First and Second Constitutional Amendment Rights are, but the apparent attempts, but other, more subtle attempts occur within the big government regulatory state apparatus. Most recently, we have seen "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and "The Weaponization of Government" and a rise in "Despotism in America" as a result of big government.

The other insidious effect of big government is a decline in personal responsibility. As a big government assumes the responsibilities for actions that should be incumbent on an individual to fulfill, the individual becomes more thoughtless and takes less responsibility for their own words and deeds. Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “The bigger the government the smaller the Citizen”, which has been a truism throughout history. He gives five reasons for this statement:

1. People who are able to take care of themselves and do so are generally better than people who are able to take care of themselves but rely on others.
2. The more people come to rely on government, the more they develop a sense of entitlement — an attitude characterized by the belief that one is owed (whatever the state provides and more).
3. People develop disdain for work.
4. People become preoccupied with vacation time.
5. People are rendered more selfish.

As such, a big government becomes a big brother that guides and directs the lives of its citizens.

Many of the proponents of a bigger government do so because they believe that it is important for the greater good of Americans. As I have written in the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", the government was instituted for the Common Good of its citizens. While The Greater Good may seem innocuous and beneficial in theory, in practice, it can be very harmful. The logic of The Greater Good is that whatever does the most good for the most people is for The Greater Good. Using the logic of The Greater Good allows the government to implement any government policy or program that they determine is for the benefit of most Americans, even if it may be harmful to some Americans and, indeed, may violate the Natural and Constitutional rights of some Americans. The Common Good term restricts government actions to those that are enumerated and delineated in the Constitution that are beneficial for all the people while not favoring any groups of people nor violating the Natural and Constitutional rights of any American. The Greater Good would also allow the government to intervene in any speech or actions by individuals, entities, or groups of people to restrict their words and deeds to what they determine is for The Greater Good, or at a minimum, restrict those words and deeds they deem harmful to Americans. The greater good also raises the question of what the greater good is. To paraphrase the great economist and commentator Thomas Sowell:

"The most basic question is not what the greater good is, but who shall decide what the greater good is?"

Consequently, the Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of a Bigger Government should weigh heavily on all Americans. The contemplation of these dilemmas and considerations should be a basis for determining your vote for a politician. Any politician who supports a bigger government also supports restrictions on an individual. Many such restrictions are contrary to our American Ideals and Ideas and are not worthy of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom.

09/19/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Debt and Deficits

One of the great moral and ethical questions facing America is abortion, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/18/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion”. Another great moral and ethical question facing America is our national deficits and debt.

A deficit occurs when the federal government’s spending exceeds its revenues. The federal government has spent $1.90 trillion more than it has collected in fiscal year (FY) 2024, resulting in a national deficit. The accumulation of unpaid deficits is our national debt. The U.S. national debt grew to a record $34 trillion by the end of 2023, and it ballooned to nearly $35 trillion by the middle of 2024. Much of these deficits and debt are to support a larger and bigger government, which is not the focus of this Chirp.

To place such a debt upon current Americans and to foist this national debt upon future Americans is a disgrace and poses a moral and ethical burden upon Americans. It is unethical to spend money that you do not have without a plan to pay off these debts and immoral to expect others to pay off your debt. It is most especially immoral to expect future Americans to pay this national debt.

There are only three ways to pay off this debt: 1) tax more and use the additional tax monies to pay off the national debt, 2) spend less and use the tax surplus generated to pay off the national debt, and 3) tax more and spend less for the purpose of paying off the national debt. To claim that we will outgrow these national debts by the future expansion of the economy is a baseless claim, given how, over the last several decades, we have not paid off these national debts but have increased the national debt. This is because growing the economy to increase tax revenues to pay off the national debt will not work if the rate of the national debt growth is larger than the rate of economic growth. Given the size of our national debt, the third way is the only way that we can pay off this national debt.

However, this would require politicians to exercise fiscal restraint, something they are loath to do as they regard spending as a means to garner support and favor their contributors while taxing can disfavor their opponents. Regarding government taxing and spending, it can be said:

“The major difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party fiscal policies is that the Democrats love to tax and spend, while the Republicans love to reduce taxes and spend. The major controversies are on what to tax and how to spend the taxpayers’ monies.”
 - Mark Dawson

One of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is:

“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Russell B. Long

However, what follows this on spending is often:

“Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Mark Dawson

However, As Taxing and Spending always lead to debts and deficits, and ultimately inflation and/or recession for me, you, and the other fellow, the truth is:

“Economically, the wisest thing to do is to reduce taxes on everyone and to constrict spending to the revenues generated by taxes while paying off the National Debt with part of the revenue generated.”
 - Mark Dawson

It also pits those paying taxes against those receiving the spending. And as there are fewer taxpayers and more spending receivers, it skewers elections in favor of those politicians that advocate increased taxing and more spending.”

This increased national debt is ultimately economically unsustainable. It will eventually lead to an economic depression and/or runaway inflation, which will harm all Americans. It is, therefore, incumbent on all Americans to support fiscally responsible politicians who will spend less and only tax more to pay off the national debt. For Americans to do otherwise is to support the immoral and unethical actions of fiscally irresponsible politicians.

09/18/24 The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion

For those who believe in abortion, I would ask, “Can you explain to me why an unborn offspring is not human and therefore undeserving of the human right protection of its life?” If you respond with the reasoning that the unborn offspring is dependent upon the mother for its life and therefore undeserving of the protection of its life, it raises the question of whether when a born person becomes dependent on another for its life, either through medical problems, serious injuries, dementia, or even the infirmities of old age, do they deserve the human right protection of their life. As such, dependency is not a reason to take the life of a human being. Thus, the Moral Dilemma of Abortion is the reasoning of why abortion is moral or immoral. Until you answer the moral dilemma of abortion, you cannot make a moral decision about abortion.

In my Articles on "The Abortion Question", "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery", and "The Constitution and Abortion", I have written extensively on the topic of Abortion. With the Presidential election cycle of 2024, this topic will once again be at the forefront of campaign issues. The Democrat Party is in favor of Abortion Rights with little or no restrictions, while the Republican Party has adopted the platform of allowing this issue to be resolved by the individual States as the recent Supreme Court ruling has instituted. In these positions, both parties are morally wrong.

Euphemisms such as Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Anti-Choice, Pro-Choice, A Woman’s Right to Choose, Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Health Care, and other euphemisms for or against abortion are utilized to obscure the moral dilemmas and ethical considerations of abortion. These euphemisms are not acceptable, as they only camouflage the moral and ethical issues and obstruct the resolution of the moral and ethical questions.

My new Article, “The Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Considerations of Abortion”, examines why both parties are wrong and the moral dilemmas and ethical considerations of abortion. I have attempted to do this in a dispassionate manner to try to assist in the resolution of the moral or immoral question of Abortion. In this examination of the moral dilemmas and ethical considerations of Abortion, I have attempted to avoid the usual euphemisms used in the abortion debate and by using the right names of which I talk about. I do so for the reasons as a very wise man in history has said:

09/17/24 Conspiracy Theories

In modern America, much political dissent has often been labeled as Conspiracy Theories, and many of them are indeed Conspiracy Theories. As I have Chirped on Chirp on "10/24/23 It’s a Conspiracy Theory", Conspiracy Theory has no formal definition, but it is often applied to anybody who disputes the Progressive political narrative, Mainstream Media accounts, or government assertions. Therefore, it is just a dismissive means of labeling dissenters and questioners as kooky. However, some initial “Conspiracy Theories” allegations have been proven to be true, but most have been proven to be untrue.

To understand Conspiracy Theories requires some terminology to be defined, as per the Vox article “Conspiracy theories, explained”:

• Conspiracy: A plot between multiple people to secretly control or manipulate a situation or commit crimes in secret.
• Conspiracy theory: The belief or argument that a conspiracy exists.
• Conspirator: A person who plans or carries out a conspiracy.
• Conspiracy theorist: A person who believes a conspiracy plot exists or is taking place.
• Apophenia: The condition of seeing or imagining patterns in random occurrences.
• Conspiratorial thinking: A mindset that makes someone susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories.
• Conspiratorial worldview: A mindset that permits acceptance of multiple conspiracy theories or the belief that the world is run by one vast conspiracy.

The website ‘The Conversation’ has a series of articles about Conspiracy Theories, “Articles on Expert guide to conspiracy theories”, that provide more in-depth information on Conspiracy Theories.

The Conspiracy Theories that I wish to discuss in the Chirp are those Conspiracy Theories in United States politics. These are especially pernicious Conspiracy Theories as they were meant to influence an election or shape governmental policies. Some of the more recent and largest assertions of a Conspiracy Theory include, along with their accuracy are:

• Candidate Trump Campaigns Russian Collusion (untrue)
• QAnon Exists (untrue)
• COVID-19 Virus Wuhan Lab Leak (true)
• Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation (untrue)
• President Trump led Insurrection of January 6, 2021 (untrue)
• Hamas and Hezbollah are Freedom Fighters and Not Terrorists (untrue)

These assertions of a Conspiracy Theory were harmful in that they were meant to sway the opinions of the American people based on falsehoods that were known to be false by the originators of these Conspiracy Theories. A successful swaying that has begotten more Conspiracy Theories to influence elections and shape public policy. This is corruption in American politics, as it is knowingly utilizing lies and deceptions to gain an unwarranted political advantage.

As I mentioned in my Chirp on It’s a Conspiracy Theory:

“Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, we have seen a sharp rise in the usage of the term Conspiracy Theorists. Almost anyone who questions the motives or goals of the Biden Administration has been labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist.

This time-worn tactic of labeling those in opposition to government words and deeds for the purpose of marginalizing and then ostracizing them from society has often been the first step into despotism, then dictatorialness. A step that, if successful, often leads to terrible consequences, as we have seen in the 20th and 21st centuries pogroms, concentration and work camps, gulags, and massacres of those that oppose a government.”

Thus, it can be said that the Biden-Harris Administration is corrupt to the detriment of the American public’s understanding of the issues, concerns, and problems facing America. A corruption that can lead to terrible consequences for America.

09/16/24 Successful Lies and Liars

As in the adage ‘A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes’, a successful lie is widely disseminated before the truth is uncovered. A successful lie often drowns out the truth, and the lie lingers well after the time that they were told. A successful liar is one who is believed to be telling the truth, and when the truth is discovered, there are no consequences for the liar. The problem with successful lies is that they often beget other successful lies, and a successful liar will continue to tell lies.

There are three main types of liars per MedicineNet:

• Natural liars: This is the most common type of liar. Natural liars are people who can lie easily with great skill and success. They don't believe their own lies, they're just good at lying.
• Pathological liars: Pathological lying is often a warning sign of antisocial personality disorder (commonly known as a psychopath). A pathological liar is usually considered manipulative, selfish, and cunning.
• Compulsive liars: Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large or small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable, while lying feels right.

It can also be said that those who occasionally lie show a lack of judgment, and those who continually lie demonstrate that they are without morals, ethics, and virtue. It is an unfortunate fact that many politicians are liars, and more than a few of them are Natural or Compulsive serial liars. Politicians' lying is a fact of life throughout human history, and occasional exaggerations, distortions, and prevarications by politicians are to be expected, but Natural or Compulsive serial lying does harm to the body politic. A successful political lie is often camouflaged by half-truths, a willful perversion of facts, or improper utilization of statistics.

It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s hyper-partisanship America, serial lying has become the norm for far too many politicians. This was amply demonstrated by the Trump Russian Collusion Delusion that gripped many Democrats during the 2016 Presidential candidacy and Administration of President Trump. During this delusion, there were many serial lies told by many Democrats, much to the harm of the body politic. Even after the Mueller investigation and report debunked this delusion, whispers of Russian collusions with President Trump continued.

Today, this serial lying by Democrats has continued in the candidacy of Kamala Harris. Not only are she and her supporters serially lying about President Trump, but they are serially lying about Kamala Harris’s personal history, political record, and policy positions. Those who are informed of her actual history and record, along with her past policy positions, can easily spot these lies. The litany of her and her supporters’ lies about her is far too long to be encapsulated here within. It can be fairly said that almost everything that she and her supporters say about her is serial lies. When she and her supporters are not lying, they are spouting opportunistic pablum of a politician who speaks well on worthless or oversimplified ideas for political gain. These serial lies and pablum can be considered manipulative, selfish, and cunning (i.e., pathological lies) in an attempt to bamboozle and hoodwink the American public into voting for her.

Thus, Kamala Harris and her supporters are unworthy to lead America, as they are doing harm to the body politic. We can also expect that she and her supporters will continue with the serial lies and pablum if she should be elected, as a leopard cannot change its spots. It is incumbent upon the American electorate not to allow serial liars to be put in or remain in positions of power. Otherwise, the future of America will be darkened by the leadership of successful serial liars.

09/15/24 Print the Legend

At the end of the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, after Ransom Stoddard who lived and told the true facts of the story, the newspaper editor who hears the truth tears up the journalist notes and throws them into a burning stove, at which time the following dialog occurs:

Ransom Stoddard: You're not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

So, it seems to be with the "Mainstream Media". Facts and truths no longer appear to be relevant, and the narrative is about the legend. This is but one more example of the problems of "Modern Journalism". Additionally, we have seen in the modern Mainstream Media that if no legend exists, then one is made up and disseminated as fact and truth.

This is especially true when it comes to the legend of Kamala Harris. Prior to the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 Presidential election, Kamala Harris was perceived to be a failed Vice-President and a San Francisco radical leftist (to the left of even Bernie Sanders). She had failed in every task that was assigned to her, and her public appearances were often laughed upon. Her utterances were often sophomoric, vacuous, and derided as condescending to her audience. Yet today, according to the Mainstream Media, she is the best person to lead America into a bright future. Considering how dimwitted she has appeared in the past, it will not be a bright future but a dusk for America.

A dusk for America, based upon her platitudes and promises with no policy positions, in which government has control over the economy, inflation will continue, real economic growth will be stagnant, and in which Americans of the middle and lower classes will continue to suffer. These items, along with illegal immigration being unabated, Free Speech being constricted, crime continuing to increase, and leftist agendas being implemented, which are antithetic to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

However, the truth will set you free if you discover the truth behind the legend of Kamala Harris that the Mainstream Media is proclaiming. Alas, it is difficult to uncover the facts and truths of Kamal Harris behind the smokescreen that the Mainstream Media is promulgating. The Mainstream Media is in the process of throwing the facts and truths of Kamala Harris into a burning stove and lauding the legend of their own creation about Kamala Harris.

Do not be bamboozled and hoodwinked by the chicanery and slyness of the Mainstream Media. Discover the facts and truths of Kamala Harris and make a properly informed decision before casting your vote. Otherwise, you may be voting for a dusk in America, which may be irreversible.

09/14/24 He’s Combative, She’s Dishonest, and the Moderators Were Biased

I have delayed Chirping about the 2024 Presidential Debate as I considered my opinion about the debate. Quite frankly, it comes down to he’s combative, she’s dishonest, and the moderators were biased for Harris and against Trump, or as Victor Davis Hanson observed in his article “A Forgettable Warped Debate”:

“The September 10th presidential debate went down as expected. Summed up, it was Sappy and the Blob pile on Grouchy.

The swarmy and evasive Vice President Kamala Harris preened, posed, and proffered empty platitudes.

The ABC moderators proved they were predictably and shamelessly biased.

And an irate former President Donald Trump confirmed that he was too touchy and easily triggered.”

This excellent article recaps the lowlights of this debate and sets the record straight on the facts and truths about President Trump’s record. Victor Davis Hanson finishes this article by stating:

“The sappy Harris won the visuals; the grouchy Trump likely the issues.

But the real losers were ABC and its two partisan moderators, Muir and Davis.

Both managed to easily outdo CNN’s Candy Crowley’s infamous partisan sabotage of the 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Just as we do not remember anything else about that spectacle other than Crowley’s career-ending interventions to aid Obama, so too did Muir and Davis confirm their shameless biases.

They sought to warp a debate, disgraced their network, and offered a good reminder why such media “moderators” should never be allowed anywhere near presidential debates.”

For the last several decades, Presidential Debates have been a farce. A farce of their own making by all sides involved in these debates. As I had written in my Chirp on "09/30/20 Presidential Debates" about the 2020 Presidential Debates:

“The current format for Presidential Debates is not conducive to illumination. Besides the journalistic bias (see my Article on "Modern Journalism"), many of the questions are intended to provoke a visceral reaction.  I would suggest we return to the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Three Presidential and one Vice-Presidential debate would be scheduled. For the Presidential Debates one debate on Foreign Policy, one debate on Domestic Policy, and one debate on any other issues. The Vice-Presidential Debate would be for any issue. Each candidate would prepare six questions they want to ask the other candidate on the debate topic. The first candidate would get two minutes to ask their first question, and the other candidate would then get five minutes to respond to the question, with the questioner then getting three minutes to rebut the answer. The other candidate would then get to ask their first question utilizing the same constrictions. This would go back and forth until all six questions from each candidate would be debated. The moderator would only be responsible for assuring the candidates stay within their time constrictions and do not interrupt the other candidate during their allotted time.

I believe that this format would provide a better forum for each candidate to express themselves and bring out the issues that they believe are important for the American people to understand. The questions the candidate asks would also illuminate the character and integrity of the candidate. The answers and rebuttals would further illuminate the American people and allow them to make a better judgment on the candidates. This also puts the debates into the hands of the candidates - where it belongs.”

Given early voting in modern America the Presidential Debates would need to occur in the month of September, with the Vice-Presidential debate occurring in early October. Such a debate format is not perfect, but it goes a long way in resolving the farce of the current debates.

09/13/24 Less Government and More Free Speech

In a new article by Jonathan Turley, “Want More Freedom of Speech? Try Less Government.”, he states that:

“It is time to get the United States out of the censorship business for good.

In the last three years, the House of Representatives has disclosed a massive censorship system run in part with federal funding and with coordination with federal officials. A federal court described this system as truly “Orwellian.”

The Biden Administration has made speech regulation a priority in targeting disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. President Joe Biden even said that companies refusing to censor citizens were “killing people.”

His administration has now created an anti-free speech record that is only rivaled by the Adams Administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest political opponents.”

He has also written an article, “The EU Just Declared War on Free Speech in America. It is Time to Fight Back”, in which he notes that:

“One of the greatest threats to free speech today is the European Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.

In Europe, free speech is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free speech by criminalizing speech deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is reaching record numbers. It has, however, silenced the rest of society.”

I could not agree more with Professor Turley. Free Speech is under assault today, and this assault is being led by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. While those who are assaulting free speech claim they are combating falsehoods, disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, as well as hurtful/harmful or provocative speech, they often do so by spreading their own falsehoods, disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation via hurtful/harmful or provocative speech.

As I have written in my Chirp on "07/07/24 Limitations on Free Speech", the problems with limiting Free Speech is who shall determine what is true or false, hurtful/hurtful, provocative, or disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what speech should be restricted, but who shall decide what speech should be restricted?” The answer to this question is that nobody, or any group of people, has the intelligence or wisdom to decide what speech should be restricted.

Therefore, Professor Turley has advocated a robust debate on Free Speech in this election cycle, of which he has written in the first article I have cited:

“In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was a primary issue for voters. It should be again. Vice President Kamala Harris is known as a supporter for these censorship and blacklisting operations. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that they need to have less free speech.

This debate should ideally focus on one simple legislative proposal. In my new book, I suggest various measures that can regain the ground that we have lost on free speech. One such measure is a federal law that would ban any federal funding of any offices or programs (government, academic, or corporate) that rate, target, censor, throttle, or seek to take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their viewpoints in public forums or social media.”

He concludes this article by stating:

“Let’s get our government out of the business of rating, throttling, blacklisting, and censoring citizens. It is time to pass a free speech protection act.”

To which I say, “Here, here”.

09/12/24 The Sounds of Silence

With the rise of the attempts to suppress speech as offensive, hurtful, harmful, or microaggression, as well as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, we run into a quandary with this logic. The quandary is that whatever you say and write is bound to offend someone, somewhere, and somehow, and what are the actual truths or falsehoods of supposed disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation? Thus, utilizing this logic requires that you say nothing, or it requires a definitive lexicon of what is not permissible to speak and/or write and/or what is disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation.

Not only is this a rising problem in America, but it is even more entrenched in law throughout Europe. As Mr. Bean's (Rowan Atkinson) definitive defense of free speech (full video) in Britain has elucidated: "The clear problem with the outlawing of insult - is that too many things can be interpreted as such."

To develop this lexicon raises another quandary, as a paraphrase of Thomas Sowell illuminates:

"The most basic question is not what is in the lexicon, but who shall decide what is in the lexicon?"

The logic of constricting, restricting, or suppressing any speech also requires that you violate the Natural Free Speech Rights of a person, as I have examined in my Chirp on “07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right”.

Consequently, if we are to utilize this logic, the only acceptable speech and writing are the Sounds of Silence, as silence is the only means that you can ensure that you will not be offensive to someone, somewhere, and somehow, or that you may be spreading disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation.

09/11/24 Socialism in America

Democratic socialism is a left-wing set of political philosophies that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management within a market socialist, decentralized planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism, democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism. Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.

The non-profit The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a broad tent, democratic socialist political organization in the United States. After the Socialist Party of America (SPA) transformed into Social Democrats, USA, Michael Harrington formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). The DSOC later merged with the New American Movement (NAM) to form the DSA. The organization is headquartered in New York City and currently has 78,000 members, as well as 59 self-identified Democrat Socialist politicians in federal and state elected offices. It differs from other forms of socialism in America that coalesce under the banner of Social democracy or Authoritarian socialism, but there is overlap in many of their social and governmental policies.

Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and supports a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach towards achieving socialism. It takes the form of socially managed welfare capitalism and emphasizes economic interventionism, partial public ownership, a robust welfare state, policies promoting social equality, and a more equitable distribution of income.

Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above, is an economic and political system supporting some form of socialist economics while rejecting political pluralism. As a term, it represents a set of economic-political systems describing themselves as socialist and rejecting the liberal-democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, and freedom of expression, either due to fear of the counter-revolution or as a means to socialist ends. Several countries, most notably the Soviet Union, China, and their allies, have been described by journalists and scholars as authoritarian socialist states.

The core issue of any democracy or socialism is whether it is possible to have a self-sustaining democracy and a robust socialistic economy. The history of democracy throughout the world is that democratic states collapsed in infighting between different factions within the democracy or that foreign invaders conquered a democracy because of this infighting. The history of socialism is that whenever it has been tried, it has resulted in stagnant economic growth and shortages of the basic necessities of life, along with its governments degenerating into despotism and then tyranny. Consequently, misery and hardship lay along this path for the populace of this society.

The other core issue is that the suppression of the Natural Rights of the people within this society is needed to maintain this society (i.e., the Natural Rights, as I have examined in my Chirp on “07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right”). Combining these core issues of Democracy, Socialism, and Natural Rights makes for a dysfunctional society, and it is a path to the destruction of a society. The people of this society eventually rebel and overthrow the government, or the government takes oppressive measures to control the populace.

The claims by modern Democrat Socialist that it was done improperly in the past and that they know how to do it properly in the present ignore the facts that:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

As well as:

"You cannot implement a wrong social policy the right way. For if it is a wrong social policy it will always fail. While the goals of a social policy may be noble, the details of its implementation will determine if the goal can be reached (i.e., the devil is in the details)."
  - Mark Dawson

We should also remember the quip by the Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek: “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.” 

It is also the height of hubris to believe that you can have all the answers to reorganize a modern complex society to obtain your (Utopian) vision of what a society should be, as I have examined in my Chirps on "01/03/21 Socialism and Democratic Socialism" and "05/03/21 Democratic Socialism Questions".

Consequently, Democratic socialism is an untenable and indefensible solution to the troubles in America.

09/10/24 Failed Policy Positions

Finally, three weeks after being nominated as the 2024 Democrat Party Presidential candidate and less than two months before the 2024 Presidential election, Kamala Harris posted her policy positions on her website. On her webpage entitled A NEW WAY FORWARD, she outlines her policies of:

• Build An Opportunity Economy And Lower Costs For Families
  • Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families
  • Make Rent More Affordable And Home Ownership More Attainable
  • Grow Small Businesses And Invest In Entrepreneurs
  • Take On Bad Actors And Bring Down Costs
  • Strengthen And Bring Down The Cost Of Health Care
  • Protect And Strengthen Social Security And Medicare
  • Support American Innovation And Workers
  • Provide A Pathway To The Middle Class Through Quality, Affordable Education
  • Invest In Affordable Child Care And Long Term Care
  • Lower Energy Costs And Tackle The Climate Crisis
  • Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda
• Safeguard Our Fundamental Freedoms
  • Restore And Protect Reproductive Freedoms
  • Protect Civil Rights And Freedoms
  • Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda
• Ensure Safety And Justice For All
  • Make Our Communities Safer From Gun Violence And Crime
  • Secure Our Borders And Fix Our Broken Immigration System
  • Tackle The Opioid And Fentanyl Crisis
  • Ensure No One Is Above The Law
  • Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda
• Keep America Safe, Secure, And Prosperous
  • Stand With Our Allies, Stand Up To Dictators, And Lead On The World Stage
  • Invest In America’s Sources Of Strength
  • Support Service Members, Veterans, Their Families, Caregivers, And Survivors
  • Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda

These policy positions and the issues that she highlights with these policies also raise the question of why she and President Biden did not undertake to resolve these problems during the Biden-Harris Administration. The answer is that it was the policies of the Biden-Harris Administration that caused most of these problems. Ergo, she is asking Americans to elect her to solve the problems of the Biden-Harris Administration's own making.

As usual for her campaign, these policy positions have minimal substance and are mostly platitudes and promises without sufficient details to critique her policies. And, once again, the Harris-Walz campaign is utilizing the Straw Man Fallacy in comparing her policies to the Project 2025 agenda, an agenda that is not affiliated with nor endorsed by President Trump or the Republican Party, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/05/24 The Straw Man Fallacy”. She also distorts and warps Trump’s policy positions and words to make them appear to be something that they are not and to instill a fear of a Trump presidency that is unwarranted given the history of his past Presidential Administration.

What little details that she supplies appear to be mostly short-term fixes to alleviate the pressing problems that most Americans face. Short-term fixes that will make many Americans feel better without solving the systemic long term problems that the Biden-Harris Administration foisted upon America through their ineptitude. An ineptitude that America and Americans can ill afford to suffer through for another four years. Thus, if you are concerned about these problems, it is important not to be bamboozled and hoodwinked by these policy positions.

Consequently, her New Way Forward is not new but a continuation of the failed policies of the Biden-Harris Administration.

09/09/24 Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

In two lines by the playwright:

 “Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
 - Macbeth by William Shakespeare

And such it is with the candidacy of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz—all sound and fury signifying nothing. No written policy positions or plans have been forthcoming from them. Nothing but platitudes and promises without substance have emanated from their candidacy. What little they have said about their economic ideas has been scoffed at by economists as deleterious to our economy. In addition, the flip-flopping of her previous positions has led to no understanding of her actual stances, and no explanations for the flip-flops have been offered.

As I have written in my previous Chirps on “08/29/24 Changing Our Minds”, “08/30/24 The Hallmarks of an Evil in Disguise”, “08/31/24 A Farce of a Campaign”, “09/01/24 Values and Policies”, “09/02/24 Destroying the Village”, and “09/03/24 An Inveterate Liar”, this is not a campaign of ideas and solutions to the problems America faces, but a campaign of lies and deceptions. Lies and deceptions for the purposes of obtaining political power rather than for solving America's problems.

Such a campaign is unworthy of the American public, and such a campaign should be rejected by the American public. To not do so is to continue the failed policies of the Biden-Harris Administration and to endanger the future of America and the world.

09/08/24 Enlightened America

In the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, many Jews and good people of Germany ignored or excused the Nazi rhetoric and plans as something that could never occur in an enlightened Germany. Some Jews even collaborated with the Nazi’s as outlined in the Wikipedia article on “Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany”.

Today’s Democrat Party is ignoring, excusing, and sometimes supporting Pro-Palestinian/Pro-Hamas/Pro-Hezbollah/Anti-Israel rhetoric in America. All Americans should not ignore, excuse, nor support this rhetoric as something that could never occur in an enlightened America, for the history of Anti-Semitism has shown that if unopposed, it will rise and take over a society no matter how enlightened a society may be.

The Democrats often do this in the guise of virtue signaling their opposition to oppression, discrimination, unfairness, and other noble-sounding ideals, but in doing so, they are lending tacit support for the evils (and terrorism) that are being perpetuated against the Jewish people in the Middle East.

I am generally opposed to one-issue voting, but when the issue involves evil, I will vote against evil every time. Therefore, if you hate Anti-Semitism and believe that Israel has a right to exist, then there is no way that you can in good conscience vote for any Democrat candidate in the upcoming election, as they are aiding and abetting the rise of Anti-Semitism in America and, consequently, supporting evil.

09/07/24 Stupid Is As Stupid Does

“Stupid is as stupid does” is a famous line from the movie Forrest Gump. Spoken by the mother of Forrest to allay his concerns about his low I.Q., it is also a reminder that what you speak and how you act is the determinative factor of your smarts and persona. Thus, whenever you judge a person, it is their words and deeds that determine their character. Also, whenever you speak pejoratives of a person, you should make sure that the shoe fits; otherwise, you are demeaning your own character.

The utilization of pejoratives in politics has been very common throughout history, especially when there is a political campaign to obtain office. However, recent pejoratives have had a special inventiveness to them, given the nature of the pejoratives. I am speaking of the utilization of the pejorative of Fascism and Nazism against political opponents. The evils of Fascism and Nazism are beyond the pale, and to allege someone of Fascism or Nazism without any evidence is especially repugnant.

Nazism is an ideology that rejects liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, stressing instead the subordination of the individual to the state and the necessity of strict obedience to leaders. It emphasized the inequality of individuals and “races” and the right of the strong to rule the weak.

Fascism has generated considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of Fascism. However, Fascism has been best expressed by a quote from its leading proponent:

“The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.”
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
“We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.”
 - Benito Mussolini

Fascism and Nazism were an affront to human dignity and rights, as well as responsible for tens of millions of deaths to innocent people, as well as untold destruction of property, cultures, and societies. The havoc that Fascism and Nazism wreaked is not to be taken lightly by demeaning the true meaning of Fascism and Nazism for political advantage purposes. Those who do so should be roundly condemned and ignored or shunned as political pariah unworthy of any attention to their words and deeds.

Both Fascism and Nazism utilize propaganda, intimidation, censorship, and the marriage of journalism and government to achieve their goals. The common feature of both Nazism and Fascism is the state control over the economy, the suppression of Free Speech, the weaponization of government against opponents, and the corruption of the courts to achieve a predetermined result.

Anyone, or any group, that utilizes these tactics is following in the footsteps of Fascism and Nazism, and they should be considered a threat to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Alas, we have seen in modern America that the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are turning to these tactics to achieve electoral victory and political power. A victory and power that is being paid at too high a price, as such tactics can only lead to the destruction of America and the subjugation of its people. And it is all too common for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to claim that their opponents are Fascists or Nazis when they are the ones utilizing Fascist and Nazi tactics. Thus, modern Fascism and Nazism are as modern Fascism and Nazism does.

09/06/24 The Battle Hymn of the Republic

The "Battle Hymn of the Republic” is an American patriotic song that was written by the abolitionist writer Julia Ward Howe during the American Civil War. In my opinion, the best and most moving performance of The Battle Hymn of the Republic is by The United States Army Field Band, and I would recommend everyone view this performance.

The fifth stanza of this song is apropos to this Chirp:

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.”
- Julia Ward Howe

Some modern performances and recordings of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" use the lyric "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free" as opposed to the wartime lyric originally written by Julia Ward Howe. It is this “live” to make men free that I wish to Chirp upon.

The deep divisions on State Rights and Slavery that separated the North from the South prior to the Civil War were essentially about the issues of Constitutional Supremacy and ensuring Freedom for All individuals throughout America and its territories. Today, we have deep divisions on the issues of Natural/Constitutional Rights and the morality of Abortion that separate us. These modern divisions often align with a person's political, religious, or secular worldview. Today’s divisions are not primarily geographic as they were in the Antebellum period of American History. And although there are some geographic divisions in modern America of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast along with the West Pacific Coast versus the rest of the country, today’s divisions are both cultural and sociopolitical between Progressives/Leftists and Conservatives. These divisions are reflected in the partisan politics of Democrat Party Leaders and Republican Party Leaders.

Our American Ideals and Ideas of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" require that our rights as specified in the Constitution be respected and enforced and that all individuals are treated with politeness, respect, and dignity, not only by the government but also by other Americans. Consequently, all efforts to inhibit, constrain, or negate these rights by any party or parties are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas.

The modern politics of Cancel Culture, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Intersectionality, Political Correctness, Racist, Virtue Signaling, White Privilege, and Wokeness, and the modern ideas of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG), and Systemic Discrimination and/or Disparities, along with the "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and the rise of "Despotism in America", are antithetic to our American values. These modern politics, ideas, and actions are major contributors to the divisions in modern America and disrupt A Civil Society in America.

Today’s divisions are exacerbated by the almost uniform silencing or derisions of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Information Conglomerate, Social Media, Big Tech,  Modern Big Business, and Modern Education, who support the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders worldview. A silencing or derision that also disrupts A Civil Society in America.

Our Freedoms and Liberties cannot long withstand these modern politics, ideas, and actions, and along with the silencing or derisions of contrary opinions, we face a perilous future for America. A perilous future that requires that all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans remember to ‘let us live to make men free’. A rebirth of freedom which is needed in modern America, for as President Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address:

“. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

09/05/24 The Straw Man Fallacy

The Straw Man Fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in contentious debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects, and politicians have utilized straw man tactics throughout history.

Politicians of all stripes are notorious for creating Straw men, then attacking the Straw man while ignoring the Real man. Straw man tactics in politics are often effective, as they arouse the passions of the electorate in support of the politician and/or their policies. Straw man political campaigns, however, are misleading as they do not address the opponents’ positions or policies but deflect attention from the actual positions and policies of an opponent. Political campaigns based on straw man arguments are, therefore, deceptive, and they often devolve into scare tactics.

Such is the case with the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign in their campaign’s utilization of the Project 2025 plan in their campaign against the 2024 Trump-Vance campaign, a plan that is not affiliated with nor endorsed by President Trump or the Republican Party. Neither does the Democrat Party Platform address the Republican Party Platform, but instead, it takes aim at the Project 2025 plan. Thus, they have created a Straw man informal logic fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. Thus, whenever the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign mentions the Project 2025 plan, you can safely assume that they are attempting to mislead the American public.

Such a fallacious campaign is a disservice to the American people and unworthy of a candidacy that posits themselves as leading America into a brighter future. A bright future cannot be built on the dark clouds of logical fallacies and fallaciousness. It is also indicative of a candidate more interested in obtaining power rather than informing the American people of their plans and policies. Indeed, it is an attempt to scare the American people into voting against their opponent rather than for their candidacy. Such a frightening of the American electorate often leads them to make bad decisions about whom to vote for, which bodes ill for the future of America.

09/04/24 Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance

Journalism is the profession of reporting, photographing, or editing news stories for media dissemination. Malpractice and Malfeasance are improper professional conduct and wrongful conduct that harms others. In modern America, we have seen Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance (a.k.a. "Modern Journalism") at unprecedented levels in our history.

While there has been much Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance in American history, it has been on both sides of the issues that have occurred. Today, however, there is only one-sided Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance—the side of the Progressive and Democrat Party. The other side, the Conservatives and Republican sides, has been effectively silenced by a lack of honest journalistic reporting on their viewpoints and policies. Indeed, there has been much disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation of their positions that it can reliably be claimed that Modern Journalism has become propaganda for Progressives and the Democrat Party.

This can be readily seen in the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign journalism. Journalists have supinely accepted a lack of press conferences, personal interviews, and no policy prescriptions from the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign. They have also ignored her record and previous policy statements in favor of disseminating her rhetoric of joy and hope. In this, they are keeping the American people ignorant to help her achieve electoral victory, as I have written in my Chirp on “08/24/24 Ignorance is Bliss”.

Our Founding Fathers understood that a Free Press and Freedom of Speech were vitally important to preserving our Freedoms and Liberties and necessary to expose the machinations and corruptions of government that would endanger our Freedoms and Liberties and corrupt our Democratic-Republic. When the press and government work hand in hand, as they are doing with the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign, they pose the biggest threat to Freedoms and Liberties.

A threat that must not be ignored by the public, as we have seen the consequences of ignoring this threat. This same hand-in-hand between the 2020 Biden-Harris campaign and journalism brought forth the election of President Biden and the resulting problems that now plague America. And, as in the old aphorism, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” do not bring shame upon yourself by voting for the Harris-Walz ticket.

09/03/24 An Inveterate Liar

Now, after both the 2024 presidential conventions have wrapped up, political advertisements have begun to flood the media. Advertisements in which we can expect the usual exaggerations and distortions of the candidates’ records and policy positions from both the Democrat and Republican campaigns. This presidential election cycle, however, has the added element of outright lies and coverups and no policy positions from the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign. The Pro-Harris and Anti-Trump predilections of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", as I have written in my Chirp on “09/nn/24 Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance”, will also contribute to these lies and coverups.

After Kamala Harris’s Democrat National Convention (DNC) speech on Thursday, August 22, 2024, conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson, in a video that can be viewed here on X, picked apart everything Harris’ said, calling her a “very scary person.” He continued, “She's much more skillful than I have ever seen. She's a liar on the deepest level,” Carlson said. “The things she is saying right now are not just untrue - they're the opposite of the truth, which is the hallmark of evil.” And it is indeed evil, as lying to achieve a political goal always leads to evil rearing its ugly head.

Anyone who is familiar with Kamala Harris’s past record and policy statements can easily spot the lies, distortions, and coverups that her campaign is now disseminating. The question is, therefore, was Kamala Harris lying then, or is she lying now, and more importantly, is she just an inveterate liar? Given her current campaign claims about her record and policy positions, it is a safe bet that she is an inveterate liar. These are not the normal political lies, distortions, and coverups that we can expect in a campaign, but they are lies meant to bamboozle and hoodwink the American public into believing that she is something that she is not.

The other question is, given these outright lies and coverups and no policy positions, is how would she govern if she were elected? Given her past record and policy statements, it is easy to believe that she is a true believer in extreme Progressivism, if not outright Leftism on some issues. Thus, we can expect that she will govern to the left of The Political Spectrum. Such a Progressives/Leftists governance by the Biden Administration has led to the problems that America and Americans now face, and such problems will not be solved but only worsen in a President Harris Administration.

Thus, if you are concerned about these problems, it is important not to be bamboozled and hoodwinked by the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign. No amount of Joy and Hope, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/nn/24 Strength Through Joy”, can solve the problems facing America and Americans. Only policy prescriptions based on human nature and the invisible hand of economics can solve our problems, which the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign has not elucidated.

09/03/24 Strength Through Joy

NS Gemeinschaft Kraft durch Freude (German for 'Strength Through Joy'; KdF) was a German NSDAP-operated leisure organization in Nazi Germany. It was part of the German Labor Front (German: Deutsche Arbeitsfront), the national labor organization at that time.

Set up in November 1933 as a tool to promote the advantages of Nazism to the German people, and internationally, it was also used to ease the process of the rearmament of Germany. Through its structure of organized events and promotion of propaganda, it was also intended to prevent dissident and anti-state behavior. By 1939, it had become the world's largest tourism operator.

This brings us to the current campaign tactic of Kamala Harris that she is the candidate of joy and hope. A campaign in which the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, along with the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and the "Mainstream Information Conglomerate", have promoted. A tactic that involves promoting falsehoods, disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and opposition speech suppression about her record and policies.

Such a tactic of joy and hope, without any substance, is nothing but a diversionary tactic to elevate her profile and to hoodwink the American public to make her ultra-progressive history and policy positions more palatable. It is dangerous to America and Americans, as much sophistry can be disguised under joy and hope. Such a candidate should be rejected by Americans as dangerous to the future of America, as joy and hope are not a prescription for the problems facing America and Americans.

09/02/24 Destroying the Village

In what is considered one of his iconic dispatches, published on 7 February 1968, Peter Arnett wrote about the Vietnam War of the Battle of Bến Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong." The quotation was gradually altered in subsequent publications, eventually becoming more familiar, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." The accuracy of the original quotation and its source has often been called into question. Arnett never revealed his source except to say that it was one of four officers he interviewed that day. US Army Major Phil Cannella, the senior officer present at Bến Tre, suggested that the quotation might have been a distortion of something he said to Arnett. The New Republic at the time attributed the quotation to US Air Force Major Chester L. Brown. In Walter Cronkite's 1971 book, Eye on the World, Arnett reasserted that the quotation was something "one American major said to me in a moment of revelation."

In Victor Davis Hanson's new article, “Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'”, he points out that:

“The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it’s also arguably the most anti-democratic.

Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic.

That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency, and now his third and final run for the White House.”

He then goes on to list all the ways the Democrat Party has tried to destroy Trump and sums it up by stating:

“Add up the last decade's purchased collusion caper, unprecedented two impeachments, orchestrated disinformation hoax, efforts to de-ballot Trump, warping of the legal system to jail him and destroy his candidacy, forced removal of an unpopular but unwilling President Biden from the Democrat ticket, virtual anointing of Harris by fiat in his place, and the current collusion with a compliant media to avoid public scrutiny and cross-examination of Harris.

And the conclusion?

Have those who lectured us about democracy in danger now decided to save it by destroying it?”

Thus, the Democrat Party is trying to destroy the American village to save it. After they save our democracy, they intend to rebuild our democracy into their vision of a democracy. However, their vision of democracy, as outlined by Rob Natelson in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, is not a real democracy, as he states:

“But you shouldn’t confuse Our Democracy with real democracy. The initial modifier serves to debase the noun—much as “sub-human” means less than human or “social justice” rationalizes acts of individual injustice.”

Their vision of democracy is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and an assault on our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

09/01/24 Baring the Soul of Abraham Lincoln

Professor Allen C. Guelzo, formally the Director of Civil War Era Studies and the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College, and now the Thomas W. Smith Distinguished Research Scholar and Director of the Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University, is considered one of the foremost experts on the American Civil War period and the life of Abraham Lincoln. Professor Guelzo is an award-winning author of many books who has also written for and appeared on numerous media outlets.

He has written a new book about Abraham Lincoln, Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment, in which he examines, and dare I say, lays bare the soul of Abraham Lincoln regarding his belief in Democracy and the role of the people and the government in a democracy. In his examination of Lincoln, he also equates Lincoln’s thoughts on the issues and concerns of democracy to what is happening in modern America.

In this book, Professor Guelzo points out that:

“There are, nevertheless, certain features of the democratic landscape today which Lincoln never encountered, and which pose threats for which his example yields little in the way of direction. Suzanne Metler and Robert Liberman[i], in diagnosing four historical dangers to democracy in America (starting with the Hamiltonian-Jefferson standoff of the 1790’s and continuing through the Civil War), worry that the “executive aggrandizement” begun during the Great Depression has mushroomed into a bureaucratic nightmare in odds with the fundamentals of democracy. “The exertion of Presidential power” together with the multiplication of executive agencies, the willingness of Congress to offload responsibility for governance, and the technical capacity for creating a “surveillance state,” aided by “surveillance capitalism” have together allowed virtually a fourth branch of government to emerge, protected by near-permanent tenure and internal administrative law.”

Professor Guelzo also points out that:

“By the beginning of the twentieth century, Lincoln’s free-labor economy increasing began to feel dated against the background of rapid, large-scale industrialization and what Herbert Croley in 1909 called “the aggrandizement of corporate and individual wealth,” and the need for “the regulation of commerce, the organization of labor, and the increasing control over property in the public interest.”

However, the nature and purpose of democratic government and the underlying meaning of democracy remain the same. Thus, it is important that we examine Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on democracy. Given the contentious rhetoric on “Our Democracy” in this election cycle, I thought it only fitting that I have a Book It for this special book about the soul of Abraham Lincoln.

[i] Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman—the presence of four specific threats: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power.

09/01/24 Values and Policies

In her interview with CNN's Dana Bash on August 29, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris replied to the question on the changing of her positions:

"I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed."

Yet, to date, she has not specifically stated her values or policy positions to assist the American voters in determining if her values are their values and if her policy positions are acceptable to Americans. Accordingly, undefined values and unstated policies policy positions are not a means for the American electorate to make an informed decision as to her suitability to be President.

It should also be noted that for a politician, your values should guide your policies, and your policies should guide your governance. If your policies change, then the question is if your values have changed. In either case, it is incumbent upon a politician to explain why the policies have changed or if their values have changed, as I examined in my Chirp on “08/29/24 Changing Our Minds”. In her answer, Kamala Harris did not explain why her policies have changed, and she demonstrated that she is prevaricating to bamboozle the American public into voting for her.

In response to her supporters’ defense that both sides do it, I would respond that Donald Trump’s values and policies are unambiguous and without deception. We know where Donald Trump stands and the corrective actions he plans to take to solve the problems that beset America, whereas Kamala Harris’s stances and plans are mostly aspirations and platitudes, as I have Chirp on "08/25/24 Party Platform Comparisons".

In the 2024 Presidential election, the American people have the choice between two candidates with two different approaches to campaigning; informing the public what he (Donald Trump) plans to do or hoodwinking the public on what she (Kamala Harris) wants to do. To this day, her only policy statements were on price controls and taxing unrealized capital gains, which have been roundly criticized by all economists as counterproductive, unworkable, and fraught with dire economic consequences for all Americans. Kamala Harris’s presidential website is nothing more than an advertisement to contribute money or sign up as a volunteer, along with exalted biographies of herself and her running mate, Tim Walz. Her presidential website does not even mention the 2024 Democrat Party Platform or her support for this platform. It should also be remembered that a candidate without any policy positions is a duplicitous candidate who can adopt any policy position if they are elected.

Thus, the American electorate will either be a chump or an informed voter in this election. If you feel that you cannot vote for Donald Trump, it does not mean you must vote for Kamala Harris. An uninformed vote is not a wise vote, and it often leads to unintended and ill consequences for America and Americans. Consequently, you should not make an uninformed vote and demand that Kamal Harris articulate her values and policy positions before you consider voting for her.

08/31/24 A Farce of a Campaign

Campaign Rallies, Town Halls, Press Conferences, Journalist Interviews, and Debates are the hallmarks of an American political campaign. Such events allow the American people to see and hear a candidate's unscripted and unedited persona and to make a judgment on the candidate’s fitness to hold office.

Alas, since Kamala Harris’s ascendancy to the Presidential candidate standard bearer of the Democrat Party, we have seen very few of these events, and what we have seen has been heavily scripted and contrived. Such artificialness has been utilized to cover up Kamala Harris's artificialness. Her campaign aids understand that she does not do well in a natural and free-flowing environment, and they attempt to control her environment to disguise her deficiencies. If they are successful in their artificialness, we can expect that it will forever change how future campaigns are conducted, to the detriment of America.

In their artificialness, they are expecting that the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and the "Mainstream Information Conglomerate" will condescend to this façade and support her candidacy. In this, their expectations have been fulfilled, although some cracks in support of this façade have begun to appear.

In this façade, they are making a farce of American political campaigns. A farce to hoodwink and bamboozle the American people to support her candidacy and vote for her. Such a slyness is unworthy of the American people’s intelligence and is also a hallmark of evilness, as I have Chirped on “08/nn/24 The Hallmarks of an Evil in Disguise”.

Let us hope that this façade crumbles before the American people cast their votes. If not, the American people who vote for her are making an uninformed vote, which bodes ill for the future of America.

08/30/24 The Hallmarks of an Evil in Disguise

Evil always comes upon us in disguise, as without disguise, we would often reject evil. Evil also occurs when we temporize our morals and ethics and act without virtue. As such, evil always tries to disguise itself, for without disguise, it most often fails. Half-truths, falsehoods, deceptions, and cover-ups are the means that evil disguises itself. Evil often uses projections of its own evilness upon others (both the guilty and the innocent), as well as a tone of self-righteousness with a lack of self-awareness, as I have written in my Chirps on “08/28/24 Political Projectionism”, “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness”, and “08/09/24 Self-Awareness.

The modern history of the world has shown how disguised evil can be utilized to obtain power. From Lenin to Stalin, Mussolini to Hitler, Tojo to Moa, to Khamenei, Gaddafi, Hussien, and Arafat, along with a multitude of other tinpot leaders in the 20th and 21st centuries, evil rose to power through disguise. Once they had achieved power, the true nature of their evil was revealed. When such a person is in power and exercises their power, they bring suffering and misery to their people and the eventual collapse of their society.

Therefore, half-truths, falsehoods, deceptions, cover-ups, projectionism, self-righteousness, and a lack of self-awareness are the hallmarks of evil in disguise. When a leader utilizes these methods to obtain power, they are evil and are leading their people into evilness. When people are supportive of such a person, they are affiliated with the evil doings of such a person. When people give such a person power, they are complicit with evil.

Alas, we see such hallmarks in the 2024 Harris-Walz Presidential campaign, as they are utilizing these methods in their campaign to achieve election victory. If they achieve such a victory, it can be said that they are leading America into evilness. An evilness that will bring suffering and misery to the American people and the eventual collapse of America.

08/29/24 Changing Our Minds

As one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Changing our minds is an important human characteristic, and changing your mind based on better information or fuller consideration is a positive trait of a person. However, changing our minds needs to be based on better information and fuller consideration; otherwise, it is for expediency purposes that we have changed our minds. It is an expediency done to gain an advantage rather than to reach a proper conclusion, and it is often done for nefarious purposes. Also, changing our minds without "Rationality" and "Reasoning" does not lead to a better conclusion but most often leads to an improper conclusion.

It is incumbent upon a leader when they change their mind that they explain the better information and fuller consideration that led to a change of their mind. Otherwise, it is proper to conclude that they have changed their mind for expediency purposes.

The 2024 Harris-Walz Presidential campaign has seen many changes of mind from Kamala Harris in her previous statements and actions. It should also be noted that such changes of mind have not come directly from Kamala Harris but through spokespersons and leaks from her campaign aids. In all these changes of mind, none has come with an explanation of why she has changed her mind, and often with denials and deflections about her change of mind. Thus, we can conclude that her change of mind is for the purpose of political expediency in winning an election. If it is political expediency that she used to change her mind, will political expediency permit her to change her mind after she is elected? Any person who changes their mind for expediency purposes will have no problem changing their mind again if it is expedient. Thus, we can conclude that Kamal Harris will not govern based on her current stated positions but will change her mind based on political expediency.

08/28/24 Political Projectionism

In Victor Davis Hanson’s new article, “The Myriad Projections of the 2024 Campaign”, he defines Political Projectionism as:

“Projection is a Freudian psychological term. It describes a particular defensive mechanism, when people, often unconsciously, attribute their own (usually undesirable) behaviors to others who do not have them.

These mental gymnastics are intended to alleviate one’s own guilt or sense of inadequacy at the expense of another.

Sound familiar?

But in the political sphere, projection involves more overt dissimulation. It is increasingly common for leftist candidates or political parties to falsely accuse their opponents of the very destructive behaviors and unpopular agendas that they themselves embrace, but out of political necessity must deny.

Rather than an unconscious Freudian defense mechanism, political projection is usually a conscious strategy of hiding one’s own negatives by fobbing them off on antagonists.

Projection often proves a quite successful ploy.

After all, the political projectionist knows best his own hazardous or off-putting conduct and policies. And so, he can most skillfully attribute just these liabilities to those who have had no experience with them.”

The rest of his article explains how the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign is turning out to be projectionist to the core. The main reasons are that Kamala Harris and her new running mate, Governor Tim Walz, have long advanced fringe leftist political agendas, and on a more personal level, both are attacking the behavior and conduct of their rivals as a way of deflecting attention from their own weaknesses on that score. They do this because they know that if they become open and honest about what they have done, they will likely be defeated.

The remainder of this article is an examination of the myriad ways in which they are Political Projectionists. A political projectionism that warps reality and distorts history, and if it is believed and acted upon by the American public, is dangerous to the body of politics. The danger is that it will lead the American public to make unwise choices as to whom to cast their ballots, and thus unwisely alter the future course of America.

08/27/24 America’s Greatest Need

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold their public trust.”
 - James Madison

I have often written about wisdom and virtue in my Chirps and Articles, but a new column examines this issue far better than I have written. Columnist Mark Lewis examines this quote as it applies to modern America in his article, “America’s Greatest Need--Virtuous Rulers”. This insightful article explains that:

“Of course, firstly, to do what Madison said, a person must know what “virtue” and “wisdom” are, and most Americans don’t. The godless Left has made licentiousness, decadence, perversion, and depravity so prevalent that a nuclear family is now “weird.”  And such is the reason why we elect people like Biden, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and every other Democrat in Washington and around the country—and most Republicans as well. “

And:

“If there is one thing America has not done, if there is one great principle the country has tossed out the window, if there is one great piece of advice and truth that is utterly ignored in the political ethos of the United States today, it is the words of James Madison above as written in “The Federalist,” no. 57. And it’s why we are destroying ourselves.”

This article further illuminates how and what has happened in modern America and the resulting consequences that bedevil our society. Until we elect politicians of wisdom and virtue, we can expect that we will continue to destroy ourselves. Mr. Lewis’s article is well worth the read, and then a weeping for America.

08/26/24 The American People Aspirational Platform

An aspirational platform that most Americans would support and want the government to accomplish is:

• A Robust Economy that:
  • Decreases Inflation
  • Decreases Government Spending at all levels
  • Decreases Government Taxes at all levels
  • Provides Full Employment
  • Reduces the Cost of Living
• Legal-Only Immigration and Secure Borders
• A Significant Reduction in Crime, Gang Violence, and Drug and Alcohol Addictions
• Energy Independence
• A Strong Defense Dedicate to Winning Conflicts and Deterring Adversaries of America
• A Deterrence Foreign Policy and Less Foreign Entanglements
• No Deficit Spending and a Reduction of the National Debt
• Elimination of Identity Special Privileges and Preferences in Governmental Law, Rules, and Regulations
• A Limited and Less Intrusive Government at all levels of governance

However, lofty aspirations and good intentions do not make for good deeds, as it has been said that:

“Hell is paved with good intentions.”
 - Samuel Johnson

“Well done is better than well said.”
 - Benjamin Franklin

“A good intention, with a bad approach, often leads to a poor result.”
 - Thomas A. Edison

Aspirations are not enough to achieve a goal; you must have a plan to achieve your goals based on reality. In politics, the reality of human nature and the invisible hand of economics cannot be ignored nor contravened. If you attempt to do so, your plan will always fail, and much time, effort, and money will be wasted trying to implement your plan. Additionally, history has taught us that trying to implement a plan that does not account for human nature and the invisible hand of economics leads to unintended results, often accompanied by the misery and suffering of those who must live under the plan.

As such, in the crafting of Laws, Rules, and Regulations to accomplish the above aspirations, you must always ensure that the protection of our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and the promotion of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" is paramount in all Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Otherwise, you are corrupting our "American Ideals and Ideas", and it will require a government that is oppressive to implement and maintain this corruption.

The question that you must ask yourself is whether the Democrat Party Platform or the Republican Party Platform will best achieve these goals, as I have written in my Chirps on “08/21/24 Democrat Party Platform” and “07/13/24 Republican Party Platform”, as well as my comparisons of these platforms in my Chirp on “08/25/24 Party Platform Comparisons”.

08/25/24 Party Platform Comparisons

When examining the lofty words and highfalutin ideals and ideas of a Party’s platform, it is always important that you discover the details of how they will be implemented, as it is in the details that you will find the devils, as I have written in my Article on “The Devil is in the Details”. With this in mind, I will try to dispassionately examine the major points of the 2024 Presidential Party platforms, as I have outlined in my Chirps on "07/13/24 Republican Party Platform" and “08/21/24 Democrat Party Platform”.

Democrat Party Platform points: Growing Our Economy from the Bottom Up & Middle Out Rewarding Work, Not Wealth Lowering Costs Tackling the Climate Crisis, Lowering Energy Costs, & Securing Energy Independence Protecting Communities & Tackling the Scourge of Gun Violence Strengthening Democracy, Protecting Freedoms, & Advancing Equity Securing our Border & Fixing the Broken Immigration System Advancing the President’s Unity Agenda Strengthening American Leadership Worldwide

Republican Party Platform points: Seal the border, and stop the migrant invasion Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history End inflation, and make America affordable again Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far! Stop outsourcing, and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower Large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips! Defend our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms Prevent World War Three, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country -- all made in America. End the weaponization of government against the American people Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again. Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world. Keep the U.S. Dollar as the world’s reserve currency Fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children Keep men out of women’s sports Deport Pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship. Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success.

 For a more detailed comparison of the candidate's policy positions, I would direct you to the Britannica ProCon.org webpage, “Side-by-Side Comparison Chart”.

The Democrat Party Platform:

The Democrat Party platform, as is all too common in the modern Democrat Party, is mostly an aspirational statement with few concrete details of the specific goals they wish to implement. It is also clear that someone forgot to edit the platform, as it is written as if President Joe Biden is running for reelection with Vice President Kamala Harris. In fact, there are 19 references to a second Biden term in the document despite his withdrawing his candidacy.

The Democrat Party platform also pretends that the Biden-Harris Administration has had no part and parcel, nor any responsibility, for the current problems that America and Americans face but that they can fix the problems of their own making if you reelect them. This begs the question of if they know how to fix the problems, why haven’t they done so?

As I have mentioned in my Chirp on “08/nn/24 Ignorance is Bliss”, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, for electioneering purposes, want to keep the voters blissfully ignorant on the record of Kamala Harris and details of their policy positions. Their goals, if they attempt to implement them, would lead to a restructuring of American society along Utopian ideas. Utopian ideas, which are never achievable, as they run contrary to human nature and the invisible hand of economics, as I have written extensively in my Chirps and Articles.

Neither does the Democrat Party Platform address the Republican Party Platform, but instead, it takes aim at the Project 2025 plan that is not affiliated with nor endorsed by President Trump or the Republican Party. Thus, they have created a Straw man informal logic fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. Politicians of all stripes are notorious for creating Straw men, then attacking the Straw man while ignoring the Real man.

Thus, it can be said of the 2024 Democrat Party platform, as Shakespeare so eloquently put it in Macbeth, “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Signifying nothing as there is nothing substantive to critique of its implementation and/or efficacy, and nothing to determine how it would impact our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The Republican Party Platform:

The Republican Party platform has some aspirational aspects but is mostly a plan to take corrective actions to solve the problems that beset America. These corrective actions run contrary to the Biden-Harris Administration efforts that they have undertaken since the beginning of their administration, which provokes the anger of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists as it is an indictment of their policies and a refutation of their ideas and ideals.

The major issues with the Republican Party platform are how to Constitutionally implement their actions and not run afoul of "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Thus, the Laws, Rules, and Regulations to take these actions must be very carefully constructed. A careful construction that was somewhat lacking in the former administration of President Trump. It is hoped that President Trump will live and learn from his previous mistakes and that he will not repeat them. This is something that should be considered when supporting and voting for President Trump.

Thus, the Republican Party platform is easier to adjudge for its impacts and efficacies, as it has more details of the actions that they wish to undertake than the Democrat Party platform. Consequently, the American people are not left ignorant when making a choice between the Republican and Democrat Party platforms.

Conclusions:

The 2024 Presidential election is a stark contrast between the two parties, but a contrast that can be made based on the record of the Trump and Biden administrations. Each candidate and their party’s platform offer a contrasting vision of the future of America. It is, therefore, important that the voters examine the facts and history of the two administrations before making a choice between presidential candidates Trump or Harris. It is also important that the voters discount the rhetoric, pejoratives, and inventiveness of the campaign to determine if they would rather live in an America of the Republican vision or the Democrat vision, then vote accordingly.

08/24/24 Children, Go Where I Send Thee

"Children, Go Where I Send Thee" (alternatively "Children, Go Where I Send You" or variations thereof, also known as "The Holy Baby", "Little Bitty Baby", or "Born in Bethlehem") is a traditional African-American spiritual song. Among the many different versions of the song, a defining feature is the cumulative structure, with each number (typically up to 12 or 10) accompanied by a biblical reference. Today, many Americans know it as a Christmas carol.

While this song was written to lead children to Christianity, it also can be applied to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their attitude that they know what is best for America and that the American public are children that need to be directed to where they wish them to go. It is with this attitude that they exhibit rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Rather than convincing the American public that their ideas are what is best for America and Americans, they wish to preside over America and Americans to accomplish their goals, as I have Chirped on “07/30/24 The Democratic Politburo Committee”. In their presiding, they will brook no dissension, and they are comfortable with restricting the free speech rights of Americans. Under the guise of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, they have attempted, along with their compatriots in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", to control the information and speech of Americans. In this, they have forgotten, or did not know, the wisdom of our first President:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

Thus, they wish for the American people to be like sheep and to go where they send them, even if it is to the slaughter of our American Ideals and Ideas and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

08/24/24 Ignorance is Bliss

 “Ignorance is Bliss” is an insightful adage, and one in which I have often observed that ignorant people are often happy in their ignorance and often become angry and blame others when their ignorance has negative repercussions upon themselves or if their ignorance is challenged. Ignorance leads to bad decisions and unhappiness in life. Ignorance in governmental affairs and economics leads to bad decisions that negatively impact society if they become predominant and a basis for actions and policy. Ignorance never considers "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and its subsequent deleterious effects. Ignorant governmental actions and social policy always result in counterproductive impacts and/or failure in governmental actions and policy.

Derek Hunter, in his column “Media Bias 101: It’s Different When Democrats Do It”, has made an interesting observation about ignorance and media bias:

“I realized something the other day about media bias that I’d been aware of for a long time, but never really connected all the dots on it before – these people aren’t trying to win anyone to their side, they’re simply lying to keep their claws deep into the people they’ve already made ignorant.”

The public is ignorant in that a large percentage of them are uneducated, lacking knowledge, or are ill-informed in the fundamentals of government or economics. The Mainstream Media, through their practice of advocacy journalism, as I have written in my Chirp on “08/12/24 Advocacy Journalism”, make no attempt to properly inform the public and to lessen their ignorance. Unfortunately, as a result, many people believe they have sufficient knowledge and wisdom to make decisions on governmental actions on public policy issues and for whom to cast their vote.

Advocacy Journalist often stokes righteous indignation in the ignorant public to achieve their political and social policy predilections. This righteous indignation is often turned into anger by politicians, as angry voters, rather than informed voters, often decide elections, thus increasing the politicians’ chances of election or reelection. This is an insidious feedback loop that allows for ignorance to become predominant and a basis for governmental actions and policy.

Alas, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, along with the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and the "Mainstream Information Conglomerate", are promoting ignorance to achieve electoral victory. They want to keep the voters blissfully ignorant of the record of Kamala Harris and the details of her and their policy positions. In this, they are no better than con artists who wish to swindle the American public. Don’t let them be successful, for if they are successful, you can expect more deleterious consequences, as well as failed governmental actions and policies. This blissful ignorance will become anger and lead to a further deterioration of America and American lives.

08/23/24 Joseph Goebbels Would be Proud

Joseph Goebbels was a German Nazi politician and philologist who was the Gauleiter (district leader) of Berlin, chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, and then Reich Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945. Joseph Goebbels was one of the most loathsome and vilest persons in history, but he was also very candid about his means and methods to achieve his despicable goals. Although I do not like to quote loathsome people, his quotes are illuminative of what is happening in modern America. The most appropriate quotes are:

“A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

“If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.”

“If you tell a lie, tell a big one.”

“It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.”

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

“Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.”

“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.”

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

“There is no need for propaganda to be rich in intellectual content.”

“There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.”

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

“This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.”

“We shall reach our goal, when we have the power to laugh as we destroy, as we smash, whatever was sacred to us as tradition, as education, and as human affection.”

These means and methods are only worthy of those that wish to rule, and those that wish to impose their worldview on those who would disagree with them. Which brings us to the Democrat Party Convention. The kindest thing that can be said about them is that they were putting lipstick on a pig to cover up their failed policies, and they attempted to tar and feather the Republicans by misrepresenting (i.e., lying) about them and their policies. This is unlike the Republicans who attempt to strip the cover-up paint job of the words and deeds of Democrats to reveal their true colors. The most accurate thing that can be said about the Democrats is that they are applying Goebbels’ means and methods to achieve their goals. As a great philosopher has said:

“The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.”
 - Confucius

As such, I am compelled by my wisdom to label the Democrat Party for what they say and do, which is their propensities to follow the dictums of Joseph Goebbels in their campaign strategies and tactics.

The Democrats cloak their intentions in lofty ideals and words while they engage in despicable tactics against their opponents. This is often done in their Self-Righteousness and a lack of Self-Awareness, as I have Chirped on “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness” and “08/09/24 Self-Awareness”. Such people should never be put into positions of authority and responsibility, as they will utilize their power and control to do as they see fit rather than the proper and virtuous thing.

08/22/24 Serious Repercussion On America

In my Chirp on "10/14/22 Balancing the Ticket", I discuss the importance of choosing a Vice-President, as it could possibly have serious repercussions on America. Since the time of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (passed by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804), when the election of the President and Vice President was combined into one ticket, Vice Presidents have been chosen to balance the ticket for geographical or political purposes to win an election. This has not led to many repercussions for our Nation, mostly because the Vice President has inconsequential duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, and most Presidents have ignored their Vice Presidents. However, on several occasions, this has led to negative repercussions, and on two occasions, it has had positive repercussions. What I didn’t discuss was the repercussion of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential lopsided ticket, as this has rarely happened in American history. By lopsided, I mean that both candidates on the ticket are at the extremes of "The Political Spectrum".

This may arguably be said of the current Republican Trump-Vance ticket, but it is unarguably true of the Democrat Harris-Walz ticket. If you compare the Republican and Democrat Party platforms, as I shall do in a future Chirp, you will see a Republican platform that is right of center of the political spectrum, while the Democrat platform is far left of center of the political spectrum. The label of “extreme right” or “far right” is only appropriate if you have a base point of moderate Progressivism as the medium point, which is not a proper basepoint to adjudge the political spectrum. This is supported by the polls about the Republican Party platform, in which a large majority of Americans agree with most of the points on the Republican Party platform. In contrast, the Democrat Party platform is not supported by a large majority and, indeed, polls less than half of Americans in agreement with their platform. Thus, the Democrat Harris-Walz ticket can be said to be extreme or far left in both of their candidates.

Extremes of the top-level leadership of any organization do not bode well for the long-term health of the organization and often lead to negative consequences for the persons or society that the extreme organization influences. Extremes in a political party, if they should obtain power, pose a danger to all, as after they obtain power, they often try to stifle their opposition. A stifling that infringes on the "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" of all and is implemented first through despotism and then becomes tyranny.

08/21/24 Democrat Party Platform

The Democrat National Committee has offered a 2024 Presidential Election Platform that has nine points of what they wish to accomplish for the American people if Kamala Harris is elected President. These points are:

• Growing Our Economy from the Bottom Up & Middle Out
• Rewarding Work, Not Wealth
• Lowering Costs
• Tackling the Climate Crisis, Lowering Energy Costs, & Securing Energy Independence
• Protecting Communities & Tackling the Scourge of Gun Violence
• Strengthening Democracy, Protecting Freedoms, & Advancing Equity
• Securing our Border & Fixing the Broken Immigration System
• Advancing the President’s Unity Agenda
• Strengthening American Leadership Worldwide

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details will be hotly debated and demonized by the Republican Party.

08/20/24 Bread and Circuses

With the opening of the Democrat Party Presidential Convention, it can be said that the Bread and Circuses have begun. Bread and Circuses is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to the Ancient Roman Juvenal (Satires, Satire X), a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD, and is commonly used in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace, by offering a palliative: for example, food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal originally used it to decry the "selfishness" of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase implies a population's erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.

Bread and Circuses have often been utilized by politicians as a means to obtain and retain political power and control. Just as often, Bread and Circuses have led to the destruction of a society as attention is diverted from the serious issues and concerns that plague a society. A plague that ultimately decimates a society and makes it vulnerable to outside forces that desire its destruction.

Today, in modern America, Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing Bread and Circuses to appease their special interest groups (i.e., Identity Politics) and against their political opponents. The continual expansion of Entitlements in modern America, along with the hyper-partisan and often outrageous political rhetoric, have been the staple Bread and Circuses of the Democrat Party in modern America. Student loan forgiveness and the show trials of President Trump are just the latest Bread and Circuses that the Democrat Party Leaders have offered to the American public. This Bread and Circuses is to the detriment of the American people and has contributed to the decline of America, which may possibly lead to the destruction of American society.

08/19/24 A “New” Solution to Inflation

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris has proposed a “new” solution to inflation: government-mandated price controls. Yet, this is not a “new” solution, as it has been tried throughout history, and every time it has been tried, it has failed and brought forth misery and suffering for the people who had to live under price controls.

Thomas Sowell has said: “Price controls must invariably produce black markets, where prices are not only higher than the legally permitted prices, but also higher than they would be in a free market.” In his 2011 book, ‘Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls, How Not to Fight Inflation’, the late Robert Lindsay Schuettinger of both St. Andrews University and Yale University offered that “Indeed, there is not a single episode where price controls have worked to stop inflation or cure shortages.”

A new public Artificial Intelligence (AI) capability, Grok, has been released by X, and according to xAI's website, Grok is an "AI modeled after the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy." The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is, of course, an old sci-fi novel (slash radio drama slash TV show slash movie), but the name "Grok" appears to be drawn from a different old sci-fi novel, Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. In that book, "grok" is a Martian word with a definition roughly along the lines of “to know something (or someone) on a truly intimate level.”

The most recent history of price controls is in Venezuela. A Grok user asked what price controls did to Venezuela, and here is how it answered:

After the implementation of price controls in Venezuela, primarily under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and continued by Nicolás Maduro, several economic and social consequences emerged:

- Inflation and Hyperinflation: Price controls were intended to make goods affordable for the population, but they led to one of the highest inflation rates in the world. This was partly because setting prices below market value encouraged hoarding, smuggling, and black market activities, where goods could be sold at higher prices. The government's response often involved further controls or nationalizations, which didn't address the root causes like currency devaluation and over-reliance on oil revenues.

- Shortages: The price controls made it unprofitable for businesses to import or produce goods at the controlled prices, leading to widespread shortages of basic goods. This was exacerbated by the government's policies on currency and import controls, which made it difficult for businesses to obtain foreign currency needed for imports.

- Economic Collapse: The combination of price controls, currency controls, and the drop in oil prices led to an economic collapse. Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in Latin America, saw its GDP shrink dramatically. The economic downturn was characterized by high unemployment, poverty, and a significant brain drain as professionals left the country.

- Black Market and Smuggling: With official prices set too low, goods were often smuggled into neighboring countries where they could fetch higher prices. This not only led to shortages within Venezuela but also created a parallel economy where the U.S. dollar became the de facto currency for many transactions.

- Social Unrest and Migration: The economic policies, including price controls, contributed to social unrest. The economic crisis led to one of the largest migrations in recent history, with millions of Venezuelans leaving the country due to economic hardship, seeking better living conditions elsewhere.

- Political Implications: The economic policies, including price controls, were part of a broader socialist agenda which, while initially popular due to social programs funded by oil revenues, eventually led to widespread dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction was a significant factor in the political polarization and the international recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the interim president by several countries, although Maduro retained control with military support.

The aftermath of price controls in Venezuela serves as a case study in how economic policies can backfire, leading to unintended consequences like hyperinflation, shortages, and a significant humanitarian crisis. The situation has been complicated by political factors, international sanctions, and the country's heavy reliance on oil, which when prices fell, left the government with fewer resources to manage or mitigate the economic fallout.

Price gouging is a pejorative term used to refer to the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some. The claims that Kamala Harris and other Democrat candidates that they will curb price gouging require price controls of one form or another. Nobody, or any group of people or government, has the intelligence or wisdom to decide what prices should be. They are especially unable to determine how people and the marketplace will react to price controls, especially the impacts of "The Law of Unintended Consequences" on price controls. Therefore, Kamala Harris’s price controls need to be discarded into the ash heap of history before they bring forth misery and suffering to the American people.

The biggest danger to America in price controls and the inflation it produces is, as the distinguished political commentator David S. Broder (writing then the Boston Globe on October 25, 1978), put into eloquent and compelling language of the dangers that price controls and the inflation it produces:

“What inflation has done fundamentally is to deepen the insecurities in this country, and thus warp the opportunities for positive leadership on other issues . . . inflation damages the conservative social values which are essential to the country’s future. Stability, savings and investment are all undermined by inflation. Severe inflation makes a mockery of most families’ financial plans. Most working people feel there is no way they can protect their budgets against this kind of assault on the dollar.

It erodes the sense of trust on which an economy and a society rest, and it makes people cynical about the chances of obtaining any social goal more ambitious than mere survival.

While it persists, there will hardly be room in our politics for any other major issue.”

Kamala Harris and other Democrat candidates' price control solutions also demonstrate her and the Democrat Party Leaders' lack of knowledge of basic economics. In this time of economic distress in America, we need leadership that understands economics to guide us through this economic distress. Wishful thinking will not solve the economic problems; it will only worsen these economic problems. Consequently, a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote to continue or worsen the economic distress in America.

08/18/24 Supreme Court ‘Reforms’ on Presidential Immunity

President Biden has recently proposed “reforms” to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) of a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the historic ruling from the court that gave presidents immunity for some actions they take while in office.

The recent majority decision of the Supreme Court on Presidential immunity has some very penetrating and thought-provoking quotes about Presidential powers and immunities:

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office."

"At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."

“The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is ‘a court of final review and not first view’”.

“Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct.”

“Most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.”

“It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party."

As Chief Justice John Roberts stated about the minority dissent to this ruling, “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized”, and he downplayed the dissenters’ doomsday rhetoric over the immunity ruling. He continues, “As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”

For those wishing to curb Presidential actions that they believe are outside the duties and responsibilities of Presidential authority, it should be remembered that the Constitution provides for “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” and “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Any attempts to impose additional limitations on presidential powers or to make a President liable to civil or criminal prosecutions by partisan prosecutors must examine the impacts on the Constitutional separation of powers not only within the Federal government but the separation of powers between the Federal, State, and local governments. Such changes will have impacts on the Executive Branch’s duties and responsibilities and on the ability of a President to make unencumbered decisions unfettered by concerns of future prosecution driven by partisan motivations rather than actual criminality. This also raises the possibility that we could enter an era of a banana republic in America, as I have Chirped on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. There must also be an awareness of The Law of Unintended Consequences when making these changes. If done improperly (and there may be no way to do this properly), it could result in a hobbled rather than restrained presidency.

Given the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, an amendment to the Constitution may be required to achieve this goal. Such an effort is fraught with danger and could be a fool’s errand as well as an example of ‘For Fools rush in where Angel’s fear to tread.’ Thank God that many in the leadership in Congress have said that this proposal is dead on arrival.

08/17/24 Supreme Court ‘Reforms’ on Term Limits and Ethics

President Biden has recently proposed “reforms” to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which is composed of term limits and an enforceable ethics code. While these reforms have a noble connotation in their titles it should always be remembered that the details are what provides the nobility, as I have examined in my Article on The Devil is in the Details.

The Supreme Court was established in the Constitution of the United States under Article III, and within Section 1 (of three sections) it is defined as:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

As a separate branch of government, its main purpose was to serve as a check and balance on the abuses of power of the Legislative and Executive branches of government and to ensure that the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All as enshrined in the Constitution were enforced.

The duties and responsibilities of the Supreme Court were further delineated in the 1803 Supreme Court decision on ‘Marbury v. Madison’. Marbury v. Madison was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

As for President Biden’s proposed term limits and an enforceable ethics code, it is readily apparent in Section 1 that justices and judges have a lifetime appointment, and they can only be removed from office for bad behavior. Bad behavior, however, has never been clearly defined; it has always been assumed that they have not engaged in any criminal acts. Ethics codes for justices and judges imposed by the other branches of government have always been resisted, as they can be utilized as a club against a justice or judge to intimidate them on their rulings. Such intimidation flies in the face of equality before the law as justices and judges would be more attuned to the fallout of their decisions rather than ensuring that the law was equally enforced.

Therefore, imposing term limits would require a Constitutional amendment to replace Section 1. To impose an enforceable ethics code would require that you comprehensively and definitely establish what is bad behavior, and it could possibly need another section of Article III to be Constitutional. Such an effort is fraught with danger to the balance of powers within the Constitution and could be a fool’s errand as well as an example of ‘For Fools rush in where Angel’s fear to tread.’

There is a legitimate case to be made for term limits on the judiciary, as Rob Natelson's article, “Biden’s Supreme Court Term Limits Proposal”, has pointed out. He has also pointed out that “For an octogenarian who has held federal office for more than 50 years to propose limiting others’ service seems absurd. And there is no statesmanship in Biden’s proposal.” Thus, President Biden’s proposal does not properly address the issues of term limits and is entirely motivated by political interests rather than the interests of the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. Thank God that many in the leadership in Congress have said that this proposal is dead on arrival.

08/16/24 Congressional Authority Over the Judiciary

Our Constitution has established three co-equal branches of government, each with its own duties and responsibilities, and with a balance of power between them in order to keep a check on government powers to preserve the Liberties and Freedom of all Americans. Recently, however, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have become very upset by some Supreme Court decisions with which they vehemently disagree. In their anger, they have been proposing “reforms” to the Supreme Court to bring them closer to compliance with what they believe. The question is if Congress and/or the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to “reform’ the Judiciary.

The answer is that Congress does have limited authority to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This authority was recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Ex parte McCardle (1869). Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that it did have the authority “to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court.” In this ruling, they stated that in Article III of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows:

'§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'

'§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,' &c.

And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,

'The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.'

However, Chase also emphasized that the law did “not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised” so that prior decisions would remain fully enforceable.

Moreover, shortly after McCardle, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Klein (1871) that Congress may not use its authority of court jurisdiction to lay out a “rule of decision” for the Supreme Court or effectively dictate results in court cases.

As Jonathan Turley has pointed out in his article “Jurisdiction Stripping or Court Killing? The “No Kings Act” is a Decapitation of the Constitution”:

“Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has introduced the “No Kings Act” with great fanfare and the support of most of his Democratic colleagues. Liberal groups have heralded the measure to legislatively reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. It is obviously popular with the press and pundits. It is also entirely unconstitutional in my view. The “No Kings Act” is not just a cynical abdication of responsibility by Democrats, but would constitute the virtual decapitation of the Constitution.”

As such, these “reforms” should be treated with the scorn that they deserve, and their sponsors should be shamed for having proposed them.

At the end of his article, Professor Turley listed the senators who were willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure. We should all remember them as antithetical to the Constitution and be wary of any of their statements regarding the Constitution:

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

08/15/24 Judicial Activism and Legal Realists

Judicial Activism has abounded in America since the middle of the 20th century, founded on the theory of Legal Realism. This has resulted in many court decisions based on Liberal and Progressive interpretations of the Laws and the Constitution. Now that the courts are starting to render more conservative decisions, we have seen a rise in disdain of the courts by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. We have also seen them trying to “reform” the courts (especially the Supreme Court) to stem and even reverse this tide.

These attempts are dangerous to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", as they would make the Judicial Branch subservient to the Legislative Branch and upset the balance of powers between the branches, which our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in the construction of the Constitution.

“Legal realists” believe that judges make law—not just apply or find it, as traditionally understood. As such, the “realists” believe judges should legislate consciously and deliberately to promote “social policy” goals. In a series of articles over the last few years, Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson has written about Judicial Activism and Legal Realists:

1. “Part I: Judicial activism: Here’s a core reason for it you’ve never heard about”
2. “Part II: What Can We Do About Legal Realism and Its Promotion of Judicial Activism?”
3. “Justice Gorsuch Takes on the “Legal Realists”

In my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", I examine some of these issues. I also quote one of our Founding Fathers about Liberty and Judges:

"Liberty can have nothing to fear from judges who apply the law, but liberty has everything to fear if judges try to legislate."
 - Alexander Hamilton

Much of the current disdain, anger, and sometimes fury against the Supreme Court by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists is because the Supreme Court is applying the law rather than legislating via Judicial Activism and Legal Realism, as they have been doing for more than the last half-century. In this application of the law, they have often ruled against the predilections of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Thus, this disdain, anger, and fury are being direct toward them for not supporting the social policies and political goals of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. However, this disdain, anger, and fury by members of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government are deleterious to the proper functioning of our Constitution and an assault on the Balance of Powers within our Constitution.

My next three Chips on Congressional Authority Over the Judiciary, Term Limits and Ethics, and Presidential Immunity will examine these Supreme Court “reforms” in more detail.

08/14/24 Judicial Independence

Judicial Independence is a foundational aspect of the Constitution. As Rob Natelson has commented upon the Founding Fathers' viewpoint on the judiciary, “Although the Founders did not think much of the British king or parliament, they deeply admired the English legal system. Over the previous two centuries, the English legal system had evolved from a mere tool of the king into a cluster of institutions with a reputation for independence tempered by incorruptible respect for the law.”

And, as Alexander Hamilton has said in The Federalist Papers No. 78—The Judiciary Department—about the importance of an independent judiciary:

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter: I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and executive. For I agree that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its Constitution, and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

Thus, Judicial Independence is very important in our "American Ideals and Ideas" and for our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Those who wish to “reform” the judiciary for any other reason than to assure their independence and integrity are posing a danger to our republic. A danger that should be opposed by all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans.

08/13/24 Media Rating Systems and Fact Checkers

The House Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have been investigating media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources of certain websites, mostly websites of conservative or dissenting voices. These media rating systems are an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers to induce them to stop their donations or advertising on these websites. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “The GARMs Race”, the media rating organizations NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system. Elon Musk’s X has even filed a bombshell antitrust lawsuit against a left-leaning advertising cartel and several member companies, alleging the group targeted the social media site with an illegal ad boycott.

These media rating systems are a newer development of the adjunct fact-checking organizations that have been around for many years, which also have mostly targeted conservative or dissenting voices as untrue. It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, we too often rely on fact-checkers to help determine the truth. However, fact-checking is subjective rather than objective and is susceptible to the cognitive biases of fact-checkers and the predilections of fact-checking organizations. This results in improper labeling of asserted “facts” as being true or false. Thus, determining the truths or falsehoods of facts is vulnerable to human interpretation of the facts, as I have Chirped on "10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts". The four biggest problems in the process of fact-checking are Narratives, Statistics, Science, and Economics, which I examine in my article “When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts”.

As Professor Turley has said in his ‘The GARMs Race’ article, “Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies.” and “The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss.”

The Natural Right to Free Speech goes beyond restricting the governmental control of speech. Free Speech in all areas of life is important to the health of a society, as it spurs the growth of a society in all aspects of a society. Free speech also spurs individual growth by expanding the horizons of an individual’s thoughts, as I have examined in my Article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". As history has taught us, the constrictions of Free Speech is an oppression that ultimately results in civil strife or civil war and the collapse of a society.

Any constriction of free speech will strangle a society and cause it to atrophy and eventually die. No person, no organization, and no government are intelligent nor wise enough to predetermine which Free Speech constrictions will or will not harm a society. Thus, no Free Speech constrictions should be allowed in society. To do otherwise is to doom a society.

08/12/24 Advocacy Journalism

As I have written in my Article "Modern Journalism":

“Most journalism students today go into journalism to "change the world". However, it is not the job or responsibility of a journalist to change the world. Their job is to uncover the facts, consult with experts on all sides to determine the veracity of the facts, and then report the facts to the public. If you wish to change the world you should become a politician, or become a commentator, or devote yourself to charitable efforts, or go into the Arts or Sciences, or - God Forbid - start a business that has a positive impact on society.”

This new form of journalism is known as Advocacy Journalism, which is a genre of journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Advocacy journalism has as much to do with true journalism as social justice has to do with justice; they are both but perversions of the meaning of the word by adding an adjective in front of them.

When you place an adjective in front of the word “journalism”, you no longer have true journalism - you have favoritism and propaganda. This is the corruption of true journalism for political or social purposes, and it leads to misleading, if not outright lies to the American public. A misleading and lying that is done to promote journalists' political and social predilections to elect Democrats and to support Progressives with whom they agree.

This advocacy journalism allowed them to accept the basement strategy of the 2020 and 2024 Democrat presidential campaigns, as I have written in my Chirp on 08/10/24 The New Basement Strategy and Tactics. This advocacy journalism allows for them to not challenge the previous words and deeds of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Tim Walz, which are not being reported upon or being rewritten to make them more palatable and electable to the American people. This is often done by journalists in their Self-Righteousness and a lack of Self-Awareness, as I have Chirped on “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness” and “08/09/24 Self-Awareness”. It is also indicative of their lack of ethics and virtue in their character.

As Matt Vespa has written in his column, “NBC News Pretty Much Confirms Tim Walz Lied About His Military Service”, in which he stated:

“It's the Democrat media complex at work, though they’ve become more shameless since the Obama era. After Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, there was a conscious effort to disregard the truth to protect Democrats and help them no matter what. It’s the only explanation for the flurry of ethical and overall journalistic malpractice that we’ve seen, from the Russian collusion hoax to Hunter Biden’s laptop; we do not hate the media enough for their overt corruption.”

In this Advocacy Journalism, they are bamboozling the American public as to their intentions, as well as hoodwinking the American public into electing Democrat candidates that suit their predilections.

08/11/24 Rules for Thee, but Not For Me

The Joe Biden presidential nominee replacement debacle has, once again, demonstrated that the Democrat Party operates on a ‘Rules for Thee, but Not For Me’ basis. Some states have laws regarding the duty and responsibility of the elected delegates to party conventions to vote on the first ballot for the person that they had committed to in the primary. There are also State laws regarding the replacement of a nominee in those States in which Joe Biden’s name has already been submitted to the State. There are also Federal Election Commission (FEC) laws, rules, and regulations regarding the disclosure of campaign finance information and the management of campaign funds, for which the FEC is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the law. Such provisions as to the limits and prohibitions on contributions, the proper expenditure of campaign funds, and ensure that the proper legal filings of campaigns to the FEC are followed. The Democrat Party itself has rules of conduct for its primaries and procedures for its convention process.

It appears that not much consideration was given to these issues and concerns in the replacement of Joe Biden as the Presidential nominee of the Democrat Party. Indeed, we are starting to see the legal issues and concerns of possible FEC violations in their actions. As such, the situation of replacing a duly elected person after a primary has never occurred before, and the legal issues and concerns have never been addressed by the FEC. It is this uncertainty and ambiguity that the Democrat Party is relying upon to do what they please. Given the snail pace of the FEC in enforcing their regulations, the Democrat Party is hoping to do as they please through the election cycle and not face any consequences for their actions until after the election.

This is but another example of the Democrat Party leaders operating as a politburo, as I have Chirped on “07/30/24 The Democratic Politburo Committee”. A politburo in which they, and they alone, decide what is to be done, and everyone else is to fall into line and support their decisions. In this, the Democrat Party has operated as if they could do as they please, regardless of the laws, regulations, or rules. This is also another example of the Democrat Party operating for their benefit alone to obtain and retain power and control, as I have Chirped on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

08/10/24 The New Basement Strategy and Tactics

In 2020, Joe Biden ran for president from his basement, with fears of the COVID-19 pandemic as the rationale for this decision. No rallies, no press conferences or give-and-take with the press, no unscripted interviews, and only scripted statements from his basement were the modus operandi of his campaign. A tightly crafted and controlled messaging was the order of the day, along with the image of Joe Biden being a conciliatory moderate Democrat. The ‘Unifier’ and the ‘Adults in Charge’ mantra, along with pejorative comments about President Trump and his MAGA supporters, were the yang to his yin campaign strategy. The  "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate were all on board with this strategy due to their Progressive predilections and extreme dislike of President Trump. Such a strategy was designed to cover up the deficiencies of Joe Biden and disguise his policies, as well as to hoodwink the American electorate into believing the crafted image of Joe Biden rather than the reality of Joe Biden.

Today, this basement strategy has been adopted and adapted by the presidential campaign of Vice-President Harris, with the main adaptation being the basement constituting all of America. Since her ascendancy to the Democrat Party nominee for president, there have been few rallies of an unscripted nature, no free-form press conferences or give-and-take with the press, and no unscripted interviews, with only scripted statements and appearances as the modus operandi of her campaign. She is also balking at more than one debate in hopes of limiting her unscripted exposure to the American electorate. In this, the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Social Media, and Mainstream Information Conglomerates are on board with this strategy due to their Progressive predilections and extreme dislike of President Trump.

She and her Vice-Presidential pick Tim Walz’s previous words and deeds are being rewritten to make both of them more palatable to the American electorate. This is knowingly being done by her campaign, along with the assistance of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Social Media, and the Mainstream Information Conglomerate, as they are well aware that her and his viewpoints are disfavored by a majority of the electorate. Thus, the 2024 Democrat Party campaign is another hoodwinking of the American electorate into believing the crafted image of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz rather than the reality of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. A reality that I have outlined in my Chirp on “08/07/24 Ideological Partners in Extreme Progressivism”.

This hoodwinking was successful in the 2020 presidential campaign, and it is hoped to be successful in the 2024 presidential campaign. However, this previous successful hoodwinking brought forth the problems that America and Americans now face. If this current hoodwinking is successful, we can expect a continuation of these problems. When considering this hoodwinking you should remember the aphorism, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

08/09/24 Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness is the experience of one's own personality or individuality, and part of what makes us human, along with Intelligence and Consciousness. This definition, however, is not the subject of this Chirp. For the purposes of this Chirp, I mean the self-awareness of the interrelations of your words and deeds, i.e., saying one thing and doing another or holding conflicting ideas.

The capacity of the human mind to hold conflicting ideas seems to be unlimited. This is often the case when emotional responses take priority over intellectual considerations. People wish to feel good about themselves and their words and deeds, and they often do not fully consider the consequences of their words and deeds. They often do not comprehend the conflicts on seemingly disparate ideas. The effort required to make these connections is often time-consuming and intellectually rigorous, and many people do not have the time and/or ability to do so, as I have examined in my Article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

It is easier to believe that if it feels good and you are a good person, then you are doing good. However, this is often not the case. Not fully thinking about the impacts and consequences of the implementation of your ideas, along with the considerations of The Law of Unintended Consequences, will often result in harmful consequences. Accordingly, whenever you consider any idea, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Alas, this is rarely done, especially regarding social policies and political rhetoric. In the quest for a better society and governmental actions to achieve this betterment, we often are guided by our feelings rather than our intellect. The Democrat Party, in particular, appeals to our feelings without much intellectual regard for the consequences of their policies. This may be good election politics, but it is poor social policy as often their social policies engender negative consequences.

The Democrat Party's election strategy and tactics, as well as their governing approach, often rely on good feelings and, unfortunately, through their utilization of Identity Politics, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Lawfare, pits one group of Americans against other groups of Americans. Much of this is because of their self-righteous attitude, as I have examined in my Chirp on “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness”.

America is at a fork in the road in the direction of our future society and governance. One fork leads to a progressive future and all the attendant problems of Progressivism, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". The other fork is a return to the founding principles of America, as I have examined in my Article on "American Ideals and Ideas". Americans need to become much more self-aware and intellectually oriented to make a proper decision on the future of America. Fortunately, we can examine the different forks by examining the records of President Trump and President Biden to determine which fork we wish to take. Therefore, this election cycle is more than the individual issues and concerns; it is about who we want to be as a people and society.

08/08/24 Self-Righteousness

Self-Righteousness is a mental illness that blinds you to the facts and truths. A Self-Righteous person will not, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Doubt a little of your own infallibility." A Self-Righteous person is often sanctimonious and makes little or no attempts to examine and consider their opponent's Reasoning and Rationality. A Self-Righteous person will never brook any dissension to what they believe are the facts and truths. A Self-Righteous person will always believe that someone who disagrees with them is motivated or guided by selfishness or moral depravity. A Self-Righteous person often believes that any words or deeds that promote their beliefs are justifiable. A Self-Righteous person will reject, without intelligent thought or rational consideration, the opinions or arguments of their opponents, and they will often utilize "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against their opponents. Thus, a Self-Righteous person is a danger to "A Civil Society" and the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The most Self-Righteous people in America are Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media", as their words and deeds far eclipse any Self-Righteousness of their opponents. Their Self-Righteousness is demonstrated by their pitting groups of Americans against each other through their utilization of Identity Politics, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Lawfare. Their Self-Righteous Weaponization of Government is destroying our American Ideals and Ideas and leading us into despotism or worse. 

Just as I am a huge supporter of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, so am I an opponent of Self-Righteousness. In the opinions that I have written in my Chirps and Article, I believe that I am right, but I am not self-righteous in these opinions, as I am willing to dispassionately examine and consider my opponents' Reasoning and Rationality. So, it should be for all Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans.

08/07/24 Ideological Partners in Extreme Progressivism

Democrat Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s Vice-Presidential pick, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has a very Progressive viewpoint that matches Kamala Harris’s viewpoints. Their top ten shared domestic affairs viewpoints are, in alphabetical order:

• Abortion on Demand
• Climate Change Alarmism
• Criminal Leniency
• Gun Control
• Illegal Immigration
• Pandemic Mandates and Restrictions
• Pediatric Transgendered Medications and Surgery
• Permissible Violent Civil Disobedience
• Public Education Progressive Ideology Indoctrination
• Socialistic Governmental Policies

In the Foreign Policy arena, they share viewpoints on:

• Communist China Inclusion on the World Stage
• Global Trade Economies
• Internationalism Politics
• Iranian Government Leniency
• Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel Policies (along with more than a touch of Anti-Semitism)

These viewpoints are in addition to the normal Democrat Party policies of increased taxes and spending, expanded and additional government entitlements, along with a large and intrusive government and governmental regulations.

There is nothing wrong with a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate sharing viewpoints unless the viewpoints in themselves are wrong. And Kamala Harris and Tim Walz's viewpoints are wrong for America and Americans. Electing the wrong people with the wrong viewpoints is a recipe for disaster for America and Americans. Wake up, America, and smell the coffee. If the coffee smells bad, do not drink it.

08/06/24 A Sense of Decency

In 1954, in a dramatic confrontation, Joseph Welch, special counsel for the U.S. Army, lashes out at Senator Joseph McCarthy during hearings on whether communism had infiltrated the U.S. armed forces. Welch’s verbal assault—including the enduring question, "Have you no sense of decency?"—marked the end of McCarthy’s power during the anticommunist hysteria of the Red Scare in America.

The same question can be put to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media" for their role in the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections. Their role is not only as I have Chirped on “08/05/24 Then and Now, and Perhaps the Future” but also on other shenanigans that have and are currently occurring. Indeed, their entire campaign and election strategy and tactics are shameful. Replacing a duly nominated presidential candidate with an appointed nominee, giving countenance to the flagrant policy positions changes and the distortions of the historical record of their new candidate, their use of pejoratives against their opponents, distortions of their opponents’ words and sometimes outright lies about them, instituting dubious balloting shenanigans that call into question the validity of an election, and various other deceptions and deceits are all shameful acts.

They, therefore, have no sense of decency, as they are only interested in obtaining and retaining power to advance their policies and political goals. Such people should never be placed in positions of power, as they can only tear down and not build up a society.

08/05/24 Then and Now, and Perhaps the Future

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Changing your mind based on better information or fuller consideration is a human trait that is important for the betterment of a person and should be cultivated by all. Changing your mind for any other reason is suspect, as it is often done to obtain a personal advantage that may be harmful to others. When a public figure or politician changes their mind, it is incumbent upon them to explain the reasons for their change of mind; otherwise, all should be wary of both their old and new opinions as deceptive or deceitful.

Rewriting your history to obscure or remove your previous opinion is insidious and pernicious, as it is a deliberate misleading of others for nefarious purposes. This is indicative of a person without character and virtue who is deceptive and deceiving. Those who would aid and abet such a rewriting are also without character and virtue, as they, too, are misleading for nefarious purposes. Such a person or people should never be believed nor placed in any position of trust or authority, as they are unworthy of any trust or power over others.

Which brings us to the current situation regarding Kamala Harris. Four short years ago, her politics were very progressive. Today, with her ascension to the 2024 Democrat Party nominee for President, her progressive policy positions have changed without explanation, and her history is being obscured, rewritten, or expunged to make her appear more moderate. It is not difficult to ascertain the reasons for this, as four years ago, her progressive policy positions were helpful to her political ambitions, while today’s moderate policy positions are helpful to her political ambitions. Such a person will have no difficulty in changing their policy positions in the future if it suits their political ambitions.

She is also being aided and abetted in this changing of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, with the assistance of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media". Such actions by them are also insidious and pernicious, as it is an attempt to trick the American electorate into voting for her. It is also indicative that they and she do not believe her previous policy positions would garner the votes needed for her to be elected today.

Alas, this changing of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history may work, as the American electorate is not being properly informed about these changes of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history. Indeed, the American electorate is being deliberately misinformed to assist her in winning the election (and perhaps lessen the negative impacts on electing downstream Democrat candidates). Such a deception is equivalent to the deception of Biden’s policy positions and his mental acuity and physical fitness, which occurred during the 2020 presidential campaign. A deception then that brought forth many of the problems we have faced in the last four years, and a deception now that, if it is successful, will continue and possibly worsen these problems for the next four years.

08/04/24 Until Now

In Jonathan Turley’s new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, he describes America as being in an age of rage, for which I must agree with him. The question is, what is the root cause of this greater rage today?

Many have pointed out that the deep divisions of governing approaches of the Democrat and Republican Parties have led to hyper-partisanship in today’s politics, as I have examined in my Articles on A Republic versus a Democracy and A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document. We have had these divisions in America’s past, but in modern America, it has been a deeper and more visceral rage.

Much of this can be attributed to the dominance of Progressive ideology and ideas in the 20th century, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". With this rise, we have also seen a rise in the assumptions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives in describing their opponents.

Contributing to this rise of rage are the forces of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", which have been in almost uniform support for Progressivism and they have ignored or been dismissive of any other viewpoints. The Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media have also profited from this rage by increasing clicks and viewership of their media. It is also true that they have morphed into the Ministry of Truth for Democrats and Progressives, as I have Chirped on “07/30/24 The Ministry of Truth”. 

Nobody likes being told that they are stupid, bad, or evil and that their thoughts and opinions may be ignored or dismissed, which leads to a rise of rage in those so labeled. In addition, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have unrelentingly utilized aggressive rage-provoking tactics of "Identity Politics" and "Divisiveness in America", as well as "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" on all that oppose them, which contributes to the rise of rage in their opponents. These tactics have also led them to engage in negative connotations and worst-case interpretations of what their political opponents say or do, which leads them to stoke fear and loathing of their opponents, which leads to a rise in rage from all sides.

Since the presidential election of 1988, the Republican presidential standard bearers have been George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump. In that same timeframe, the Democrat presidential standard bearers were Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and now Kamala Harris. It can be said that the Republican presidential standard bears that only Donald Trump has used aggressive rage-provoking tactics, and of the Democrat presidential standard bearers, only Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton did not use aggressive rage-provoking tactics.

The claims by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that both sides do it rings hollow when you weigh the balance, as I have Chirp on, "04/01/19 Both Sides Do It". That is, until now. With the rise of Donald Trump, who has been utilizing these same tactics against his political opponents, they have been given a dose of their own medicine, and they do not like it. Consequently, their rage against Donald Trump and his supporters has exponentially increased. Alas, this has resulted in an increase of rage on both sides.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' calls for "A Civil Society" also ring hollow, as they are only interested in their opponents being more civil while they continue their incivility. Hence, we can only expect this rage to continue until both sides behave in a more civil manner. I do not expect this to happen, especially if Donald Trump is elected, as the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have built their entire election and governing strategy and tactics on fear and loathing of their opponents.

08/03/24 Weirdness

The Democrat Party and Progressives have started to utilize a new word to describe their opponents— “Weird”. This from a party that has utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to advance their political goals and policy agendas. If you observe any rally of the Democrats, you can see many examples of the weirdness of their supporters, as so humorously illustrated by the following cartoon:

There is also much weirdness in the people who they have appointed into positions of power and responsibility in the Biden Administration.

Their utilization of weird to describe their opponents is sheer hypocrisy when you examine their own weirdness, and it does not make their opponents weird because they have labeled them weird. In this examination, you should remember one of my own quotes:

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."
  - Mark Dawson

Their own weirdness extends into their Perversion of the English Language in their willingness to change the meaning of words and terms, which knows no bounds. Their willingness to suppress words and terms is also unlimited, often under the umbrella of Political Correctness and Wokeness. This is exemplified by Kamala Harris’s recent statement that “. . . we have to have the courage to object when they use the term ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’.” However, when they do this, we should always remember the quote of a very wise man in history:

“The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.”
 - Confucius

Thus, by uttering this statement, as well as many other utterances of hers that are a pervasion of the English language, she has demonstrated her lack of wisdom.

08/02/24 Free Will vs. Oppressed Victimhood

At the beginning of Chapter 11 of the book, “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities” by Michael Shellenberger, he writes the following:

“After World War II, a long-standing philosophical debate over whether we have free will or are just the products of our environments gained real-world significance. Former Nazi officers on trial defended themselves by saying that they were not responsible for their actions, including the operation of gas chambers, because they were following orders. Courts ruled that this was not a valid defense, and philosophers including French existentialist Jen-Paul Sarte gained worldwide fame in his emphasis on individual responsibility. “Man is condemned to be free,” he writes, “From the moment he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”

Michael Foucault disagreed. Following the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Foucault felt that individual responsibility was a myth used by powerful people to punish and discipline others for things they could not control. None of us choose our brains and bodies, our families and communities, or our places in time and space. How could we be said to have “free will” at all?

The problem with this line of thinking is that people appear to behave far better when they take responsibility for their actions than when they don’t. Subjects primed to disbelieve in free will are, for example, more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors. Disbelief in free will even seems to impair some cognitive processes.

One way to think about free will is that it exists only as a belief. The more we believe in free will, the more it exists. The less we believe in it, the less it exists. “If you do call free will an illusion, it’s a useful illusion, right?” said Cory Clark, a professor of social philosophy who is doing innovative research into how we think about freedom and responsibility. “Thinking through, ‘If I do X, Y will happen’ is an important part of the process that leads to making better choices. If people thought they didn’t have to do that, they may not make good choices anymore.”

It is all too easy in modern America to claim that you are an oppressed victim of others and society. This is not only true for the homeless but for all who claim victimhood and oppression. Such a claim frees you from the responsibilities of your words and deeds. It negates the possibility that your free will bad choices are responsible for your current condition and smothers the possibility that you can make future free will decisions to improve your condition. It also makes you dependent on others, society, and government to improve your condition.

In this dependency, you must concede some of your liberties and freedoms to those whom you depend upon. This gives rise to big government that takes from those who have made good decisions and gives to those who made bad decisions, which introduces a cycle of dependency on government. Thus, the “Welfare State” arises and grows ever larger. A Welfare State that must impinge upon the Liberties and Freedoms of all to satisfy the needs of the dependent members of society. Such a Welfare State slips from democracy into totalitarianism to meet the needs of the dependent members of society.

Such has been the course of America in the 20th and 21st centuries with the rise of Progressivism. No balance between giving a hand-up to the unfortunate and a hand-out to the dependent has been attempted nor achieved, and the Welfare State grows ever larger. Such a Welfare State is economically unsustainable without totalitarianism, and such totalitarian states are rarely long-lasting nor provide for a thriving economic or robust society that meets the needs of all the people.

08/01/24 Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness in the Progressive Worldview

How the absurdity, nonsense, and craziness of the modern Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the  Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media agenda is the topic of this month’s Book It selections. In a new book Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History by Nellie Bowles, who is a Progressive journalist, as well as someone who was born, raised, and lived this life, she started asking questions and then began doubting what was being said and done by Progressives in modern America.

In a series of personal stories about her search for the facts and truths about what has occurred in America during the last decade, she illuminates the unpleasant facts and truths that the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media have ignored or covered up. And it is not a pretty picture. As she stated near the end of this book, these people are “. . .  in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality.”

Another recently published book by a former progressive, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities by Michael Shellenberger, looks at this problem by focusing on one topic— Homelessness in San Fransisco. Homelessness and the attendant issues of mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, criminal activities, and unsanitary living conditions of the homeless, along with the fears of the neighbors living nearby the homeless.

One paragraph in particular struck me in this book:

“Words are powerful. The word “homeless” not only make us think of housing, it also makes us not think of mental illness, drugs, and disaffiliation. The word directs our attention to things perceived as outside of a person’s control, such as the high cost of housing, and away from things perceived as in their control, such as working, parenting, and staying sober.”

This statement reminded me of the quote of a very wise man in history:

“The beginning of wisdom is the ability to call things by their right names.”
 - Confucius

Ergo, until we identify the true causes of “homelessness” by speaking their right names and addressing their real problems, we cannot be wise and solve the problem of homelessness.

This misuse of words is true for the other problems facing America. The Perversion of the English Language by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to sow doubt and confusion to achieve their political goals and policy agendas is a despicable tactic that needs to end, as it is a hindrance to the solutions to the problems facing America.

Chapter 11 of this book, “The Heroism of Recovery”, is especially important, as it examines the importance of ‘victimhood’ in the homeless problem. This victimhood attitude is also important to society as a whole, as the victimhood viewpoint is responsible for many of the other problems in America. In Chapter 15 of this book, “It’s Not About the Money”, he further states about victimhood:

“The dark side of victimology is how it moralizes power. Victimology takes the truth that it is wrong for people to be victimized and distorts it by going a step further. Victimology asserts that victims are inherently good because they have been victimized. It robs victims of their moral agency and creates double standards that frustrate any attempt to criticize their behavior, even if they are behaving in a self-destructive, antisocial ways like smoking fentanyl and living in a tent on the sidewalk. Such reasoning is obviously faulty. It purifies victims of all badness. But by appealing to emotion, victimology overrides reason and logic.”

In Chapter 17 of this book, “It’s a Leadership Problem”, he sums up why the problems of homelessness continue to exist:

“How and why do progressives ruin cities? So far, we have explored six reasons. They divert funding from homeless shelters to permanent supportive housing, resulting in insufficient shelter space. They defend the right of people they characterize as victims to camp on sidewalks, in parks, and along highways, as well as to break other laws, including against public drug use and defecation. They intimidate experts, policy makers, and journalists by attacking them as being motivated by a hatred of the poor, people of color, and the sick, as causing violence against them. They reduce penalties for shoplifting, drug dealing, and public drug use. They prefer homelessness and incarnation to involuntary hospitalization for the mentally ill and addicted. And their ideology binds them to the harms of harm reduction. Housing First, and camp-anywhere policies, leading them to misattribute the addiction, untreated mental illness, and homeless crisis to poverty and to policies and politicians dating back to the 1980’s.”

Essentially, we are allowing Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness to permeate modern America, and this permeation is not restricted to the problems of homelessness. In trying to resolve the problems of Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness in modern America, brought forth mainly by Democrat Party leaders and Progressives, a succinct reason is that they have forgotten the adage and wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers. An adage and wisdom that should not be forgotten by all Americans before they cast their ballots:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

However, doing something requires making hard decisions that may be unpopular with the electorate, social change advocates, or special interest groups. It thus risks the possibility of losing elections, which the Democrat Party is loath to do for the reasons that I have written in my Chirp on “ 07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

These two books, along with another book I reviewed on “06/01/21 The Liberal Mind”, go a long way in explaining how absurdity, nonsense, and craziness have arisen in modern America.

07/31/24 Of What Race, Religion, and Heritage is She?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a biologist whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research. Shyamala had moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958. After studying nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California, Berkeley, she received her PhD in 1964. Kamala Harris's father, Donald J. Harris, is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study at UC Berkeley and received a PhD in economics in 1966. Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan met in 1962 and were married in 1963.

Kamal Harris claims to be the first African American and first South Asian American vice president. Harris’s father is of Afro-Jamaican descent and an Anglican, while her mother is from India and a Hindu. Afro-Jamaicans are Jamaicans of predominantly African descent, but through intermarriage, they are of mixed Afro and Hispanic descent. They also represent the largest ethnic group in Jamaica. Thus, Kamal Harris is of mixed race, religion, and heritage.

Kamal Harris was born in Oakland, California, and very early in her life, she moved to Illinois as well as other parts of the Midwest and thus spent her childhood in America. When she was twelve years old, her mother and sister (her parents were divorced when she was seven) moved to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. After high school in Canada, Harris attended Vanier College in Montreal in 1981–1982. She then attended Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., and she eventually moved back to California to begin her career.

Many in America are of mixed race, religion, and heritage, and none of this should matter in America or; as Martin Luther King Jr. has stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Ergo, all should be judged on their character, and none should be judged on their race, religion, or heritage. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your race, religion, and heritage, but it is wrong to utilize this to gain an advantage over other people. The content of your character should be what you utilize to advance yourself.

Any person who utilizes race, religion, and heritage as a metric of a person is a bigoted person, and any politician who appeals to race, religion, and heritage is engaging in Identity Politics. Both are despicable, and both should not be tolerated in America. Alas, the appeals to Identity Politics in modern America are all too common and all to destructive to the fabric of our society. Thus, appeals to Identity Politics should be rejected and condemned by all Americans, and politicians who make these appeals should not be elected nor put into positions of leadership or power in America.

In modern America, the wails of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQIA+, White Privilege, Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities, and Racist and Wokeness are all appeals to Identity Politics. And all these wails should be rejected by those who believe that all Americans should be judged by the content of their character. To not do so is to invite further Divisiveness in America and the degradation of A Civil Society in America.

07/31/24 Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities

Systemic—affecting an entire system—is common to all civilizations throughout history. It is how civilizations are constructed to provide order from chaos and to provide for the needs of the people of a civilization. Systemic is accompanied by a hierarchical structure in the government and society of a civilization. Systemic is not inherently good or bad, but it can be used to achieve good or bad results. Systemic, when utilized to oppress a people and/or to deprive them of their Natural Rights, is evil. One defining characteristic of oppression is the constriction of a person’s capability to rise or fall in the hierarchy based on their individual merits or to not reward an individual for their contribution to society. Such a constriction is usually enforced by a caste society and an aristocratic form of government. When such a constriction occurs, it can be said that there are Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities within a society or government.

The history of America has been one of opposition to caste societies and aristocratic governments. We started out imperfectly with the stain of slavery and various forms of bigotry and discrimination, along with capitalistic excesses in our economy, but it is also a history of correcting these faults to obtain less Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities in our society and government. We have not fully achieved this goal, but given human nature, it may not be possible to fully achieve this goal. However, we have made significant progress toward this goal with the start of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-twentieth century onward. Today, in modern America, we can claim to be the most diverse and least systemic Discrimination and/or Disparity society and government in the world.

07/30/24 The Ministry of Truth

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by English writer George Orwell, he describes ‘The Ministry of Truth’ (Newspeak: Minitrue) that is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania. As well as administering "truth", the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events. At the time that this book was written, the concern was that the government would become corrupt, coercive, and oppressive to the people. Today, the concern is that the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media" act as The Ministry of Truth.

This can be seen today in their rewriting of Kamala Harris’s history and record, as well as the distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods of nominees Donald Trump and J.D. Vance’s record and statements. These rewritings, falsehoods, and distortions are so egregious as to be a perfect example of ‘The Ministry of Truth’. It is also an example of the suppression of truths, as I have written in my article "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression".

Alas, there seems to be little way to correct this situation, as most of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media seem united in their opposition to Donald Trump and J.D. Vance and in their support of Kamala Harris. We can only hope that the American people can see past the rewriting, distortions, and falsehoods being spread about Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance’s history and record. Nineteen Eighty-Four was meant to be a warning about the future and not a guidebook for the present, as Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media have undertaken in modern America.

07/30/24 The Democratic Politburo Committee

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has for some time operated as the Democratic Politburo Committee (DPC) in that the ranking members of the DNC make a decision on candidates or policy, then expect the other members of the DNC, and the Democrat voters, to approve their decisions. This operation is utilized to enforce party discipline and conformity, as was done in most Communist states. This has been quite evident in the efforts to oust President Biden from the 2024 presidential campaign and now the efforts to anoint Vice-President Harris as the new candidate in the 2024 presidential campaign. As David Harsanyi has said, “With some hard work, pluck, the right boyfriend, and a bit of genetic luck, Kamala Harris has found her way onto the presidential ballot without having to secure a single primary vote. Don't tell me the American Dream is dead.”

While this is the most obvious reflection of a Politburo, this approach has gone on for quite some time at the DNC. This DPC approach is authoritarian rather than democratic and an affront to our American Ideals and Ideas. Even the manner in which President Biden withdrew from the presidential race was authoritative. A letter to Congressional Democrats from President Biden, followed three days later by an address to the American public, was authoritarian and haughty, and it reflected that his withdrawal was done for electability purposes rather than for the good of America, as I have examined in my Chirp on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”. Since his withdrawal, we have seen the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists engage in rank hypocrisy to justify his decision to withdraw, as I have Chirped on “07/23/24 Let the Games and Hypocrisy Begin”, and all at the direction of the DPC.

While the Republican Party has some authoritative propensities, this authoritarianism has often been thwarted by the Republican Party electorate, and their candidates and policies have mostly been directed from the bottom up (as seen by the rise of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates against the wishes of the Republican leadership).

Such an approach by the DPC is worthy of a banana republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”, rather than the leadership of a people dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Until the Democrat Party suffers calamitous election defeats, we cannot expect their modus operandi to change. Thus, it is incumbent on the American electorate to oust from power the Democrat Party so that they can reflect and right their course to the American way of conducting a democratic party (i.e., from the bottom up).

07/29/24 It Feels Good, but Does It Do Good?

It is all too common to hear Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists spouting off on the nobleness and morality of their political goals and policy agendas. All these proclamations are based on an emotional appeal, but few of them have an intellectual foundation, nor are they grounded in reality. When you examine the results of their political goals and policy agendas, you will see that there is much lacking in positive results.

As Nellie Bowles has written in her book, “Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History“, these people are “. . .  in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality.” These people have also forgotten the adage and wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, "Well done is better than well said."

They wish to be do-gooders, but they are primarily interested in feeling good. A true do-gooder only feels good when they have achieved a positive result. The positive results from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' political goals and policy agendas are few and far between, and usually, the good that they achieve is often for a select few (i.e., Identity Politics) at the expense of others.

Alas, it is difficult to overcome an emotional appeal with intellectual reasoning, and many Americans rely on an emotional appeal to sway their decisions on social policy. Consequently, there is much that is harmful rather than helpful in Progressive's social policy decisions. Whenever you make a decision on social policy, it should be reality-based with an intellectual foundation. Otherwise, you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the problems that beset America.

07/29/24 What Is Evil?

In today’s modern world, it is easy to discount evil as a psychiatric condition and/or relativistic or subjective to one’s personal knowledge, opinion, or experience. It is also easy for many to rank evil from pure evil to individual evil acts, although there is much disagreement amongst the different rankings. Whatever the root cause of evil or your ranking of evil, evil does exist, and some people are evil. The difficulty is defining what evil is and who the evil perpetrators are. This Chirp is not about evil persons; as much research and scholarly articles and books have been written about personal evil, I could not hope to contribute anything to this discussion. This Chirp is about the evil of governments and societies.

Governments and Societies can also be evil. Indeed, throughout history, most governments and societies have been evil to various degrees. For governments and societies, it is easy and proper to define a society or government as evil if they purposely violate the Natural Rights of individuals within their confines. While there are many Natural Rights that an individual person has, some of these Natural Rights are more pertinent to the discussion of evil. As I have written in my Chirp, “07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right”, there are ten prominent Natural Rights that, if violated by a government or society, allow us to define the society or government as evil and to rank their evilness based on the severity, number, and quantity of their evil acts. It is also possible to rank a government or society on its evilness by the structure of its government or the societal structure that supports its evil acts.

If you examine governments or societies throughout history through the lens of evilness, I believe that you gain an understanding that America has been one of the least evil governments and societies in history. Although America has had some evilness in its history (Slavery, Native Americans, Bigotry and Discriminations being the big three evilness), Americans have also recognized this evilness and taken actions to correct their evils. Our government or society was structured to preserve the natural rights of individuals and to take corrective actions to correct any wrongs that may occur in our government or society.

Many who decry America for its supposed inequities and evils do so through a standard of a Utopian society and government. A Utopian standard that can never be achieved due to the frailties of Human Nature and the invisible hand of Economics. Instead, we should be proud of our American Ideals and Ideas, and of our efforts to enshrine and preserve Natural Rights in our government and society, as well as to correct any evils that we may uncover in America. In our attempts to correct any perceived evils in our government or society, we should always remember to preserve our Natural Rights and the following:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right

In my article on "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights", I espoused upon the foundation and hierarchy of these rights. As sentient, conscious, and intelligent beings, we all have Natural Rights. If we did not have Natural Rights, then any rights that we may have would be endowed by society or by governments. It should always be remembered that anything that society or government can give can be taken away by a society or government. This would make Natural Rights subservient to society and governments and not allow for any freedoms or liberties for the individual except those that a society or government would endow.

All Natural Rights reside within the individual. No government or society constituted that violates Natural Rights is a legitimate government or society. The individual members of society can cede some of their Natural Rights to ensure a just society, but they still retain their Natural Rights. The government or society has a duty to ensure that those rights ceded to it are upheld. A government that does not uphold these ceded rights is not a legitimate government. Failure of a government to uphold these rights is a legitimate reason for the members of society to change or replace such a government.

Natural Rights are difficult to define, implement, and enforce. However, some Natural Rights are preeminently important and cannot be violated by a society or government. These include, but are not limited to:

• I have the natural right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to live, have liberty, and pursue happiness under all circumstances. You have no Natural Right to take my life, constrict my liberties, or prevent me from achieving my goals, except if I am violating the Natural Rights of another person.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to protect myself from harm, injury, or death. You have no Natural Right to harm, injure, or kill me except in the protection of your own, your family, or your neighbors’ lives, injury, or harm.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to think and express my thoughts, regardless of any other considerations. You have no Natural Right to tell me what to think and what I can express, nor to suppress what I think and express.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to obtain, retain, and dispense my own personal property. You have no Natural Right to steal, damage, or destroy my personal property.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to associate, or not associate, with whomever I please. You have no Natural Right to restrict my associations unless my associations violate the Natural Rights of other persons.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to be treated equally by other persons, society, and governments. You have no Natural Right to treat any person, or groups of persons, differently from myself.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to privacy. You have no Natural Right to violate my privacy, except if I am violating the Natural Right of another person in my private actions.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to believe or disbelieve in God and to practice my beliefs as I see fit. You have no Natural Right to suppress my beliefs or constrict my practices, except if my practices violate another person’s Natural Rights.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to own my body and to choose what may be done to my body. You have no Natural Right to force me to undergo any bodily procedure that I do not wish to undergo unless, by not undergoing the procedure, I present an imminent danger to other persons.
  
• I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to raise my children as I see fit. You have no Natural Right to supersede my Natural parental rights unless I pose a danger to my children.

When adjudging your own and another person’s words and deeds, it is imperative to keep these Natural Rights in mind for yourself and others. To not do so leads to a convoluted application of Natural Rights, which infringes on everyone’s Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

For more of the concepts and importance of Natural Rights, I would direct you to the articles of Professor Randy E. Barnett, “A Law Professor’s Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights” and “The Imperative of Natural Rights in Today's World”. While these articles were written by a scholar, they were written for the general public to read and understand.

07/28/24 The Eradication of Evil

President Reagan once famously said about how he would deal with the Soviet Union, “We Win; They Lose”, for which he was mocked. However, by focusing on the goal and adopting and adapting tactics to achieve the goal, America won, and the Soviet Union lost. Such is the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Hamas. It is the focus on the ultimate goal that distinguishes Reagan and Netanyahu, a focus on the goals while instituting and changing tactics as necessary to achieve the ultimate goal.

Many evil acts were done during the American Civil War, but such evil acts were necessary to eradicate the greater evil of slavery. The carpet-bombing of Japan and Europe during World War II could be considered evil, but it was done for the purpose of eradicating the greater evil of Imperial Japan, Nazis, and Fascists. Evils that needed to be eradicated for human suffering to end and human dignity to be restored.

Regarding Israel, there have been many attempts to institute peace among the parties to the conflict. However, the events of October 07, 2023, have demonstrated that one party is not interested in peace—Hamas. Consequently, peace will only come when Hamas loses and is eradicated. How Hamas loses and is eradicated is not as important as their losing and being eradicated, for when confronting evil, the end of evil is more important than the tactics used to defeat evil. Nothing short of the eradication of evil is important, for if evil is allowed to fester, it will grow and rear its ugly head in the future. And make no mistake about it: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are evil. Thus, I would say to Netanyahu, go for it and eradicate evil! I would also say to the critics of Netanyahu’s goal and tactics that to not eradicate evil is to support evil, which makes you one with evil.

07/27/24 Anti-Semitic Actions and Inactions

In an article by David Harsanyi, “American Liberals Silent as Outbursts of Antisemitism on Par With Charlottesville Proliferate”, he writes that President Biden is scared to offend the pro-Hamas faction in his party. Mr. Harsanyi begins his article by stating:

“Not long ago, a left-wing “fact-checking” site, Snopes, finally admitted that President Trump had never called the neo-Nazis who marched at the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville in 2017 “very fine people.”

For years, Democrats, including President Biden, have repeated this false claim. Indeed, Mr. Biden, who’s been running for the presidency since 1987, ludicrously told the press in 2019 that the events at Charlottesville, and Trump’s alleged reaction, inspired him to run in 2020.

Well, there’s a new Charlottesville every week in America nowadays. They aren’t led by a few hundred Nazi cosplayers, but thousands of Islamists and leftist fellow travelers whose goals are supported by numerous administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms.”

He then goes on to list many of the offensive words and deeds, the criminal actions of the pro-Hamas agitators in America, and how the Biden Administration has reacted or not reacted to those offenses and criminal actions. The lack of the Biden Administration actions and inactions against the pro-Hamas agitators, and their very tepid statements about them, is war worse than the allegation that Trump called Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People', as the Snopes article explains, is untrue.

These very actions and inactions of the Biden Administration and the pro-Hamas administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms demonstrate the Anti-Semitism of the left. Mr. Harsanyi concludes his article by stating:

“And every time there is a new Charlottesville, it not only affirms why Israel needs to exist — or that “anti-Zionism” and antisemitism are now indistinguishable — it tells us that Jews can’t rely on the contemporary left to be on their side.”

Thus, if you are Jewish or concerned about the evil of Anti-Semitism in modern America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America", then you must be opposed to the Biden Administration and the administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms who support the pro-Hamas agitators in America.

07/27/24 Those that Can

It has often been said, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”. This phrase implies that individuals who are unable to succeed in their chosen field resort to teaching almost as if it were a consolation prize. This is a simplistic stereotype, failing to understand what it truly means to be a teacher. The complexity and significance of being a teacher is not to be underestimated. Therefore, those who say the phrase, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”, are not contributing anything useful to the discussion and, indeed, are degrading the discussion.

Many of those who can do have often taught as well, while some of those who can do have not taught for personal reasons (including their realization that they would be poor teachers). While there are many teachers who can’t do, there is no discredit or shame that should be attached to this, as most people in other professions vary in their skill sets from excellent to poor, with only a small number being at the top of their profession.

To be a teacher is a respectable, honorable, and important vocation, but only if you are a good teacher. A good teacher is one who imparts knowledge and critical thinking skills, as well as motivating the students to learn as much as they are capable of learning, while a bad teacher is one who does not accomplish these teaching goals. A bad teacher is also one who de-emphasizes the intellectual development of the student in favor of emphasizing the emotional well-being of the student. A bad teacher does not only debase teaching, but they are harmful to their student's intellectual as well as emotional growth.

Emotional growth requires that a student learn how to deal with being incorrect and disappointed, proper personal behavior and social interactions, and a host of other emotional responses that are necessary once the student enters the non-student world. Emotional growth does not require that we coddle and protect the students’ feelings and inappropriately bolster their self-confidence or from unpleasant facts and discordant information. Intellectual growth is not only the accumulation of knowledge but also requires that a student learn how to think and not what to think.

Unfortunately, in Modern Education, we have seen a significant shift from the intellectual growth to the emotional growth of the student and from how to think to what to think, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education". This must be stopped and reversed to do justice to a student’s intellect, skills, and abilities. To accomplish this, we must identify those who are bad teachers and dismiss them from the teaching profession. In these dismissals, I expect the teacher unions to be in opposition. In the teacher’s union opposition, they are relegating the teaching profession to that of a tradesman occupation to be protected despite the quality of their trade services. They are also placing the best interests of the teachers over the best interests of the students, parents, and society.

We also need a change to the academic training of teachers, a change to which we can expect Colleges and Universities to be resistant, as teacher education has become financially lucrative and politically and/or sociologically motivated and thus resistant to change. We also need a change in the pedagogical training of would-be teachers to emphasize how to educate a student on how to think. This may be difficult, as I believe that many teachers and would-be teachers do not themselves know how to think.

The proper education of students is critically important to the future of our society. For the last several decades, we have not done a good job of educating students. Poorly educated students make for poorly informed citizens who cannot make good decisions in their lives, as well as good decisions as to the future course of our society. Indeed, the bad decisions that they may make will be detrimental to their lives and detrimental to society. Consequently, we should adopt an approach of rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad teachers.

07/26/24 College Student Behavioral Problems

College and University students love to protest, as it is a means of Virtue Signaling that signals their supposedly higher morals. Many of these protests are disruptive to normal student instruction and activities, and many times, they turn violent. All too often, their professors join them in these protests, which they believe lends credence to their protests. And just as often, the students, and sometimes the professors, have little knowledge or comprehension of what they are protesting.

The recent Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitism protests are a perfect example of this behavior. Students have little understanding of the complicated issues of the Hamas terrorists’ actions on October 7, 2023, and are not interested in understanding the Israeli government's response to this terrorism. They are being swayed by incoherent and irrational rhetoric from the Palestinian viewpoint and ignoring the Israeli viewpoint. There is also no consideration of the consequences, or unintended consequences, of their proposed solutions.

They are also not concerned about the impact of their protests on the non-protesting students. A non-protesting student has the right to an education and campus life unfettered by the protesting students. Any disruption to the non-protesting students’ rights should not be countenanced nor permitted by the College or University administrators. Alas, college or university administrators have shown little interest in protecting the rights of non-protesting students. This is an abrogation of their duties and responsibilities to provide a safe and educational environment for all their students.

The question is, what should be done to protect all students’ rights? The University of Florida’s Allowable Activities and Prohibitive Items and Activities flyer may be a good first step:

Other States should adopt this code for all publicly funded Colleges and Universities and deny taxpayer funding for private Colleges and Universities that do not adopt this code. There should also be a concerted effort to remove College and university presidents, administrators, and trustees who do not support this code as a dereliction of their duties and responsibilities to their students, parents, funders, and taxpayers. We should also consider firing professors who support these disruptive or violent protestors, as their actions demonstrate their inability to provide quality, intellectually thoughtful, rational, and reasonable education to their students.

07/26/24 K12 Student Behavioral Problems

In the bygone days of Catholic K12 education, Sister Marie would whack your knuckles, Father John would slap your head, and who knows what the teacher would do if you misbehaved in school. This was all done as part and parcel of student behavioral problem correction. Today, it is considered child abuse, and it is forbidden, but student behavioral problems abound. In Public K12 education, this was less frequently done and sometimes humorously referred to as Tactile Response Education (TRE). However, the results were the same, as there were fewer student behavioral problems when TRE was utilized.

Corporal punishment is the more common term utilized for this discipline, and it often became excessive and resulted in physical injury and mental anguish to the student. Thus, student corporal punishment was banished and disappeared from K12 education. With this banishment, K12 student behavioral problems increased, and they have become a major problem in K12 education. Today’s student behavioral problems have also resulted in physical injury and the mental anguish of other students, not to mention the disruption of the education of the other students. These K12 Student Behavioral Problems follow them outside of school and into their adult life and often result in civil disturbances or criminal activities by the students who have behavioral problems. Consequently, we must address student behavioral problems in schools to help alleviate the problem of student troublemakers outside of school.

Effective discipline must be established for K12 Student Behavioral Problems, but this is very difficult in an environment where teachers and administrators are not allowed to even touch a student. We must, therefore, rethink what is allowable and effective discipline for K12 Student Behavioral Problems. Perhaps it may be time to consider some form of very limited corporal punishment (such as low power, short duration, hand-held tasers) to ameliorate these K12 Student Behavioral Problems. There are no easy answers to this problem, but the problems caused by these misbehaving students are pernicious in the learning environment and in society as a whole.

07/25/24 From Traditional Liberalism to Modern Progressivism

I am old enough to remember when there was little Progressivism and much Liberalism in America. However, due to the real and perceived failures of Liberalism by the American public, Liberalism started to become tarnished, and in the late 20th century, many Liberals started disclaiming Liberalism, declaring that “I am not a Liberal, I am a Progressive.” However, the Liberal and Progressive policy positions did not materially differ. In the 21st century, however, Progressivism began to veer leftward, and today, the policy positions of modern Progressives differ significantly from traditional Liberalism.

Liberals were huge defenders of our First Amendment Rights, somewhat neutral defenders of our Second Amendment rights, and large supporters of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also shared many of the beliefs of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". However, as Progressives veer leftward, they transformed these beliefs to achieve a greater good rather than the common good for America, as I have written in my article "Greater Good versus the Common Good". In doing so, they developed an anti-Americanism attitude, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism”. They also began to constrict our First and Second Amendment rights for the greater good, limiting Freedom and Liberty to be constrained by what Progressivism deemed to be acceptable speech and conduct, substituted Equality with Equity, and instituted a two-tiered justice system as I have Chirped on, "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System". Much of this was done to combat what they believed to be an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", under the banner of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", the end of our purportedly "Racist" society, and the revocation of supposedly "White Privilege".

Progressives also began to equivocate about their beliefs through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to make them more palatable to the American public. They also utilized the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against their opponents, as well as "Cancel Culture", "Doxing", “Hate Speech”, "Identity Politics", "Lawfare", "Virtue Signaling", and "Wokeness". They have also propagated "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" to justify their actions.

In doing so, Progressives have become despotic against their opponents, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America", and have significantly hastened the "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". They have also accelerated civil unrest through "Hyper-Partisanship" and have not engaged in "A Civil Society" discourse. In this, they have become a threat to Democracy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy". They are also attempting to institute an Oligarchy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

Thus, the ideals and ideas of Liberalism have disappeared from America, but many of these ideals and ideas, especially regarding the worth and dignity of every individual person and individual rights, have been incorporated into Conservatism. Accordingly, if you believe in the worth and dignity of every individual person and individual rights, you must reject modern Progressivism as antithetical to these ideals and ideas.

07/25/24 From Traditional Feminism to Modern Feminism

The Feminist movement of the latter half of the 20th century was a very important movement to achieve equal rights for women, as for far too long, women in America had been deprived of their rights and hindered in their ability to achieve self-fulfillment. However, equal pay for equal work, the opportunity for advancement based on your skills and abilities, and the personal choice in the balance of your personal and professional life are not feminist values; they are human values. Human values that everybody should support for all people regardless of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status, or disability.

Unfortunately, Modern Feminism has taken a turn from these values in that they wish to create special privileges based on the female gender, or as one wag has said, “Modern Feminism wants all the power of men, all the privileges of women, and all the accountability of children.” They have also devalued maleness, as I have written in my article “Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male”, and turned away from the importance of heterosexual love, marriage, and children. Modern feminists have little interest in men or the needs of men, and they seem to be only concerned with the professional, emotional, and physical needs of women, and seem to be only interested in motherhood if it is single motherhood. Men play little part in their worldview, and the small part they play is considered unimportant. Modern Feminists have also stood idle while Transgenderism is destroying the equality gains that they have achieved over the last several decades.

Modern Feminists have also exhibited selective outrage over claims of sexual harassment and sexual assaults. Their outrage is only directed against allegations against male Republicans and Conservatives, while allegations against male Democrats and Progressives have been overlooked or defended. They have also not come to the defense of Republican and Conservative women for the words and deeds against them that they would consider outrageous if directed against Democrat and Progressive women. They have also been notably muted about the Israeli women brutalized by Hamas, as well as circumspect about sexual harassment and sexual assaults in Islamic countries and by Muslims throughout the world.

Alas, Traditional Feminism has morphed into Modern Feminism, contrary to the values of Traditional Feminism. Accordingly, if you believe in the values of traditional Feminism, you must reject modern Feminism as antithetical to these ideals and ideas.

07/24/24 Hubris, Not Humility

I have often written that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. One wonders where they came to this smug attitude. In pondering how this has come to be, I believe that it has much to do with Modern Education. In focusing on the students' emotional wants and needs, protecting their feelings, and boosting their self-confidence, educators have forgotten to challenge the students' intellectual development. An intellectual development that challenges them to explore beyond their knowledge base and thinking by exposing them to new knowledge and expansive thinking and to contrary ideas and beliefs.

They are, therefore, in fact, teaching them what to think rather than how to think, as I have examined in my article on "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, they enter the adult world believing they have all the answers and are full of hubris rather than the humility of knowing there are limits to their knowledge and experience. The humility of knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t know, and realizing that there is much that you don’t know that you do not know about is not present within them.

Consequently, this hubris settles into a smug attitude in which no humility is present. Thus, they believe that they are always correct and that others who disagree with them must be wrong, stupid, or perhaps evil.

07/24/24 Politics for Profit

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez was found guilty Tuesday, July 16th, of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for using his powerful post to enrich himself and his wife. “This wasn’t politics as usual,” US Attorney for the Southern District Damian Williams told reporters outside court Tuesday. “This was politics for profit.”

Politicians enriching themselves is all too common throughout history. In American history, this is also common, but Americans have an aversion to enrichment by bribery. Most often, the enrichment is by more subtle means, which are borderline illegal and sometimes over the line illegal, but usually do not involve cash payments, precious metals, or expensive gifts as was the case for Sen. Menendez. It is often difficult to prove in a court of law that the enrichment was over the legal line, and prosecutors are loath to bring charges against politicians as they can be seen as political witch hunts.

This brings us to the First Family, whose enrichments were done by familial surrogates rather than directly to Joe and Jill Biden. For most of Joe Biden’s political career (and he has had no career other than politics), there have been whispers of influence peddling on a small scale. With his becoming Vice-President, this influence peddling became big time, mostly through his son Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden established dozens of shell companies and a multitude of bank accounts, which he utilized to disguise his activities, and he obtained lucrative contracts and positions with foreign companies in which he had no knowledge, experience, or capabilities. Hunter accumulated millions of dollars and distributed them to his family members. This was done through monetary shell games with his shell companies and multiple bank accounts, and he was able to disguise his actions and disguise his father’s connection to the money he obtained.

Recently, the dam finally broke, and much of Hunter’s activities became public knowledge, along with his activities’ connections to his father. Despite Joe Biden’s denial that he had any knowledge of his son’s business activities, it is now apparent that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business activities. Thus, we can say that Joe Biden was profiting from his son’s influence peddling. It's not exactly bribery, but it's almost as bad. Bribery is often a direct payment to achieve a goal, while influence peddling is often an indirect payment to achieve a goal. However, both are the Politics for Profit and should have no place in American politics.

As such, it is time for Joe Biden to leave the public arena. If he does not go willingly, then the American people need to vote him out. It may also not be possible (or wise) to bring him to justice considering his current mental incapacity and his status as President or ex-President, but the stain of his influence-peddling should always be attached to his name and, thus, be remembered as a warning to all politicians that the Politics for Profit should never occur in American government.

07/23/24 Pardon Me

With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 Presidential election, there are many questions and issues that need to be answered and resolved. The State laws regarding the conventioneers from voting for anyone but Joe Biden on the first ballot, the legality and means of replacing his name on State Ballots that have already been legally set, the use of the campaign funds he has already raised, and various other Federal Election Commission laws, rules, and regulations are all unresolved questions and issues. I would expect the Democrat Party to engage in all sorts of legal chicanery to have these laws negated or declared unconstitutional and/or for them to circumvent or ignore these laws. If the past is a prologue to the future, then we can expect that the Democrat Party will exhibit an attitude of ‘Election Laws for Thee, but Not For Me’.

The one thing that is not an issue is the Presidential Pardon clause in the Constitution. The President may pardon or commute any person for Federal violations of the law at the President’s discretion, prior to a prosecution or after a conviction of the law. Given the Biden family history of influence peddling, corrupt dealings, tax evasion, and sometimes outright violations of Federal Law, this is an important consideration for the Biden family members.

Thus, I expect that President Biden will issue preemptive absolute pardons for himself, Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Francis Biden before he leaves office. To do otherwise is to leave his family exposed to legal action for their past misdeeds, a situation that would be intolerable for the corrupt Biden Family members. These pardons should also be intolerable for the American public, as it institutes, as US Attorney for the Southern District Damian Williams stated after the conviction of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez for bribery, “This wasn’t politics as usual; this was politics for profit.”

07/23/24 Let the Games and Hypocrisy Begin

With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 Presidential election, the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the  Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media have engaged in singing the praises of Joe Biden. Praises for his years of public service, his doing what is right for America, his patriotism, his selflessness, the greatness and successes of his Presidency, and other exaggerated rhetoric flow from their mouths, and none of these praises are true. Joe Biden did not withdraw from the 2024 Presidential campaign for any of these reasons. Joe Biden's character has been, and is now, motivated by calculations, first and foremost, of personal political interests. Joe Biden was forced to withdraw due to intense political pressure from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists fear of losing the election not only for the Presidency but also for the Democrat Party House and Senate down-ballot candidates, as well as by rich Democrat Party contributors withdrawal of financial contributions until he withdrew his candidacy.

In all these praises, they can be categorized as:

• equivocations - A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
• evasivenesses - Intentionally vague or ambiguous
• fabrications - A deliberately false or improbable account
• falsehoods - A false statement
• prevarications - A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
• untruths - A false statement

And all these praises are for the purpose of misleading the American public by:

• bamboozlement - Concealment of one's true motives by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end
• blather & blathering - Idle or foolish and irrelevant talk
• crickets - an idiom that means no reply or reaction at all
• gaslighting - Manipulate someone psychologically so that they start to question their own sanity
• gibberish - Unintelligible talking
• gobbledygook - Incomprehensible or pompous jargon
• hoodwinking - Influence by slyness
• slyness - Shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception

As usual for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists they are employing the tactics of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their praises for Joe Biden.

Their comments on Joe Biden’s physical and mental capabilities for the last four years are, as more than one wag has pointed out, like the 1989 movie “Weekend at Bernie's”, and prevarications and hypocritical on their part. With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 presidential election, their hypocrisies have been demonstrated to have no bounds. Their statements on Joe Biden's greatness are but a continuation of their hypocrisy. His incapability to run for President while being able to be President is a shining and sheer example of their hypocrisy. Their efforts and statements to get him to withdraw his candidacy and then praise his efforts while in office are hypocritical. Their knowing of his physical and mental deficiencies from the start of his candidacy (both in the 2020 and 2024 campaigns) was a hypocritical effort to obtain and retain power and control over the American people.

Do not be fooled by their praises or hypocrisy, as it is only a means to ease Joe Biden out of the campaign and make his replacement more palatable to the American public. All this praise is in the hope that they can turn around the gloomy election prospects for Democrat Party candidates so that they can obtain and retain power and control over the American people, as I have written in my chirp on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

07/22/24 Changing Your Mind

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Such is the case of former critics of Donald Trump who have changed their minds about him. Derek Hunter, a former critic and now supporter of Donald Trump, has written an article about changing your mind, “The Idea of Changing Your Mind Confuses Democrats”, that examines this change of mind:

“Ever change your mind on anything or anyone? I bet you have. Do you know why I’d bet that way? Because you’re a human being, which makes you capable of all sorts of amazing things, especially the ability to learn new things and adapt to that knowledge. OK, maybe not ALL human beings have that skill – I’d tell Democrats to change their minds, but they shouldn’t work without tools – but those with an IQ larger than their hat size certainly can. This is why so many in the media seem to be confused by the idea that some people have changed their minds about Donald Trump.”

This article points out that:

“Human beings, intelligent ones, admit when they’re wrong and learn from it. How stupid would you be if you held fast to everything you thought when you were 20? I’d be a dope-smoking moron, likely with a rotten liver, and would not have one of my best friends. If I stood fast to what I thought starting in mid-June 2015, I’d be my underpants cheering on Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, and the rest of their Reich Cabinet of National Salvation in front of an LED screen pretending to be at the Republican convention on MSNBC. But I’m not. And you are not. Fewer and fewer people are, which only reinforces what I’ve been saying here.”

Therefore, when Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media point out that some current supporters of Donald Trump were former critics of him, I would point out the aforementioned quote of Benjamin Franklin as the reason for their change of mind. I would also point out that changing your mind based on better information or fuller consideration is a positive trait of a person.

07/22/24 The Connoisseur

In the book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley, the author points out In Chapter 25, “Rockwellian Free Speech”, that the Norman Rockwell painting “The Connoisseur” is of a man staring at an abstract piece of art and is waiting patiently for meaning to emerge from the paint drips:

Professor Turley then states that:

“I happen to like modern art. However, when it comes to constitutional law, I am unapologetically Rockwellian. The Constitution resonates with first principles that are profound and defining values of a free people. Once again, there has long been a rejection of classic free speech views as unsophisticated and lacking proper nuance. Once free speech becomes more of an abstraction, it can be balanced against other interests and confined to achieve other goals. It is more Rothko than Rockwell, leaving greater room for interpretation by the beholder. In constitutional law, the criticisms of figures such as Greenberg are strikingly familiar. Many law professors brush off natural or autonomy-based interpretations of the First Amendment as not “serious” and lacking a certain discernment. Free speech is one of the paint drops in an abstract constitutional work in which the meaning comes a functionalist whole. As we have seen, this untethering of interpretation from the text proved to be little more than a constitutional conceit. It can render meaning so fluid as to become entirely situational or subjective. Pollock once advised observers that, if they wanted to truly enjoy his work, they should stop looking for objective meaning. This is a dangerous practice when applied to the interpretation of a constitutional right.”

For me, this painting also represents how most mainstream Americans view the policies of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They stand and stare at these policies to try and make sense of them, and they are bewildered as to what they mean and how they are interrelated and sensible. The abstract piece of art in this painting is how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders view the Constitution as a living, breathing document (i.e., Living Constitutionalists). This viewpoint is a very dangerous practice when applied to the interpretation of the Constitution, as it allows the Constitution to be construed in any manner that the beholder wishes. A construing that, if applied, would endanger our "American Ideals and Ideas" and allow for an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/21/24 Who Would You Rather Have as V.P.?

Many opponents of President Trump have criticized and derided his Vice-President pick, J.D. Vance, for Vance’s youth and inexperience, not to mention that he is a true Conservative (oh my goodness gracious). The question I have for these critics is: Is it better to have a Vice-President who has succeeded in life at everything that he has done by his own efforts, or a Vice-President who has failed at many of the things that she has done and succeeded only through her connections and/or her physical attributes?

J.D. Vance was born and raised in Middletown, Ohio, a once flourishing American manufacturing town where Ohioans could live content, middle-class lives on single incomes. Over time, many of those good jobs disappeared, and JD’s family suffered the effects along with many others. His parents divorced when he was a toddler, and Vance's childhood was marked by poverty and abuse, and his mother struggled with drug addiction. Vance and his sister Lindsey were raised primarily by his maternal grandparents, James (1929–1997) and Bonnie Vance (née Blanton; 1933–2005), whom they called "Mamaw and Papaw”. His grandparents on both sides had moved to Ohio from the Appalachian Mountains area in Kentucky.

After graduating from Middletown High School in 2003, Vance enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was deployed to Iraq as a combat correspondent for six months in late 2005. He then attended The Ohio State University with the support of the G.I. Bill and graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and philosophy in 2009. He then went to Yale Law School, where he was an editor of The Yale Law Journal. He graduated in 2013 with a Juris Doctor degree. He then entered private practice at the law firm Sidley Austin. Having practiced law for slightly under two years, Vance moved to San Francisco to work in the technology industry as a venture capitalist. Between 2016 and 2017, he served as a principal at Peter Thiel's firm, Mithril Capital. He then moved back to Ohio and started a business dedicated to growing jobs and opportunities in the American heartland. He also wrote the #1 bestselling book Hillbilly Elegy, which was turned into a Netflix movie.

In early 2018, Vance considered running for the U.S. Senate against Sherrod Brown but did not do so. In April 2021, Vance expressed interest in running for the Senate seat, which was vacated by Rob Portman. He ran and won a competitive Republican primary, and on November 8, in the general election, Vance defeated Democratic nominee Tim Ryan with 53% of the vote to Ryan's 47%, becoming the Junior Senator from Ohio. Thus, it can be said that J.D. Vance's success was based on his own efforts and achievements.

Kamala Harris was born into a life of privilege as both her parents were academics working at multiple universities. Her K12 education was at some of the best private schools available to her. Harris attended Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., and graduated from Howard in 1986 with a degree in political science and economics. She then attended law school at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, through its Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP), and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1989.

In 1990, Harris was hired as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California, where she was described as "an able prosecutor on the way up". In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission. Harris took a six-month leave of absence in 1994 to join the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, then afterward resumed as prosecutor during the years she sat on the boards. While serving on the boards, she received a hefty salary from each board. Harris's connection to Brown was noted in media reportage as part of a pattern of Californian political leaders appointing "friends and loyal political soldiers" to lucrative positions on the commissions.

She became a Democrat political riser and star in California, where it is almost automatic that you will succeed if you are a Democrat. From 2004–2011, she ran and served as District Attorney of San Francisco. Nearly two years before the 2010 California Attorney General election, Harris announced she planned to run. She also stated she would run only if then-Attorney General Jerry Brown did not seek reelection for that position. Brown instead chose to run for governor, and Harris consolidated support from prominent California Democrats. She won a close election in 2010 against a Republican and easily won reelection in 2014, thus serving as California Attorney General from 2011–2017. In January 2015, Senator Barbara Boxer announced that she would not run for reelection in 2016, and Harris announced her candidacy for the Senate seat the following week. The 2016 California Senate election used California's new top-two primary format, where the top two candidates in the primary would advance to the general election regardless of party. Harris won by 60% over fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez in the general election, becoming the junior Senator from California.

Her biggest challenge was in 2020 when she ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination but dropped out when it was apparent that she had little traction and was unlikely to even win the primary in her home state. Prior to her run for the Democrat Presidential nomination, she published a book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, which achieved modest success during her candidacy for President and Vice-President. She was chosen to be Biden’s Vice-Presidential running mate when Biden committed himself to choosing a woman of color as his running mate. Thus, it can be said that Kamala Harris's success was based on her connections and physical attributes rather than her achievements.

Since becoming vice president, her record of achievement is dismal, as can be seen by her appointment with President Biden to lead the administration’s efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as other efforts assigned to her. Her foreign policy trips have been uniformly panned, and her public appearances and speeches have become babble fests and muddled much of the time. What she has demonstrated is that she is not capable of being President if the need arises. Given President Biden’s mental and physical health deterioration, the need may arise if he gets worse and/or is reelected.

Accordingly, I again ask the question to the critics of J.D. Vance: Is it better to have a Vice-President who has succeeded in life at everything that he has done by his own efforts, or a Vice-President who has failed at many of the things that she has done and succeed only through her connections and/or her physical attributes? The answer is obvious to all but the most partisan: J.D. Vance is better qualified than Kamala Harris to become President if the need arises.

07/21/24 Special Counsels

In the United States, a Special Counsel (formerly called Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate and potentially prosecute a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting President or Attorney General might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than by an ordinary prosecutor who would otherwise be in the position of investigating his or her own superior. Special Counsels also have handled investigations into those connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the Justice Department's prosecutors, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns.

Since the expiration of the Independent Counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of Special Counsels.

However, current regulations exist for a Special Counsel that has been utilized seven times since the law's expiration in 1999, but such regulations have not been legally adjudicated nor ruled upon by the Supreme Court. As such, the issue of the Constitutionality of a Special Counsel is an unresolved issue. The main issues are: Is it constitutional for a president or attorney general to create and fund a special counsel office without congressional approval, and can they appoint a person to head the special counsel office without Senate approval? In the current Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity, Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which he noted that he believed that a Special Counsel’s office was Unconstitutional. In the recent trial in Florida, in which former President Trump is accused of mishandling classified information, the judge ruled that the Special Counsel’s office was Unconstitutional as to its creation, funding, and appointment of Special Counsel, then dismissed all charges against President Trump based on that finding. The judge in the Washington D.C. trial of former President Trump, in which he is accused of election conspiracy, is also examining this issue, but she has yet to rule on this issue.

Thus, until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the current regulations, the constitutional issue of a Special Counsel is unresolved. Of course, Congress could enact legislation that formalizes a Special Counsel office and appointment, but given the bitter hyper-partisanship in modern America, I do not expect that this will happen.

07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control

I have often said that as Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them as they believe that any actions that they undertake to obtain and retain power are the proper and needful actions for the benefit of all Americans.

This is demonstrated in their current discussions and actions regarding President Biden. It has become obvious to all that Joe Biden is no longer physically and mentally fit to be President now or in the future. Yet, they are only attempting to have him withdraw his presidential candidacy and not resign from the Presidency. They are also scheming about how and who should replace him as a candidate while ignoring the democratic will of the primary voters who voted for his and Kamala Harris’s candidacy. These are not the actions of a party that is running on the promise to preserve “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy". A party truly dedicated to “Our Democracy” would require that President Biden resign or for them to invoke the 25th Amendment to have him removed from office to be replaced by Kamala Harris as President (as she was democratically elected to do). They should also not be discussing any replacement for Kamal Harris as the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party, as she was democratically elected by the primary voters. As such, they are only interested in obtaining and retaining power for themselves regardless of the will of the Democrat Party primary voters.

In these words and deeds, they seem more concerned about the ignoble purposes of obtaining and retaining power and control over the American people than they are about preserving “Our Democracy”. Any party so interested in obtaining and retaining power for themselves is not a party dedicated to “Our Democracy”, but a party dedicated to themselves and a party that is only interested in establishing an autocracy over the people. Such a party does not deserve to be the leaders of a Freedom and Liberty loving people, nor of a people dedicated to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/20/24 Is the 25th Amendment Useless?

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution deals with the removal of a sitting President when they have become incapacitated. At the time prior to the adoption of the Amendment, it was hotly debated, with supporters and opponents offering various pros and cons for its adoption. Its supporters defended the Amendment as necessary in a world of modern medicine that can sustain life even when serious mental and physical disabilities addle a person, and the Amendment was the best that could be achieved. Its critics decried Section 4 of the Amendment as overly complicated and would require virtuous actions by politicians to be invoked and followed through, which was unlikely to occur, and the Amendment was confusing and complicated in its application.

Since the adoption of the 25th Amendment, there has been no serious need to invoke the 25th Amendment. Now that there is a need for this Amendment, it has been shown that the opponents of the 25th Amendment were correct in the application of this Amendment. We have a seriously addled President who refuses to resign even when members of his own party recognize his mental and physical disabilities, and we have seen no serious attempts to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. What we have seen is cover-ups and lies about his condition, aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media. The fact is that in a dangerous world, it is dangerous to have an addled President. As President Biden is obviously addled, he poses a danger to the American people and needs to be removed forthwith. Political considerations about his removal do not alleviate the danger he poses and are inconsequential to the possible dangers that we may face. Yet, political considerations have predominated in the discussions of his removal, and virtuous actions by politicians are nowhere to be seen.

The lesson to be learned is that while individual virtue by politicians may occur, collected virtue by many politicians is rare, and in both cases, political considerations often intervene in virtuous actions. Consequently, a law that requires virtuous actions by politicians is usually doomed to failure and should not be depended upon. Thus, the 25th Amendment has failed, and it needs to be replaced by an Amendment that does not require virtuous actions by politicians to be invoked and followed through.

07/19/24 Excoriating Lawfare

In an article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Mr. President, If You Want to Mend Our Political Divide, End Lawfare”, he excoriates the practice of "Lawfare":

“Lawfare is the criminalization of policy differences and partisan rivalries. As such, it is another iteration of the same pathology Biden condemned in his Oval Office remarks: the abuse of power that catalyzes political violence.

A stable republic settles its differences in its democratic processes — debates by its elected representatives and fair elections. In an unstable nation, the ruling regime uses its control of prosecutorial power to imprison and harass opponents and dissenters. The objective is not just to suppress but to vilify political opponents — to portray them as treasonous, if not inhuman, and as an existential threat to the society. This is the same abomination that inspires political violence.

Included is lawfare’s inevitable regimen of two-tiered justice. In lawfare, the regime’s enemies are pursued obsessively, even for trivial or manufactured offenses — Bragg’s prosecution of Trump being a perfect example. In a contrast too stark to be missed, lawfare shields the regime’s apparatchiks and allies from serious prosecution even for violent crimes — witness the blind eye turned to rioting and other lawlessness by self-styled racial-justice and pro-Hamas agitators, the blatantly unlawful harassment of Supreme Court justices, and the Biden DOJ’s yearslong effort to shield the Biden family from accountability for influence-peddling.

The practice of two-tiered justice inculcates in the society the lesson that violence — whether against political enemies or in furtherance of regime-favored causes — is rewarded. It breeds ever more violence and instability.”

Lawfare only brings about despotism then tyranny, as I have examine in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". As is normal for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, they often espouse lofty goals before committing disreputable words and deeds. Such is the case for President Biden as he often talks the talk, but rarely does he walk the walk, as he did in his Oval Office address to the Nation after the assignation attempt on President Trump. At the end of Mr. McCarthy’s article, he illuminates the deeds that are necessary to back up the talk:

“Sunday evening, the president said that Americans are not “enemies” of each other — that “we are friends and co-workers, citizens and most importantly fellow Americans,” who are bonded together despite our political differences. It is one thing for Joe Biden to say that. It’s another to prove that he means it. He can do that, cost-free but to great political benefit, by ending lawfare.”

07/19/24 Are They Enemies or Opponents?

It is all too common in modern America to view an opponent as an enemy. However, there are significant differences between an enemy and an opponent. Enemies are any hostile group of people who wish to defeat and destroy you, while opponents are those who offer adversarial disagreement with you. Enemies must be defeated, while opponents should be accommodated without sacrificing your principles.

Unfortunately, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as enemies that must be defeated by any means necessary rather than opponents who should not be elected through the normal political process of elections. Thus, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists engage in the tactics of Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and the possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. In engaging in any means necessary, they are being antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and are assaulting our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

They do this because Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".

This is nothing new for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they have been treating Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as enemies for several decades. Alas, they have forgotten the words from The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In their forgetfulness and in a long train of abuses and usurpations, they have angered those that they treat as enemies rather than opponents. An anger that is now at a boiling point that may tip us into a civil conflict or civil war, which is justifiable under the above principles of The Declaration of Independence.

07/18/24 Mainstream Media Cover-ups and Lies

Victor Davis Hanson's new article, “Our Brezhnev, our Pravda, our Soviet Union...” recounts how the Mainstream Media has become the Pravda (“Truth”) of America. Their cover-ups and lies about President Biden’s deteriorating mental and physical health do justice to the Pravda cover-ups and lies about the stasis of the Soviet Union’s General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev of the Communist Party. Cover-ups and lies that lasted for many years until they were able to announce that he had died. As Mr. Hanson stated in his article:

“Biden, too, is at that point of stasis. He cannot do press conferences, town halls, debates, or real interviews. To do so would confirm to the public the truth: that Biden is too cognitively challenged to continue his presidency.”

Thus, the cover-ups and lies about Biden’s health can no longer withstand the truths about his condition, and the Mainstream Media now professes shock that they were lied to about his health. However, they were lies that the mainstream media were all too willing to accept in their support for the politics of the Democrat Party and the Biden Administration, as I have written in my article on "Modern Journalism". An acceptance of lies that is contrary to their journalist ethics of uncovering the facts and reporting the truths of the facts to the American public. Such old-fashioned journalist ethics have become passé in modern America, and they have been replaced by advocacy journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. As such, in advocacy journalism, facts and truths do not matter if they contravene the accepted political narrative. Alas, the Free Press has become the Self-Censored Press to achieve the journalists’ political proclivities.

In such an advocacy journalistic era, democracy cannot survive, as democracy requires that the public have the unvarnished facts and truths to make an informed decision. However, in such an advocacy journalistic era, despotism can thrive, as those who have contrary facts and truths from the journalists’ political proclivities become fearful of recriminations for speaking their minds. In such an advocacy journalistic era, journalists become petty despots and, consequently, the enemies of Liberty and Freedom.

07/18/24 The Online Censorship Racket

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “Elon Musk is Right: End the Online Censorship Racket”, he discusses the recent report of the House Judiciary Committee and the disclosure of yet another effort to silence opposing viewpoints by squeezing the revenue of individuals or groups, including Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

“Few Americans have ever heard of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, let alone understand how it shapes what they read and hear in news and commentary. That may soon change.

An alarming new report of the House Judiciary Committee details this organization’s work to censor conservative and opposing viewpoints in the media by targeting figures such as Joe Rogan and entire social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter).

It is part of a massive censorship system that a federal court recently described as “Orwellian.” The sophistication of this system makes authoritarian regimes like China’s and Iran’s look like mere amateurs in censorship and blacklisting.”

Mr. Turley also points out:

“Through the years, I have testified repeatedly in Congress on this system supported enthusiastically by President Biden and his administration. It has proven to be a frustrating game of whack-a-mole for civil libertarians. The Democrats in Congress have uniformly opposed any investigation or action on censorship while denying for years that there was a coordinated effort between government and corporations. When we were successful in uncovering components of this system, they were often quickly shut down as the work shifted to other components and assets.”

Such duplicitous action reveals the true commitment of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to stifle any speech that opposes their political goals and policy agendas. The fear of being targeted by such groups is also a form of despotism. A stifling and despotism that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The question is, of course, what can be Constitutionally done to end this Online Censorship Racket? We had better find a solution to this problem before our Constitution becomes but a hollowed-out shell in protecting our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights".

07/17/24 That Didn’t Take Long

In a Washington Times article By Stephen Dinan, “Biden rejects responsibility for overheated rhetoric: ‘I’m not engaged in that’”, he discusses an interview that President Biden had with Lester Holt of NBC News on Monday, July 15, 2024:

“President Biden laid blame for the country’s overheated rhetoric at the feet of former President Donald Trump in an interview Monday and said he sees no need to change his own behavior.

A day after asking all sides to “cool” their words and two days after a gunman narrowly failed to assassinate Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden told NBC that it’s Republicans who have crossed the lines — and particularly Mr. Trump’s “inflammatory” words.

“I’m not engaged in that rhetoric. Now my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric. He talks about ‘bloodbath’ if he loses,” Mr. Biden said.

He specifically rejected the idea that he needs to do any soul-searching about his own words.”

Since that interview, other Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media have disclaimed that they are engaging in overheated rhetoric and that Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are primarily responsible for the overheated rhetoric. Such claims rely on "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to buttress the claim, which makes their claims ludicrous. If you are utilizing pejoratives, as I have written in my article Divisiveness in America, then you are engaged in overheated rhetoric.

This is but another example of how Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media engage in navel-gazing when it comes to their own words and deeds. A navel-gazing that allows them to ignore the consequences of their own words and deeds and shift blame to their opponents for any negative consequences that their words and deeds engender. It is a self-delusion that absolves them from any responsibility for the havoc they may wreak. It is also a delusion that the mainstream media does not question and, indeed, supports, as it is also a delusion that the mainstream media also has.

These delusions are dangerous to America and Americans, as it allows for havoc to reign without assigning responsibility for the havoc. It also allows the perpetrators of the delusion to divert the American public from assigning responsibility to the persons who created the havoc, thereby stymieing the American people to take corrective actions to put an end to the havoc.

07/17/24 Zombie Lies

What is a Zombie Lie? Bill Maher coined this term to mean something that never was true, but certain people refuse to stop saying it, or something that used to be true but no longer is, but certain people pretend it's still true.

In a Real Time with Bill Maher interview with the notable black radio host Charlamagne Tha God, aka Lenard Larry McKelvey, Maher makes some interesting points. One issue that Maher has criticized progressives on is the lack of recognition of progress in America. Bill Maher was visibly disappointed by Charlamagne's statement that you need to be 5x better as a black person in America in 2024:

BM: "I think that's a zombie lie."
CTG: "Why?"
BM: "Because that's not America anymore."

Maher continued:

“Is there more work to be done? Sure, but it’s not 1619. It’s not even 1960. Non-whites can and do have the right to access any public facility without being seated in a racially segregated zone, can attend any educational institution, vote, drive cars, and do pretty much anything a Muslim woman cannot in Iran or Gaza. That’s the point. Jim Crow is dead—stop acting like we haven’t moved past it.”

He also stated:

“Every nation has a dark period in its history. Slavery was our original sin, and we fought the deadliest war in American history to resolve it. It doesn’t exist, though I’m sure many progressive students wish it did to feed their victimhood addiction. Things are exponentially better now than they were in 1960, or 1860, or 1760.”

I often disagree with Bill Maher, especially on what Zombie Lies are or are not. However, I believe that on this topic, he is absolutely correct, as I believe that on issues regarding human interactions:

“In regard to human interactions, time passes, things change, and what was true yesterday may not be true today, and what will be true tomorrow is unknown. Therefore, remember yesterday, live for today, and think about tomorrow.”
 - Mark Dawson

Many statements are claimed to be Zombie Lies, but if the statement has some factual basis, it cannot be a lie, but it can be a mistaken and/or misleading statement. This is often true during a political dispute as both Zombie Lies and mistaken and/or misleading statements are all too common, as I have written in my article “Lies and Beliefs”. We should all keep in mind when evaluating the truth or falsehood of political statements that:

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."
  - Mark Dawson

Additionally, tis the Presidential election season when former Zombie Lies arise from the dead and become once again in vogue and all too common. Zombie Lies are told by partisans on both sides, but they appear to be a political tactic of the Democrat Party. This is especially true about President Trump's statements, as he is often too colorful and unclear in his statements, makes comical and facetious statements, and makes statements that border on or are Zombie Lies. The Democrat Party also takes many of Trump’s statements out of context to make them appear to be what they are not. It is also an unfortunate fact that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are bereft of humor and will twist and turn Trump’s comical and facetious statements to make them appear to be serious statements. This is especially pernicious when the Zombie Lie said about Trump have been proven to be false, yet they are propagated to smear Trump.

Thus, beware of Zombie Lies from both sides during this political season, as they will become fast and furious for the next several months.

07/16/24 A Larger Voice in a Large Crowd

In a column by Noah Rothman, “Deeper into the Abyss”, he expresses the sentiments that are complementary to those that I expressed in my Chirp on “07/08/24 A Small Voice in a Large Crowd”:

“In moments like these, writing anything at all feels like an imprudent exercise. It’s hard to think of anything that will make a positive contribution to the discourse. The most prudent course would be to say nothing at all, gather information, and produce something of value when passions have cooled. But taking that path means ceding the environment to firebrands and political vandals whose enterprise depends on thoughtless fervor. If writing injudiciously risks exacerbating tensions in a political landscape rife with them, it’s just as irresponsible to allow the miscreants and demagogues to control the mic. So here goes.”

I have often delayed Chirping about a current event until more information becomes available or my anger subsides to a more dispassionate state. Given our current extremely contentious presidential election season, I expect that contentious events will occur fast and furiously, and there may be little time to reflect or calm down before the next contentious event occurs. Thus, I may be forced to Chirp more quickly than would be normal for myself. In such an environment, it can be expected that mistakes may occur or intemperate reactions may be exposed. If this should happen in my Chirps and Articles, I would ask your forgiveness beforehand, and I shall correct myself by addendum.

In the past, I have self-restricted my Chirps to one a day, but given the numerous, fast, and furious current events in this Presidential election cycle, I find that once a day is too limiting to give justice to the nonsense that is occurring. I, therefore, will begin to Chirp more than once a day to keep up with the nonsense. Any errors that may occur in my original Chirp will be corrected by an addendum in the original Chirp, while expansions to my original Chirp thoughts will engender a new Chirp.

07/15/24 Violence in the Political Arena

There have been many immediate comments by prominent people about the assassination attempt on President Trump, most of them about how individual violence is unacceptable in the political arena. However, there has been no such condemnation when mob violence is utilized for political purposes.

The most glaring example of this was the many incidents during the 2020 Summer of Riots throughout the last Presidential campaign. As reporters opined that the mobs were “mostly peaceful”, in the background of their reports were scenes of arson, looting, and vandalism in which approximately $2 billion in personal property destruction occurred and in which hundreds of people were injured, and approximately 45 persons were killed. Thousands of demonstrators turned out nightly, with some of them hurling fireworks, rocks, ball bearings, and bottles at law enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers responded with huge plumes of tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and shielded charges that created chaotic, war zone-like scenes.

During these protests, many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists voiced support for the protesters as justifiable actions by the events that preceded and triggered the protests. Some supporters and Democrat Party politicians even helped with fundraising in support of the rioters, and almost no prosecutions ensued against the rioters. When the January 6th, 2021, “Insurrection” occurred, there was immediate and universal condemnation and prosecutions for these rioters, as they were in opposition to the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists stances. Thus, it seems that mob violence is acceptable in the political arena if it is in support of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists convictions, but it is condemned when it opposes their convictions. Meanwhile, Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives have condemned all mob violence from all sides of the political spectrum.

Consequently, we have a dichotomy of what is acceptable and unacceptable violence in individual and mob violence where none should exist. All political violence should be condemned by all under all circumstances. Otherwise, we live in a chaotic society where A Civil Society cannot exist.

07/14/24 Blind, Deaf, and Clueless

One look at the video of the shooting of President Trump in Butler, PA., is enough for any semi-intelligent person to conclude it was an assassination attempt. Yet many in the Mainstream Media ran this story with the following headlines:

• “Secret Service Rushes Trump Off Stage after He Falls At Rally”
  - CNN
• “Secret Service Rushes Trump Offstage After Popping Noises Heard At His Pennsylvania Rally”
  - NBC News
• “Trump Apparently Injured at Rally”
  - MSNBC
• “Trump Rally Halted by Security Incident”
  - Fox News
• “Trump Rally Incident”
  - NBC News
• “Trump Speech Interrupted by Secret Service”
  - CNN
• “Trump Taken Away After Loud Noises at Rally”
  - Washington Post

If ever there was an excellent example of the bias of the Mainstream Media, these headlines take the cake. The Mainstream Media’s inability to accurately portray this assassination attempt demonstrates just how Blind, Deaf, and Clueless they are (and perhaps deliberately so) when it comes to reporting on Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives.

There have been many immediate comments by prominent people about this assassination attempt, mostly about how violence is unacceptable in the political arena. However, the most intelligent quote about the reason for this assassination attempt is by Former Attorney General Bill Barr, “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not.” When you demonize an opponent by personal pejoratives, as I have written in my article on “Divisiveness in America”, you set the stage for an irrational or mentally unbalanced person to take deplorable and deadly actions to eliminate the demonized person. Such has been the case of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their fear and loathing of Trump (i.e., TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome). Thus, we have the following situation:

Alas, I do not expect Democrat Party Leaders or those who are infected by TDS to mute their rhetoric about Trump (except in the next few days), as it appears that this is the only effective strategy and tactic that they have to defeat Trump.

07/13/24 Republican Party Platform

The Republican National Committee has offered a 2024 Presidential Election Platform that has twenty points of what they wish to accomplish for the American people if Donald Trump is elected President. These points are:

1. SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION
2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY
3. END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN
4. MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!
5. STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
6. LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!
7. DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
8. PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY -- ALL MADE IN AMERICA
9. END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
10. STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS
11. REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON DC, MAKING THEM SAFE, CLEAN, AND BEAUTIFUL AGAIN.
12. STRENGTHEN AND MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY, MAKING IT, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE STRONGEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD
13. KEEP THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY
14. FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE
15. CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS
16. CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN
17. KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
18. DEPORT PRO-HAMAS RADICALS AND MAKE OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFE AND PATRIOTIC AGAIN
19. SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING SAME DAY VOTING, VOTER IDENTIFICATION, PAPER BALLOTS, AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP
20. UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details will be hotly debated and demonized by the Democrat Party. I eagerly await the Democrat Party 2024 Presidential Election Platform so that I can compare and contrast the different platforms. Until then, I can only expect the platforms to sharply disagree with their visions and the future course of America.

07/12/24 If Trump Wins

A new campaign ad by the Biden Reelection campaign has started to run that makes the following points:

This begs the questions of:

• Why not Mass deportations and migrant detention camps for those persons who have entered America illegally?
• Why not Reinstate the Muslim Travel ban for those Muslim countries that have extensive ties to Islamic terrorists?
• Why not Deploy federal troops to Democratic-run cities when Law and Order is not being preserved in those cities?
• Why not Direct the DOJ to prosecute political opponents who have utilized Unconstitutional and illegal means to impose their will upon America?
• Why not Replace career civil servants with hard-line loyalists, as the current civil servants are hard-line Progressive loyalists?

There is also the problem of their utilizing fearmongering to invoke mob passion to vote against Trump rather than the usual political rhetoric to incentivize their supporters. The answer is that they are so deficient in their usual political rhetoric that they fear losing the election if they do not utilize fearmongering. This fearmongering further increases Divisiveness in America and harms A Civil Society.

Ronald Regan's question about Jimmy Carter’s record, “Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?” hangs over the reelection of President Biden. In an attempt to avoid answering this question, the Biden 2024 election campaign has resorted to fearmongering against Trump and Republicans to hide the factual answer to this question. America, the American people, and the world are not better off today than at the start of the Biden Administration. This answer is a sufficient reason to not vote for Biden and the Democrat candidates, and the utilization of fearmongering is a sufficient reason to vote for Trump and Republican candidates.

This, along with my chirp on “07/11/24 It’s On the Ballot”, is why the 2024 election is crucial to America's future. It is a choice of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" versus a despotic government intent on establishing their "Oligarchy in America". God forbid the American electorate makes the wrong choice, as all hope may be lost for a bright and prosperous America dedicated to our American values.

07/11/24 It’s On the Ballot

As Jonathan Turley has written, “Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.” I agree that democracy is on the ballot, as well as the American values of Freedom of Speech and the preservation of The Rule of Law in America. As I have written in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and "The Weaponization of Government", we have seen a continual assault on these American values by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. President Biden and his Administration have been at the forefront of this assault, and all three American values of Democracy, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law will perish if Joe Biden is reelected.

This assault is currently directed against former President Trump, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump", but it has also ensnared his associates, as well as ordinary Americans who have dared to express their virulent disagreement with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders political goals and policy agendas. Thus, we have seen a form of despotism descend upon America. This despotism is on the ballot in the form of Democrat Party candidates who all seem to support these despotic actions.

Consequently, our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are on the ballot in the 2024 election. Think wisely and choose carefully for whom you would vote in the 2024 elections, as the future course of American values is on the ballot.

07/10/24 Rational, Reasonable, and Virtuous

In my articles on "Rationality"  and "Reasoning", and in my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", I discuss the importance of these attributes, especially in political life. A rational and reasonable person understands the mental and physical unfitness of President Biden to remain in office and run for reelection. A virtuous person would try to get him to resign and not run for reelection. However, rationality, reasonableness, and virtuousness seem to be lacking in Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in regard to President Biden. Their fear and loathing of Trump (i.e., TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome) runs so strong that they would sacrifice all to defeat Trump.

The discussions that they have been having on replacing Biden as their presidential candidate since the presidential debate have been about his electability rather than his mental and physical fitness, with fitness only being the excuse for dropping him. Prior to his awful Presidential Debate performance with Trump, they all were supportive of Biden and made excuses for his physical and mental difficulties. When it appeared that he was electable, there was no talk of replacing him; it was only excuses for his physical and mental deterioration so as to not harm his electability. Additionally, if he is indeed unfit to run for President, then he is unfit to be President, and they should be trying to get him to resign from the Presidency as well as not run for reelection. Thus, their words and deeds are not of a rational, reasonable, and virtuous person but of people who only wish to obtain and retain political office and power.

Their lust for power and control over the American government and society knows no restraints nor bounds, and they will not allow any obstacles to their lust. In their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good, and, as such, they believe that they can do no wrong. The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Civil Discourse are all to be jettisoned in their lust for political office and power and in their Trump Derangement Syndrome. What they are sacrificing in this belief is the future of America as a land of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as the security and safety of America and the world. Thus, they and President Biden are a danger to our American Ideals and Ideas, as well as to the security and safety of the American people and of the world.

07/09/24 The Best-Laid Plans

An article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Bidengate and the Doom Loop”, begins with him stating:

“The entire 2019-20 Biden candidacy and subsequent presidency were predicated on a rotten Faustian bargain. A hale Joe Biden would feign his aw-shucks, Joe from Scranton schtick. And an ossified working-class Joe’s camouflage would get the hard left elected—especially thanks to the changes in balloting laws that often saw only 30 percent of the electorate voting on Election Day in key states.

In exchange, the two narcissistic Bidens would bask in the power and attention of the presidency. From the start, Jill and the media would orchestrate deep cover for Joe’s escalating dementia as well as the true intentions of the now-in-power radical Democratic Party with its neo-socialist agenda. The former Obama acolytes would get their long-dreamed-of third presidential term. And this time they would enact a truly radical agenda while their string puppet mumbled to everyone that he was just old, familiar Joe working for the middle class.

The problem, inter alia, with the ruse was that it was based on a complete lie to the American people. Joe Biden was nowhere near cognitively competent. He could not campaign “normally” in 2020. And it would be impossible for his dementia to go undetected even in the ceremonial duties of the presidency for four, perhaps even eight, more years.”

Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, as the poet Robert Burns has said, “The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” The hubris of the Democrat Party Leaders that they could predict the progress of dementia in an individual and control the events surrounding a dementia-laden person is astonishing, and, as a result, their chickens have come home to roost. They are now laden with a presidential candidate whom most of the American people now recognize is in the throughs of dementia and is therefore unelectable.

As Victor Davis Hanson concludes in his article:

“Biden and the apparat that presses on with the current farce might well lose more than the presidency—by losing both houses of Congress and ensuring Trump an unobstructed legislative trajectory to implement a complete reversal of the Obama-Biden years.

Yet, if Biden should step down voluntarily, pundits have run through the endless ensuing problematics. They are considerable: will his successor be on the ballot in all 50 states? What will the Party’s leftist base do if the identity-politics-selected Harris is pushed aside (and what will it do if she is not and steps up to the presidency?). And how would a successor to Biden emerge in a free-delegate luche libre at a Chicago carnival convention, with chaos both inside the convention hall and a more violent “Death to America!’ bedlam on the streets outside?

So given all these nihilist alternatives, the two Bidens’ choice for now is to bark at the public. They will insult their own toadish media and deny the obvious. They will put the country’s interest dead last and connive that Joe can scowl, scold, lie, and yell at his critics—with not a care that our enemies abroad will conclude this is a golden Biden moment to do something stupid that may not come again.”

This entire article is well worth the read, as it documents the hubris of the Democrat Party Leaders in perpetuating this fraud on the American people and the problems this fraud has engendered upon America and the Democrat Party.

07/08/24 A Small Voice in a Large Crowd

I am but a small voice in a large crowd of free speech in opposition to modern American Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' political goals and policy agendas. But it has become  very dangerous to be in this crowd in modern America, as the Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and a possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”, have become predominant in modern America.

This is why I am very careful in presenting a reasonable and rational argument for my opinions. I am also very careful in choosing my words, terms, and phrases in my writings so that I will not be misunderstood by my readers or mischaracterized by those who disagree with me. I am also concerned that if I become a louder and more important voice, then I would face "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and possible Lawfare of those that disagree with my opinions. Such carefulness should be utilized by all in their opinions, as it makes for A Civil Society. However, civil society does not condone the Three D’s nor Lawfare, which has become all too common in modern America.

Consequently, I must also be wary of expressing my opinions as I may suffer reputational, financial, or legal harm for doing so. This wariness is antithetical to the meaning of Free Speech and constricts free speech to those who have the courage or legal and financial resources to express what they think. I have the courage but lack the legal and financial resources to defend myself if Lawfare by my opponents is brought against me.

It is a shame that we have come to this point in American society. Without true freedom of speech, we become a mute and acquiescent people, subservient to those who have the governmental or legal and financial resources to engage in The Weaponization of Government or wage Lawfare. This must end, or we run the very real possibility of slip-sliding down the slippery slope into despotism and tyranny. A despotism that is already occurring in modern America, and a despotism that is being instituted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders against their opponents.

07/07/24 Limitations on Free Speech

I have often mentioned that Free Speech is under assault in modern America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". In the book by Jonathan Turley, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, in Part IV of the book “Restoring the Indispensable Right”, the author examines the many ways that Free Speech is under assault in modern America. Those that engage in this assault claim that words are hurtful and provocative, or they are disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation and, thus, need to be censured for preventing the harm to persons and society that these words engender. Professor Turley also states that “The use of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation is a modern conceit used to protect the sensibilities and self-image of those denying free speech. As with ‘content moderation’ these terms allow advocates to avoid terms like censorship that still come with a stigma in polite circles.” Those who assault Free Speech often justify these assaults on free speech under the mantra that nobody should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or spread falsehoods that bring about negative repercussions. They also claim that the Constitution is not a suicide pack and, therefore, the First Amendment right to Free Speech can be limited to exclude words that harm a person or society. Such claims are in themselves falsehoods, as they are deeds rather than words that cause harm, and the suppression of free speech in any form or for any reason is harmful to a person and society.

It has become painfully obvious in modern America that what was considered “truths” in the past have become falsehoods in the present. During the Coronavirus Pandemic, the natural origin of the COVID-19 virus, the importance of masks and social distancing to prevent infections, the need to slow the spread and prevent infections by closure of schools and limiting public gatherings, and the efficacy of vaccinations were all deemed to be truths in the past but are now known to be falsehoods. Anyone who exercised their Free Speech rights to challenge these “truths” in the past was condemned and censured as spreading falsehoods that harmed individuals and society. As a result of these past “truths” being unchallengeable and dissent being suppressed, much harm was done to individuals, the economy, and society. Hence, the limitation of free speech was a real harm to Americans, America, and the world.

The other problem with limiting Free Speech is who shall determine what is hurtful, provocative, or disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is harmful, but who shall decide what is harmful?” as there is much disagreement on what is harmful. As I have often said, I will agree with limitations on Free Speech and other policy decisions that impact Americans if I am to be the person who makes such decisions. I am sure that this would not be acceptable to those who disagree with me, as it is unacceptable to me that those that I disagree with make decisions on what is harmful. To allow any one person, or a group of people, to make decisions on what Free Speech is harmful can only result in despotism and eventual tyranny in America.

Thus, any limitations on Free Speech harm all and is a form of despotism. A form of despotism that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/06/24 The Moment for Choosing

In an article in The New York Sun, they report that Trump Is endorsed for President by three leading columnists who say the campaign has reached ‘the Moment for Choosing’. Conrad Black, Victor Davis Hanson, and William Bennett, in a detailed statement, declare Trump the better candidate in ‘every important policy area.’

“We believe,” the three say, “that America and the world would be best served by the reelection of President Trump. We believe this because we find him superior in every important policy area, a much more capable executive, a much stronger and more energetic and intellectually agile occupant of such an enervating office, and a person who, despite terrible bouts of hucksterism in his commercial career, is substantially less compromised ethically than President Biden.”

In the conclusion of this report, Messrs. Black, Hanson, and Bennett state that “the indomitable resistance” by President Trump to the campaign against his candidacy has “enabled him to show admirable strength of character under daunting conditions” — making the 45th president the candidate who would “best serve the interests of the United States and of the Western world.”

To which I would comment, “Amen!”

07/05/24 Propogandists Rather Than Journalists

The recent debacle of President Joe Biden in the first presidential debate also demonstrates how the Mainstream Media and Social Media are a debacle. For the last several years, the Mainstream Media and Social Media have been covering up the decline of President Biden’s mental and physical health deterioration, or they have been making or propagating excuses for his decline. His decline has now become painfully apparent to the American people, and this decline can no longer be covered up by the Mainstream Media and Social Media.

The Mainstream Media and Social Media have retorted that they were misled by the Biden Administration, and they were only reporting on what they had been told by Biden insiders. However, a reporter is not a scribe, and, as such, they have the duty and responsibility to uncover the facts and truth and then report their discoveries to the American public. Otherwise, they are but lemmings running off the cliff with the other lemmings rather than being objective and uncovering the facts and truths and reporting them. A journalist has this duty and responsibility to the American public to report the facts and truths, as the facts and truths are necessary for the American people to make informed judgments.

In Chapter 27, “‘False News’ and Censorship by Surrogate”, in the book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley, the author points out that in the Biden Administration and by Democrat Party leaders:

“The coordination of censorship and blacklisting of dissenting voices in recent years raises the concern over the establishment of a de facto state media. While the First Amendment was designed to prevent the control of media through prior restraint and direct regulation, it is possible to have a state media by consent rather than coercion. The government found willing allies in media and social media companies for a system of censorship and blacklisting.”

Much of this lack of reporting the facts and truths is that the Mainstream Media and Social Media have a predilection for Progressive policies and Democrat Party politicians and do not wish to report anything that may go against their predilections or be helpful to Conservative policies or Republican Party politicians. Thus, Mainstream Media and Social Media have become propagandists rather than journalists.

07/04/24 Celebrate the Meaning of Independence Day

As I have written in my previous July 4th Chirps on Independence Day Celebrations, our celebrations of July 4th must be more than a celebration of independence from England but also a celebration of our American Ideals and Ideas. Our American ideals that are expressed in the Declaration of Independence are what we should be celebrating on Independence Day. Without celebrating these American ideals and ideas, we are only celebrating a historical event, not the meaning of this historical event. This is especially true for today's celebration, as we have entered into a period of Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and a possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. Accordingly, we must celebrate the principles of the Declaration of Independence to fully give meaning to our Independence Day celebrations. As such, we should all read and ponder the opening words of the Declaration of Independence:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We should also think of the abuses of government as listed in the Declaration of Independence and ponder if these abuses are present in our current governance. If so, we should rededicate ourselves to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and end these abuses. If these abuses are not ended, then the Declaration of Independence is a warning: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

07/03/24 Independence and Seditious or Treasonous Rebellion

Were the protests at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, equivalent to the Boston Tea Party? The Boston Tea Party was an American political and mercantile protest on December 16, 1773, by the Sons of Liberty in Boston in colonial Massachusetts. The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. The Sons of Liberty strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. In response, the Sons of Liberty, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the first act of rebellion by the American Colonists, which eventually led to the greatest act of rebellion in the American Revolution, in which the British government labeled the Declaration of Independence as seditious and the Revolution as treasonous.

America has a history of rebellion when perceived injustices by the government occur. Indeed, at the founding of America, we had the Shay’ Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), and the Fries's Rebellion (1799-1800), which required forceful government intervention to quell. In each case, the Government (British for the Boston Tea Party and the American governments for the other rebellions) labeled the perpetrators as seditious or treasonous and tried the perpetrators for such. Throughout American history, there were other " rebellions” in which the government labeled the perpetrators as seditious or treasonous and took legal action against the perpetrators. In modern America, we have seen the Civil Rights movement (1954–1968) and Vietnam War opposition (1965-1973) “rebellions” change the course of American history. All these rebellions were initially labeled as seditious or treasonous, and all of them were instituted by a minority of Americans who perceived injustices in America.

Thus, America is a society of irascible and irresistible impulses to challenge authority and rebellious actions when perceived injustices by the government occur. Many of these “rebellions” were for the good of American society, as these “rebellions” changed the course of America for the better. In many cases, the governmental actions against the perpetrators were for their words rather than their deeds. Deeds that cause death, injury to others, and property damage or destruction are legitimate causes for legal actions. However, words are not a legitimate cause for legal actions, as they are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The punishment for improper actions needs to be proportionate to the deeds under the 8th Amendment and other amendments and clauses of the Constitution. Otherwise, you are, in effect, punishing the words of the perpetrators.

The January 6th, 2021, United States Capitol Building attack in Washington, D.C., was the actions of a mob of supporters of then-U.S. president Donald Trump two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. The perpetrators perceived that the election was unjust and corrupt, and they sought to occupy the Capitol and prevent a joint session of Congress from counting the Electoral College votes to formalize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. The attack was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the certification of the election results, and Joe Biden became President of the United States.

Since that time, there has been a House of Representatives investigation of this attack and prosecutions against the perpetrators. An investigation that has now been discredited as unbalanced and prejudiced against the perpetrators and concealment of improper government actions before, during, and after the attack. The charges, prosecutions, and sentences of the perpetrators are well out of proportion to the deeds of the perpetrators, and the proper due process of law for the perpetrators has been questioned. In all these investigations and prosecutions, the perpetrators were characterized by the government as seditious and rebellious (and even by some as terrorists in lieu of treasonous), much like all the previous “rebellions” in American history.

Thus, the question is, should the January 6, 2021, protests at the United States Capitol Building be perceived as equivalent to the other “rebellions” in American history? It is a question that we must all ponder in deciding what to make of this “rebellion” and how history will perceive this “rebellion”.

07/02/24 Independence and Bearing Arms

As we celebrate Independence Day, we should remember that there would be no Independence Day celebrations if the American Colonists did not bear arms. The right to bear arms is not only for the purposes of being able to hunt for food but also for protection against violence by others against yourself, your family, and your property, and for the ability to defend against oppressive government actions, as I have Chirped on "10/24/20 The Natural Right of Self-Protection". Our Founding Fathers knew this by not only protecting themselves against marauding Indians but also protecting themselves against British and French troops that would infringe on their Natural Rights.

American colonists declared their intention to protect themselves through armed conflict, if necessary, against British threats against them and their natural rights. When the British attempted to seize their weapons, they utilized armed resistance to protect themselves. The Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, ensued, and along with the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, the American Revolution began.

Your Natural Right to keep and bear arms has been under assault for several decades. An assault led by regulations on the purchase of firearms and ammunition and also by calls for “commonsense” gun control, limitations on the purchase of types of firearms and ammunition, as well as limitations on firearm accessories. An assault, as I have written in the subsection “The Right to Bear Arms” of my History Article, “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”. The book In Defense of the Second Amendment by Larry Correia, which I have reviewed in my Book It on “04/01/23 What Part of the Second Amendment Don’t You Understand?”, is one of the best references of the meaning and importance of our Natural Right to keep and bear arms.

As we do not regulate or restrict our First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Peaceful assembly, Free Press, Religious Freedom, and Petitioning the Government, why should we be able to restrict or regulate our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The restrictions and regulations on these rights are antithetical to the purpose and intent of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and are thus un-American.

We have seen a concerted effort by some parties in modern America to restrict or strip our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is antithetical to the intent of the Founding Fathers in ensuring that our Natural Rights are sacrosanct in our society and protected against governmental interference with these Natural Rights. Accordingly, anyone who would deny you the right to bear arms is denying you the right to protect yourself from tyranny.

Thus, as we celebrate Independence Day, we should all remember that without the right to keep and bear arms, there would be no Independence Day, and without protecting our right to keep and bear arms, we run the risk of our Natural Rights being infringed and our slip-sliding down the slippery slope into tyranny.

07/01/24 Independence and Free Speech

In celebration of Independence Day, this month’s Book It selection is but one book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley. This book examines the history and legal issues of Free Speech in America. However, it is neither a legal nor historical tome, but a readable, understandable, and enjoyable book suitable for the general public.A book that is a timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others. Without freedom of speech, America would not have had Independence Day, as it was free speech that set into motion all the events that led to our independence from England.

Alas, Free Speech is under assault in modern America in our current age of rage. This book reminds us of the importance of Free Speech in preserving our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". At the very least, you should read and ponder the Introduction and Conclusion of this book to comprehend the importance of Free Speech and the current assaults on Free Speech in modern America.

06/30/24 So Be It!

In an article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Why Joe Biden?”, he answers this question, “Because Democrats wanted to stay in power and propping him up, as impossible as that has now become, seemed to be the best plan.” He also makes the point that Biden’s closest aides and the top Democrats are responsible for propping up Joe Biden, but many Democrats are not part of this effort:

“As catastrophic as Biden is in his senescence, he remains useful cover for the fact that the youth, energy, and money in the Democratic Party is woke-leftist, Islamist, counter-constitutionalist, post-American, and unelectable.

This doesn’t mean the whole Democratic Party is that way. But it does mean that sensible Democrats have to mind their tongues and genuflect in the crazies’ direction if they want to remain viable. They may personally believe, like the majority of Americans believe, that the border needs to be secure; that we can’t allow millions of illegal aliens a year to enter the country; that we don’t want boys and men invading the formerly safe spaces of girls and women; that mere statistical racial disparities in outcomes do not establish racism; that crime — especially recidivist crime — is a serious problem; that we need to back Israel’s wars against Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian patrons; that a radical “green energy” transition the country is not ready for weighs too heavily on the budgets of everyday Americans even as it drives the national economy deeper into the ditch; and that America, warts and all, is fundamentally good — rightly, the envy of the world. But woe betide the Democrat who gives voice to such commonsense views.

Democrats have thus rolled the dice with Biden, and with the nation’s security, because the alternative is dealing with that rift.”

Being a mature adult requires that you accept the responsibility for your words and deeds and bear the burdens of the negative consequences of your words and deeds. As the Bible says in Galatians VI, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” and in Hosea 8:7, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” the Democrat Party has sown and is now reaping. It now appears that Biden may be unelectable and may drag down other Democrat Party candidates with him, to which I say, “So Be It!”. The Democrat Party must now bear the burdens of their words and deeds, and they deserve their reaping from their sowing, and America and the American people will be better off as a result.

06/29/24 Beyond the Pale

A typical modus operandi of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is to utilize political tactics and rhetoric that are considered beyond the pale of acceptable political means, and when Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders use these tactics, they call for an end to these tactics and rhetoric as beyond the pale of acceptable political means. They also do not offer any apology for their using these tactics and rhetoric, nor do they offer any recompense for those harmed by their tactics and rhetoric. This is, of course, a double standard of conduct and the height of hypocrisy. Alas, double standards of conduct and hypocrisy for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is the norm in modern America.

Inflaming mob passions with disingenuousness and lying to the American people is a tactic that is beyond the pale and often used by Democrat Party Leaders. Persecuting and prosecuting their opponents’ words and deeds while excusing their supporters’ words and deeds is hypocritical and beyond the pale. Filing frivolous legal lawsuits to tie up in legal proceedings and delay actions with which they disagree is beyond the pale. Their use of unconstitutional means to achieve their policy goals and political agendas is beyond the pale.

When the Supreme Court issued rulings with which they agreed, they supported the independence of the Supreme Court. However, when the Supreme Court issued rulings with which they did not agree, they wanted to make the Supreme Court more compliant to their viewpoints through threats as well as by denigrating some Supreme Court Justices and by utilizing various unconstitutional means to change the composition of the Supreme Court, all of which is beyond the pale. Their "The Weaponization of Government" and their rhetoric on "Threats to Democracy" is only applied to their opponents, and not their supporters, and is beyond the pale. Even laws have been crafted that exempt themselves and their supporters from the law, which is hypocritical and beyond the pale.

Their deliberate sowing of confusion in the American public mind through "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Putting Words into Another's Mouth", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and their utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" is beyond the pale.

The reason for this is that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Consequently, Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party leaders are motivated to do what is best for them, as they believe that what is best for them is best for all Americans. In addition, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are only interested in obtaining and retaining power to implement their policy goals and political agendas, and, therefore, they believe that any tactic and rhetoric to achieve political power for them is acceptable political means. As I have Chirp on "05/26/24 There Be Witches and Warlocks", they also believe that Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are evil and that any tactic and rhetoric necessary to defeat them is acceptable. All of this is beyond the pale.

These political tactics and rhetoric by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are contrary to A Civil Society and invoke Divisiveness in America, and are therefore beyond the pale. Consequently, they are despicable political tactics and rhetoric that should end. However, we can only expect that they will end when they become ineffective and lead to election losses for Democrat Party candidates. Accordingly, it is up to the American public to end these beyond the pale tactics and rhetoric by not voting for Democrat Party candidates. Only then will the Democrat Party reform itself and stop going beyond the pale.

06/28/24 Stuttering and Cluttering

Stuttering is a disruption in the fluency of verbal expression characterized by involuntary, audible or silent repetitions or prolongations of sounds or syllables. These are not readily controllable and may be accompanied by other movements and by emotions of a negative nature, such as fear, embarrassment, or irritation (Wingate 1964).

Cluttering is a disorder of both speech and language processing that frequently results in rapid, dysrhythmic, sporadic, unorganized, and often unintelligible speech (Daly, 1993).

Stuttering and Cluttering are treatable, but sometimes not. Treating them earlier in life is more likely to be successful than treating them later in life (as it is with most psychological treatments). Stuttering and Cluttering in old age can be very difficult to correct due to the mental effects of old age, and stuttering and cluttering often become more pronounced in old age and are often symptoms of mental decline.

The history of Joe Biden has been one of stuttering, but it has now become one of cluttering. The appearance of President Biden in the 2024 State of the Union address, and now the first Presidential debate of 2024, in which his stuttering and cluttering were not as readily apparent as in his other public appearances, leads one to wonder if there is a pharmaceutical reason for his minimal stuttering and cluttering in these venues. If so, he and his team are attempting to hoodwink the American public into believing that he is mentally fit to be President. We know as a historical fact that the spouses and close associates of Democrat Presidents Woodrow E. Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt lied and hid the deteriorating physical and mental health of these presidents to retain power, and it appears that the spouse and close associates of Democrat Joe Biden are doing the same as regards to his deteriorating physical and mental health. Such lies and hides are a sufficient reason not to vote for Biden in the upcoming presidential election.

The question is, is President Biden’s cluttering one of the mental effects of old age? Given that he is exhibiting other physical and mental declines (difficulties in climbing stairs, awkward gaits, being physically led around by others, wandering inappropriately, blank stares, and other awkward displays), it is safe to assume his cluttering is one of mental decline.

Just as you would not give an older person who has severe cluttering the responsibility of conducting your business or handling your finances, so the American should not give responsibilities of the Presidency and the conducting of the Executive Branch administration to Joe Biden. It is well past time for Joe Biden to retire from the public stage and enjoy what time he has left in life with his family.

06/27/24 The Unethical and Immoral in Political Debates

With the first 2024 Presidential debate occurring tonight, the American people should be very wary of what both candidates espouse in this debate. President Trump has a well-deserved reputation for exaggerating his record and exorbitant statements about his opponents. President Biden has a well-deserved reputation for outright lying about himself and his record and claiming that his opponents are lying about himself and his record.

Politicians exaggerating their records and exorbitant statements about their opponents is to be expected in their politicking and political disputes. However, while I consider this conduct to be unethical, I also realize that it is normative for politicians throughout history and that there is nothing that can be done about it. However, outright lying and claiming that opponents are lying when the truth is demonstrable is immoral and should not be tolerated.

It should also be remembered by the American public that facts and truths can be interpreted differently by persons of goodwill. Such interpretations are not unethical or immoral; they are disputes. Disputes which should be adjudged in a different manner than unethical or immoral statements.

Thus, in tonight’s presidential debate, the American public needs to be cognizant of the unethical, immoral, and disputed aspects of the debate and make their judgments on the debate with this in mind.

06/26/24 Reality Check

Ray Didinger is an American sportswriter, radio personality, sports commentator, author, playwriter, and an honoree of the writers’ honor roll in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. He has spent his entire career covering the NFL Philadelphia Eagles as well as other Philadelphia sports teams. During his time as a sports commentator, when the other commentators or fans became over-exuberant about the Eagles, he would often interject with the phrase “Reality Check” and proceed to bring back some sanity to the discussion.

In that spirit, I believe it is time to have a “Reality Check” on the assertions of what President Trump may do if he is elected. A reality check is based on what he did (or did not) do when he was President and what his opponents claim he will do if he is elected.

You may recall that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton was embroiled in a scandal regarding her private e-mail server and the mishandling of classified information. The chant of “Lock Her Up” rang out loud amongst Trump supporters, while Clinton supporters claimed that it was not a serious violation of the handling of classified information. Given my experience in the handling of classified information, as I have written in my article Classified Information, I can attest that this was a serious violation and that if other people with security clearances had done what Hillary Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted and if convicted would have served time in prison. Upon entering office, President Trump took no action against Hillary Clinton, despite his supporters' pressure to do so, as he decided that for the good of the country, no action was the best action. Thus, we can conclude that Trump places the good of the country as his highest priority regarding his actions against opponents.

During the Trump Administration, we did not see any threats to democracy or the weaponization of government that occurred during the Obama and Biden administrations, as I examined in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "The Weaponization of Government". The only threat that the Trump Administration presented was the threat to block Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders political goals and policy agendas and his disruption of their desire to establish their oligarchy in America, which I have written about in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America". It was because of these blockages and disruptions that President Trump was relentlessly attacked by his opponents, and, despite these attacks, he did not take any personal actions against his opponents that his opponents claimed he would take against them if he was once again elected. Trump has stated that if he is once again elected, he will be too busy fixing the problems of America to engage in any retaliation or revenge against his opponents. Given that he has shown that he places the good of the country as his highest priority, there is no reason to disbelieve this statement.

During the Trump Administration, the stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying to Congress and the American people were minimal, as to be expected of contentious political disputes. During the Biden Administration and somewhat the Obama Administration, stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying were taken to a new level and became standard operating procedure. Consequently, we can expect that if Trump is once again elected, stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying will return to normal levels.

In the Biden Administration, we have also seen defiance to Supreme Court rulings with which they disagree (i.e., student loan forgiveness, the overturning of Federal abortion rights, and other rulings) to an extent never seen in the Trump Administration. Thus, Trump worked within the Supreme Court rulings while Biden worked against Supreme Court rulings. Consequently, we can expect that if Trump is once again elected, Supreme Court rulings will not be defied, and he will work within Supreme Court rulings.

In the Biden and Obama administrations, we saw a distortion of the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion to avoid law enforcement for those laws with which they disagreed. Insidiously, what the Obama–Biden administration dubbed “prosecutorial discretion” was, in reality, a dereliction of the president’s Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In the Trump Administration, while there was some abuse of prosecutorial discretion, it was nowhere near the extent and for the purposes of invalidating the law as in the Biden and Obama Administrations.

Therefore, assertions of what he would do if he was elected bear little relationship to the reality of what he did or did not do as President. Consequently, these assertions are nothing but irrational fearmongering by his opponents. A fearmongering that is meant to sway the election based on emotional responses rather than intelligent thought. Fearmongering that is amongst the lowest form of electioneering. Such it is with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they are aware that fearmongering and mob passions help Democrat candidates, while intelligent thought leads voters away from Democrat candidates.

Alas, what we can expect if Trump is elected is that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will ratchet up their rhetoric and use whatever means necessary to oppose Trump and his political goals and policy agendas. Whatever means necessary to include inflaming mob passions with disingenuousness and lying to the American people, stonewalling in Congress, as well as frivolous legal lawsuits and sometimes unconstitutional actions to oppose Trump. Means that are contrary to A Civil Society and invoke Divisiveness in America.

06/25/24 Some Other Democrat for President

There has been talk of replacing President Joe Biden as the Democrat candidate for President with another Democrat leader. The most prominent name mentioned is California Governor Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom has political appeal as a younger, attractive, charming, and articulate person. The question, however, is if his intelligence, skills, and abilities are sufficiently abundant to right the course of America and provide leadership to correct the ills of America. In a column by Victor Davis Hanson, “How California's Paradise Become Our Purgatory”, he examines the current state of affairs in California under Gavin Newsom and begins his column by stating:

“California has become a test case of the suicide of the West. Never before has such a state, so rich in natural resources and endowed with such a bountiful human inheritance, self-destructed so rapidly.

How and why did California so utterly consume its unmatched natural and ancestral inheritance and end up as a warning to Western civilization of what might be in store for anyone who followed its nihilism?

The symptoms of the state’s suicide are indisputable.”

He then examines the many problems in California and their impacts on California and the people of California under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom. It is not a pretty record and serves as a warning to the American people if Gavin Newsom should become President. He concludes this column by stating:

“In sum, a privileged Bay Area elite inherited a California paradise and turned it into purgatory.”

Consequently, a President Gavin Newsom can be expected to turn America into a purgatory. Unfortunately, for the Democrat Party (and America), the other names being mentioned do not have the political appeal as attractive, charming, and articulate persons, nor sufficient capability to right the course of America and provide leadership to correct the ills of America. Thus, the Democrat Party may be stuck with Joe Biden. Let us hope that America is not stuck with Joe Biden for another four years, nor stuck with the other names being mentioned to replace Joe Biden.

06/24/24 A Reminder on Economics in Politics

As I have stated in my Chirp on "12/15/22 The Ultimate End of Tax and Spend":

“Regarding  government taxing and spending, it can be said:

“The major difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party fiscal policies is that the Democrats love to tax and spend, while the Republicans love to reduce taxes and spend. The major controversies are on what to tax and how to spend the taxpayers’ monies.”
 - Mark Dawson

One of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is:

“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Russell B. Long

However, what follows this on spending is often:

“Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Mark Dawson

However, As Taxing and Spending always lead to debts and deficits, and ultimately inflation and/or recession for me, you, and the other fellow, the truth is:

“Economically, the wisest thing to do is to reduce taxes on everyone and to constrict spending to the revenues generated by taxes while paying off the National Debt with part of the revenue generated.”
 - Mark Dawson

It also pits those paying taxes against those receiving the spending. And as there are fewer taxpayers and more spending receivers, it skewers elections in favor of those politicians that advocate increased taxing and more spending.”

These maxims should be remembered as we enter the 2024 Presidential election cycle. Beware the bloated political rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans on taxing and spending, as there is not much economic truth in bloated political rhetoric, especially from Democrat candidates’ fearmongering emotional appeals and Republican candidates’ passionate scare tactics. You need to be very concerned and consider the economics of spending before you cast your vote for a candidate. After considering economics, it is possible to cast a rational vote for the candidate that you believe is the most economically responsible. Not considering economics is a plunge into further economic distress and potentially economic ruin.

06/23/24 The Piggy Bank of the Biden Administration

Politicians have often treated the public treasury as a piggy bank to reward their supporters. Such has it always been, and such it will always be. The issue is to not allow this piggy banking to corrupt the duties and responsibilities of the politicians. It is also unethical and illegal to channel government monies to groups or organizations that will utilize these monies for electioneering purposes.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the modus operandi of the Biden Administration. Government funding (i.e., taxpayer monies) is being channeled to groups and organizations that support the Biden agenda and being restricted from groups and organizations that differ from the Biden agenda. Recent revelations have shown an increase in government funding to groups and organizations who are actively involved in election activities to get out the vote or propagandize for President Biden’s reelection.

Such funding and grant monies are supposed to be spent for the goals of the groups and organizations and for no other purposes. However, it is easy to fudge such money with accounting gimmicks and other nefarious methods to disguise how the money is spent. The use of taxpayer’s monies for election purposes is immoral as well as unethical, as it has been said: 

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
  - Thomas Jefferson

It is also corruption in elections when such monies are spent for election purposes, as it gives the incumbent an advantage of money over their opponent.

Thus, the Biden Administration is involved in corrupt, illegal, immoral, and unethical actions to give themselves an unfair and illegal advantage in the 2024 presidential election. But this should be of no surprise to anyone who examines the workings of the Biden Administration, as the Biden Administration is rife with corruption, illegalities, immoralities, and unethical actions.

06/22/24 Are They the Same?

The attempts of Biden supporters to claim that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice, on the superficial reason that both a Republican and Democrat person were convicted of crimes, is ludicrous.

The difference is that the Donald Trump convictions were obtained by nebulous and improper charges and corruption of the due process of law, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump". Hunter Biden’s conviction was obtained by Hunter Biden’s clear violations of the law and by the application of the proper due process of law, but this only occurred after the Biden administration attempted to corrupt the legal system to Hunter Biden’s advantage. This attempted plea deal and the allowing of the statutes of limitations to expire for other Hunter Biden crimes is another example of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America.

The attempts of the Biden administration of a plea deal for Hunter Biden before the trial that would have given Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal that would allow him to get off the charges with a slap on the hand and a get-out-of-jail free pass for all previous illegal activities are an example of a two-tiered system of justice.

Thus, the claims of Biden supporters that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice is yet another attempt by them to confuse the American public by the utilization of Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors. Therefore, I would say to all Americans, do not be confused, as we do have a two-tiered system of justice in America, accelerated by The Weaponization of Government that has occurred in the Obama and Biden Administrations. A two-tiered system of justice that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/21/24 Ignorant Bliss and Ignorant Anger

Ignorance is bliss, and it is not a truism, as ignorance only appears to be bliss, but it is harmful to a person and to society. Ignorance allows you to make bad choices that will have negative repercussions on yourself, others, and society. Thus, ignorance should be avoided. Alas, in modern America, ignorance is all too common, especially in the chattering class of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". Their ignorance is propagated to the public, which increases ignorance in America. Much of their ignorance is a reinforcement of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", and much of the public acceptance of their ignorance is due to the problems of "Public Education", “College and University Education”, and "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, much of ignorance is due to a lack of a proper education. Proper education in the sense of not obtaining the foundational knowledge and the skills and abilities which allows one to think properly, as I have examined in my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

If ignorance leads to bliss, then I would have to say that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists live in a state of bliss, but their rhetoric demonstrates they often live in a state of anger. Their ignorance of Human Nature and Natural Rights, the Principles of American government, economics, science and technology, international relationships, and a host of other subjects know no bounds and leads them to believe that America is a flawed and defective nation. Much of their ignorance is of what I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

For someone who is knowledgeable on these subjects, it can be agonizing to listen to their commentary. When I listen to them, I try to categorize what they are saying under the following definitions:

• Bamboozlement – Concealment of one's true motives by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end.
• Blather - Idle or foolish and irrelevant talk.
• Crickets - an idiom that means no reply or reaction at all.
• Gaslighting - Manipulate someone psychologically so that they start to question their own sanity
• gibberish - Unintelligible talking.
• Gobbledygook - Incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists.
• Hoodwinking - Influence by slyness.

When you categorize what they are saying, you begin to realize that they are not saying much, and much of what they say is disingenuous. The question is whether they are truly ignorant or deliberately trying to obtain political goals and policy agendas through deception. Alas, I believe that many of them are just ignorant, but some of them are being deceptive. In either case, they are inflicting harm upon America. A harm that is encouraging civil strife and becoming irreparable.

Much of this can be attributed to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believing that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior. Thus, they believe that they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they live in a state of ignorant anger by not acknowledging that they may be wrong or not knowing that they do not have sufficient knowledge needed to make an informed judgment.

Consequently, you should be very wary of taking what they say at face value, as it is often driven by ignorant anger. You should be even more judicious in supporting their political goals and policy agendas, as often these goals and agendas are contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and harmful to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/20/24 A Democracy or a Republic

Recently, some Progressive commentators have expressed anger at Conservatives for insisting that America is a republic and not a democracy, as many Progressives believe. In this Progressives belief, they are demonstrating their ignorance of the Principles of American Government and the history of the founding of America.

Our Founding Fathers knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. They knew the history of democracy in ancient Athens, the history of republicanism in ancient Rome, and the terrible consequences of both forms of governance. They, therefore, established a Constitutional Republic in which representatives in the republic were democratically elected or appointed to avoid these terrible consequences. In this Constitutional Republic, the representatives in Congress are responsible for law-giving, the Executive is responsible for administrating the law, and the Judiciary is responsible for the judging of law (known as the three branches of government). The branches of government are emblematic of a Republic, while the election or appointment of the persons to serve in the branches of government is emblematic of a Democracy. This is why our government is often referred to as a Democrat-Republic.

This can be attested to by a single comment by one of our Founding Fathers. As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?'
Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

A Republic that needs to be kept to preserve our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Any other form of governance usually leads to despotism and a form of government that is neither a republic nor a democracy. Anyone who espouses our government as a democracy is therefore demonstrating their ignorance of our history and our Principles of American government, and they should not be heeded. Indeed, they should be scorned as they are dangerous to America.

06/19/24 A Brief History of Palestinian Evil

In a new column by Dennis Prager, “Germans -- Even During the Hitler Era -- Were a Better People Than the Palestinians”, he recounts the history of the Palestinians since the 1940s. It is a history of violent anti-Semitism and violence to their Arab neighbors with whom they disagree. A history in which their Arab neighbors wish to have no interactions with them and actively bar them from entering their lands. It is also a history that they are now bringing to American soil.

Given this history, it is important for America to not support, in any manner, Palestinians until they reform themselves to become a peaceful people. This includes humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, as humanitarian aid to them allows them to continue in their unacceptable violent actions and activities. It is also important to restrict their access to American soil to only those who are peaceful and to deport those who are not peaceful. Americans need not allow for the immigration of violent people of all stripes and, indeed, should not do so. There should also be censured of all those who support the Palestinians and a firm affirmation that such support is abhorrent.

Mr. Prager ends his article by stating:

“To be "pro-Palestinian" today means being pro-Hamas just as to be "pro-German" during World War II was the same as being pro-Nazi. The only difference is that the Germans as a whole were a better people than the Palestinians. If you support the Palestinians, you should know whom you support.”

Consequently, from the river to the sea is the only place that Palestinians should be permitted to inhabit until they reform themselves into a peaceful people, and they should be constricted in their activities and actions to peaceful protests between the river to the sea. To support any other course of action is equivalent to supporting Nazis, which makes you one with evil.

06/18/24 A Very Crucial Op-Ed

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has been variously described as homespun, folksy, down to earth, hilarious, snarky, irascible, and a host of other complimentary or disparaging adjectives, but rarely as an Oxford-educated lawyer, which he is. His examination of witnesses in front of the Senate committees of which he is a member and his interviews on television make for some of the most amusing and withering television in America. Some of his quotes and saying can be reviewed on my webpage here.

When Sen Kennedy opines on a topic, his words should be carefully and thoughtfully considered. He recently wrote an op-ed that first appeared in the Shreveport Times on May 11, 2024. This piece also appeared in the Daily Advertiser, Houma Today, The Daily Comet, The Town Talk, The News-Star, The Weekly Citizen, and Daily World. The words of intelligence and wisdom that he wrote are so crucial to American society that I have decided to post the entire op-ed in this Chirp:

Is transgender inclusion more important than women’s sports?

Many players on the New Orleans Pelicans probably feel like a kid inside when they’re on the basketball court. They might even miss their days of dominating middle school basketball tournaments, instead of squaring up against the giants in the NBA.

 No one, however, would think it was fair if Zion Williamson joined a youth basketball league simply because he identified as a 12-year-old. No middle school boys could stop Williamson from getting to the basket, and they’d probably end up injured if they tried.

 Men and women don’t compete for the same reasons. Yet transgender activists want athletic institutions to ignore these obvious physical differences so transgender athletes can feel included, even if it hurts biological girls in the process.

 From middle school gyms to NCAA swimming pools, activists seek to force women and girls to compete against biological men and boys. These activists claim it is a “myth” that transgender athletes have an advantage, but most Americans know this is untrue and unfair.

Starting in the womb and continuing through puberty, men develop physical advantages that help them outperform women in competitive sports. On average, men are taller and have higher bone density than women. When controlled for height, women also have 15% smaller hearts and 12% smaller lungs than men.

These physical differences give men a significant advantage in athletics, especially at the elite levels. In several track and swimming events, the female world record holder wouldn’t qualify to compete in the men’s race. In weightlifting, men outperform women in the same weight class by as much as 30%.

Some activists claim that transgender athletes are different from typical men because they take cross-sex hormones. After two years of cross-sex hormone treatments, however, biological male athletes can still run 12% faster and pound out 10% more push-ups than women.

Allowing biological boys to compete as girls will harm women’s sports. Still, many activists believe their feelings and the feelings of transgender athletes are more important.

These activists allowed the 554th-ranked male swimmer, then known as William Thomas, to become the NCAA Division I national champion named Lia Thomas. Thomas’ participation in the pool eliminated the dreams of the biological women who worked for that title, and that wasn’t the worst of it. The locker room was.

According to a lawsuit filed by several women who competed against Thomas, no one warned them that they’d have to share a locker room. Instead, the tournament quietly and quickly redesignated the girls’ locker room as “unisex” without so much as hanging a new sign.

Athletic officials and other adult decision-makers ignored the privacy and dignity of young female athletes to help a biological male/transgender female feel included. They also put women and girls at risk of suffering much more severe injuries than they would typically face when playing against female opponents.

Biological women are more susceptible to injuries than biological men. Female soccer players, for example, are twice as likely to suffer concussions as male soccer players, in part because men have different neck-strength-to-head-size ratios that help them better absorb blows.

Several female athletes have suffered season-ending injuries against biological male competitors. In Massachusetts, for example, a girls’ basketball team forfeited a game because a transgender player on the opposing team injured so many of their players. In North Carolina, a volleyball player is suing her state after a transgender player dealt her a serious concussion.

Allowing biological men with gender dysphoria to compete against women jeopardizes women’s access to scholarships and other financial opportunities, too.

The NCAA limits how many scholarships each team can distribute. By definition, granting a scholarship to a biological man who is on the women’s team denies a biological woman of that scholarship. The University of Washington already has offered its first scholarship on a women’s team to a biological male. It likely won’t be the last opportunity taken from biological women.

Many fair-minded people reject the idea that women and girls who work hard to develop their athletic talents must sacrifice their opportunities, privacy and safety to promote gender activism. I’m one of them.

Louisiana is full of fair-minded people. We recognize that it’s common sense for boys and girls to compete in separate leagues. That’s why a bipartisan coalition in the Louisiana legislature passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act to prevent biological boys from competing against biological girls in our elementary and high schools and from sharing their locker rooms.

Protecting women and girls in sports doesn’t need to be a partisan issue. Congress should follow Louisiana’s leadership and do more to protect girls, their sports, their scholarships, and their futures from a social experiment that is already proving to be unwise.

– Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy

Some newspapers that published this op-ed have withdrawn this op-ed, most notably USA Today. When pressed, Senator Kennedy’s office was told the op-ed, which National Review later picked up, was taken down by USA Today over “loaded language” and the use of the phrase “biological male”, to which Senator Kennedy responded:

“[The] USA Today Network apparently does not like the way I express myself,” the senator told Fox News in a statement. “They think they are the speech police. Drunk on certainty and virtue, they think they are our moral teacher. This attitude is why so many Americans have lost confidence in the media. The media is not going to win that trust back until they return to neutrality instead of advocacy. Most people don’t support allowing biological men to participate in women’s sports because they think that will bastardize sports, skew the results, and hurt women. Other people disagree. Gannett should simply report the two sides and not try to silence the position it disagrees with.”

His other articles on Transgenderism are “President Biden Has Jumped the Title IX Shark” and “Congress must support parents who protect their children from irreversible gender procedures”, which should be read by all Americans to bring some sanity to this topic.

06/17/24 The Fellowship of God and Humans

Having just finished reading and thoroughly enjoying the book “12 Major World Religions” by Jason Boyett, I have pondered upon the many similar tenets of these religions of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Baha’i, Shinto, and Jainism were the founders of the major religions of humankind, and most are revered as prophets of God. They and other leaders of their religion pondered the nature of God, a person’s relationship to God, and how to live a Godly life. In my pondering, I began to think of how I would construct a new religion based on these common tenets (and may God forbid me from doing so, as I am unworthy of this task).

A person is capable of doing great good and great evil but often lives a life between good and evil. The purpose of this new religion is to help a person to recognize their duties and responsibilities to God and to guide them in the exercise of their free will to make moral, ethical, and virtuous choices in their life. If you apply the standard of “the right thing to do” for your words and deeds without a foundation of your duties and responsibilities to God, it is easy to justify any actions you take as the right thing to do. Thus, a belief in God and his teachings and wisdom is necessary to do the right thing. After all, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and Mao all believed they were doing the right thing, as did many other persons throughout history, but if they had believed in God and his wisdom and teachings they would have known that they were not doing the right thing.

In doing so, I have attempted to extract the wisdom from the world’s religions and the secularists and to ignore and discard the gobbledygook that is all too common in religions and the blather of secularists. This is done to achieve a core belief in God, a person’s duties and responsibilities to God, how a person should properly exercise their free will, and how a person can live a moral, ethical, and virtuous life. The Fellowship of God and Humans is focused on the individual relationship of God to a person and the Godly relationships between individual persons.

My new article, “The Fellowship of God and Humans”, are my thoughts on how I would construct this religion. The various topics that I address in this religion are:

• Foreword
• Dogmas—a doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

• The Creation and The Hereafter
• The Blessings of God
• The Creed of Adherents

• Tenets—a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

• The Golden Rule
• The Ten Commandments
• The Five Virtues and Five Weaknesses:
• The Five Virtues to be obeyed:
• The Five Weakness to be avoided:

• Doctrines—a belief that is accepted as authoritative

• Natural Law and Natural Rights
• Human Nature

• The Roles of Humans—Normative and Customary

• The Role of Worship
• The Role of Work
• The Role of Economics
• The Role of Science and Technology
• The Role of Society
• The Role of Government

• Dictums—authoritative declarations

• The Seven Stages of Life
• Leadership
• Celebrations
• Holidays and Festivals

• Afterword

The Fellowship of God and Humans avoids any ancillary issues that are not germane to the relationship between God and humans, as well as Godly person-to-person relationships. It leaves these ancillary issues to the domain of politics, and where the domain of politics and the domain of God overlap, it is the domain of God that must take precedence.

06/17/24 The Elite Experts

The world abounds with experts. Experts that are more than willing to provide opinions, counsel, and recommendations to correct the ills and problems of society. Experts with much of their expertise in an academic sense rather than real-world experience. However, just as you would not go to a virgin to learn about the passions of sex, so you should be wary of experts without any real-world experience of what they expound.

Many of these experts have a presumption of correctness attitude, bordering on arrogance, especially those who have doctoral degrees or tenure at what they consider elite Universities. The Dirty Dozen of these elite Universities are:

Consequently, you should always be wary of the correctness of the experts from these Dirty Dozen Universities, as their opinions may appear to be conclusive, but they are often just a show of hubris rather than pride in achievement and veracity.

In addition, many of these experts often exhibit politically correct and woke opinions to maintain their social standing and prominent position in their departments of their University and academia. Another of their traits is a propensity for Multi-Nationalistic values rather than American values, often to the point of disdain for American values.

It has often been said that real-world experience is a slap in the face for college graduates when they leave academia. As most experts never left academia, they have not experienced this slap in the face. Accordingly, beware of experts who have not been slapped in the face by real-world experience, as they and their expertise have not faced the realities of the real world.

06/16/24 The Greater Good or The Common Good

God spare us from those who wish to institute the greater good for humankind, as only God knows what the greater good is. As for the greater good, I would paraphrase one of the great thinkers of our time:

"The most basic question is not what the greater good is, but who shall decide what the greater good is.”
 - Thomas Sowell

Those who believe that they know what the greater good is are delusional, as only God can know the greater good, and we should leave the greater good to God’s discretion. As for the common good, humankind should strive to institute the common good for all humankind, as the common good can be agreed upon by rational and reasonable persons.

Too often, those who believe they know the greater good often lump the greater good into the common good. The difference is that the common good is directly for the benefit of all, while the greater good often benefits selective groups and is justified as the common good by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language".

Do not be confused, as the greater good is often deleterious to society, while the common good is a benefit to society. The greater good has often been utilized to infringe on the Natural Rights of all persons and justification for acts of despotism and tyranny. Many wars have been fought for what was perceived as the greater good, and all such wars have been cruel and savage to all involved in them.

It is also true that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have been advocates for the greater good, while Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders have been champions for the common good. This difference is the basis for the different interpretations of the Constitution, as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". It is this difference that has been an underlying cause for the hyper-partisanship in America, as each side has a different perspective on the good that our society should undertake.

06/15/24 Why You Should Vote for Trump

I will admit that I voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections, not because I liked him, but because I believed that his opponents were incompetent, wrongheaded, deceivers, or corrupt. Hillary Clinton had the additional distinction of being a lawbreaker in her handling of classified information and the utilization of an unauthorized e-mail server, a distinction that Joe Biden now shares with his lawbreaker in his handling of classified information and utilization of e-mail outside of government e-mail servers. I, therefore, believe that Donald Trump was the lesser of two evils and that in the 2024 Presidential election we are faced with the same choice.

Most important to the future course of America is that they have instituted assaults on our democratic norms and a furthering of divisiveness in American politics. In the years of his administration, we have seen the slide towards an American Banana Republic through the utilization of The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump". He has also engaged in election interference and demagoguery, as I have Chirped on "05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery". We have also seen an assault on our Free Speech rights by the Biden Administration, as I have written about in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and a rise in despotism in America, as I have written about in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America". The Biden Administration has taken the art of evasive or non-answer answers in Congressional Oversight to a new height when they are ignoring or deliberately refusing to cooperate with Congressional hearings.

The Biden Administration has consistently ignored, defied, or circumvented Supreme Court rulings with which he does not agree, most blatantly in his attempts on student loan forgiveness. He and his minions in Federal, State, and Local justice systems have instituted frivolous prosecutions of individuals exercising their free speech rights in opposition to his policies and political goals, most especially in abortion protests, public schooling disputations, and the transgendered agenda. He has consistently instituted lawsuits against State and local governments, rather than working with them, who attempt to deal with the illegal immigration impacts on their jurisdictions. He has used Executive Orders for the non-enforcement of laws passed by Congress with which he disagrees and for forgiveness of the lawbreakers of the laws with which he disagrees.

We have also seen their incompetence in handling foreign affairs and domestic issues. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many scandals of the Biden Administration. Except for partisan-driven Americans, no one believes that we are better off than we were four years ago.

America has seen some political scandals during the Biden Administration (and many unseen, as they are either excused or ignored by the Mainstream Media), and we have also seen how the Biden Family and Joe Biden himself were involved in personal corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials. This does not mention that President Biden is in the midst of dementia and is not mentally (and perhaps physically) fit to be the President of the United States.

Alas, the Biden Administration has sown chaos in America and throughout the world. They have also demonstrated that they are the antithesis of American Ideals and Ideas and of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Nothing that Donald Trump could do if he is elected can match the magnitude of the chaos that the Biden Administration has done. Indeed, if we objectively look at the four years that Donald Trump was President, they were relatively calm except for the discord (the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Impeachments, and the anti-police protests and riots, amongst other discords) that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists sowed upon America to oppose President Trump.

Consequently, the only way out of this chaos is to elect Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates who will bring back sanity to America. Therefore, I will once again vote for Donald Trump, despite my dislike for his mannerisms, bombastic nature, and political theatrics. To not vote for Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates is to continue the chaos in America and to continue in the disintegration of our American Ideals and Ideas.

06/14/24 Why They Love Trump

Tucker Carlson recently commented on why so many people love Trump. I have transcribed this commentary and presented it here within this Chirp without comment, as it is so plain-spoken that it needs no comment:

“Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. They love him in spite of everything they've heard. They love him often in spite of himself. They love Donald Trump because no one else loves them. The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns, mocked and despised by the sneering halfwits with finance degrees but no actual skills who seem to run everything all the sudden. Whatever Donald trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness. Donald Trump, in other words, is and has always been a living indictment of the people who run this country. That was true eight years ago when Trump came out of nowhere to win the presidency, and it's every bit as true right now. Trump rose because they failed. It's as simple as that. If the people in charge had done a halfway decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than themselves even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting Celebrity Apprentice. But they didn't. Instead, they were incompetent, and narcissistic, and cruel, and relentlessly dishonest. They wrecked what they didn't build, and they lied about it. They hurt anyone who told the truth about what they were doing. That's true, we watched. America is still a great country, the best in the world, but our ruling class is disgusting. A vote for Trump is a vote against them. That's what's going on in this country.”
- Tucker Carlson

06/13/24 A First Family Criticism

I prefer not to personally criticize those that I disagree with, but I choose to critique them, as I have explained in the Criticism vs. Critique section of these Chirps. Sometimes, however, a person’s words and deeds are so outlandish or harmful that they deserve criticism. Such is the case not only for Joe Biden but also for his family members.

Joe Biden is a pathological liar who serially repeats lies even when they have been proven to be lies, as I have commented upon in my Chirp on "10/29/22 A Pathological Liar". In a column by John Nantz, he poses the question, “How Do You Successfully Lie To 300 Million People?”, to which he begins to answer by stating:

“Joe Biden is a pathological liar. That’s easy to prove. Just about every public statement that he’s made is an outright lie. His claims about his law school career and standing were false. He claimed to have marched during the civil rights movement — a lie. He’s lied repeatedly, boldly about Hunter’s corrupt business dealings, and his intimate relationship to them. He’s spent 47 years stacking lie upon lie, building a colossal monument to his depravity and to the public’s gullibility.”

Perhaps he believes, along with Joesph Goebbels, that “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself”. It has been my experience that such liars do so out of a lack of confidence in their life’s achievements and that they must fabricate lies to validate their lives.

The ease with which Joe Biden will smear a person or persons who disagree with him betrays a meanness and cruelty streak within himself, along with a lack of confidence that he has the intellectual acuity to challenge them. The smirk and grin that President Biden gave when a reporter asked about the conviction of Donald Trump betrays his sinister side.

His wife, Jill Biden, is a modern-day Lady Macbeth, more interested in power and the trappings of power than in the well-being of a loved one. When you truly love another, you are caring and protective of that person. When a loved one exhibits signs of mental and/or physical decline, you try to insulate your loved one from doing harm to themselves or others. This often involves withdrawing a person from a public presence to the confines of a private life, not only to protect them and others but also to protect them from embarrassment and reputational harm as a result of their mental and/or physical decline.

His son, Hunter Biden, depravities and corruption are now so well known that they need no elaboration here within. He is a lost soul who has accomplished very little in his life, and his accomplishments are the result of grifting from his father’s name and positions of power in government. He leaves a trail of ruin in his wake to all the people who become involved in his schemes. If Hunter Biden is the smartest man that he knows (as Jor Biden once proclaimed), then Joe needs to dump his current friends and associates and obtain new friends with intelligence.

His daughter, Ashley Biden, had her diary stolen and revealed, which contains numerous salacious details of her upbringing that should bring a cringe to any decent parent. An upbringing that has resulted in many trials and tribulations in her life, including her addictions along with her being "hyper-sexualized" at a "young age" and being traumatized by it. Despite her attempts to walk back these words, we should all remember the wisdom in the 1859 poem ‘The Rubáiyát’ of Omar Khayyam:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
- Omar Khayyam

His brother, James Biden, has also been a grifter from his brother’s name and positions of power in government. It appears that the achievements in his life have been the result of his brotherly ties and his involvement in Hunter Biden’s schemes. Thus, James Biden does not have a record of self-achievement but a trail of accomplishments (and corruption) due to his family ties.

Such a family is often referred to in American life as trailer trash, but no, the Bidens are not trailer trash; they are a family of self-entitled scumbags. Consequently, Joe Biden is unworthy of holding any office of honor or trust at all levels of government, and his family needs to exit the public stage while their corruption is being cleaned up by others.

Alas, this is also a sad commentary on modern American political life. To those who would defend and support such a family, I would say that there is a black hole of depravity in your soul regarding morality and ethics in the lives of public officials. A black hole of depravity that should also preclude your participation in public affairs.

06/12/24 Equal Justice for All?

Theodore Roosevelt once famously said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." This quote encapsulates the fundamental principle that governs society - the adherence to the law, regardless of one's standing or authority. Roosevelt's words highlight the notion that the law is not a matter of preference but rather a universally applicable set of rules that must be followed by all. Regardless of power, wealth, or influence, the law is meant to serve as an equalizer, ensuring justice prevails.

In modern America, however, we seem to be morphing into a two-tiered system of justice, as I have Chirp on "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System". These two tiers of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are prosecuted for alleged violations of the laws, while Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are ignored or excused for alleged violations of the laws. Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the case of Huter Biden’s investigations and prosecutions on Federal Firearms violations of the law. The government tried to give him a sweetheart deal, but they were rebuffed by the judge overseeing the deal and a public outcry as to its unjustness. Thus, Hunter Biden is now involved in a trial to determine his guilt or non-guilt of these alleged Firearms violations of the law. One wonders how vigorously or effectively the prosecution will be, given how they first tried to arrange a sweetheart deal with Hunter Biden. One hopes that the jury will dispassionately examine the facts and the law to reach a proper verdict.

However, in two recent articles by Jonathan Turley, “Is Hunter Biden Pursuing a Jury Nullification Strategy?” and “Just Ask Mookie: Hunter Biden Has No Defense Other Than Nullification”, he examines the overwhelming evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt and the tactics of the defense attorneys to emotionally sway the jury so that they will reach a not guilty verdict through Jury Nullification.

Jury nullification in the United States occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It originated in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

In America, Jury Nullification often occurs because the jury sympathizes with the defendant, the law is disliked, or they believe the law is unjust. It also occurs when the jury believes that the prosecution has overstepped its bounds and is behaving unjustly. Some defendants and their attorneys often hope for a Jury Nullification when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the defendant or when they believe they can portray the prosecution as vengeful or vindictive.

Such is the case in the current trial and guilty verdict of Hunter Biden. The jury appeared to dispassionately examine the evidence and reached a sound verdict, and they were not swayed by Jury Nullification. The next question is, will the sentence be proper and just to fit the crime, or will it be lenient because Hunter Biden is the son of the President? The follow-on question is whether President Biden will issue a pardon for his son. I expect that the pardon question will be answered based on the sentence and will only come after the 2024 Presidential election so as not to harm the reelection chances of President Biden.

To those who would claim that the conviction of Hunter Biden demonstrates that we do not have a two-tiered system of justice, I would respond—Nonsense! The crime and criminal actions of Hunter Biden were clear-cut and unambiguous, and Due Process of Law was followed in his prosecution. In the case of President Trump’s conviction, the alleged crime(s) were ambiguous and deliberately multifaceted to sow confusion, the actions of President Trump were deemed to be nefarious as truthful motivations, and the conviction was obtained by violations of Due Process of Law via a biased process involving a partisan prosecutor, a conflicted and tendentious anti-Trump judge, and a jury selected from a pool of largely anti-Trump voters, as I examined in my collected Chirps on “The Trials of Trump”.

Such disparities between the trials of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump are proof of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America and not a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America. Such disparities will always occur in a two-tiered system of justice, as in a two-tiered system of justice, there is no justice, only favoritism. A favoritism that is destructive to our society and the antithesis of American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/11/24 The Trials of Trump Chirps

I have coalesced my Chirps on the travesty of justice that is the current prosecutions of President Trump into an article, “The Trials of Trump”. A travesty of justice as it is the flawed conviction of a biased process involving a partisan prosecutor, a conflicted judge, and a jury selected from a pool of largely anti-Trump voters. These legal indictments and trials of former President Trump are another example of "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" that have run rampant in modern America. They are also an assault on the principles of the American Judicial System, as these Chirps examine. As such, they should be opposed by all Americans who revere our American Ideals and Ideas and who are dedicated to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/10/24 The Penance That Must Be Paid

In the 2020 Presidential election, Americans faced a choice between the incumbent President Trump, who many Americans disliked because of his boisterous and bombastic manner, and challenger Joe Biden, who was presented as a return to normalcy and would put the “adults in charge”. As we were in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the normal electioneering process and voting was circumscribed, and Biden ran a campaign from his basement. Thus, Americans did not get to know Joe Biden in the normal electioneering manner.

Other than in the COVID-19 period of the Trump Administration, America was experiencing economic growth and prosperity, and the international arena was relatively peaceful. Domestic disputes about social policy were still raging, and domestic tensions and mob actions (sometimes violent) were rising (many of which were stoked by Democrat Party Leaders words and sometimes deeds). Many Americans became weary of this situation and opted to vote for Joe Biden in a hotly disputed election in which Biden was declared the winner.

During the Biden Administration, America has seen many disgraceful events. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas and food price increases, to inflation, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many disgraceful events in the Biden Administration. We have also seen inordinate deficit spending and the national debt balloon to crushing levels. We have also learned how Joe Biden and the Biden Family were involved in corrupt dealings throughout his career, despite their and their supporters’ denials and lies (Joe Biden was involved in the business dealings of his son, and the Hunter Biden laptop and Ashley Biden’s diary were real).

We have also seen an increase in "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" under the Biden Administration, culminating in the indictments and prosecutions of President Trump. A weaponization that is a travesty of justice and an assault on the rule of law in America, as my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump" have examined.

Consequently, the American electorate was bamboozled by the Democrat Party and Progressive leadership in the 2020 Presidential election, as there would be no return to normalcy, and there would be no adults in charge. In the 2024 Presidential election, we are facing a choice between the same two candidates, the difference being that now Joe Biden has a record to run on (and seems to be running away from), which can be compared to the Trump record.

Many Americans who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election are beginning to question and doubt their vote for him, but they are hesitant to vote for Donald Trump for the same reasons they didn’t vote for him in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2024 Presidential election, however, they must confront the disastrous record of Joe Biden and ask themselves whether they want to continue on the path that Joe Biden has led America. To those Americans who question and doubt their vote for Joe Biden, I would say that we cannot proceed down this path, as it would lead to the ruination of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Thus, you must hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump to halt, and perhaps correct, the path of America. When you hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump, think of it as the penance that you must pay for being bamboozled and casting the poor vote you made in the 2020 Presidential election.

06/09/24 Kangaroo Kourt Konviction Lessons to be Learned

With the ‘kangaroo kourt konviction’ (sic) of President Trump (and make no mistake about it, this was a Kangaroo Court), we have learned some important lessons.

The first large lesson is that in any court proceeding against a politician or conservative activist, the verdict should be suspect, as it may not be based upon the law but on the emotions of the prosecutor, judge, or jury. This has become all too common in modern America as we have traveled down the path of "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, we must all beware of the label of “convicted criminal” and its variants when applied to a politician or conservative activist until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Of course, we should also be wary of the defendant declaring a political prosecution until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Therefore, do not place much credence on these verdicts when you adjudge the character of a person until you have all the pertinent information about the legal proceedings. Many of these prosecutions are done for reputational or financial harm to the defendant rather than serious illegal conduct. Indeed, much of the alleged illegal conduct has been for felonies wrapped around misdemeanors, which would normally be punished with a slap on the wrist.

We have also learned from the celebratory attitude of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" entities that they have demonstrated they are now active enemies of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re not just skeptical. They’re not just people who disagree with Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re certainly not objective, neutral truthtellers whose only goal is to enlighten the public. They want to actively influence the public, yet they want the respect that objective commentators might be due. These entities have been thoroughly weaponized against anyone who would disagree with their progressive propensities, and they must be not just neutralized but actively thwarted for the facts and the truths to be known by the public. They have also demonstrated that they have no allegiance to our American Ideals and Ideas.

The biggest lesson to be learned is that the hyper-partisanship of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders has overstepped the bounds of the political norms of politicking that were established prior to the 21st century. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons and that any means can be utilized to defeat them. Even the means of weaponizing the Government against their opponents and infringing on the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. Such means will eventually tear apart America and could possibly lead to civil strife or civil war as Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders assert themselves to regain their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, as I have Chirp on "02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction"’.

For those who would respond that a majority of American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservation of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to Natural and Constitutional Rights. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly, there was not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the American Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not - as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those who are resisting governmental actions that disregard or abrogate our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

06/08/24 There Will be No Consequences

In modern America, "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" go unabated and, indeed, are expanding. One of the reasons for this is that there are no consequences for engaging in these improper actions, as I have Chirped on "03/15/23 Lack of Consequences - I" and "03/16/23 Lack of Consequences - II". In many cases, these actions are rewarded through future reelections and appointments (sometimes for a higher elected or appointed office), or when they leave office, they obtain lucrative positions as commentators or book-signing contracts. In no cases are they prosecuted for abuse of office or dereliction of duty as they should be. In no cases have they been removed from office, as I have decried in my Chirp on "04/27/24 Dereliction of Duty". Thus, we can expect that there will be no consequences to those which I have Chirped about on “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”.

Much of this has been brought about by the loss of Religion, Morality, Ethics, and Virtue within Government and Society, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America". A loss of these fixed values with a replacement by relative values has led us astray and allowed our elected and appointed officials and our populace into words and deeds that are harmful to society. There has also been an increase in Virtue Signaling without true virtue, which leads to confusion as to what our fixed values should be.

This lack of consequences must stop, or our elected or appointed officials will continue in their abuses of office or their derelictions of duty, and our society will continue to degenerate. A good place to start would be the removal from office of those persons responsible for the travesty of justice that is occurring in the prosecutions of President Trump. However, this removal is fraught with Constitutional and legal issues, which I have written about in my article “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or Are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution”. These removal issues need to be resolved forthwith, and the removal of elected and appointed officials who are abusing their office or in dereliction of their duties needs to begin to right the course of America.

06/07/24 There Will Be Fallout and Blowback

Make no mistake about it: there will be fallout and blowback from the Trump trial and verdict.

The immediate fallout is a loss of faith in the Judicial System and the Rule of Law by most Americans who have recognized that this trial and verdict is a sham. A sham that can be perpetuated against anyone who would disturb the powers that be. As Alan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

“Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system would have failed us all.”

The excuse that the conviction can be overturned on appeal, which would be decided in the future, holds no water in the present. The present damage is appalling and has a deleterious fallout that will remain with us even if the conviction is overturned.

A deleterious fallout in the hesitation in decision-making by elected or appointed officials for fear of future legal actions by biased prosecutors and complicit judges. They will have to couch and frame their decisions with an eye to possible future frivolous prosecutions. Thus, limited paralysis will descend upon elected or appointed officials, which often results in poor, improper, or inappropriate decisions to cover possible future frivolous prosecutions.

Perhaps the most insidious and disguised fallout is in the inadvertent intimidation of future Republican or Conservative candidates who do not wish to place themselves in legal harm's way by possible frivolous prosecutions. A legal harm’s way that has deleterious impacts on their reputation and finances. This may deprive us of the best and brightest candidates who have unique and independent ideas, which will consign us to candidates who go along to get along to stay out of possible legal harm's way.

The blowback will occur in the 2024 election cycle and election. An ugly campaign will get uglier, and divisions between Americans will harden. Nobody will be satisfied with the election results no matter how the election turns out.

All of this strikes at the heart of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All of this leads to the corrosion of the American people’s belief that President Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg Address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

06/06/24 The Obituaries for the American Justice System

Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of Left, Central, and Right, respectively, have written columns that examine the travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law that has occurred in the Trump Trial:

• Alan Dershowitz— “A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush!”
• Jonathan Turley— “The Ghost of John Adams: How the Trump Trial Harkens Back to a Dark Period of American Law”
• Andrew McCarthy— “In Memory of Justice”

The last few lines of each article are illuminative of the seriousness of the impacts of the Trump trial:

“DA Bragg has demonstrated how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious DA's are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.”
- Alan Dershowitz

“In the faces of ecstasy of demonstrators and commentators alike this week, we see the same joyful release from the bounds of legal process. The addictive quality of rage.
For them, it was a cathartic moment that was described by one commentator as a reason to celebrate and a “majestic” moment.
For the rest of us, it was more menacing than majestic.
It could prove to be the moment that galvanized many outside of Manhattan; the moment when citizens saw where our rage has taken us.Sometimes we have to be forced to see what we have become to better understand who we are.
We are better than this.”
- Jonathan Turley

“What happened in Manhattan was monstrous. The fallout is the antithesis of a constitutional republic that presumes innocence, imposes the burden of proof on the state, venerates its due-process rules, and guarantees equal protection of law. The antithesis is now the norm. Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump, all of us will live to regret it.”
- Andrew McCarthy

These columns are sad commentaries on the current state of justice in America. A state of affairs that has been brought forth by the Biden Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and their lackeys in State and local governments. In this, they have been assisted by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", who will not accurately portray the facts and truths of this situation due to their predilections for the political goals and policy agendas of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

The comments that President Biden made after the verdict about the trial proceedings and respect for the legal process are outrageous in their lack of understanding of the meaning of the Rule of Law and the travesty of justice that occurred in the Trump trial. The smirk and grin that President Biden gave as he left the stage are indicative that he is knowingly trying to bamboozle the American public into accepting this travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law as normal and acceptable, or at least delay the consequences until after the 2024 Presidential election in which he can exploit the improper conviction of Donald Trump.

Consequently, we are sliding faster down the slippery slope to despotism in America and the loss of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/05/24 The Rubicon Has Been Crossed

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, it signaled the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the rule by tyrannical Emperors. Ever since then, the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has been an idiom that means the passing of a point of no return. Unfortunately, with the conviction of Donald Trump, we have crossed the Rubicon in The Weaponization of Government.

With the tens of millions of dollars raised by the Trump campaign after his conviction, and the rise in his poll numbers after the conviction, the American people have opened their eyes to the corruptions of our political norms and the judicial system by the Biden Administration and their lackeys in State and local governments. Many Americans over the last few years have been suspicious that our judicial system has been corrupted by politics. With the Trump conviction, most Americans have reached the conclusion that the judicial system is corrupted by politics and that this trial is only the latest example of the use of the justice system for political purposes. In a democracy, when a majority of the people believe that an essential function of government is corrupt, you have crossed the Rubicon into something other than democracy.

Many legal scholars are hopeful that the appeals process will overturn the conviction and that the American people will regain confidence in our judicial system via this process. Alas, it is not only Trump's conviction that the American people are concerned about, but also the entire process of the judicial system that they are concerned about. It is obvious to all intelligent persons that the Trump legal process was instituted in a presidential election year to harm the prospects of a Trump election. As appeals and an overturning of a conviction can take many months and even years, the legal process is being corrupted to achieve a political goal. Thus, this corrupt process will impact the election while the appeal process is ongoing. It is, therefore, the failure of the judicial system that is the root cause of the distrust that the American people feel.

Unless the United States Supreme Court steps in and immediately ends this travesty of justice and the fracturing of the Rule of Law, the Rubicon has been crossed, and there will be no going back. The judicial system would have been corrupted to achieve a political goal, and the political norms shattered as it opened the door to political prosecutions to obtain political goals. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out:

“Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system would have failed us all.”
- Alan Dershowitz

The Rubicon has already been crossed, and like Humpty Dumpty in the Mother Goose nursery rhyme:

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.”

In crossing this Rubicon, we may never be able to put the shattered pieces of our judicial system and political norms together again unless the Supreme Court forthwith stops this shattering.

06/04/24 Under the Cloak of Legitimacy

In an article by Alan Joseph Bauer, “Why Do Despots Feel They Need Legitimacy?”, he raises this issue, which is apropos to the current prosecutions of President Trump. However, he is not the only person who has raised this issue regarding the prosecution of President Trump. Many legal scholars, on both the left and right, have become concerned that the prosecutions of President Trump have strayed far from our legal principles and the rule of law in America. Some of the first and loudest voices that have raised this issue are Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of left, central, and right, respectively.

Mr. Bauer begins his article by stating:

“There is a tendency for the most ruthless and autocratic countries in recent history to use democratic norms for cover. With the conviction of Donald Trump, the US has moved closer towards them.”

He then goes on to provide a litany of examples of the despots of the 20th and 21st centuries and the tactics they employed, and he then explains how these tactics were employed against Trump. Near the end of his article, he asks the question:

“What is the difference between the Soviet trials where the outcome was known from the start, the confession was obtained through force, and the judge understood his instructions and what we saw in New York?”

The answer is, of course, there is no difference—it is the same story of a cloak of legitimacy to cover up their illegitimacy. Finally, he asks, then answers, the following question:

“So where does America go? Will we have the perfunctory elections of Russia and the ersatz “people’s house” of Iran or will America still be the land of the free and the home of the brave? Tune in this November.”

06/03/24 A Corrupt State

In a New York Post editorial by Michael Goodwin, “A trial that exposes New York’s corrupt justice system”, he succinctly illustrates how New York has corrupted its judicial system to achieve the political goal of “Get Trump”:

“Only a top-quality case, beyond reproach and political taint, should have been used to bring the first-ever indictment of a former president. Instead, the city and state put on a show trial long on theatrics–porn star testifies about sex! — and short on evidence that any crime was actually committed.

And so the script has flipped, with the trial itself an assault on the notion that justice is blind. No matter what the jury says about Trump, the prosecutors, the judge, the state court system and the political class have been revealed as thoroughly corrupt.

This is the third time New York Democrats distorted the legal system to serve their partisan aim of destroying Trump. One case involved a change in a statute of limitations law that ultimately led to a defamation ruling against him and a ridiculous fine of $92 million.

Another murky case, brought by the overtly-partisan state attorney general, concocted a civil fraud charged aimed at bankrupting him. An amateurish state judge who enjoyed the spotlight far too much nodded yes and declared a fine of $355 million.”

The New York Sun editorial, “Judge Merchan’s Outrageous Jury Instructions”, is another example of how a New York judge has corrupted the judicial system, as they stated:

“President Trump’s fate went to the jury on instructions from Judge Juan Merchan that strike us as outrageous — and ripe for challenge. The judge’s instruction releases jurors from the obligation to make a unanimous decision on the key question. They “must conclude unanimously that” Mr. Trump engaged in an election conspiracy “by unlawful means,” the judge said. Yet, he added, “you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

At that point Judge Merchan supplied the jurors with a kind of à la carte menu for determining whether Mr. Trump had broken the law.”

These instructions, along with many of his rulings and gag orders, as well as his refusal to recuse himself due to his daughter’s involvement in Democrat Party fundraising, are outrageous and an affront to equal justice under the law. They are the rulings and instructions crafted to reach a guilty verdict and gag orders to restrict President Trump's freedom of speech. As such, as I have written in my Chirps on “05/17/24 True Justice” and “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”, they are a corruption of justice and an assault on our First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

Our American Constitution guarantees a republican form of governance and the protection of all Americans' constitutional and civil rights. This is no longer happening in New York State, as the legislators, governor, and judges have conspired to deprive Donald Trump of his right to equal justice for all. Therefore, it is my contention that the Federal government needs to step in to correct this assault on our Constitutional and Civil Rights. I do not expect this to happen, as the Biden Administration and the powers in New York State seem to be in cahoots with each other to get Trump. Our only hope is that the United States Supreme Court will step in and put an end to these corrupt actions by the New York state authorities.

This is but another example of how we are becoming an American Banana Republic through the utilization of The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare. This also leads us further down the path of becoming a Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”.

06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic

With the conviction of President Trump and President Biden’s brief remarks on Friday from the White House, we have officially entered into an American Banana Republic. Trumped-up charges, a jealous prosecutor, a biased judge, and a jury swayed by passion rather than law are all earmarks of a Banana Republic. Coupled with a chief executive who utilizes this situation for electioneering and to avoid campaigning against an opponent that leads only to despotism and authoritative government. Such a state of affairs now exists in America.

The smirk and grin that President Biden gave when a reporter asked about the conviction of Donald Trump, and his decrying his fate as a “political prisoner” and blaming President Biden directly, was the look of a despotic person and a semi-fascist attempt to hold on to power.

A semi-fascism that I have Chirped about on"11/04/22 Semi-fascism in America", and a power that is not for the common good of America but for the institution of their oligarchy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America". The excuse that they are attempting to save “Our Democracy” rings hallow, as hallow as what was said by a U.S. major after a battle in the Vietnam War, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”. Destroying our democratic principles and institutions is not the way to save “Our Democracy”; it is only the way to destroy “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy".

This is the ultimate corruption of “Our Democracy”, and it is being brought into America by President Biden and his Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists. Legal appeals and the overturning of convictions are too time-consuming to be effective in correcting this situation. Therefore, the only immediate correction to this situation is the election of Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates in the forthcoming election. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Democrats need to be turned out of power; otherwise, we will have instituted an American Banana Republic.

06/01/24 Absurdism

Albert Camus (November 7, 1913 – January 4, 1960) was a French philosopher, author, dramatist, journalist, world federalist, and political activist. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. His works include The Stranger, The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Fall, and The Rebel.

Camus was a moralist; he claimed morality should guide politics. While he did not deny that morals change over time, he rejected the classical Marxist view that historical material relations define morality. Philosophically, Camus' views contributed to the rise of the philosophy known as Absurdism (a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail). Some consider Camus' work to show him to be an existentialist, even though he himself firmly rejected the term throughout his lifetime.

Camus was also strongly critical of Marxism-Leninism, especially in the case of the Soviet Union, which he considered totalitarian. Camus rebuked those sympathetic to the Soviet model and their "decision to call total servitude freedom". A proponent of libertarian socialism, he claimed the USSR was not socialist and the United States was not liberal. His critique of the USSR caused him to clash with others on the political left, most notably with his on-again, off-again friend Jean-Paul Sartre.

While I do not hold many of Camus’s political beliefs, I do believe that his philosophical musings are worthy of serious consideration. I would also direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Albert Camus to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

This month’s Book It selections are two different types of biography of Camus, and a collection of some philosophical musings about him and his works.

05/31/24 The Core Existential Questions

What, who, when, how, where, and why I am are the big questions in life that philosophers and theologians have grappled with for millennia. The existential response to these questions is simple but profound.

What I am is a conscious, sentient, intelligent being. Who I am is a corporeal being of the male or female sex of the homo sapiens species. When I came into being is at the moment of conception, when I was endowed with my own unique human genetic structure. How I came to be is through the normal process of sexual conception, pregnancy, and birth. Where I came to be is somewhere on the planet Earth, in the Solar system located in the Milky Way galaxy of the Universe. Why I am is the unanswered question we all try to answer for ourselves throughout our lives.

The final unasked existential question is the easiest to answer: what is to become of me? The only answer is death, for all mortal being’s life ends in death. The only question about death is when it will occur, where it will occur, and how it will occur. There are no answers to these questions on death except to wait for death to answer them.

However, whenever we try to answer the “why” existential question, we must always base our answer on what, who, when, how, and where answers to the existential questions, as these answers are the core of our being. If we do not do so, we will reach a false conclusion, as the “why” answer depends on the other core existential answers.

It is unfortunate that in modern America and, indeed, in the rest of the world, we do not consider the answers to the core existential questions. This leads us astray into absurdities and foolhardiness in the conduct of our lives and our society. It is also a denial of our human nature to ignore or discount the core existential questions and answers, and as I have said:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

05/30/24 Absurd Absurdism

In my Chirp on “05/29/24 Absurdism and Existentialism”, I discussed how Albert Camus was at the forefront of Absurdism. On March 28, 1946, Albert Camus gave a speech at Columbia University’s McMillin Theater on “The Human Crisis”. On that night, in less than thirty minutes, he somehow managed to distill and convey his deepest fears and steepest challenges in words that have lost none of their urgency or relevance in the over 75 years since he spoke to them. However, I have three challenges to his thoughts on the human crisis.

Throughout his life, Camus had two examples of what he considered part of the human crisis: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, and the utilization of Capital Punishment (the death penalty). He regarded them as abhorrent and an affront to humanity. I disagree with him on these two points. Indeed, I would respond that the atomic bombings were the only moral thing to do, and while I consider most death penalties inappropriate, there are circumstances when the death penalty is moral and appropriate.

In my Article on “The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings”, I explain my reasoning on the morality of the atomic bombings, and in an article by Dennis Prager, "Some on the Right Are Having a Moral Meltdown", he goes into more detail about the morality and history of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.

In my article on “Capital Punishment”, I examine the morality and utilization of the death penalty in more detail. I believe that the death penalty is moral and appropriate in circumstances such as crimes against humanity, mass murders, serial murders, heinous murders (murders accompanied by torture of the victim), political assassinations, or murder of civil servants. Conversely, the death penalty is not moral nor appropriate in any other than in these circumstances.

Regarding these two moral challenges, it is not always a black-and-white moral decision. If you choose to make it black and white, then you give evil the opportunity to triumph, or at least give evil the opportunity to wreak havoc. Sometimes, you must choose the lesser harm of two or more moral decisions to make the correct moral decision. The atomic bombings and the death penalty are the lesser harms that I believe are the correct moral decisions.

The third challenge is that he seems to be of the opinion that this crisis was a product of the 20th century. My contention is that the human crisis has been part of humanity's history. The struggle between liberty and freedom on one side and those who wish to have the power to rule over others is part and parcel of the history of humanity. The strategies and tactics in this struggle have almost always been brutal and are examples of the human crisis.

This human crisis may have deepened in the 20th century, but it has always been with us and will always remain with us, as the heart of this human crisis is human nature. Until human nature changes, we cannot escape the human crisis; we can only try to ameliorate, control, and direct human nature to minimize it.

05/29/24 Absurdism and Existentialism

Absurdism—a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail, and Existentialism—relating to or dealing with existence (especially with human existence) were two philosophical schools of thought that came about in the middle of the 20th century in Europe, and especially France. Both were new ways of looking at the meaning of life and the human condition.

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict with the world. This conflict can be between rational man and an irrational universe, between intention and outcome, or between subjective assessment and objective worth, but the precise definition of the term is disputed. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd. It differs in this regard from the less global thesis that some particular situations, persons, or phases in life are absurd.

Albert Camus (French: 7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960) was a French philosopher, author, dramatist, journalist, world federalist, and political activist. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. His works include The Stranger, The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Fall and The Rebel. Philosophically, Camus' views contributed to the rise of the philosophy known as Absurdism. Some consider Camus' work to show him to be an existentialist, even though he himself firmly rejected the term throughout his lifetime. I would direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Albert Camus to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

Existentialism is a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the issue of human existence. Existentialist philosophers explore questions related to the meaning, purpose, and value of human existence. Common concepts in existentialist thought include existential crisis, dread, and anxiety in the face of an absurd world and free will, as well as authenticity, courage, and virtue.

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (French: 21 June 1905 – 15 April 1980) was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of Existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution." I would direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Jean-Paul Sartre to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre were initially friends, but they came to oppose each other philosophically, as well as because of Camus’s opposition to Communism and Sartre’s support of Communism. Each side had valid criticisms of the other side, and neither side provided definitive answers to their questions (which is true for much of Philosophy). What they did was expand the horizons to examine the meaning of life and the human condition. Absurdism declined toward the end of the 20th century while Existentialism grew. Today, however, Absurdism seems more relevant to the world we live in, and it has seen a rise in importance.

05/28/24 Capital Punishment

For the purposes of this Chirp, I define “Murder” as the deliberate unlawful taking of a human life, while “Killing” is the unintentional lawful taking of a human life. Those who murder should be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve significant prison sentences. Those who kill can do so in a justified or unjustified manner. A justified killing is when you kill another to protect the lives and limbs of you and your family, stop the commission of a violent crime in progress, or when in the armed forces under fire by enemy combatants. Unjustified killing is when you end the life of another through accident or negligence. Unjustified killers should also be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve an appropriate sentence for their acts, while justified killers should face no legal consequences.

I do not believe that capital punishment is appropriate for those who kill. The question to be answered is whether capital punishment is an appropriate sentence for those who murder. I do believe that capital punishment may be an appropriate sentence for those who murder, but only in limited and extraordinary situations. My reasons for believing in the death penalty in limited and extraordinary circumstances are explained in my new article on “Capital Punishment”.

05/27/24 What Can Be Done

Democrats have an existential question that they must answer before their convention—What can be done about crazy Uncle Joe and daffy Aunt Kamala? President Biden is a doddering dolt, who is now dimensia ridden, and who is controlled by a cynical or self-serving confidant that is his wife "Dr." Jill Biden, a 21st-century Lady Macbeth if there ever were one. Vice President Harris is a dimwitted cackler-in-chief, about as popular these days as a communicable disease. Yet they are the presumptive nominees for President and Vice-President of the Democrat Party.

As Josh Hammer explains in his column, “Democrats Are Stuck With Joe Biden as Their Presidential Nominee”, their choices have narrowed down to none. This also explains why the Democrats are so keen on Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government against President Trump during this election cycle, as they see it as the only hope of defeating Trump. Mr. Hammer concludes his column by stating:

“Democrats therefore have no choice but to take a deep breath, pray to the deity they probably don't believe in, and roll the dice with their impotent current ticket. And Republicans couldn't possibly be happier about it.”

05/26/24 There Be Witches and Warlocks

The Salem Witch Trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused. Thirty people were found guilty, nineteen of whom were executed by hanging (fourteen women and five men). One other man, Giles Corey, died under torture after refusing to enter a plea, and at least five people died in jail.

The trials began after a few local women in Salem Village were accused of witchcraft by four young girls, Betty Parris (9), Abigail Williams (11), Ann Putnam Jr. (12), and Elizabeth Hubbard (17). The accusations centered around the concept of "affliction," and the witches were accused of having caused physical and mental harm to the girls through witchcraft.

This was a dark and notorious episode in American History. The theocratic leaders of Salem, Massachusetts, believing in their moral correctness and self-righteousness and driven by a mass hysteria of the populace, proceeded to violate the rights of the accused to achieve their goals—a moral and pure religious society in their community. Most Americans were repulsed by what had occurred, and the Salem witch trials began the end of the experiment of religious theocracy leadership in America.

Today, in modern America, we have seen a new form of religious theocracy in America. The theocracy of Progressivism, whose beliefs are its woke ideology and of their own moral correctness and self-righteousness, which has led them to persecute and prosecute anyone who may disagree with them. Their mass hysteria is propagated through their Trump Derangement Syndrome that allows for no "Rationality" and "Reasoning".

They persecute their opponents through the utilization of "Political Correctness (PC)", "Identity Politics", "Cancel Culture", and "Doxing", and the tactics of allegations of "Racist", "White Privilege", and "Hate Speech", all the while they are "Virtue Signaling" their own belief in their moral correctness and self-righteousness. And they are now prosecuting their opponents through Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government.

They point to the wearers of MAGA apparel as the Witches and Warlocks and to any of the supporters of President Trump as the followers of the Witches and Warlocks. And, of course, President Trump is the devil leading the Witches and Warlocks.

In their words and deeds, the theocracy of Progressivism has become the Salem Witch Trials leaders of today. Thus, today will also become a dark and notorious episode in American history.

05/25/24 A Relevant Constitution

We have often heard that the Constitution is irrelevant to the modern world, as it was written over two centuries ago by dead white men. As such, it is said that it cannot meet the needs of modern America, and besides, it is undemocratic. The question is, then, do we ignore the Constitution and govern as the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court see fit for modern times? The answer to the question is given by Rob Natelson in his article “Yes, the Constitution Does Matter—A Lot”. As he has stated in this article:

“The Constitution was not designed to solve all human problems, nor could any man-made document ever do so. Even if every clause in the instrument were enforced quickly and perfectly, life still would be marred by foolish laws, unfair conditions, political and economic mistakes, and other human failings.”

He then goes on to explain why the Constitution is important and relative to our society and concludes his article by stating:

“The inaccurate view that the Constitution doesn’t matter can have dangerous consequences. If we accept that view, then no one is bound to anything in the document. We have no legal basis for protest when an election has been corrupted or even cancelled.

If we believe “the Constitution doesn’t matter,” then we have no positive law basis for complaining about loss of rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, keeping and bearing arms, property—or any of the other hundreds of rights and rules we take for granted in daily life.

Ideally, we should not take those rights and rules for granted. But on a day-to-day basis we are able to do so precisely because the Constitution matters so much.”

Consequently, whenever you hear someone decrying the relevancy of the Constitution or saying that we should ignore the Constitution to do what is “Right for America”, you can be assured that the person making this comment is foolish and dangerous and fools should be given no heed and ignored.

05/24/24 Moderation

In reading the book, “A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning” by Robert Zaretsky, I came across the following quote about moderation:

“As a political value or philosophical concept, moderation is notoriously elusive. Is it, in fact, a full-bodied theory or a worldview? Is there, moreover, something questionable about the very desirability of moderation. It is not always the case, after all, that one of the extremes that define a mean is wrong. Or, for that matter, the mean is not always the most desirable end. Ultimately, is it something more than a disposition to avoid extremes, whether or not one of those extremes is desirable?

In a recent work, the political theorist Aurelian Craiutu insists that moderation is a positive theory, one based on the intrinsic values of pluralism, gradualism, and toleration. A moderate, Craiutu suggests, is a thinker who embraces ‘fallibilism as a middle way between radical skepticism and epistemological absolutism, and acknowledge[s] the limits of political action and the imperfection of the human condition.’”

I would like to suggest that moderation, in many instances, is desirable, but in some instances is undesirable, and moderation often leads to failure. America was founded on the failures of moderation and engaged in a Civil War on the failures of moderation. Prior to the Revolutionary War, many moderates sought accommodation with the British Crown and Parliament, but their efforts failed. Prior to the Civil War, there were moderates who tried to reach an accommodation on slavery, and their efforts failed. Today, in modern America, there are those who are trying to reach an accommodation on the issue of Abortion, and these efforts will fail as the beliefs of a woman’s right to choose abortion and the rights of the unborn child to live knows no accommodation. There are several other issues in modern America that may not be amenable to moderation, such as transgenderism and illegal immigration. Thus, moderation is only workable when the issue is one that is not polarizing based upon deep-seated morals, the issues of Liberty and Freedom, or concerns over safety and security.

If you ask the question, ‘Who are the great moderates of history?’ it would be a very difficult question to answer. Moderates generally achieve short-term successes but engender little long-term success in changing the course of history. As such, history rarely recognizes moderates as consequential to the advancement or devolution of human progress.

Consequently, moderation is not a solution to deep-seated problems but only a postponement of the problem to the future, a postponement that may have deleterious consequences in the present and future. It should also be remembered that moderation is only possible when all sides can acknowledge their own fallibility and concede that the other side may have valid arguments. Without this acknowledgment, even moderation is unlikely to succeed.

05/23/24 Progressive Claims

The history of human progress has zigged and zagged, retreated and leaped forward, and has been unpredictable. Progressives often like to claim that they are on the right side of history, but as I have written In my Chirp on "08/26/23 The Manifest Destiny of Progressivism":

“The originators and supporters of Progressivism attempted to take on the mantel of Manifest Destiny for their ideals and ideas. In doing so, they adopted many attitudes that their ideals and ideas were the only future course of history and that they are on the ‘Right Side of History’. However, the right side of history is an oxymoron; as there is no right or wrong side of history, history is just what has occurred in the past. Progressives believe in historical trends while ignoring that history has often diverged from a trend by circumstances and/or the actions of powerful or influential people or scientific or technological discoveries and innovations. After all, except by hindsight, who could have foreseen a historical trend that led to the Industrial Revolution or the Information Age, or the fall of civilizations that changed history, or leaders that changed history?”

Progressives also like to claim that when a person has changed their opinion to reflect a more progressive stance that they have “evolved”. But as I have written in my Chirp on "05/18/19 I'm With Stupid":

“They also utilize the term “evolved” to describe a person who has changed their position to a more progressive/leftist stance. They forget that evolving does not necessarily mean becoming better. Many species evolve and then become extinct, as their evolution was not conducive to their (changing) environment. Evolution does not necessarily mean improvement, and it certainly does not have anything to do with intelligence.”

Another Progressive claim is that when their candidates in the Democrat Party win control of Congress or the Presidency, they pronounce that the adults are now in charge. In Congress, it can be said that under the Democrat Party, rarely are there any adults put in charge, as their Congressional leadership is politically and not ability-determined. As for the presidency, the example of leadership in the Biden Administration demonstrates that they are anything but adults. The ineptitude of President Biden and Vice President Harris, as well as the across-the-board Executive Officers of the Biden Administration, is amateurish and astounding. This, along with their prevarications, evasivenesses, and ludicrously insincere or vague talk with empty promises that are supposed to impress, does nothing to impress and also demonstrates that they are not adults.

Thus, claims of the Right Side of History, a person evolving into progressivism, or the adults in charge should be mocked, as there is no such thing. These claims are only a ploy to induce you into believing that Progressivism is the only legitimate future course for America. The future course of America should be for the striving to attain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to effectuate the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

05/22/24 Intellectuals and Capitalists

In an article by Rainer Zitelmann, “Why Intellectuals Don't Like Capitalism”, he outlines some of the reasons that most Intellectuals dislike Capitalism. While he makes many interesting points, he has forgotten one important point. Capitalism does not allow for the control and power over government and society to be directed by a self-anointed elite. Intellectuals believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior and, as such, they should be in control of government and society. Capitalists believe that the meritocracy of talents, abilities, skills, hard work, and intelligence should be the determining factor in the leadership of government and society.

The term “Explicit knowledge” refers to knowledge acquisition that can be readily articulated, conceptualized, codified, formalized, stored, and accessed. However, there is a different kind of knowledge, “Implicit knowledge”, which includes personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition. Research has shown that implicit knowledge is the route of knowledge acquisition most often taken by capitalists, while explicit knowledge is the only acceptable route for intellectuals. Competition is the determining factor in Capitalism as to who rises to the top, while Intellectuals believe that academic credentials should determine who rises to the top.

Both capitalists and intellectuals believe that they deserve the leadership of government and society because of their accomplishments. Thus, we have a power struggle between Capitalists and Intellectuals. A power struggle in which Intellectuals demonize, denigrate, and disparage Capitalism to achieve the control and power over government and society that they feel they so richly deserve. Capitalists, on the other hand, discredit Intellectuals as not being attuned to the “real world”, and that Intellectuals' solutions to the issues, concerns, and problems facing the world are not economical or practicable and, consequently, they are better suited for control and power over government and society.

We should utilize intellectuals' explicit knowledge to guide us in making decisions and capitalists' implicit knowledge to guide us in implementing solutions, but we should not let the intellectuals or capitalists succeed in obtaining power and control. This is because Intellectuals are more often wrong than right as to the proper course of government and society, and Capitalists often fail to account for the moral principles of governance and societal interactions in their solutions.

05/21/24 Lies and Deceptions

Lies and Deceptions abound in modern America, especially in the use of studies and statistics. As I have written in my article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”, knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing studies or statistics is crucial to discovering the truth.

Studies can show anything. For every study that shows something, there is another study that shows the opposite. This is because every study has an inherent bias of the person or persons conducting the study or the organization that commissioned the study. A very good person conducting the study recognizes their biases and compensates for them to ensure that the study is as accurate as possible. Having been the recipient of many studies (and the author of a few), I can attest to this fact. Therefore, you should be very wary when a person says, "Studies show". You should always look into a study to determine who the authors are and who commissioned the study, then examine the study for any inherent biases that may be within the study.

Everything that I said about studies also applies to statistics. However, statistics requires more elaboration as it deals with the rigorous mathematical science of statistics. Statistics is a science that requires very rigorous education and experience to get it right. The methodology of gathering data, processing the data, and analyzing the data is very intricate. Interpreting the results of the data accurately requires that you understand the statistical methodology and how it was applied to the statistics being interpreted. If you are not familiar with the science of statistics and you have not carefully examined the statistics and how they were developed, you can often be led astray. Also, many statistics are published with a policy goal in mind and, therefore, should be suspect. As a famous wag once said, "Figures can lie, and liars can figure". So be careful when someone presents you with statistics. Be wary of both the statistics and the statistician.

Studies and statistics often claim to be scientific and rigorous. However, most of them are not as scientific or as rigorous as we may believe. Most studies are based on statistics, and most statistics become studies. However, most studies based on statistics have issues with data, methodology, correlation and causality, sampling, and confidence level, as well as risk factors and probabilities, along with a host of other issues.

Politicians, along with Activists and Activism, often cite studies and statistics to buttress their arguments, especially in an election cycle. However, all should beware of these studies and statistics as they are often incomplete, inaccurate, and sometimes incorrect. Even government agencies’ studies and statistics are prone to incompleteness, inaccuracies, and sometimes incorrectness, along with being politically biased to suit the predilections of Congressional leaders, Presidents, and Executive Officers, as well as bureaucrats. It is also an unfortunate fact that Justices and Judges often rely on statistics in their rulings without sufficient knowledge to ascertain the good from the bad studies and statistics. Alas, the "Mainstream Media" and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" accept these governmental studies and statistics without wariness, and thus, they foist these statistics as truths on the American public.

The faults of studies and statistics are predominant in the areas of the 1). Economy, 2). Crime, and 3). Climate studies and statistics. In some cases, they are deliberately deceptive to achieve a political or social goal. It is also an unfortunate fact that most of the people who tout these studies and statistics do not understand the intricacies of studies and statistics, nor the particulars of the subject of the studies and statistics. Those who tout these studies and statistics accept at face value the opinions and consensus of the “experts” on the subject and often ignore or reject the opinions of the “experts” dissenters, as I have written in my article “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”.

An example of this is the current usage of statistics in ascertaining the current state of crime in America. John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center who has served as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department, has written a fine article, “The FBI's Crime Data Has Real Problems”, that demonstrates the woeful lack of the proper utilization of crime statistics by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program and the Bureau of Justice Statistics on crime. As the egregious errors in these statistics are beyond the normal boundaries of mistakes, it can only be assumed that this is a deliberate misuse of statistics with deception for the purposes of a political narrative.

Deceptions also abound in modern America. One of the biggest deceptions in modern America was that the use of masks and social distancing would slow the spread of the COVID-19 Virus. You do not need a knowledge of medicine to understand this deception, as a knowledge of the physics of gases and fluid dynamics would allow you to determine this deception. When the size of the COVID-19 virus was determined, you would have known that the pore sizes of masks were much too large to stop the virus from inhalation and exhalation. When the airborne means of the spread of the virus was determined, you would have also known that airborne distribution of the virus would occur rapidly and extensively, especially in modern heating, ventilating, and air-conditioned rooms and buildings, making any social distancing ineffective. Thus, the deceivers of slowing the spread of the virus through masks and social distancing were responsible for the terrible social and economic impacts that masks and social distancing brought forth upon America.

As the major literary figure Jonathan Swift wrote in 1710 on this topic in “The Examiner”, “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” often paraphrased as “A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.”, these lies and deceptions in modern America are meant to sway public opinion with falsehoods. We should also remember another quote about deceptions:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”
 - Sir Walter Scott

These lies are often followed by a tangled web of deceptions to support the lies. Consequently, those that lie and support the lie are deceivers. Deceivers who wish to mislead the public to achieve their political goals and policy agendas are based on falsehoods. Do not let them deceive you, and do not accept their studies and statistics at face value. It is especially important that you do not vote for the deceivers and not support the policy goals of activists who are deceivers. Determining who is and is not the deceiver can be difficult, but by listening to both sides of the studies and statistics, it can help you make a better decision on who the deceivers are.

05/20/24 Two Camps of Americans

Today, in modern America, the people have been divided into two camps: the camp of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the camp of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. The moderate camp, which was predominant throughout American history, has become a minor camp and is only significant in terms of their votes, as the two camps are about evenly divided in numbers. As such, moderate voters often determine the outcome of elections but have little effect on the direction of governance, as each of the two camps governs to their base’s inclinations. Consequently, elections are about appeals to moderates to win an election but are not determinative for future governance.

The Republican Party is the vehicle of an ideological movement, while the Democratic Party is a coalition of social groups. Republican leaders prize Conservatism and attract support by pledging loyalty to broad values and often speak to the principles of small and limited governance. The Democratic Party prizes Progressivism and seeks concrete government action, appealing to voters' group identities and interests by endorsing specific policies. It often focuses on entitlements and big activist governance to achieve its policy goals. Thus, both camps talk past each other, as they have different political goals and policy agendas. Unfortunately, these different political goals and policy agendas are often at odds with each other.

Politicians and candidates' political rhetoric and campaigning often focus on the hot-button issues that fire up their base. At the same time, they offer platitudes to the moderates in an attempt to sway their votes while simultaneously engaging in demonizing their opponents. In all of this political rhetoric, they often sow confusion as to what are our "American Ideals and Ideas", the meaning of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and by different interpretations of our Constitution, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". They have also forgotten, or do not know, the difference between the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" and that the Constitution was forged for the common good.

Much of this confusion has been brought about by the advancement and failures of a Progressive agenda in America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". It has also been brought about by Conservative failures to adequately address social issues and concerns and articulate the importance of individual rights in addressing these issues and concerns. Consequently, in this confusion, Americans have lost their identity as to the soul of America, as expressed in the words of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

As well as the preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, we have divided into two camps with different ideologies and objectives for our governance. Camps that are often diametrically opposed to the political goals and policy agendas of each other. Camps that engage in bitter hyper-partisanship in trying to reach their objectives. Camps that have forgotten and do not address the soul of America, nor our Constitutional principles. Camps that will end up destroying American society in their quest to achieve their political goals and policy agendas.

05/19/24 An Assault on the American Judicial System

Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Jonathan Turley’s website Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks is a collection of his articles that are brief and easily understood by the general public, as well as being well reasoned and thoughtful. I am particularly impressed by Professor Turley’s articles on the defense of the Right to Free Speech and Due Process of Law. The sections on his website about Constitutional law, Criminal law, and Free Speech should be a must-read for all interested in these topics.

In a series of articles, he has eviscerated the legal travesty of the Trump prosecution by Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. These articles should be a must-read for all Americans to understand why this trial assaults the American judicial system. They are:

• The Trump Trial in Manhattan is an Indictment of the New York Legal System
• Alvin Bragg has his Trump trial, All he Needs Now is a Crime
• Court to Decide Trump Contempt Sanction Including Objection to Use of Turley Quotation
• Disbarred, Serial Perjurer Walks into a Court and Asks to Take an Oath…Seriously, No Joke
• Stormy Daniels Day: Alvin Bragg Lights Dumpster Fire in Manhattan
• Michael Cohen Goes on TikTok With New Trump Taunt … and Announces Campaign for Congress?
• “I See Dead People”: Bragg’s Case Against Trump Goes Paranormal
• The Appearance of Michael Cohen: A Wreck in Search of a Race
• Unfixable: Michael Cohen Faces a Reckoning of Biblical Proportions on Cross Examination
• Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury in the Trump Trial?
• Getting Played: The Demolition of Cohen on Cross Examination Reveals “The Grift” to a New York Jury
• The Lawrence O’Donnell Factor: Will the Trump Jury Exercise Blind Justice or Willful Blindness?
• Bragg and the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution: Why the Trump Trial Could End With a Hung Jury
• The Closing: Trump’s Final Argument Must Be Clarity to Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom
• A Manhattan Canned Hunt: The Trump Jury is Out But is the Case in the Bag?
• Trump is Convicted: What Comes Next?
• The Ghost of John Adams: How the Trump Trial Harkens Back to a Dark Period of American Law
• Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal
  

Please note that I will update this list as Professor Turley writes additional columns about the Trump trial.

Other legal scholars have also written and spoken of the travesty of justice that is occurring by both the prosecutor and judge in the Manhattan courtroom. Andrew C. McCarthy, the noted prosecutor and legal commentator and certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has written in his article “Trump Should Be Acquitted in Manhattan”:

“Let’s put aside all of the constitutional objections to Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump — objections premised on the shredding of both federal and state due-process guarantees. Trump ought to be acquitted for the simplest of reasons: Prosecutors can’t prove their case — neither the case the grand jury actually charged, 34 counts of felony business-records falsification, nor the case that elected progressive Democratic district attorney Alvin Bragg has imagined into existence, an uncharged conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information in violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

Allan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

“Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system would have failed us all.”

This trial is another example of the Lawfare occurring in modern America and the division of Americans into two camps, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "A Tale of Two Cities". A lawfare and division that is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and a perversion of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. A lawfare that, for many Americans, has eroded faith in our justice system. A lawfare that, if it continues, will contribute to our society's disintegration and to the possibility of a civil war in America, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice

In my previous Chirp on “05/17/24 True Justice”, I mentioned that without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society and that some prosecutors and judges are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. This has become most evident in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and the lack of prosecutions of former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden for similar alleged “criminal acts”.

The actions and inactions of the prosecutors and judges in these cases have been astounding and breathtaking in their violations of true justice, and they may be in violation of the law and the canon of ethics for prosecutors and judges. As Andrew C. McCarthy has written in many of his articles in National Review, as well as Jonathan Turley in many of his articles on his website, the shenanigans that are going on in the courtroom and behind the scenes by the prosecutors and judges of former President Donald Trump are a clear violation of true justice and current jurisprudence. They may also be violations of former President Donald Trump's Constitutional Rights. They are, however, a prime example of how Lawfare has taken hold in modern America. They are also an attempt to influence an election, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference”.

These actions and inactions by prosecutors and judges in the cases against former President Donald Trump, former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden have already damaged the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system. It is my contention that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in immediately to stop these shenanigans and restore the integrity and jurisprudence of the American judicial system. For them to not do so risks calamitous consequences for our American Ideals and Ideas. We, the American people, also need to step up and demand that these prosecutors and judges who have participated in these shenanigans be forthwith relieved of their duties and responsibilities. If this is allowed to continue, it may irrevocably damage our judicial system, lead to widespread civil unrest, and contribute to the possibility of a civil war, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

05/17/24 True Justice

In Deuteronomy 16:18-20 of the Bible, it commands the people of Judges and Justice:

“18. You are to appoint judges and officials for your tribes in every town that the LORD your God is giving you. They are to judge the people with righteous judgment.
19. Do not deny justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.
20. Pursue justice, and justice alone, so that you may live, and you may possess the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”
 - Berean Standard Bible

In addition, there are many other Bible verses about Judges and Justice. Some of the more pertinent verses for the purposes of this Chirp are:

 “Furthermore, select capable men from among the people--God-fearing, trustworthy men who are averse to dishonest gain. Appoint them over the people as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
 - Exodus 18:21

 “You shall not follow the crowd in wrongdoing. When you testify in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.”
 - Exodus 23:2

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
 - Exodus 20:16

 “You must not pervert justice; you must not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the rich; you are to judge your neighbor fairly.”
 - Leviticus 19:15

 “Show no partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be intimidated by anyone, for judgment belongs to God. And bring to me any case too difficult for you, and I will hear it.”
 - Deuteronomy 1:17

These commands of God are words of wisdom no matter what your beliefs or non-beliefs may be, for without steadfastly holding to these words of wisdom, it is not possible to have justice. Today, in modern America, we have forgotten these words of wisdom in our pursuit of social and political justice. Much of this injustice is promulgated by prosecutors and judges who are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. The utilization of Lawfare in pursuit of social and political justice is a travesty of justice, and it destroys the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system.

Without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society. People will live in fear that if they violate a prosecutor’s or judge’s sense of righteousness, even if they have been lawful in their actions, they will run afoul of the judicial system. Such a fear paralyzes society and will eventually lead to its ruin.

05/16/24 The Berean Standard Bible

The Berean Bible Society was founded over seventy-five years ago for the sole purpose of helping believers understand and enjoy the Word of God. Their Organization holds without apology all the fundamentals of the Christian faith and is evangelical; that is, they believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone on the basis of the shed blood of Christ. They also emphasize the importance of proclaiming the whole counsel of God in light of the Pauline revelation. Insofar as Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, it is their firm conviction that in his epistles alone have the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny for the Church, the Body of Christ, during the dispensation of Grace.

The Berean Standard Bible is a completely new English translation of the Holy Bible, effective for public reading, study, memorization, and evangelism. Inspired by the words in the Book of Acts, and based on the best available manuscripts and sources, each word is connected back to the Greek or Hebrew text to produce a transparent text that can be studied for its root meanings.

The Berean Study Bible represents a single tier of the Berean Bible. This printing contains the full Berean Bible text, footnotes, section headings, and cross-references. It is not what is considered a traditional study Bible, as it includes only the text, cross-references, and footnotes. Additional components, including translation tables, lexicons, outlines, and summaries, are free online at their website, “Bible Hub”, which features topical, Greek and Hebrew study tools, plus concordances, commentaries, dictionaries, sermons, devotionals, and in a variety of apps and software.

I have found that the Berean Standard Bible is a good and understandable modern translation of the Bible. Previous translations of the Bible are often unreadable or misunderstood by the modern public mind. Many of these previous translations of the Bible were also influenced by incomplete or incorrect biblical scholarship and sometimes by political, economic, or sociological considerations of the times and environment in which they were translated. The Berean Standard Bible attempts to correct these problems based on modern biblical scholarship and not be influenced by political, economic, or sociological considerations.

Consequently, in my future Chirps and Articles, I will utilize and quote from the Berean Standard Bible and the Bible Hub when I reference the Bible.

05/15/24 A Civil War Future

No sane person wants a civil war, but then again, no sane person wants to live in an insane country. Regrettably, in modern America, we seem to be living in an insane country.

Anti-Americanism/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Israelism, Senseless Crimes/No Prosecutions/Defunding the Police, Violent Protests, Open Borders, Entitlements for Illegal Immigrants, Homelessness, Dangerous Drug Addictions and Legalizations, Youth Sex Changes, Unconstrained Transgenderism and Homosexuality in the Public Arena, Modern Feminism, Climate Change/Environmental/Energy Policy foolhardiness, Educational Inanities at all levels, Voter Fraud, Lawfare, Constrained First and Second Amendment Rights, Judicial Overreach and Convoluted Rulings, Unsustainable Deficit Spending and Debt Ceiling, and a litany of other insanities seem to pervade America.

The noted historian and commentator Victor Davis Hanson, in the YouTube video “Final Warning: America’s Last Chance Before Collapse” and his article “American Paralysis and Decline”, explains how our civilization is in a state of collapse. A collapse that may not be avoidable given the current insanity in America and which may only be recoverable via a civil war.

This, coupled with a despotic fear if you should speak out against these insanities, has led many Americans to consider if a civil war is the only solution to this insanity. Alas, they may be right that a civil war may be the only solution, as this insanity, led by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and supported by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", may be uncurable through normal democratic processes due to Hyper-Partisanship, Wokeness,  Cancel Culture, Doxing, and the pitting of one group of Americans against another group of Americans.

A civil war is a terrible thing to endure, but an insane society is an even more terrible thing to endure and which will lead to the collapse of our society. Unless we correct the insanities in modern America, a civil war may be necessary to right our course and preserve our society.

05/14/24 Ten Most Common Untruths and Blood Libel

Victor Davis Hanson has written a new article, “Try a Little Honesty About Israel”, which examines ten of the most common untruths being bandied about by the Pro-Palestinian protestors. They are:

1. Progressive Hamas
2. Colonists and settlers
3. Two-state solution
4. Occupied Gaza
5. Netanyahu is the problem
6. Targeting civilians
7. Protestors are Pro-Palestine
8. Anti-Israel is not Anti-Semitic
9. Genocide
10. Disproportionate response

These lies, and his unmasking of them, expose the truth to the lies of the protesters. Thus, this article is an important read for those dedicated to the truth.

In an article by Dennis Prager, “The Genocide Libel Is the Blood Libel of Our Time”, he wrote:

“In medieval Europe, Christians who hated Jews spread the lie that Jews kidnap Christian children, slaughter them, and use their blood to bake matzos for Passover. This lie became known as “the Blood Libel,” probably the greatest libel in history. Over the course of many centuries, Jews were tortured and murdered, often by being burned alive, because of the Blood Libel.

The Blood Libel was particularly odious in light of two facts: It was the Jews who, through their Bible, first outlawed human sacrifice; and one of the first laws in the Hebrew Bible is a ban on consuming blood.

For centuries, Jews had to confront the fact that all around them, throughout Europe, a vast number of people believed an enormous lie about them. Jews have to confront the same thing today. We are now living through the Second Blood Libel: the claim that the Jewish state is committing genocide. But, unlike the Blood Libel, this libel is not the product of Christians; it is the product of Muslims and the Left. The very people against whom the greatest genocide in recorded history — the Holocaust — was directed are now accused of that crime.”

He then goes on to explain that the current cries of “genocide” by Israel against the Palestinians are the modern-day equivalent of medieval Europe’s “Blood Libel”. The purported number of Palestinians killed in the retaliatory strikes against Hamas for their October 7, 2023, terrorism against Israel was widely overinflated, and the corrections to these numbers have been underreported. Thus, as Mr. Prager ends his article:

“Even if the media give these new numbers the attention it has given the alleged “genocide,” it will not end a single anti-Israel demonstration or cause one Israel-hater to cease accusing Israel of genocide. Since the accusation was never based on truth, truth will not end it.

The only genocide in the Israel-Palestinian war is the one Hamas and Iran seek to perpetrate against the Jews of Israel.”

Untruths and Blood Libels against Israel are despicable and evil, and they need to be vigorously denounced by all who revere decency and honesty. Any prevarication or moral equivalence in condemning these Untruths and Blood Libels is tacit support of evil, and you must confront the evildoers and evil sayers to extinguish evil; otherwise, evil may triumph.

05/13/24 The Rise of Evil in America

As I have written in my Chirp on “05/16/24 Parallelism in America”, in today’s America, we are seeing a rise in evil. This rise has been illuminated by the current protests against Israel and for the Palestinian people. Make no mistake that these pro-Palestinian protests are nothing but a disguise for Anti-Semitism, as I have also Chirped on, "03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism".

The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is nothing but a phrase for the elimination of Israel, for Israel is totally between the river and the sea. As I have written in my Chirp on "01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue", these protests are simply virtue signaling with little knowledge or comprehension as to what they are protesting. They certainly do not realize that they are engaged in evildoing.

This Anti-Semitism must be forthrightly confronted and condemned by all who oppose evil. There is no moral equivalency when confronting evil, and there is no temporizing with evil. It is time for all clergy to point out this evil of Anti-Semitism, condemn it, and urge their congregations to condemn Anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it arises. All politicians and community leaders should also join in this pointing out and condemning Anti-Semitism, and all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All must condemn this Anti-Semitism.

For those who claim the situation in the Hamas-Israel conflict is complex, I am reminded of the thoughts of the famed Rabbi Jonathan Saks: 

“The Israeli-Hamas conflict is not complex.
It's very simple: One side wants the other side dead.”
 - Rabbi Saks

When one side wants the other side dead, it is not virtuous to support the side that wants the other side dead, and it is evil to aid and abet the other side who wants them dead. We all should also remember that:

Anti-Semitism must be confronted and condemned whenever it rears its ugly head.
For history has shown that whenever it is not confronted and eliminated,
it festers and grows to become a cancer that will eventually destroy society.

05/12/24 Evil Disguised by Moral Equivalence

In the Ten Commandments of the Bible, Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 states:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”, or "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (NRSV) and its variants, is an admonishment to not do evil or justify evil in the name of God. It is considered a grievous sin and will not be tolerated by God. Those who aid or abet the evildoers are just as guilty of evildoing as the evildoers. Therefore, those who justify evil acts with moral equivalence are evildoers, as they are aiding and abetting the evildoers.

There is no doubt that the acts of Hamas and Hezbollah are evil, and those who justify these acts with moral equivalence are aiding and abetting the evildoers. Hence, the Palestine protesters across the world are as evil as the evildoers. It is also an unfortunate fact that the Biden Administration's tepid support for Israel, and sometimes hindrance of Israeli responses to evil, is aiding and abetting the evildoers. Thus, the Biden Administration has become evil.

While many would complain that this judgment of the Biden Administration is too harsh, this Commandment is harsh and unyielding and not subject to disputations by mere mortals. As the prophet Nathan called out the sins of David And Bathsheba, so must we call out the sins of the Biden Administration.

I am not a prophet of God, nor do I claim any special wisdom about God. But I can recognize evil when it rears its ugly head. I also recognize that to live a Godly life, you must confront and extinguish evil; otherwise, evil may triumph.

05/11/24 The Chosen of God

The Jewish people are the chosen of God, chosen to show what faithfulness to God’s will means and the evils of the faithless against God’s will. Given the turbulent trials and tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history, they have provided this showing. Yet throughout these trials and tribulations and throughout history, the Jewish people have persevered. No historical people have persevered for as long as the Jewish people, which leads me to believe in God and that God chooses wisely.

Today, they are again showing the evilness of those who are faithless in God’s will. The terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah against the Jewish people demonstrates the evilness of the faithless against God’s will. The elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah from the Mideast may be another reminder by God as to the terrible consequences of evil against God’s will.

Just as God demanded that the ancient Jews eliminate the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:16-18), he may be directing the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those who oppose the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah may, therefore, be supporting the evils of the faithless against God’s will. Consequently, woe be to those who support Hamas and Hezbollah, as they may be supporting the evils of the faithless against God’s will, and God will judge of their words and deeds when they meet their maker.

To those Jewish people who have suffered the terrible consequences of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, I would say that your sacrifice has not been in vain, as you serve as a reminder of God’s will, and your sacrifice will be rewarded by God in the afterlife. I would also say long live the Jewish people as a reminder of what faithfulness to God’s will means and the evils of the faithless against God’s will.

05/10/24 Parallelism in America

A century ago, in a place almost halfway around the world, a great country was in despair. This great country, renowned for its Philosophers and Theologians, composers and musicians, authors and poets, artists and artisans, architecture and craftsmen, scientists and engineers, had succumbed to despair because of its loss of greatness and the economic devastations of World War I. In their despair, they searched for reasons as to their plight. Instead of looking at their own actions as the reasons for their dilemma, they began an outward/inward search for scapegoats. Outward in blaming other countries for their problems, and then inward in blaming groups of their fellow citizens for their problems. In this outward/inward search for scapegoats, they turned to evilness.

They began to listen to the demagogues amongst themselves in that:

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

Within a few short years, the demagogues obtained control of the government, and they began their pogroms against their opponents, which ended up with World War II, millions of deaths, and calamitous ruination for all but America. It started with governmental control of society and the economy and ended with genocide and slavery for those who opposed them:

“It didn't start with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.
It started with one party controlling the media.
It started with one party controlling the message.
It started with one party deciding what is the truth.
It started with one party censoring speech and silencing the opposition.
It started with one party dividing citizens into 'Us' and 'Them'.
It started with one party calling on their supporters to harass 'Them'.
It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.
It ended with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.”
 - paraphrased from the Holocaust Museum

All of this is evil and an evil that may be festering in today’s America. The rise of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism in America, as I have written in my Chirps on “05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism” and “03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism”, along with "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", "Wokeness", "Doxing", and now "Lawfare" in America, are but symptoms of the rise of evil in America.These symptoms have given rise to a feeling of despair as to our perceived loss of greatness and the economic doldrums we are currently enduring. Symptoms that are being aggravated by the words and deeds of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters as a means to obtain and retain power to advance their political goals and policy agendas. We must fight this despair and reclaim our American Ideals and Ideas to ensure our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All so that we do not become an evil country like the other once great country became.

05/09/24 Non-Answer Answers

Congressional hearings and inquiries have become a joke. A joke in that the time limits for questioning are absurdly short, and the witnesses have become adept at not answering the question with absurd excuses for not answering a question, vacuous answers to the question, or running out of the clock with long-winded statements that do not answer the question. Indeed, these non-answers have become pathetic and/or humorous in their evasions. They also are injurious to our democratic process and balance of powers, as they thwart the role of Congressional Oversight in our system of government.

Instead, they use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" as non-answers. Simple yes/no answers, such as Would you allow your teenage daughter to dress or undress in front of a transgender boy who is dressing or undressing in the woman’s locker room, or simple replies to what is your definition of a woman, are being evaded by non-answers. The litany of non-answers to Congressional Oversight hearings and inquiries in the last decades could fill a book and are far too numerous to list in this Chirp.

It is an unfortunate fact that Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters are especially addicted to non-answers, and it became a modus operandi in the administrations of President Obama and Biden. Non-answers are a tactic and means to obscure their actual intentions or deeds, as they are aware that if they did so, their actions or proposals would not be palatable to a majority of Americans.

As such, non-answers have become a means for Democrat politicians to obtain and retain power to advance their political goals and policy agendas. Rather than utilizing clear language and intelligent reasoning to explain and justify their words and deeds, they resort to non-answers to hoodwink the American public. As the old adage states, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”, the American people should be ashamed of themselves for allowing them to get away with non-answers.

05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference

The administrations of President Obama and President Biden have been very selective in who they investigate and prosecute for violations of federal laws and our constitutional and civil rights. It has become apparent to all involved that the selection criteria is Democrat and Progressive "Activists and Activism" who support their administrations versus Republicans and Conservatives who oppose the policies of the Obama and Biden administrations. Much of these investigations and prosecutions are not for the purpose of obtaining convictions for violations of the law but for intimidation and ruination of their opponents in a process known as "Lawfare".

This Lawfare has now extended to election interference. The prosecutions in an election year of former President Trump and his associates and supporters are for the purpose of keeping them in court proceedings and off the election trail. It is also for the purpose of delegitimizing President Trump in the eyes of the voters in the hopes that they will not vote for President Trump. It also has the repercussions of depriving President Trump of some of his most able and effective campaign aides and possibly diminishing campaign donations from wary supporters.

Two new articles, “The Travesties of the Trump Trials” by Victor Davis Hanson and “Biden’s Collusion in the Anti-Trump Lawfare Gambit” by Andrew C. McCarthy, examine the political impetus and machinations of this Lawfare against President Trump.

Consequently, this is but another example of the election demagoguery employed by Democrats, as I have written in my Chirp “05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery”. If they are successful in these efforts, then how elections are conducted will forever change, with Lawfare becoming part of the election process. Woe be to America if this should happen, as free and fair elections in America will be relegated to the ash heap of history.

05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery

In the Presidential election of 2016, we had the issue of Russian collusion interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2020, we had the issue of the COVID pandemic interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2024, we have the issue of President Trump’s indictments and trials interfering with the normal election process. In all three of these elections, it was the Democrat candidate and the Democrat Party that were interfering with the normal election process. In this, it appears that the Democrat candidate and party do not believe that they can win an election without interfering with the normal election process, and this belief may be true.

This election interference, along with fearmongering and demonization, as I have written in Chirp on "08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization", appears to be the preferred election tactic of Democrat candidates. These tactics of interference, fearmongering, and demonization are the tactics of demagogues that have been used throughout history, much to the detriment of humankind.

Many Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters would claim that both sides do it.  However, as I have examined in my Chirps on 04/01/19 Both Sides Do It", the issue is not that both sides do it but whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes in their respective parties. In the Republican Party, few of the leadership engage in election interference and demagoguery, and the extremes are hardly paid attention to, while in the Democrat Party, many of the leadership engage in election interference and demagoguery, and the extremes are pandered to. Thus, it is the Democrats that are engaged in election interference and demagoguery as a tactic to win elections to obtain and retain power.

When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader standing on the front steps of the Supreme Court building, with an angry mob behind them, threatening the Supreme Court members on a decision they were about to render? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party House Speaker physically tear apart a Presidential State of the Union address in front of a national audience? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader making scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about Democrat politicians from the House or Senate floor while hiding behind Congressional immunity from slander or libel lawsuits? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader use pejoratives against a Democrat candidate or politician, as I have written in my article on Divisiveness in America? When was the last time you saw a Republican President give as vile a speech as President Biden gave in front of Independence Hall on September 01, 2022, as I have Chirp on, "09/03/22 A Terrorist and a Fascist" and written in my article on The Soul of the Nation? When was the last time that you saw a Republican Presidential administration (either directly or through its surrogates in the State and Local governments) prosecute Democrat politicians, advisors, and supporters for other than serious criminal actions that were unrelated to politics, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government"? The litany of Democrat Party leaders’ demagogic words and deeds in their official capacities could go on and on.

As I have often said, the major difference between Republican and Democrat leadership in their opposition to each other is that Republican Leadership believes that Democrats are wrong, while Democrat Leadership believes that Republicans are evil. This is why Democrat Leadership engages in demagoguery, as they believe that they are morally obligated to defeat Republican evils. This is also why they don't want to intelligently debate their opposition, as they only want to berate their opposition for their supposed evils.

As to election interference, it is the Democrat Party that advocates for voting changes that make it easier to cheat and harder to uncover cheating. They also utilize their political power to obstruct investigations into ballot cheating. The ballot counting in Democrat Party strongholds is so rife with abnormalities and inconsistencies that it is difficult to ascertain the integrity of the ballot counting. As I have discussed in my articles on Voting in America and Voting Responsibilities, many of these voting problems originate in Democrat Party machinations to rig the vote in favor of Democrat candidates. Consequently, the Democrat Party is heavily invested in election interference.

Thus, in modern America, we have election interference and demagoguery by the Democrats for the purposes of winning elections to obtain and retain power. A power that they are willing to utilize to install an Oligarchy in America composed of themselves and a power to institute Despotism in America against their opposition.

05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism

Many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have an Anti-Americanism attitude, as they believe that America is the worst country in the world because of its Racist history, White Privilege social structure, its Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society, and its Capitalism and Free Markets economy. Much of this belief is based on The Biggest Falsehoods in America and a lack of knowledge or misjudgments of history, economic ignorance or fallaciousness, and a flawed understanding of human nature.

As Winson Churchill once elucidated, “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”, I would say that “America is the worst country, except for all the others that have been tried”. All countries throughout history have had their flaws and faults, and all countries have been worse than America with all its flaws and faults.

In my Article “Condemned to Repeat It”, I note that without a true understanding of history, it is not possible to comprehend historical persons and times, which leads to false assumptions and conclusions about history. It is, therefore, important that you properly examine history. A preponderance of people believe that history is simply an insight into the past, mere stories of people and their lives, or a collection of dates and facts that are seemingly meaningless in our world today. However, as Disha Aadiya Ajit has written in his article, “Why history?”, properly examining history provides more than stories, dates, and facts. As he has stated, “History encompasses the bygone eras reflective of human advancement, spirit, resilience, successes and failures that have metamorphosed into the world as we know it today”, and history provides insights for making judgments on today’s events and the possibilities in the future.

The word “presentism” is the judging of people and events of another time by the standards of today. In literary and historical analysis, presentism is a term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. Some consider the practice of presentism a common fallacy when writing about the past. American historian Barbara Tuchman once said, “Nothing is more unfair than to judge the men of the past by the ideas of the present”. Thus, we should all be more circumspect in our judgments of historical people and events and be cognizant of the old saying that you must walk a mile in someone’s shoes to understand what they are going through. In another fine article by Disha Aadiya Ajit, “Opinion: Should We Judge Those From The Past By The Standards Of Today?” he explains why presentism is a fallacious judgment of history. 

In an illuminating article by Mark Lewis, “'Progressivism': The Modern Zeitgeist”, he looks at Presentism in terms of the Zeitgeist characteristic of an age or generation. This article also makes for an interesting and recommended read.

It is readily apparent from their historical statements that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders lack a true understanding of history, that they utilize presentism in their judgments of history, and thus, they are distorting history to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. An examination of my various History Articles on American History points out many of the fallaciousness of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders regarding American history. This lack of a true understanding of history and presentism leads them to engage in anti-Americanism rhetoric.

In properly examining history, it is critically important that we understand the economic circumstances of the historical times. The economics of a society and its people were often the driving factor in what occurred in history, and so it is today. However, very few people have an understanding of macroeconomics, including many economists, which is necessary to understand the why and how a society operates economically. This lack of understanding of the economics of a society and of a person leads to misjudgments as to the functioning of a society and the reasons individuals make decisions about their lives. The economic ignorance or fallaciousness of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders leads them down a primrose path of decision-making to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. When their policy agendas fail due to their lack of understanding of economics, they often disparage Americans and America for their failure, which reinforces their anti-Americanism attitude.

My Chirp on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature" examines how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have an unconstrained vision of human nature. This unconstrained view of human nature leads them to believe that they can mold human nature to suit their political goals and policy agendas. While they may be able to change the minds of some people, the vast majority of people in America and the world are immune to their blandishments and enticements and will continue to make their decisions based on the constrained vision of human nature, which is not moldable. Thus, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are in denial of human nature. As such:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

This denial of true human nature leads them to disparage most Americans and America, which reinforces their anti-Americanism attitude.

Consequently, anti-Americanism is based on a lack of knowledge or misjudgments of history, economic ignorance or fallaciousness, and a flawed understanding of human nature. There is also more than a touch of delusions of utopianism that permeate the deriders of America. A utopian delusion that they know what is best and how to best achieve their Utopia. But nobody knows what is best nor how to achieve the best, for as the great economist Thomas Sowell has said, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." It should also be remembered that Utopia can never be achieved; as the great French philosopher, author, and journalist Albert Camus has said, “Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality.”

05/05/24 Virtue In America

In an article by Mark Lewis, “Have You Ever Heard Any Current Politician Use the Word 'Virtue'?”, he states:

“My dear friends, if you want to know how America has gotten so far off the track, where our beloved country has lost its way, why there is so much moral decadence, so many utterly corrupt, self-centered, power-hungry politicians, and a largely ignorant, gullible citizenry, the majority of whom don’t seem to know what is really happening, then please read the following quotes. Each of them is from James Madison, one of the greatest minds in our history, and the man given the most credit for writing our Constitution and establishing the government we were supposed to have.”

The five quotes of Madison that he utilizes are:

“I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.”
 - James Madison

“If a man is not fit to govern himself, how can he be fit to govern someone else?”
 - James Madison

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
 - James Madison

“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
 - James Madison

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
 - James Madison

His comments on these quotes are quite illuminative of the current state of virtue in America. I have also written an Article, “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society”, along with my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", which examines the state of virtue in America. In Mark Lewis’s article, he also states that:

“If people aren’t taught virtue, honesty, self-control, respect for property, industry, truth, and goodness, then they will have none of these qualities.  And, again I ask, when was the last time you heard ANY politician in America, on either side of the aisle, encouraging Americans towards the absolute necessity of a virtuous, godly, self-controlled life?”

And:

“An unvirtuous people with no self-control will produce societal chaos, i.e., America in 2024. And a society in chaos will cry out for greater government to protect it.”

In his article he concludes:

“The answer is the one Madison taught us:  to educate our people in virtue and elect leaders of wisdom and virtue. If that is even possible any more.”

Alas, virtue in America has seemed to have been relegated to the ash heap of history. But without reestablishing virtue in America, it is not possible to properly address the issues and concerns facing America, or as James Madison has also warned:

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”
 - James Madison

05/04/24 A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

A recent campus photo during the Anti-Israel protests says a thousand words about the importance of the Second Amendment. In the background, we see a Jewish student being assaulted by the protesters, while in the foreground, a law enforcement officer ignores the assault:

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Every person has the Natural Right to protect themselves, their family, and their neighbors from the criminal actions of others. We normally cede this right to law enforcement officers, but if they are unavailable or choose not to do so (or prevented from doing so by the orders of superiors), we need to be able to protect ourselves. Sometimes, the best protection is a firearm at our side to dissuade or defend ourselves from the criminal actions of others.

The old adage, “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away”, should be caveated by “but only if they should decide to protect you.” Alas, in modern America, they are often more than minutes away or unavailable to protect you, and many police departments seem uninterested in protecting you due to "Political Correctness" or "Wokeness". Their only purpose is to protect your life, liberty, and property, and in modern America, they seem to have little interest in doing so. It is, therefore, up to each person to provide their own protection, and the best protection is a firearm that can be brandished or used if necessary.

05/03/24 Getting It Morally and Historically Wrong

Recently, Tucker Carlson told Joe Rogan that any person who defends the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, is evil:

"People on my side ... on the Right, you know, have spent 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. Like, are you joking? That's just like prima facie evil. ... It's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people. And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil. Like, it's not a tough one. It's not a hard call for me. So, with that in mind, like, why would you want nuclear weapons? It's, like, just a mindless, childish sort of intellectual exercise to justify -- like, 'Oh, no, it's really good because somebody else will get it.' How about 'no'? How about, like, spending all of your effort to prevent this from happening? Would you kill baby Hitler, you know, famously?"

In this, he is morally and historically wrong, as I have written in my Article on “The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings”. We must ponder the morality of these bombings, but we must do so in its historical context. An article by Dennis Prager, "Some on the Right Are Having a Moral Meltdown", goes into more detail about the morality and history of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Consequently, Tucker Carlson owes a retraction and apology for this comment, as it shows a lack of morality and historical insightfulness as to what occurred in the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

05/02/24 Morally, Intellectually, and Scientifically and Technologically Wrong

In my Chirps on “04/28/24 Morally Wrong”, “04/29/24 Intellectually Wrong”, and “04/30/24 Scientifically and Technologically Wrong”, I point out how the modern Democrat Party has gone astray. They have abandoned Reasoning" and "Rationality, and replaced them with their Lies and Beliefs, and they have trampled upon our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. In their going astray, they have become a threat to America, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "Despotism in America". In addition, they are attempting to institute rulership in America, as I have written in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, as they are trying to establish an Oligarchy in America as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

Their assaults on our free speech rights and their weaponization of government, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and "The Weaponization of Government", threaten the very fabric of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All in America. Their proposals for the scientific and technological issues facing America are often unscientific and uneconomical and are, therefore, destructive to our economy and our social fabric.

Consequently, it is imperative to vote out of office Democrat politicians until they reform their party to be in alignment with our American Ideals and Ideas. To not do so is to allow for the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas. In doing so, we should remember the words of President Lincoln:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
 - Abraham Lincoln

Also, in doing so or not doing so, we should remember the words of caution from President Lincoln:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
 - Abraham Lincoln

05/01/24 Wisdom Par Excellence

Thomas Sowell, (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books-and as a guest on TV and radio-he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.

He is also one of the wisest people I have ever encountered in my readings. His wisdom goes beyond economics, but economics is the foundation of his wisdom. Three books of his wisdom are this month's Book It selections, which all Americans should read to increase their own wisdom.

04/30/24 Scientifically and Technologically Wrong

As Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott in Star Trek: The Original Series has often said, “You cannot violate the laws of physics.” I would also add that you cannot compensate for the laws of physics, and you cannot ignore the laws of physics. You must always be cognizant of the Laws of Physics and obey them. As for technology, all technology is based on the laws of physics but is limited to what is achievable by the current state of engineering. Few people have sufficient knowledge of science and technology to ascertain the truth or falsehood of scientific and technological claims. Most people rely on “experts” to make a judgment of these claims. It is for this reason that I have written a series of articles about science and technology, which I am familiar with and which can be reviewed in the Science section of my website.

However, most people fall into the trap of automatically accepting the claims of experts or the consensus of experts. It should be remembered by all that experts are only experts in their field of study, that they can often be wrong, and that most have very little expertise outside of their field of study, which may impact their field of study. Regarding scientific experts, it is almost always the case that they have little expertise in the political, sociological, and economic impacts of what they may suggest or advocate. This has been especially true on the major scientific and technological issues of our time, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Climate Change", the "Coronavirus Pandemic", "Transgenderism - Sex and Gender", and energy policy as I have written in my Chirp on "11/16/22 Stupid Is as Stupid Does".

You should also be wary of Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, as throughout history, most scientific consensus and settled science has been overturned by advancements in science, as I have written in my article on Consensus and Settled Science. In addition, there are several problems of modern science that need to be considered when evaluating scientific claims, as I have written in my articles on Orthodoxy in Science and The Problems with Modern Science.

As I have written in my Chirps on "05/12/23 The Abandonment of Hard Science to be Replaced with Political Science", Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as well as the Biden Administration, have abandoned hard science and replaced it with political science to achieve their political goals. This is foolish and destructive to our society, a destructiveness that may cause economic and/or sociological problems and may be uncorrectable. Thus, in most cases, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are Scientifically and Technologically Wrong on issues related to science and technology.

04/29/24 Intellectually Wrong

It is breathtaking to observe how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are bereft of knowledge of Constitutional governance, economics, history, science and technology, and human nature. This lack of knowledge may be ignorance, but it may also be willful disregard, as when the facts and truths contravene their beliefs or political agendas, they disregard or dismiss the facts and truths. Many of my Chirps and Articles have dealt with their lack of knowledge of these subjects and the dangers of their disregarding or dismissal of the facts and truths, or as I have said:

"To deny human nature, economics, history, or science and technology, or to not acknowledge human nature, economics, history, science or technology is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

And failure is what we have seen in modern America because of Democrat Party leadership and Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism. Not only have we experienced failures, but we have also seen Divisiveness in America and the loss of A Civil Society in America due to Hyper-Partisanship, which is leading us into Despotism in America. As I have written in my article, J'accuse!, the modern Democrat Party has become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Their being intellectually wrong has led America into chaos, a chaos that may destroy our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/28/24 Morally Wrong

The Democrat Party has morphed into a party of moral wrongs. Morally wrong on Anti-Semitism, Islamism, Racism, Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Transgenderism, Free Speech, Gun Rights, and a host of other Natural, Human, and Civil Rights issues. It is immoral to discriminate against any person, except for the content of their character and their competencies (i.e., Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)). It is immoral to persecute and prosecute their political opponents (i.e., The Weaponization of Government), and it is immoral to pit one group of Americans against another group (i.e., Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory (CRT), and White Privilege). It is immoral to take taxpayer monies from a person who has earned the money to give to another person who has not earned the money (i.e., Entitlements and the Greater Good versus the Common Good).

If it is a choice between doing what is morally right or politically advantageous, Democrat Party Leaders will always opt for politically advantageous. They are a party without principles except for the principle of obtaining and retaining power to enact their political goals and policy agendas.

They cloak their immorality in lofty words but implement dastardly deeds. Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language", they foster immorality. Many Democrats would claim that morality is relative to the circumstances and the context of the situation. But true morality knows no abridgment by circumstances and context, as righteousness and wickedness are bound by morality.

Thus, we have a party that wishes to lead or rule America, as I have written in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, and this leadership or rulership is without a moral basis for their political goals and policy agendas.

04/27/24 Dereliction of Duty

The Impeachment saga against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has finally ended with an unsatisfactory conclusion. Unsatisfactory in that it has not resolved the question of what is to be done when elected and appointed officials are engaged in a dereliction of duty, and most especially when they are not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress. As I have written in my Chirps on "03/16/24 Impeachment Proceedings" and "02/13/24 What is Impeachable?", I do not believe that the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas met the Constitutional criteria for impeachment. But I may have been mistaken.

In a new article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “The Mayorkas Senate Impeachment Trial That Wasn’t”, he states, “The contention that the two articles the House alleged against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas do not state impeachable offenses is wrong.” as he states that:

“The fact that his conduct is probably not criminally prosecutable is beside the point. Impeachment does not require a penal crime. As Hamilton memorably observed in Federalist No. 65, it is a political offense sounding in abuse of the power entrusted to a public official, not in common crime.”

His article explains his reasoning, and the Founding Fathers' reasoning, on the meaning and scope of impeachment and why dereliction of duty was not explicitly included in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution. This lack of dereliction of duty in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution, due to the Founding Fathers inability to articulate the difference between profound and trivial dereliction of duty, has led many to interpret impeachment as only for a criminal offense by an officeholder. Thus, the removal of an elected or appointed official who is in dereliction of their duty is unresolved to this day.

As I have examined in my article, “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials”, there are many issues and concerns about removing an elected or appointed official for dereliction of duty. However, this is an important issue to discuss and resolve, as in the last several decades, we have seen a dramatic increase in the profound dereliction of duty by the president and executive officers. Often, these profound derelictions of duties involve not faithfully executing the laws as passed by Congress, ignoring the law, redefining the meaning of the words in the law, or issuing regulations that are contrary to the intent of the law. Sometimes, Executive Orders creating rules and regulations that have no basis in law or are contrary to laws as passed by Congress are promulgated, as I have written in my Chirps on "07/28/19 Executive Orders"  and "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders".

There is also the issue of lying or misleading Congress and the American people with no consequences when discovered, as I have Chirped on "06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying". Lying, misleading, obfuscating, not answering a question, or withholding information from Congress is a dereliction of duty under Congressional oversite responsibilities of the Constitution and should be cause for impeachment.

If we continue to allow politicians or officers to be in dereliction of their duties, then we no longer have a balance of powers between the branches of government or limited and enumerated powers within a branch of government. To not bring politicians or officers within the constraints of the Constitution is to allow for capricious and arbitrary government, which is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas". Thus, we must address and resolve the issue of impeachment for dereliction of duty.

04/26/24 Useful Idiots Leadership

In my previous Chip on “04/nn/24 Useful Idiots,” I discussed who the Useful Idiots are in today’s America. In this Chirp, I will examine the leadership and their motives of the Useful Idiots in America. Throughout history, Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership have come from both sides of The Political Spectrum. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the vast preponderance of Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership has been on the left side of the Political Spectrum.

Many of the non-politician Useful Idiots Leadership are Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism. Most of these people have a sense of self-righteousness and self-importance, as well as a lack of broad knowledge, an overabundance of irrational thinking, and a know-it-all attitude. These personality traits allow them to reject any facts or truths that are contrary to their beliefs. They also often have an unconstrained view of Human Nature as I have defined as "Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained)", which leads them to make proposals that are contrary to human nature, as I have written in my Chirps on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature" and "01/31/21 Human Nature and Behavior". Coupled with a lack of understanding of the economic impacts of their proposals and a lack of foresight as to both intended and unintended consequences of their proposals (as I have written in my article on "The Law of Unintended Consequences"), this leads to detrimental repercussions of their proposals if or when their proposals are enacted.

As for the politicians who are the Useful Idiots Leadership, most of them originate from Democrat Party Leaders. While many of the Democrat Party Leaders believe in the issues espoused by Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism, much of their words and deeds are for the purposes of electioneering to obtain and retain political power. Rather than exhibiting true leadership by ameliorating the proposals of the Useful Idiots Leadership to constrict them to facts and truths, Constitutional limitations, Economic realities, Consequential analysis, and Human Nature constraints, they encourage their idiocy to gin up votes for Democrat Party candidates and their political goals and policy agendas. We should also remember my own aphorism:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

It is also an unfortunate fact that many in the Mainstream Media who practice Modern Journalism are parroting the Useful Idiot's Leadership proposals, political goals, and policy agendas with an uncritical eye. Thus, allowing the Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership to appear to be reasonable is dangerous for America’s future. An ill-informed public cannot possibly make an informed judgment as to the proper future course of America, and decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information always lead to disastrous results.

Thus, in today’s America, we are being led by the Useful Idiots Leadership and their Useful Idiots for the purposes of control and power over Americans, as I have written in my Chirp on "02/08/24 It’s All About Control and Power". This needs to end by voting out the elected officials and removing appointed officials that pander to the Useful Idiots, as well as paying no attention to the Mainstream Media reporting and commentary. Until this happens, we can expect more chaos in America while being led down the path to the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/25/24 Useful Idiots

Useful Idiots, or useful fools, are people perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals or the consequences of obtaining the goals. They are often cynically used by the cause's leaders to achieve their goals. Useful Idiots have been a fixture throughout human history, but with the advent of mass communications in the 20th century, their presence and impacts have been magnified. Useful Idiots have also been ratings boosters and clickbait for the "Mainstream Media" and "Social Media", as they often provide spectacles without substance. Useful Idiots are often utilized to achieve political and/or social goals that, upon the utilization of "Rationality" and "Reasoning", would not be desirable by a majority of the people.

The question is how to discern a Useful Idiot from someone who is knowledgeable, as I have written in my article, "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". The answer is not as difficult as it would appear to be. If someone is a member of a disorderly crowd of people (a mob), it is an indicator of a Useful Idiot, and the more violent the mob, the more idiotic the Useful Idiots. Peaceful gatherings of a crowd to express an opinion are not mobs and, therefore, not an indicator of a Useful Idiot, and they often are an indicator of a thoughtful person.

When someone responds to an intellectually reasoned viewpoint with emotional pejoratives, then it is safe to assume that the responder is a Useful Idiot. Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel demonstrators (which is just another way of being an Anti-Semite) can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Supporters of open borders (no matter which national border is being violated) can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Supporters of defunding the police, no arrests for minor crimes, no or small bail for unlawful actions, and limited prosecutions of criminals can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. And people who would limit or suppress Free Speech, the Free Press, Freedom of Religion, Free Assembly, Free Petitioning, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Anyone who disregards economic principles when analyzing proposed governmental laws, rules, regulations, or social policies is a Useful Idiot.

In the arena of political and social advocacy, people who believe in "Critical Race Theory (CRT)" and "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Believers of an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", "White Privilege", and  "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)" can also safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Anybody who believes in any form of Oligarchy, Socialism, or Communism can safely be assumed to be a Useful Idiot.

In the past few years, we have seen the utilization of Useful Idiots to implement policies to deal with the COVID-19 Pandemic and the issue of Transgenderism, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Coronavirus Pandemic" and "Transgenderism - Sex and Gender". Those that support the policies enacted under the pandemic mandates or transgendered rights can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots.

In today’s America, the number of Useful Idiots far exceeds the number of Knowledgeable persons, but this has been the case throughout world history. The important point is whether we will allow the Useful Idiots to set out the future course of America or pause to consider the wisdom of Knowledgeable persons in setting the future course of America. Alas, we appear to be under the direction of the Useful Idiots rather than the Knowledgeable persons in today’s America. This bodes ill for the future of America, and unless we right our course, we can expect a chaotic future in America.

04/24/24 CPB, PBS, and NPR as Progressive Propaganda

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and National Public Radio (NPR) and were formed in 1967, 1969, 1970, respectively, at a time when over-the-air television and radio were dominated by a limited number of commercial interests. It was felt that there was a need for over-the-air broadcasting for educational and cultural purposes, which was being neglected by the limited number of commercial interests. Thus, the Federal government stepped in to provide this educational and cultural broadcasting. With the advent of cable television and the Internet, the need for educational and cultural programming was reduced, as it became financially possible for special interests to fund educational and cultural programming over cable television and the Internet. However, the federal government continued to fund CPB, PBS, and NPR with taxpayer monies after the special interests met the need for educational and cultural programming.

CPB, PBS, and NPR have always had a slightly liberal orientation to their programming, but they sometimes counterbalanced this viewpoint with some conservative programming. Alas, over the last few decades, they have become distinctly Progressive in their viewpoints and have ignored Conservative viewpoints in their programming. They have also aligned themselves with the policies of the Democrat Party while disparaging the policies of the Republican Party, so much so that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be renamed Corporation for Progressive Broadcasting, as well as renaming Public Broadcasting Service to Progressive Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio to National Progressive Radio.

In a new article by Jonathan Turley, “Should NPR Rely on Listeners Rather Than Taxpayers Like You?”, he examines the current kerfuffle regarding “the National Public Radio (NPR) after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at the media outlet.” He continued on to say, “Although NPR responded by denying the allegations, the controversy has rekindled the debate over the danger of the government selectively funding media outlets. That is a debate that does not simply turn on the question of bias, but more fundamentally on why the public should support this particular media company to the exclusion of others.”

After examining some of the issues and concerns of public funding for NPR, Professor Turley closed his article by stating, “The market tends to favor those products and programming that the public wants. If the demand for NPR is insufficient to support its budget, then Congress should not make up the shortfall and prop up the programming. If it is sufficient, then there is no need for the subsidy.” and “This debate should not turn on whether you agree with the slant of NPR programming. NPR clearly wants to maintain a liberal advocacy in its programming, and it has every right to do so. It does not have a right to federal funding.”

I believe that his points are also applicable to CPB and PBS, and I, therefore, think it is well past time that CPB, PBS, and NPR should be cut from governmental funding and allow them to compete in the free market of ideas and free speech for their funding.

04/23/24 A National Existential Decision

With the recent announcement of Presidential candidate Donald Trump that he believes that abortion is an issue to be decided by the individual States, as per the recent Supreme Court decision, he is attempting for electioneering purposes to sidestep this contentious issue. At the same time, President Biden has asserted that he wishes to make abortion legal in all States, thrusting this issue onto the national stage. Thus, the issue is whether abortion should be decided at the Federal level or if it is a States rights issue. I have made my thoughts on abortion well known in my article "The Abortion Question", in that I believe the core issue is one of whether an unborn child is a human being or not a human being. Consequently, the issue of abortion is an existential issue (relating to or dealing with existence—especially with human existence) that must be resolved on a national level, as it defines us as a people.

Trump’s position, and the Supreme Court’s position, is very much like Senator Steven Douglas’s slavery position of Popular Sovereignty prior to the Civil War. Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Citizens may unite and offer to delegate a portion of their sovereign powers and duties to those who wish to serve as officers of the state, contingent on the officers agreeing to serve according to the will of the people. In the United States, the term has been used to express this concept in constitutional law. It was also used during the 19th century in reference to a proposed solution to the debate over the expansion of slavery in the United States. Senator Douglas’s proposal would have given the power to determine the legality of slavery to the inhabitants of the territory seeking statehood rather than to Congress. His position would have left the contentious issue of slavery to the territories, therefore allowing America to continue to be divided into Free States or Slave States.

As Abraham Lincoln said on the issue of slavery in his House Divided Speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.”

So it is with the issue of abortion, as I have written in my article "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery". I, therefore, agree with President Biden that this is a national issue, but I vehemently disagree with President Biden that abortion should be permitted for the reasons stated in my aforementioned article on "The Abortion Question". I would also passionately disagree with President Trump and the Supreme Court’s decision to make this a State's Rights issue. We must resolve the issue of abortion at a national level, as it is an existential decision, as slavery was an existential decision. Otherwise, we will continue to be at each other’s throats until the abortion issue is resolved nationally.

04/22/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Harms

In my previous Chirp on “04/21/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Costs”, I examined the impacts of electric vehicles on roadways and firefighting. In this Chirp, I examine the health issues of electric vehicles.

While it may be true that the gross carbon footprint of an electric vehicle is less than an internal-combustion engine, there are other issues to consider. The carbon footprint of an electric vehicle must include the carbon emissions from the mining, transportation, and manufacturing of the specialized materials needed for electric vehicles, as well as the electrical power generation needed to recharge the batteries. Therefore, the total carbon footprint reduction is more than just the emissions from the electric vehicle. As such, the net carbon footprint reduction in electric vehicles may not be as great as it would first appear. Thus, the increased carbon emissions from the infrastructure needed to produce and recharge electric vehicles pose an additional health risk to those persons involved in these activities, as well as persons located near these activities.

According to some studies, electric vehicles tend to have, on average, higher claim severity for bodily injury and property damage liability claims, but they have a lower frequency than internal-combustion vehicles. Electric vehicles can be much heavier than an equivalent vehicle with an internal combustion engine, which may protect EV drivers and passengers but poses a greater risk to pedestrians or other vehicles and persons upon impact.

In addition, electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their internal-combustion engine counterparts, according to a resurfaced study. It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern internal-combustion engine tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing internal-combustion engine vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. Thus, electric vehicles, which are heavier than internal-combustion vehicles, increase tire wear, which increases the health risks to all persons who inhale these toxins. As such, more electric vehicles on the road increase the health risk to all persons and the healthcare costs for those so affected.

It is also true that electric vehicle fires pose a health risk to firefighters and others nearby from the toxic chemicals and fumes they emit. Toxic chemicals that spread near the fire and into the sewers from firefighting actions and toxic fumes that are spread by winds. There is no way to contain these toxic chemicals and fumes while putting out electric vehicle fires, and the cleanup required for the toxic chemicals is difficult and expensive to accomplish, and toxic fumes are impossible to contain or remove once they are released.

Consequently, electric vehicles increase the health risks for all persons, and not just those who purchase electric vehicles. A cost that society must bear in the medical treatment costs of those persons so affected.

04/21/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Costs

The increase of electric vehicles on our roadways causes some additional problems that are often not considered in the rush to adopt electric vehicles. A series of articles on the Verisk website examines the current issues regarding electric vehicles:

• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part I: How Many, How Soon?
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part II: How EV Design Influences Vehicle Safety
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part III: Electric Vehicle Fire Risk
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part IV: Electric Vehicle Weight and Infrastructure
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part V: The Evolving Cyber Threat to EV Charging Stations
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part VI: EVs and ESG
• Electric Vehicles in Focus, Part VII: Future Innovations, Future Risks

Many of these problems impose additional burdens on government agencies that have to deal with them. Some of the more pressing problems and their financial impacts on these government agencies are as follows:

It has become clear that the road surface wears out much faster from electrical vehicles compared to internal-combustion engine vehicles. Due to their massive battery, electric cars weigh more than ordinary internal-combustion engine cars. Because of this greater weight, not only do the tires wear out faster, but according to experts from the Delft University of Technology, the top layer of the asphalt is also likely to wear out more quickly. Therefore, roadway repairs need to be more frequent and thus more expensive to accomplish. In addition, need to account for the additional weight impacts of electric vehicles, making them more expensive to build and repair.

Car fires have always been dangerous and difficult for firefighters, but highly combustible chemicals in electric car batteries are posing new challenges. Unlike the gasoline tanks in internal-combustion engines, the enormous lithium-ion batteries used to power electric cars pose some significant fire risks; electric vehicle fires burn hotter, electric vehicle fires can reignite, electric vehicle fires can leak toxic chemicals and fumes, and electric vehicle fires can ignite from saltwater flooding. There are also some key differences that make electric vehicle fires harder to combat. One major difference is the possibility of what's referred to as a "thermal runaway," in which an EV battery falls into a cycle of overheating and over-pressurizing, causing fires and sometimes explosions. These powerful fires are plaguing ships carrying electric vehicles, causing extensive damage to parking garages and even leading to widespread recalls of electric vehicles.

Putting out electric vehicle fires is time-consuming and expensive. Electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries burn hotter and faster and require far more water to reach final extinguishment. Also, the batteries can reignite hours or even days after the fire is initially controlled, leaving salvage yards, repair shops, and others at risk. While normally, a conventional car fire may be put out with between 500 and 1000 gallons of water, an electric vehicle will often need a much more prolonged intervention because the battery is protected by a strong encasing. Because the chemicals in the battery will continue to produce their own oxygen to some degree, even when completely soaked, water is less effective in putting out an electric vehicle fire than an internal-combustion engine vehicle. An American fire company recently needed to use 24,000 gallons of water to put out a battery fire in a Tesla in a parking lot car fire. Studies suggest that even more water may be necessary to put out electric vehicle fires and that specialized firefighting equipment and fire retardants are needed to effectively put out electric vehicle fires.

Thus, putting out an electric vehicle fire takes longer to accomplish, uses much more material (water and other fire retardants), and poses a health risk to firefighters (and others nearby) from toxic chemicals and fumes. Consequently, government and volunteer fire companies must expend more time, effort, and expense in putting out an electric vehicle fire. There is also the additional expense in water and other fire retardants, additional expensive equipment to put out electric vehicle fires, and electric vehicle firefighting training.

This, coupled with the additional expense of roadway repairs, new roadways, and replaced roadways, adds to the financial burdens on governments to accommodate electric vehicles and thus increases taxes on all persons, even those who do not purchase electric vehicles.

04/20/24 Inanity of Progressive Economic Measures

The inanity of Progressive measures that subsidize demand while restricting supply is that they ignore the Law of Supply and Demand as a price and inventory determinant, as described in an article by David Luther, “Law of Supply and Demand Defined”. They also try to camouflage that subsidies require taking monies from taxpayers who are not interested in the product or service subsidized and then giving it to other taxpayers and non-taxpayers who are interested in the product or service subsidized, thus skewering the Law of Supply and Demand.

Most of this inanity is justified by doing good for America while ignoring the harm that they inflict upon America. With lofty rhetoric accompanied by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, they attempt to implement policies that violate economic principles. In this, they have forgotten the words of wisdom from Benjamin Franklin: "Well done is better than well said." They have also forgotten the discernments of Thomas Sowell, "The first rule of economics is there isn't enough to go around. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics." and "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." 

This is most especially pronounced in the Renewable energy proposals as espoused by Climate Change activists, as well as Electric Vehicle mandates. The subsidies for the suppliers and the mandates for the consumers violate the Law of Supply and Demand and skewer the free marketplace. In addition, it subsidies the rich while it increases costs for the middle class and poor consumers, as I have written in my chirps on “04/18/24 Government Subsidies for the Rich” and “04/19/24 The Madness of Electric Vehicles Quotas”.

However, this inanity is not limited to climate change or electric vehicle measures; it extends to all government subsidies. It also presumes that the government can pick and choose the winners and losers in the economic marketplace, which governments throughout history were notorious for not being able to do. History has also taught us that it also increases the potential for graft and bribery amongst government officials involved in subsidies and mandate regulations, thus leading to poor decisions by government officials.

Almost all of this is justified by doing what is best for America and the World. In this, they have forgotten another discernment of Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?" When governmental decisions are made without accounting for economic principles, then I would suggest that the people making these decisions are not the ones that you want to decide what is best.

04/19/24 The Madness of Electric Vehicles Quotas

To combat Global Warming, President Biden is requiring that 50% of all new vehicle sales be electric by the year 2030. But nobody can require an automotive manufacturer or car dealer to make or sell a quota, as it is up to the American people to purchase an electric vehicle to meet any quota. And the American people are not purchasing electric vehicles in the quantity to meet President Biden’s goal.

Current sales and inventory data show that electric vehicles are piling up on car dealership lots across the country. Another sign that electric vehicle demand has cooled is that the car rental firm Hertz Global Holdings is selling about 20,000 of its electric vehicles, including Tesla’s, from its U.S. fleet after only two years of offering its electric vehicles for rent. Its decision underscores the bumpy road electric vehicles have hit as their sales growth slows, causing carmakers like General Motors and Ford to scale back production plans.

Recent cold weather events have shown that charging stations may fail to function in extreme cold, the time to recharge increases, the electric batteries will not take a full charge, and the range of the electric vehicles decreases. Add in the additional costs to repair an electric vehicle and the exorbitant price to replace the battery in the event of battery failure or collision damage; the American people are reluctant to purchase electric vehicles.

It is also true that even with government subsidies, the cost of a new electrical vehicle is greater than that of a gas-powered vehicle. Also, demand for used electric vehicles and prices are falling, thus decreasing the resale value of the electric vehicle to the purchaser.

Consequently, the electric vehicle green revolution has hit a speed bump, proving that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. Until the American consumer determines that it is receiving value for its purchase of electric vehicles, no electrical vehicle quota on manufacturing or sales of an automotive manufacturer or car dealer is reachable. Thus, President Biden’s electrical vehicle sales quotas are a delusion bordering on madness, as any attempt to enforce the quota has negative economic repercussions for the American economy and the pocketbook of the American consumer.

04/18/24 Government Subsidies for the Rich

It is all too possible for the government to subsidize an activity that seems to benefit society but, in effect, turns out to be a subsidy for the wealthy. This is especially true when it comes to government subsidies for Electric Vehicles and House Solar Panels.

Electric Vehicles are highly subsidized by the government to bring down the cost of these vehicles. Even with these subsidies, the cost of an electric vehicle is beyond the reach of most middle-class Americans and, therefore, is only a benefit to wealthier Americans. House solar panels can be expensive to purchase and install, for which government subsidies are available for Americans who can afford the purchase and installation costs. In addition, the excess electrical power that these solar panels produce when the homeowner is not utilizing the solar panels at full capacity is sold back to the electric companies or applied as credits to their electric bill for the normal electricity they utilize when the sun doesn’t shine. In many cases, this sale back occurs when the excess power generation of the solar panels is not needed by the electric company and hence goes to wasted electric power by the electric company. Thus, solar panel subsidies are mostly beneficial to wealthier Americans. In addition, when the government mandates solar panels for new house construction, it drives up the cost of home ownership, which puts many new home purchases out of the reach of middle-class Americans.

As I have Chirped on "10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels", Wind Turbines and massive Solar Panel arrays are heavily dependent on government subsidies and tax credits, which camouflage the economics of these technologies. Companies that depend on government subsidies are not competing in the free market, and thus, their costs and prices are skewered, and their incentives are skewered toward the government interests rather than the consumer interests.

These government subsidies and tax credits also shift the cost shift from individuals or companies to taxpayers, which shifts the economic risks of these technologies onto the public. Alas, this may make for good politics, but it is not good economics. It is not the function of government to provide subsidies and tax credits to individuals or companies, as it puts them in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, which a government is ill-suited to accomplish. It also allows politicians to reward and enrich political friends (the winners) while encumbering political opponents (the losers), all at taxpayers’ expense.

04/17/24 Ferreting Out Causes of Climate Change

As I have said in my Science Article on “Climate Change”, I believe in climate change. I believe the climate has changed in the past, the climate is currently changing, and the climate will change in the future. Throughout the geological history of the Earth, the global climate has changed dramatically. There have been periods when the Earth was warmer, hotter, cooler, and colder than it is today, and this is a geological scientific fact. If you have read my Science Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”, you know that I have a scientific orientation to my thinking, and I apply that scientific thinking to many of the issues and concerns of climate change.

Major shifts in the Earth’s climate have good scientific explanations, but minor shifts are less scientifically explainable. There are so many factors and interrelationships between the factors that the scientific explanations for minor shifts are much less certain than that for major shifts. In the last century and a half, we have undergone a minor shift of increased cooling followed by a minor shift of increased warming. The question as to why we have had these minor shifts in the last century and a half is not fully or completely scientifically understood. Many have suggested that the increased warming shift is a result of human-caused impacts on Climate Change. This may be true or may not be true, depending upon your interpretation of scientific facts and beliefs. The problem is that in ferreting out human-caused impacts on climate change from natural-caused impacts on climate change, you must fully understand and explain natural-caused shifts before you can attribute any change to human-caused impacts.

Until you can understand and explain natural-caused shifts, it is premature to attribute much of these shifts to human-caused impacts on Climate Change. That does not mean that we should not be concerned about the warming trend and take reasonable precautions to reduce possible human-caused impacts. However, to take inordinate changes without understanding natural-caused shifts runs the risk of not solving the problem, as well as severely impacting the foundations of our economies and social structures. Thus, it would be foolish to make any major changes until we have this understanding, and as the famous poet has said:

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
 - Alexander Pope

04/16/24 Strings, Superstrings, and M-theory Oh My

String theory, Superstring theory, and M-theory became a field of study in Particle Physics in the late 1960s. Particle physics or high-energy physics is the study of fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings, and as the theory developed, it became Superstring theory, then M-theory.

In all these theories, there has never been one iota of verification. Indeed, some String Theorists are now making the claim that as Strings exist in multi-dimensions it may never be possible to experiment or observe Strings, as multi-dimensions are unobservable and not possible to experiment upon. In addition, String Theory has no predictability, and without predictability, it cannot be considered a strict science.

This raises the issue of whether these theories are a description of reality and, as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century has stated:

"Reality is the real business of physics."
 - Albert Einstein

My newest Science article, “Strings, Superstrings, and M-theory Oh My”, examines this issue for your elucidation.

04/15/24 Scientific Speculation, Hypothesis, and Theories

Good science generally proceeds in two steps: Scientific Hypothesis followed by Scientific Theories, as outlined in the section on The Scientific Methodology in my Science Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry“. In another section of the same article, Scientific Speculation,  I examine the role of Speculation in Scientific Methodology. In modern science, in the last few decades, we seem to have expanded this methodology into three steps: 1.) Scientific Speculation, 2.) Scientific Hypothesis, and 3.) Scientific Theories.

Before this expansion, there was much Scientific Speculation, but it was generally kept to the scientists or a small group of scientists who were doing the speculation. Today’s modern science has morphed into scientific speculation, which is made publicly available before there are any observations or experiments to bolster the speculation. Much of this Scientific Speculation is bolstered by mathematics from the scientists, but as I have Chirped on "03/30/21 Mathematics is Not Science", good mathematics does not equate to good science, but good science requires good mathematics.

Such scientific speculation by scientists often raises their public profile, increases book sales and/or speaking engagements, increases media exposure, and can lead to increased funding for their scientific research. However, the downside is that the public may confuse Scientific Speculation with Scientific Facts that have been affirmed by scientific observations and/or experiments. Such confusion on the public’s part can lead them astray and introduce scientific beliefs about science that are not factual. As a person of the general public with some scientific knowledge, I can attest in my discussions on scientific topics with other people of the general public that they often have little or no understanding of the differences between Scientific Speculation and Scientific Facts. This leads them to have incorrect scientific beliefs, or as Mark Twain has said, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.”

Many scientists, when writing or speaking of their Scientific Speculations, will identify them as such but place little emphasis on the speculative nature of their ideas, as well as the fact that many Scientific Speculations are discarded when observations and/or experiments falsify them, as I have written in the Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories section of the aforementioned article. You must always keep in mind that just because science says something may be possible does not mean that it is possible, and just because science says that something may happen does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen. As such, I am concerned that the general public does not understand that the vast majority of Scientific Speculations will not come to fruition and that the vast percentage of their words are Speculations based on no scientific facts. This is the major complaint I have about the morphing into the new Scientific Methodology of Scientific Speculation, Scientific Hypothesis, and Scientific Theories.

Scientific Speculation is fun for both scientists and the general public, and Scientific Speculation should be encouraged, as it often leads to scientific breakthroughs. However, it should always be labeled and emphasized as speculation and not taken as factual until it is proven by scientific observations and/or experimentation.

04/14/24 The Ubiquitousness of Artificial Intelligence

Microsoft Copilot, Open AI ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and various other Artificial Intelligence (AI) apps have come of age and are becoming omnipresent in today’s technological world. Having spent my entire adult life in the computer technology world (mostly in computer systems, software, and databases), I believe that I am sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on AI.

Because of my experience, I am well aware of the problems that occur when developing computer systems and software. The biggest problem is the people who design and develop the computer system. Humans are fallible and will make mistakes. Even teams of computer systems and software designers and developers, which are necessary to develop modern complex computer systems and software, make mistakes even though one of the reasons that teams are formed is to minimize mistakes. The interpersonal dynamics between the team members often result in miscommunication that leads to mistakes. These human mistakes often result in incorrect computer processing and erroneous results.

The other major problem is an old saying in the computer field, “Garbage in results in garbage out (GIGO)”, and the precaution that improper Boolean logic returns incorrect results. If the data being utilized by the computer systems is incorrect, incomplete, or missing, then you will encounter GIGO. Boolean logic combines multiple statements that are either true or false into an expression that is either true or false. Boolean logic utilizes three basic logical operators: AND, OR, and NOT to reach a true or false state of the Boolean statement (IF Boolean logic THEN do X if true, ELSE do Y if false). Often, the Boolean statement contains multiple logic parameters that are processed in mathematical order or operations (which can be overridden using parentheses within the Boolean statement). If this Boolean statement is formatted incorrectly, then the truth or falsity conclusion (X or Y) will be wrong (often with detrimental consequences).

In AI computer systems processing, much data (information) must be analyzed to produce a result. The quality of the information and sometimes the quantity of information to be analyzed by AI can be lacking. This often results in incorrect or skewed results that can be misleading, if not downright wrong. The other issue is while there is a large amount of consensus (indisputable) information available, there is a much smaller amount of non-consensus (disputable) information available. The balancing of the consensus and non-consensus information can often be difficult and subject to the Boolean logic used to process the information, as well as human error and predilections of the team that created the AI computer systems and software. Therefore, what appears to be factual and truthful results from AI processing may not be so. An example of this is the recent disaster with Google's AI image generator, as explained in an article here, in which the results of a request were laughable if they were not so pathetic and ominous.

The manner in which a question is posed to an AI computer system and software can also be problematic. English is an imprecise language and open to misinterpretation, or the question can skewer the AI results to be favorable to the predilections of those asking the question. Thus, AI can be utilized to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The danger of AI systems to society is that many (if not most) people will allow the results of the AI computer systems and software to be a substitute for their own thinking. For the reasons about the problems with AI given above, this could lead you to make an improper decision that could have deleterious impacts on yourself and society. The ability of the human mind to research, analyze, and reason is crucial to understanding and proper decision-making, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". With the advances in AI technology and the ubiquitousness of AI, we may be creating a society where many people may not be able to think for themselves, while a few persons knowledgeable and experienced in AI will be in control of the levers of knowledge that society utilizes to make decisions. Thus, we may be slip-sliding into a Brave New World society, as I have examined in my Article, “Dystopia”.

AI is an important tool, but like all tools, it can be misused and/or fail to function properly. As such, it is very important that you be wary of all AI results and apply your own knowledge, intelligence, and reasoning to the results of AI.

04/13/24 Promises Made and Promises Not Capable of Being Kept

Tis the Presidential election season in which many promises by politicians are not capable of being kept. Two of the current big promises are Student Loan Forgiveness and Abortion Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues, and their rulings are the law of the land until they are overturned by a future Supreme Court Ruling. Thus, politicians’ promises to overturn or negate these rulings are empty rhetoric for political electioneering. Any attempts by President Biden to circumvent these rulings is an assault on the Judicial Branch of government and, thus, an assault on the Constitution of the United States.

In this assault on our Constitution, they are assaulting our "American Ideals and Ideas" of a Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. Thus, they are assaulting our Democratic Republic and endangering our society. An endangerment in which we will slide down the slippery slope to a more authoritarian form of governance that endangers our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Their assaults are not only Unconstitutional, but they betray an attitude that they know what is best for America and they will institute what is best regardless of the consequences. In this, I am reminded of the words of wisdom of a modern scholar:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
  - Thomas Sowell

In America, the electorate decides what is best in accordance with our constitutional constraints, the limitations of governmental powers, and the duties and responsibilities of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Thus, they are making promises that they are not capable of being kept without overturning our Constitution.

04/12/24 Vote for Results

In an article by Laura Hollis, “Stop Voting for Intentions; Vote for Results”, she laments that too many voters cast their ballots based on their good intentions to do something to fix the problems facing America. However, she states:

“The sentiment "We have to do something" drives disastrous decisions. Sentiment doesn’t make sense. Feelings aren't facts. Loud protesting isn't logical. Politicians exploit voters when emotions run high. They get elected on facile promises to "solve" deeply entrenched problems. And then, when they enact policies that worsen those problems (and create others), they protest that their intentions were good.

That's not good enough.”

Good intentions rather than good results seem to be the criteria that these politicians wish to be adjudged. Rhetoric, rather than results, seems to be the order of importance, and when the results are detrimental, they are to be forgiven as their intentions were good. But as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Until we change the order of importance to results followed by rhetoric, we will continue to have unresolved (and more) problems in America. And the only way to change this order is for the American electorate to vote based on results and to ignore the rhetoric. Thus, her admonishment to “Stop Voting for Intentions; Vote for Results” is the best advice for solving the problems in America.

04/11/24 A Sexist Chirp

There has been much hubbub about rising movie stars Sydney Sweeney’s beauty and Timothée Chalamet's handsomeness, as can be seen here and here. There is no doubt that she is a true beauty, and he is very handsome. The only question is whether they will retain this beauty and handsomeness throughout their life. Life can be cruel in that as we age, we lose much of the physical appearance of our youth. Some people retain their physical beauty throughout their lives, while most people lose much of their physical beauty. This is why it is important that we judge the physical beauty of a person based on their age. People in their twenties do not have the same physical beauty as in their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and beyond. The same is true for the character of a person, as while we mature, we often gain more knowledge and wisdom that changes our character (sometimes for the worse). Indeed, the character of a person often changes over the decades of their life, and while they may be criticized or critiqued for their past words and deeds, they should be adjudged for their current character.

Just as you should not judge a beautiful or handsome person based on their youth, so you should not judge historical persons and eras based on today’s moral and ethical standards. The morals and ethics of people and events in previous centuries cannot be properly adjudged by today’s morals and ethics.

As I have written in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”, do not use our current morality and ethics as a basis of the judgment of what happened in a historical period or location, but only use it as a guidepost. Get to know the morals and ethics of that period or location so that you can judge the actions and events of the people of that period or location. You can then utilize our current morals and ethics to compare them to their morals and ethics and reach a fuller understanding of the people or events that occurred. You will often discover hidden truths about history if you utilize this technique.

The word “presentism” is the judging of people and events of another time by the standards of today. In literary and historical analysis, presentism is a term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. Some consider the practice of presentism a common fallacy when writing about the past.

Thus, we should all be more circumspect in our judgments of historical people and events and be cognizant of the old saying that you must walk a mile in someone’s shoes to understand what they are going through.

04/10/24 No Way Out

In a recent Townhall article by Jeff Davidson, “No Way Out: Tumultuous Months Lie Ahead”, he writes:

“It now seems inevitable that leading up to this November, and in the months that follow, America will experience extreme turmoil, if not outright hostilities and even urban warfare. Nothing that I write here will have any impact in terms of what is likely to occur. For one, Leftists don't tend to read Townhall articles, and, two, the wheels of extremism are already in motion.”

He then addresses the tactics that may be expected in the 2024 Presidential race and what may happen after Trump is elected if current polls are to be believed. It is not a pretty picture based on what Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are presently doing to President Trump and have done in the past to candidate and President Trump.

Much of the Democrat election tactics are based on fear of their opponents. An irrational fear based on their worry and distress that a Trump election would signify the end of their oligarchy, as I have chirped on many occasions, and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. They sow this fear to divide America in the hopes that fear of President Trump will outweigh those who do not fear President Trump.

These fear tactics rely upon disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and dezinformatsia (as I have Chirp on, "05/10/23 Dezinformatsia"), and the suppression of free speech as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". These actions, combined with "The Weaponization of Government", bring disrepute through aspersions upon President Trump and his supporters and are the true "Threats to Democracy" in America. If Democrats should win the 2024 presidential elections and control of Congress, we shall see the continued decline into "Despotism in America", as despotism seems to be the main tactic of Democrats for obtaining and retaining power in America.

04/09/24 Oligarchy in America

Over the past several years, I have Chirped about how our Democratic-Republic has morphed into an Oligarchy. This morphing has been a subtle and progressive occurrence in our government. I, therefore, thought it necessary to consolidate these Chirps to illuminate how this morphing has resulted in an Oligarchy in America. These consolidated Chirps can be perused in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

04/08/24 Ten Questions to President Biden

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. In this letter, Chairman Comer has pointed out that:

• As Vice President, you met Jonathan Li, the chief executive of a fund that claims on its own website that it is a Chinese state-backed entity. You met Li in Beijing in 2013. You later wrote a college recommendation letter for Li’s child. Li sent your son hundreds of thousands of dollars and provided him equity in the Chinese state-backed entity;
• You met Ye Jianming, the chairman of a state-connected Chinese entity, China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC), meant to further the “One Belt, One Road” initiative to spread Chinese influence around the world. Your son and business associates began courting business from Ye while you were Vice President. You then met Ye in 2017 in Washington, D.C., and his company wired $3 million to a Biden business associate days after you met him, which was shortly after you publicly signaled your intention to run for the presidency in 2020.1 In 2018, Ye was detained by Chinese authorities because of allegations of corruption;
• You spoke with your son in front of one witness about your family obtaining Chinese investments in exchange for promising your position on a board of a company tied to the Chinese government after your departure from the vice presidency.
• Since August 2023, the White House has had in its possession drafts of the speech you delivered to the Ukrainian parliament in 2015. Despite these drafts involving a small number of documents, for seven months the White House has prohibited production of these documents to the Committee;
• During a briefing with Committee staff, the White House claimed it was an interagency policy decision to condition the United States providing a loan guarantee to Ukraine on the firing of the Ukrainian official investigating the company that was, at the time, paying Hunter Biden $1 million per year. The White House has refused to provide documentation to support this assertion;
• Bank records uncovered by the Committee have shown that in 2016, shortly after you succeeded in having the Ukrainian official fired, the Department of State provided to Hunter Biden’s bank a letter stating the embassy did not have “negative information on Burisma Holdings[,]” despite in 2015—prior to your visit and speech—the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine singling out the owner of Burisma as corrupt.
• In February 2014, the richest woman in Russia paid into your son and his business associate’s company $3.5 million days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in an apparent attempt to avoid U.S. sanctions on Russian bank accounts. To date, the Russian oligarch has not been subject to any public sanctions;
• In May 2014, Hunter Biden attended a party and placed you on speakerphone with the same individual and her husband, the former mayor of Moscow. Days after that phone call with you, the Russian individual made a “hard order” of $10 to $20 million to a company in which your son had a large financial interest.
• The Committee has identified and successfully traced money from foreign transactions—including from China—to your own bank accounts. Certain checks have been described as “loan repayment[s].” However, the person who provided you free bookkeeping during your time as Vice President (and your son’s business partner), did not remember any evidence of a loan from your accounts. When asked to provide evidence of the underlying loans, the White House refused.

Given the above facts the House Oversight Committee chairman has invited President Biden to testify to answer the following ten questions:

1. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont?
2. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC?
3. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund?
4. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings?
5. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings?
6. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding?
7. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina?
8. Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov?
9. Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you?
10. Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017?

In this letter from the House Oversight Committee Chairman, the White House Counsel’s Office sent a mocking and taunting reply that was unbefitting an official correspondence between Congress and the White House. As Jonathan Turley has said in his commentary about this letter, “Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry”:

“The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics.

Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something.”

The Mainstream Media and Democrat Party Leaders have little interest in exploring and answering these facts and ten questions, but the American people should be interested, as they strongly indicate the corruption and even bribery of Joe Biden in his past and present actions.

04/07/24 The Hypocrisy of Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk

True hypocrisy is encapsulated in the saying, “Rules for thee, but not for me.” By this standard, the biggest hypocrites today are Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists activists, academics, intellectuals, commentators, journalists, the very wealthy, and those who consider themselves elites.

The phrase "talk the talk, walk the walk" is an idiomatic expression that emphasizes the importance of matching one's actions with one's words. It means that it's not enough to just speak about doing something or to make promises; one must also demonstrate those intentions through action. Thus, "Talk the talk, walk the walk" means to affirmatively match one's actions with one’s words.

Many, if not most, of the biggest hypocrites identified above, are good at talking the talk, but they are lacking in walking the walk. By talking the talk, they believe that they are doing good for humankind, which excuses their not having to walk the walk. Their own lifestyles demonstrate that they are hypocrites in that they are filled with excuses of why they cannot walk the walk while demanding others walk the walk of what they talk about. The litany of their unwillingness to walk the walk that they talk about is far too numerous to catalog in this Chirp, and their excuses ring hollow upon closer examination.

I suspect that their talking the talk has more to do with their assuaging their guilty feelings rather than deep concern about what they talk about. Guilty feelings that are brought about by their own successes, while most people have not achieved such success. Guilty feelings about their material possessions that are unattainable by most people. Guilty feelings about their lifestyle that are beyond the ken of most people. However, they need not feel guilty about their successes if their success was a result of the meritocracy of skill, ability, hard work, and intelligence, as success due to meritocracy is what propels humankind forward in prosperity for all.

Consequently, if you cannot walk the walk, then you should not be talking the talk, for all that does is make you a hypocrite. The world is much too filled with hypocrites who need to start walking the walk before they talk the talk. Otherwise, it is nothing but blather that they talk about.

04/06/24 MAD Magazine America

Mad (stylized as MAD) is an American humor magazine first published in 1952. It was founded by editor Harvey Kurtzman and publisher William Gaines, launched as a comic book series before it became a magazine. It was widely imitated and influential, affecting satirical media, as well as the cultural landscape of the 20th century, with editor Al Feldstein increasing readership to more than two million during its 1973–1974 circulation peak.

The magazine, which is the last surviving title from the EC Comics line, publishes satire on all aspects of life and popular culture, politics, entertainment, and public figures. Its format includes TV and movie parodies, and satire articles about everyday occurrences that are changed to seem humorous. Mad's mascot, Alfred E. Neuman, is usually on the cover, with his face replacing that of a celebrity or character who is being lampooned.

From 1952 to 2018, Mad published 550 regular magazine issues, as well as scores of reprint "Specials", original-material paperbacks, reprint compilation books and other print projects. After AT&T acquired Time Warner in June 2018, Mad ended newsstand distribution, continuing in comic-book stores and via subscription.

When I examine today’s "Mainstream Media", I can see the influence of MAD Magazine on "Modern Journalism". This is especially true when they cover Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, as Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are always characterized as being on the dark side of the forces in America, while Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are characterized as being on the good side of the forces in America. If there was ever a MAD Magazine parody of “Star Wars,” they could look to modern journalism as the basis for the parody.

Alas, much of the predilections and biases of the Mainstream Media go unnoticed by many Americans, and, therefore, many Americans have incorrect or insufficient information on which to make an informed decision about America's future. Thus, we are living in a MAD Magazine society in modern America.

04/05/24 A Special Kind of Stupid

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

Absurdity abounds in today’s America, driven by intellectuals, activists, and politicians. It would take a special kind of stupidity to believe in what Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders think. Then again, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are a very special kind of stupid. A stupidity driven by an unwillingness to face reality and embrace a fantasy of what they want to believe.

This is demonstrated in the movie, ‘Back to School’, in which millionaire businessman Thornton Melon is upset when his son Jason announces that he is not sure about going to college. Thornton insists that college is the best thing he has never had for himself, and to prove his point, he agrees to enroll in school along with his son. Thornton is a big hit on campus: always throwing the biggest parties and knowing all the right people, but is this the way to pass college? In one of the scenes, he takes a business course with his son, taught by the learned and expert Professor Barbay. He starts the lecture by discussing how to create a fictional company from the ground up by constructing the physical plant, setting up an efficient administrative and executive structure, then manufacturing the product, followed by marketing of the product. Thornton Melon makes some astute observations on Professor Barbay’s on the building of a plant in the following dialog:

“Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?
Thornton Melon: First of all, you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building, I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh, and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long-term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business, but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon!
Thornton Melon: Sorry. Just trying to help. That's all.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Now, notwithstanding Mr. Melon's input. The next question for us is where to build our factory?
Thornton Melon: How 'bout fantasyland?”

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' embrace of fantasyland leads them to make pronouncements, laws, rules, and regulations that are disconnected from the reality of social order and economics and of a constrained human nature, as in my definition of "Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained)". Thus, they bring chaos into our society with their words and deeds, as I have examined in my Chirp on "01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds".

To my fellow Americans, I would say, “Enough is enough!” It is time to ignore their words and deeds and vote for candidates that embrace reality. Only then can America right its course and ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren.

04/04/24 Get Trump

The movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’, is about an American court In 1948, in occupied Germany, that tried four Nazis for war crimes. Specifically, the movie is about a trial after three years since the most important Nazi leaders had already been tried. A trial of four persons who used their judicial offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies, including an esteemed Judge Dr. Ernst Janning, as well as Prosecutor Emil Hahn, Administrator Werner Lampe, and Minister of Justice Dr Karl Wieck, who are ably defended by the German lawyer Herr Rolfe. Retired American judge Dan Haywood has a daunting task ahead of him. The Cold War was heating up, and no one wanted more trials as the German and Allied governments wanted to forget the past. The overarching question for the tribunal to decide is what the proper thing to do is.

This movie contains a lot of thought-provoking dialogue about justice and jurisprudence, quoted here within, which makes for a rather lengthy but important Chirp. The thoughts that have provoked me are, ‘Are we seeing the perversion of justice and jurisprudence in today’s America as depicted in this movie?’ The following lines of dialog are illuminative of this concern:

“Judge Dan Haywood: The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime - is guilty.”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said 'go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - remilitarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life. Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen year old girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: Once more, it is being done - for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it - whatever the pain and humiliation. I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim.”
__________________________

“Judge Dan Haywood: Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How *easily* that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what ‘we’ stand for: ‘justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!’”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: Today, you sentence me! Tomorrow, the Bolsheviks sentence you!”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, You must believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”
__________________________

“Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic...
[Rolfe nods with an appreciative smile]
Judge Dan Haywood: -so, what you suggest may very well happen. It is logical, in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not to be right, and nothing on God's earth could ever make it right!
[Rolfe wipes the smile from his face]”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: Germany was fighting for its life. Certain measures were needed to protect it from its enemies. I cannot say that I am sorry we applied those measures. We were a bulwark against Bolshevism. We were a pillar of Western culture. A bulwark and a pillar the West may yet wish to retain.”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: [During dinner in the prison mess hall] How dare they show us those films, how dare they? We are not executioners, we are judges!
Werner Lampe: You do not think it was like that, do you? There were executions, yes, but nothing like that, nothing at all!
[Turning to a man at the table behind him]
Werner Lampe: Pohl! Pohl, you were at those concentration camps, you and Eichmann. They say we killed millions of people. ‘Millions’ of people! How could it be possible? Tell them, how could it be possible?
Pohl: [In a matter of fact tone] It's possible.
Werner Lampe: How?
Pohl: You mean technically? It all depends on your facilities. Say you have two chambers that accommodate two thousand people apiece. Figure it out. It's possible to get rid of ten thousand in a half hour. You don't even need knives to do it. You can tell them that they are going to take a shower, and then instead of the water, you turn on the gas. It's not the killing that is the problem, it's disposing of the bodies. That's the problem.”
__________________________

In America today, we are seeing the corruption of the Judicial system to ‘Get Trump’ and his supporters, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Judicial actions against Trump and his supporters that they justified with the same type of reasoning employed by the four Nazis tried for war crimes in the movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’. If this is allowed to continue, we are indeed sliding down the slippery slope away from our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

In these prosecutions of Trump and his supporters there is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and the confidentiality of presidential advisors’ communications. They also do not consider the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. In this, we should also keep in mind the following dialogue from another movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Thus, the prosecutions of Trump and his supporters are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They, therefore, are violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

04/03/24 Freedoms of Western Culture

In an article by John Anderson, “Freedoms of West make our culture worth defending”, he states that “At a time when the West faces serious challenges from outside and within, we need to return to our roots and remember why Western culture is worth defending.”

He then goes on to state:

“The West has created a peace and prosperity unlike any other time in history, but that is no accident. It is thanks to Western institutions and values such as democracy, the free market, and the rule of law. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 because people were tired of totalitarian, communist governments. They wanted what the West had. In the 1990s the victory looked absolute and perhaps that made us complacent: we thought it would go on forever.

But we are not in a good place and, to return to a better place, we need to re-find our fundamental freedoms, which have been the engine for our progress. These are freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief and conscience, and freedom to own private property. Together they are four legs of a stool – if you weaken one, all are compromised.”

These freedoms are under assault from both external and internal forces in America. In my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "Progressivism and Progressives", I have examined many of these internal threats. The biggest external threats are obviously China and Russia, whose government is antithetical to Western culture. However, these external threats also come from Western nations that will not stand up for liberty and freedom within their own countries, nor will they speak up for liberty and freedom in oppressive nations. For Western nations to not defend Liberty and Freedom for all peoples is a betrayal of the principles of Western culture and is a sad commentary on the state of Liberty and Freedom in today’s world.

Mr. Anderson ends this article by stating, “So let’s celebrate the freedoms we enjoy in the West and not take them for granted. They were hard won, but they’ll easily be lost if we don’t regain our self-confidence and live as responsible, virtuous citizens in our communities.” To which I say, “Hear, Hear”.

04/02/24 The Truths Behind the Lies

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Gaza: Truths Behind All the Lies“, he examines the rhetoric of those who are protesting Israel's actions against Hamas in Gaza. He exposes the truths of the rhetoric of “Occupied Gaza”, “Collateral Damage”, “Disproportionate”, “Two-state solution”, “Ceasefire”, “Ramadan”, “Civilian Casualties”, “Foreign Aid”, and “Prisoners”.

Truths that expose the rhetoric as nothing more than Anti-Semitism, as I have Chirped on, "03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism". Alas, many Americans are beginning to believe these lies, for as Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels has stated, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

Do not believe these lies, for these lies will corrupt your soul and lead you to evilness. Even more so, you must counter these lies with truths, for to not do so is to succumb to the evils of Anti-Semitism. I would also remind you of the following words of warning:

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

Do not let America become Anti-Semitic, for to do so is to destroy our American Ideals and Ideas for all.

04/01/24 The Aftermath of the Civil War

The Reconstruction Era of 1865-1877 was a period in United States history following the American Civil War, which was dominated by the legal, social, and political challenges of abolishing slavery and reintegrating the former Confederate States of America into the United States. During this period, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were added to the United States Constitution, along with a variety of Civil Rights legislation, to end slavery and grant equal civil rights to the newly freed slaves.

The Reconstruction Era was fraught with controversy, intense political infighting, civil strife and violence, as well as financial corruption. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted by historians and legal scholars to this day. This month’s four Book It selections examine the modern view of The Era of Reconstruction.

03/31/24 Sex and Gender – Societal Impacts

In my Chirp on “03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science”, I explained that science informs us that male and female bodies differ not only in their sex chromosomes and their psychological organization for reproduction but also (on average) in their size and shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the heart and brain. Some of the more predominant societal impacts of these differences regarding Transgenderism are its impacts on athletic competitions, Transgenderism in public accommodations, public K-12 education of Transgenderism, and public displays of Transgenderism, which are the topics of this Chirp.

The physical differences between the sexes often provide an advantage for the male physique over the female physique in terms of physical exertions. Strength, speed, height and weight, heart and muscular capacity, and endurance are generally greater in the male than in the female. As such, any attempt to commingle biological males with biological females in any competitive sport gives the biological male an advantage over the biological female. As Riley Gaines has stated, when she was a top ten competitor in women’s swimming, and her husband was in the mid-two-hundreds in men’s swimming, when she privately competed with her husband, he “always beat the pants off me.” This is why so many biological males are in the top ten when they compete against biological females. Not only do biological males have a competitive advantage, but we have seen an increase in female injuries when a male competes against them.

Privacy in the public arena in restrooms, locker rooms, and other public accommodations that have been traditionally segregated by sex is also being challenged by transgender activists. Traditionally, segregated accommodations were done for the purposes of privacy and safety. Privacy has always been important to females, as they do not wish to be exposed to or gawked at by males except by mutual consent. Fears of molestation or sexual assault that may occur without this privacy are also a concern, and a transgender male in their midst often causes emotional distress on their part. There is also a concern that a male will pose as a transgendered female to gain entrance to their private spaces for nefarious purposes.

Public K-12 sexual education has always been a contentious issue, made even more so by the LGBTQIA+ community's insistence that they be included in this sexual public education. This issue revolves around the propriety of Public K-12 sexual education and the parental or legal guardians' rights to instruct their children on sexuality in the manner and at the age of their children in which they see fit. Public education on LGBTQIA+, and more specifically transgender sexuality, has caused an uproar when it became an elementary school issue. The insertion of transgender sexuality education in a child’s (age 4-12) curriculum at a time in their life at which a child is incapable of emotionally or intellectually processing these concepts is unjustified and, indeed, unethical and immoral. Even in an adolescent's (age 13-17) education, sexual education can be confusing, given the hormonal changes that are occurring within their bodies. Transgender education in public education has even stepped into Gender Transitioning counseling in public education. Such teaching and counseling are not education but indoctrination, and it is often given without the knowledge or approval of a child’s parent or legal guardian.

We have also seen a rise in the lack of decorum in public displays of sexuality in flagrant public displays by the LGBTQIA+ community that would not be tolerated if they were done by the heterosexual community. The pride parades by the LGBTQIA+ community often devolve into simulated sexual acts that are inappropriate for public (especially children) viewing. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your sexuality, but pride should be tempered by modesty in public displays of your sexuality. There is also the issue of flagrant public displays and instruction of Transgenderism in public forums such as libraries, community centers, gyms, and other public accommodations. The issue of public libraries lending sexually explicit books and materials to underage adults without parental or legal guardian consent is also a concern.

In all of the above issues, the question is of a conflict of rights—the LGBTQIA+ community members' rights versus the non-LGBTQIA+ community members' rights. At what point do individual rights clash, at what point do the parental or legal guardian rights take precedence, and at what point do societal concerns override individual rights? This is a delicate question that has always been at the forefront of our American Ideals and Ideas. We should also remember my own aphorism, “The liberty and freedom to choose what you do or say does not free you from the consequences of your deeds or words.”

In the societal impacts of LGBTQIA+, and especially Transgenderism, we should all remember a rule of thumb: “First, do no harm.” Do no harm to both the LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ community members, as well as do no harm to society as a whole. All persons need to be treated politely and respectfully, with dignity, and with regard to their Natural, Human, and Civil Rights, but one person’s individual rights cannot transgress upon another person’s individual rights. The boundaries of transgression are very difficult to qualify and establish, but they must be dispassionately examined and instituted.

As for my opinion, I do not believe that Transgenderism should be permitted in athletic competitions or in public accommodations, nor should it be permitted in a child’s education and constricted in an adolescent’s education. I also believe that lewd and lascivious behavior in the public arena should not be allowed.

This viewpoint does not constitute hate for the transgender or the LGBTQIA+ community, but it does constitute a concern for the physical and mental well-being of persons suffering from transgender dysphoria. They need assistance in dealing with their transgender dysphoria, but this assistance should consider all options for treatment. To do otherwise is to potentially harm a transgendered person rather than help them with their dysphoria. When thinking about Transgendered Rights, we must always remember the scientific facts and truths; otherwise, we will make ill-informed or uninformed decisions on how to help and/or treat a transgendered person.

03/30/24 Sex and Gender – Gender Transitioning

In my Chirp on “03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science”, I examined the basic differences between the sexes (male and female) and the meaning of gender. I would note that facts and truths must be based on reality; otherwise, we will live in a fantasy land that can change according to anyone’s discretion. Ignoring scientific facts leads you astray and to untruths. Science informs us that male and female bodies differ and that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential.

Transgendered Rights activists would also have you believe, as Shakespeare put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question” on a transgendered sex transition. But this is the wrong question. Claiming that a question is wrong may sound odd. Surely, answers can be wrong. Likewise, suppositions, views, claims, and assertions can be wrong. But can the questions be wrong? The answer to this question is given in the Psychology Today article, “To Be or Not to Be": Is That Really the Question? Hamlet's famous question is limited and misleading” by Iddo Landau, Ph.D..

If you attempt to change your gender, it is not a change of your sex, as sex is at the chromosomal level, which cannot be changed. Substituting your gender through drug or surgical treatments runs the risk of physiological problems that could adversely impact your health for the rest of your life. There is also the possibility that you will encounter physiological problems in the attempt, which may require years of therapy to countervail. Drug and surgical treatments only impact your hormones and physical appearance, but your chromosomal structure will remain the same. Thus, any attempts to change your sex are futile, and any attempts to change your gender could be dangerous to your physical and mental health.

The question is not to be one sex or another, as this is impossible, but what is the best method of dealing with transgender dysphoria? Gender dysphoria is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex. Is it to be by gender transition, or is it to be by mental health therapy? The Transgendered Rights activists would have you believe that the only means of dealing with transgender is to physically transition to the other sex. The scientific facts and truths say otherwise. No one can fully transition to another sex, and many transitioned transgender persons experience physical and mental problems during and after the transition. Many transgender dysphoria persons can be helped by mental health therapy rather than transitioning, but most do not receive the proper mental health therapy for their dysphoria. In today’s America, there is too much rush to transition a transgender person and insufficient consideration of mental health therapy.

The other question is, at what age should a transgendered physical transition be allowed? An adult person (18+ years old) should have the right to physically transition as they see fit. The real question is, is it appropriate to allow physical transition for children and adolescents? Many children role-play genders in their discovery of the world in which they live, but does this mean they are transgendered dysphoric? Adolescents, as a result of their puberty, go through tremendous mood swings as they adjust to the changes in their bodies from their sex glands becoming functional. Confusion abounds in adolescents during this time as they receive mixed messages about their bodily changes. In this confusion, they may question their gender identity, which is perfectly normal. But does this confusion mean that they are transgendered dysphoric?

In medicine, Informed Consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law, and media studies that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. In our society, it is not possible for children and adolescents to give informed consent as we recognize that their brains and intelligence are not sufficiently developed to properly reason for giving informed consent. Thus, for children and adolescents, informed consent can only be given by their parents or legal guardians, as I have discussed in my article on “The Destruction of Our Children”. Consequently, only a parent or legal guardian may approve a gender transition. However, society has a say in gender transition, as it impacts the physical and mental well-being of future members of society (which is why we have many different laws dealing with the upbringing of children).

In discussing the wisdom of allowing children and adolescents to gender transition, there has been much "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” on both sides of the issue. It is, therefore, important that we cut through this gobbledygook with a dispassionate analysis of the costs and benefits of children and adolescents' gender transitioning. But until this dispassionate analysis occurs, we should all remember a principle of medicine, “First, do no harm.”

03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science

Sex and gender are two different aspects of being human; sex is physiological (of or consistent with an organism's normal functioning), while gender is psychological (mental or emotional as opposed to physical in nature).

Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes. During sexual reproduction, a male and a female gamete fuse to form a zygote, which develops into an offspring that inherits traits from each parent. By convention, organisms that produce smaller, more mobile gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) are called male, while organisms that produce larger, non-mobile gametes (ova, often called egg cells) are called female. An organism that produces both types of gamete is hermaphrodite. Sex is determined by The XY sex-determination system, which is a physiological sex-determination system used to classify many mammals, including humans, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, some fish (guppies), and some plants (Ginkgo tree). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. In most cases, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX) and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY) and are called the heterogametic sex.

There is another class of sex chromosomes, XXY syndrome, XYY syndrome, and XXYY syndrome, which are variations of the normal XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomal structures. The exact number of people with these variations is unknown, as these syndromes are often not diagnosed until physiological complications and sometimes psychological difficulties occur from these variations.

Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles) and gender expression. Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into two categories, and people are considered part of one or the other (boys/men and girls/women); those who are outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic of social organization.

In general, medical doctors must treat their patients based on their sex, while psychiatrists treat their patients based on sex and gender, and psychologists treat their patients based on gender for those who suffer from Gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex.

Science informs us that male and female bodies differ not only in their sex chromosomes and their psychological organization for reproduction but also, on average, in size, shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the heart and brain. These secondary sex differences are not what define us as male or female; organization for reproduction is what does that. If you are bodily structured to inseminate, then you are male, and if you are bodily structured to gestate, then you are female.

When we step back from contentious political debates, we can see scientists acknowledging what might be otherwise an unpopular truth: that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential. The Institute of Medicine at the Nation Academy of Sciences published a report in 2001 titled Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?, in which the chapter titles of the report sum up basic truths of our bodily nature: “Every Cell has a Sex”, “Sex Begins in the Womb”, “Sex Affects Behavior and Perception”, and “Sex Affects Health”. Wikipedia has three main articles on the differences between males and females: Sex differences in human physiology, Sex differences in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic that highlight the main differences between males and females.

These are the scientific facts and truths that the Transgendered Rights activists would have you ignore or that they obfuscate with terms such as “Gender Identity”, “Gender Fluidity”, “Gender Affirmation”, “Gender Confirmation”, “Sex Assigned at Birth”, and other terms to lead you astray, which is the topic of my next Chirp “Sex and Gender – Gender Transitioning”.

03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism

In a book by Alan Dershowitz, “War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old”, he devotes an entire chapter to modern Anti-Semitism in America and the world and equates it to McCarthyism. This is an excellent chapter that explains why Israel and the Jewish people are not responsible for the turmoil in the Mideast and how Hamas and its supporters, as well as Anti-Semitic persons throughout America and the world, have inappropriately twisted the facts to support their Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitism, and Anti-Zionism viewpoints. Much of the support for the recent Hamas terrorist’s actions comes from a twisted sense of morality, as I have Chipped on, “01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue”, “11/20/23 Humanitarianism and Terrorism”, “10/19/23 Moral Equivalence”, and “10/18/23 Unadulterated Evil”. For those who wish a clear-headed explanation of wrongdoing and responsibility for the current events in Israel and the Palestine people, this is a must-read chapter.

The fact is that this Anti-Semitism is a growing problem in Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders circles. Whether it be worldwide or in America, modern Anti-Semitism is mainly a left-of-center problem. There are, of course, Anti-Semitic sentiments on the far right, but these are outliers on the right and are given no heed by the mainstream right (see my Chirp on “04/01/19 Both Sides Do It”). However, the Anti-Semitism on the left is becoming more mainstream. Whether it be politicians, commentators, activists, College and University students and professors, and even journalists, it is more acceptable to express Anti-Semitic sentiments. Those who practice Anti-Semitism must be rebuked and should not have a position of power or authority in society so that they cannot sow their Anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism must be confronted and condemned whenever it rears its ugly head.
For history has shown that whenever it is not confronted and eliminated,
it festers and grows to become a cancer that will eventually destroy society.

The problem that I have is that Alan still believes in a two-state solution where an Israel and Palestine state live in peace and harmony with each other. However, a two-state solution is not possible when one state believes in and desires the destruction of the other state. A two-state solution can only be considered after the total destruction of the Hamas terrorists and their supporters has been accomplished. But it also requires a change of heart in the minds of the Palestine people that Israel has the right to peacefully co-exist alongside the other states in the Mideast. Given the blindness and furor of the Palestine people against Israel and the Jewish people, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon.

I would also remind Alan that the vast majority of Anti-Semitism McCarthyism is originating from Progressives/Leftists and some Democrat Party Leaders. This is a problem that he has to confront from his being a part of that Political Spectrum, and as I have discussed in my Chirp on “03/27/24 An Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz”.

03/27/24 An Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. Dershowitz is a regular media contributor, political commentator, and legal analyst.

He is a person that I highly respect and someone who I regularly read and then think about his articles and books, and I will sometimes modify my opinion based upon his thoughts. While Alan is a Liberal Democrat, with whom I often disagree with his governmental and social policies, I am in solid agreement with his views on Constitutional law about our individual rights in our First Amendment rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, religious freedom, and petitioning government, and our Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitution Amendments rights of the due processes of the law, as well as Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that each State not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, the due process of the law, or the equal protection of the law.

In two of his newer books, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law” and “War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old”, he examines how modern Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are destroying the Constitution and individual rights. Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. War on Woke exposes new McCarthyite tendencies and tactics of academia, the media, and the business community, especially high-tech, that promote closed-minded intolerance.

In the book War on Woke, Alan states that the bedrock principles of American democracy and jurisprudence are:

“This new McCarthyism challenges the basic tenets of the classic liberal (in the traditional sense) state: Freedom of expression; due process; presumption of innocence; right to counsel; equal application of the law; tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints; an acceptance of the reality that in a democracy, no one always gets their way. And noble ends do not justify ignoble means.”

These bedrock principles are those with which I agree with and support and matters that I have written about in many of my Chirps and Articles.

Alan has recently been comparing what is happening in today’s America to McCarthyism. However, what is happening in today’s America is worse than McCarthyism, in that Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee did not control the Executive Branch of Government and thus could not bring the full weight of government against their political opponents. Alas, in today’s America, we see the Executive branch persecuting and prosecuting their political opponent, which poses an existential threat to our rights and our Republican form of government, as I have written in my articles on “A Republic versus a Democracy” and "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

We are all creatures of our upbringing and education, and the times that we grew up in, and we all have political biases that shape our person. As such, Alan was shaped by the words and deeds of conservatives and liberals, as well as the Democrat and Republican Parties of the 1950s and 1960s. Consequently, his perspective is clouded by the events of his youth, and he does not fully appreciate how much conservatives and liberals, and Democrat and Republican views and opinions have changed since then. Indeed, the views and opinions of both conservatives/liberals, and Democrats/Republicans have switched so much that they mirror the views and opinions of each other from the 1950’s and 1960’s. He also fails to recognize that the power and control that the Conservatives and Republicans wished to exercise in the 1950s and 1960s is the power and control that the Progressives and Democrats wish to exercise in modern America. He also does not fully understand that modern Democrat Party Leaders are more interested in being rulers rather than leaders, as I have examined in my article on "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Alan does a good job of trying to overcome these biases, and he critiques both sides of the political spectrum, but he fails to appreciate the full extent of this change from the 1950s to the 1960s.

As I am a "Constitutional Conservative", I believe that he goes a little light on his criticisms of Democrat Party Leaders. In particular, his tepid support and belief in the good intentions of Attorney General Merrick Garland is misplaced, as Attorney General Garland is leading the Justice Department that poses a threat to our individual rights, and as the leader of the Justice Department he bears ultimate responsibility for their actions, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans. In this, Attorney General Garland has failed, which makes him part of the problem.

Alan is a big believer, as am I, in “the shoe on the other foot” legal analysis of the issues, which is another way of saying, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. In this, he is properly concerned that the actions being taken by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders will be taken by future Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders if they regain power. However, the devil we know poses such an existential threat to our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" that the future possible threats are of less importance than removing the current threats.

The questions I have for Alan are “What are the determinants to know when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have Cross the Rubicon and have become an existential threat to America and Israel?” and “Have they already crossed the Rubicon?”. If or when they have crossed the Rubicon, “Will you call for the election of Republicans in the 2024 elections to end this existential threat?” or “Will you continue to hope that you can change the Progressives and Democrats practices and end this existential threat?”. Thus, Alan has a Hobson's Choice of the necessity of acting on two objectionable alternatives from his perspective. Elect Republicans to stop this existential threat or to continue to believe that you can change Progressives/Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds and risk the possibility that they will destroy America and Israel before you change their minds.

Given the religious fervor that permeates those who believe in these practices, as I have Chirped on “03/12/24 Onward, Progressive Soldiers”, it can hardly be expected that they will change their minds based on "Reasoning" and "Rationality", but it can be expected that they will continue to engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" for those that would oppose them.

This is not only a Hobson's Choice for Alan Dershowitz but for all Americans, for if we do not end these practices by Progressives and Democrats, then we shall meanly lose the last best hope of earth.

03/26/24 Social Media Narcissism and Victimization

It is my firm belief that "Social Media" is an outlet for the narcissism and victimization of the posters and repliers. It is the perfect example of my “The 10-80-10 Rule” in that 10% of those involved in the endeavor are incompetent and should find another endeavor, and 10% of those involved in the endeavor are superior and are those who you would want to do the endeavor. The other 80% of those involved are somewhere between those two extremes, usually graphed on a bell curve, with the peak being around 50%. Therefore, only about 10% of social media posts have any worth, while the rest are the musings of narcissists. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find the worthwhile without wading through narcissism and victimization. As such, much time is wasted reviewing social media posts to find the nuggets of what is worthwhile. This is why I spend so little of my time reviewing social media posts.

Recently, many psychologists and psychiatrists have noted that excessive use of social media has led to pathologies that can be harmful, especially to children and adolescents. I believe that social media reinforces narcissism or a sense of victimization in the posters and repliers. It has also changed the dynamics of personal interrelationships, as there is less personal interaction and more social media interactions between individuals or groups of individuals. These social media interactions act as a shield and protector of posters and repliers to make comments (sometimes anonymously) that they would not make in personal interactions. Many of these social media posts and replies are impolite, discourteous, disrespectful, and outright rude and denigrate those that they are directed against. This social media behavior often translates to personal interactions, as social media posters and repliers have no sense of decorum when personally interacting with individuals or groups of individuals. This may also be a contributor to the rise in the volume and heat of the political rhetoric in today’s America.

Alas, I cannot foresee a solution to this problem except to reinstitute a sense of shame on the posters and repliers. Regrettably, in today’s America, shame seems to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history".

03/25/24 Progressives Deconstruction of America’s Culture

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have a vision of what America should be and what Americans should believe. As many, if not most, Americans do not share this vision, they believe that it is necessary to deconstruct America in order to reconstruct America to fit their vision. They, therefore, engage in the deconstruction of American culture in the following ways:

Hyper-Partisanship:
Progressives believe that the politicization of everything is necessary to achieve a better society, according to their vision of a better society. A vision that is often Utopian but that fails to account for the constrained nature of most people, as I have defined in Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained). Thus, they practice Hyper-Partisanship in all that they say and do to achieve their deconstruction, and they often engage in The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate against their opponents.

Speech Constraints:
Political Correctness, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Virtue Signaling are de rigueur amongst Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Woe unto thee who would dare not to constrain their speech according to their tenets. Ostracization and ruination are to be vested upon those who do not limit their words and deeds to within these constraints, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on The Decline of Free Speech in America.

Non-Judgmentalism:
The demands from Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that we not judge another’s words and deeds, but to treat them as relative to an individual and circumstances, is to have a society without a moral or ethical code to live by. Such a society cannot long endure, as it often devolves into chaos. If anyone insists on judging another person’s words and deeds according to a fixed moral or ethical code, they are often labeled as perpetrators of Hate Speech against those so judged.

Tribalism:
The utilization of Identity Politics, driven by Intersectionality, has driven Americans into tribes with their own issues and concerns. These tribes compete with each other to obtain governmental favoritism and/or entitlements. This tribalism has now encroached into the non-governmental world with the introduction of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) into businesses and Higher Education. Thus, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have forgotten that we are all Americans first, with a common heritage and shared beliefs on Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Victimhood:
Allegations of Racist and White Privilege, based upon Critical Race Theory (CRT), have at their core a belief that most Americans are victims of a patriarchal society. In their victimization, they believe that the forces arrayed against them are so oppressive that they cannot be overcome through personal endeavors and that their only recourse is strong governmental actions against their oppressors. Such feelings make them dependent on government Entitlements and place them in a cycle of poverty in which they cannot break free to achieve all that they can based on their own abilities, talents, and efforts.

Modern Feminism:
Modern Feminism is anti-male in that it pays little heed to the needs of men, and it devalues males and masculinity, as I have discussed in my article on Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male. This starts in primary education (K-12), where teaching techniques are oriented toward feministic characteristics, and boys are expected to behave like girls. This continues throughout the life of males and leads to a dysfunctional lifestyle amongst many males in which many boys do not mature into men. This is one of the major causes of gang membership and gang violence, as boys will disassociate with a society that does not recognize their needs and join a gang that does recognize their maleness.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and More (LGBTQIA+):
All individuals deserve Natural, Human, and Civil Rights and to be treated with dignity, respect, and politeness. Today, however, the LGBTQIA+ community wants more than to be able to live their lifestyle in the privacy of their abodes. They wish to thrust their lifestyle into the public arena and engage in public words and deeds that the non-LGBTQIA+ community would not consider appropriate public words and deeds for even for their own heterosexual private lifestyle.

As such, with these deconstructions, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints. This is not Liberty and Freedom but subservience, and it is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Such deconstruction often results in civil strife that can lead to a civil war, as I have Chirped on, "02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction".

03/24/24 Wealth Accumulation by Politicians

I recently ran across the following quote that raises an important issue:

“If we don’t allow athletes to gamble on games in which they participate, then why do we allow politicians to invest in companies that they regulate?”
 - Anonymous

Often, a politician will claim that a spouse, a sibling, their children, or other family members are the ones doing the investing and that they had no knowledge or input on the investment. However, to believe that a politician had no knowledge or input requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Who knows, except the principles, what conversations occur in the privacy of their homes? What we do know is that many politicians have become wealthy during their public service, and the wealth is far greater than their salaries would make possible. Some of this wealth accumulation may be legitimate, but some of it appears to be far beyond what even a smart investor could hope to achieve.

Of course, no laws were broken, or at least provenly broken, as lawmakers have written few (and effective) laws to regulate the financial transactions of lawmakers and their families. Protestations that the current financial transactions laws are sufficient to cover this situation should fall on deaf ears, as the results of these financial transactions speak loudly for themselves.

The Constitutional question of special financial transaction laws for lawmakers and their families is also a concern. Equal protection of the laws would indicate that this may not be possible, as well as the question of interference by legal and regulatory forces in the operation of the Legislative or the Executive branch. However, insider trading by lawmakers is covered by current laws, but these laws are insufficient to cover the special circumstances of politician’s financial transactions, especially by family members engaged in financial investment transactions.

This wealth accumulation by politicians bespeaks of corruption, as well as bespeaking of politicians acting on “rules for thee, but not for me”. This is a corruption that harms the body politic. It also harms other investors who do not have the insider’s knowledge that a politician has of proposed laws and regulations that will impact the financial health of those being regulated.

The ultimate answer to this problem is to elect politicians who conduct themselves with virtue, character, and ethics, as I have written in my Chirps on "11/23/23 Ethical Conduct" and "11/22/23 Virtue and Character". However, virtue, character, and ethics in modern politics seem to have been relegated to the ash heap of history, and voters seem little concerned about these characteristics in a politician when they cast their ballots.

03/23/24 Senator Schumer Must Go

As Conrad Black has written in his article, “Schumer’s Speech on Israel Completes a Trifecta of Errors Suggesting He Is Ripe for Removal as Democratic Leader”, Senator Schumer has had:

“. . . a trifecta of Major blunders, any one of which should have been quite sufficient to sack Mr. Schumer from his high office and replace him with someone less mindlessly accident-prone. In 2017, in an orgy of histrionics, he purported to weep on the Senate floor in sympathy for those whom the newly installed President Trump wished temporarily to keep out of the United States because they emanated from terrorism-afflicted Muslim countries”.

“This boffo performance was followed several years later by the spectacle of the Democratic Senate leader standing on the steps of the United States Supreme Court and threatening, apparently physically, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they provided the margin in cases antithetical to Mr. Schumer’s far-left ideology. (The Constitution be damned.)”

“Senator Schumer’s call last week for a change of prime minister through an election in Israel was, as it has widely been regarded, an outrageous intrusion in the affairs of another sovereign country, and a close American ally, for whom Mr. Schumer is advocating, substantial, military assistance.”

Senator Schumer has also demonstrated hyperpartisanship in his dealings with Republicans, especially House Republicans, who are now the majority party in the House of Representatives. His leadership in the change of the Senate Filibuster rules for short-term gain has turned into a long-term blunder on his part. His response to the George Floyd killing by the police and the riots of the “summer of love” of 2020, in which “peaceful protests” did $2 billion of damage, wounded hundreds, and killed approximately 45 persons, was pathetic and harmful to the body politic. He has demonstrated through his words and deeds that he does not wish a leader in America but a ruler of America, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". These, and so many other miscues and mistakes, have done harm to the Senate and to the country.

Consequently, he must join Senator McConnell (who also has a litany of miscues and mistakes) in leaving his leadership of the Senate. To do otherwise is to further harm America.

03/22/24 The First and Second Rules

Anyone who has read my Chirps and Article knows I am a big fan of the economist Thomas Sowell. He is an excellent example of a person who has tread the path of "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". Over his ninety-plus years on this earth, he has had many notable quotes, with many being very witty, some of them of which I have collected in my webpage on the quotes of Thomas Sowell, and many of them collected by Dean Kalahar in his book “The Best of Thomas Sowell”. One of his most notable and witty quotes is:

"The first rule of economics is there isn't enough to go around. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics."
 - Thomas Sowell

If you want a succinct explanation of why our national debt has kept rising over the decades, you only need to refer to this quote for the basic explanation of this debt. Ignorance of economics, or the unwillingness to accept economic facts, is the underlying reason why politicians keep increasing the national debt. The second most important reason can be found in other Thomas Sowell quotes:

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”
 - Thomas Sowell

“Compassion is the use of public funds to buy votes.”
 - Thomas Sowell

“One of the grand fallacies of our time is that something beneficial should be subsidized.”
 - Thomas Sowell

Thus, we have a plethora of politicians who live by these first and second rules. The few politicians that attempt to buck these rules are often labeled as uncaring, mean-spirited, selfish, money-grubbing, racist, privileged or patriarchal, and other pejoratives. However, a better label for them would be ‘realists’. We should all be cautious of ignoring these realists, as you can only deny reality for so long, as when reality returns, it often returns with a vengeance. A vengeance that will wreak havoc on the economy and will result in much pain and suffering for all Americans.

03/21/24 Purposes and Limitations of Government and the Law

Those of you, like me, who are political theory geeks are quite familiar with the writings of John Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, Thomas Jefferson in the American “Declaration of Independence”, and Frederic Bastiat in an essay called "The Law", which defines the purposes and limitations of government and the law. These three writings set the boundaries of legitimate government and the law for a people that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

In an article by Allen West, “You Own Nothing”, he examines how modern America has strayed far beyond these boundaries as a result of progressive political agendas and policy goals, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

Thus, we have morphed into a form of Despotism and Totalitarianism in modern America. Unless we can reverse this trend, we shall continue to morph outside the boundaries of legitimate government and the law. Unless or until we change this course, we run the risk, as forewarned by one of our greatest Presidents:

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

03/20/24 Liberty Relies on Rule of Law

In an article by S. T. Karnick, “Liberty Relies on Rule of Law”, he reminds us that:

“The past few years have provided a crucial lesson for the liberty movement: our freedoms rely on the rule of law. People cannot be free without the protection of a strong and fair sovereign government.

Our rights to life, liberty, and property depend on due process and full respect for the people's rights, privileges, and immunities. Without that, arbitrary government can do pretty much as the current individuals in control desire—and it generally does that, up to and often beyond what those in power perceive they can get away with.”

This article then reviews the government actions in the last two decades that endanger the rule of law and our liberties and closes with the statement:

“We are in the grip of an uncomfortable paradox. Those of us who believe in freedom must devote our energies to the restoration of the rule of law in this nation. It is the precondition for all the freedoms we enjoy.

That is a harsh truth for us freedom-lovers to accept, but it is nonetheless true.”

I would remind everyone that to preserve our liberties, we must be proactive in protecting them. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”  If we do not do so, then, as Thomas Jefferson has also said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

03/19/24 Presidential Succession

As anyone who has had a relative or friend who is or has suffered from dementia, it is quite clear that President Biden is in the throes of dementia. Special Counsel Robert Hur’s release of his report on Senator and Vice-President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents in which he stated that President Joe Biden was too old to charge for the mishandling of classified documents, noted his memory and recall lapses, and described the President as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

My mother, my mother’s mother, as well as some other family members, have suffered from dementia, as I have Chirped on, “08/08/20 A Most Terrible Disease”. Dementia is a serious mental health issue and is not to be taken lightly. Consequently, people who suffer from dementia should not be in control of themselves, let alone be in control of others. I am sorrowful to say that when President Biden speaks, along with how he speaks (unnatural pauses, losing focus, stiff posture, hanging sentences, etc.) along with his physical motions, as well as when I look into his eyes I mostly see empty space behind his eyes, reinforces my opinion that he is in the throes of dementia.

His family, his friends, and his political associates owe it to him and our country to remove him from office and allow him to retire in peace and dignity. To allow a person in the throes of dementia to be in control of the levers of government is too great a danger to be contemplated. For those people who do not believe that Joe Biden has dementia, they are either ignorant of dementia, engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief about Joe Biden’s mental state, or have a visceral fear of an opponent and/or a lust to retain power. For a politician to even consider allowing a person with dementia to run for President and serve four more years is the height of absurdity. Any politician who entertains this absurdity is not fit to be a leader of the American people, as a true leader under these circumstances will do what is best for the country without considerations of fear or power.

Thus, it is time to consider the invocation of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove and bar President Biden from office. Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation has written a fine short article, “The 25th Amendment and a Disabled President”, which examines the history and usage of the 25th Amendment. Alas, he ends this article by stating:

“Some have suggested that it is time to invoke the 25th Amendment. It is, of course, exceedingly unlikely for a host of political reasons that Ms. Harris and a majority of Mr. Biden’s Cabinet would send Congress that notification.

We are, however, living in dangerous times where we need a president who has the ability to competently and effectively protect the nation and handle the duties of what many believe is one of the hardest jobs in the world.”

Unfortunately, by not removing President Biden from office, we are endangering America and the rest of the world by allowing a mentally incapacitated person to be President.

03/18/24 Election Interference in Israel

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for new elections in Israel, claiming that the prime minister has "lost his way." Not only is this election interference in trying to overturn a democratic election in a foreign country but the reasons he has given for the new elections is hubris on his part that the Israeli people should only elect a person who agrees with his viewpoint on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war.

As Senate Minority Leader McConnell rightly pointed out in a clear admonition about getting involved in foreign elections. "Israel is not a colony of America whose leaders serve at the pleasure of the party in power in Washington. Only Israel’s citizens should have a say in who runs their government. This is the very definition of democracy and sovereignty," he offered. "Either we respect their decisions, or we disrespect their democracy."

For Senator Schumer, who expresses so much concern about “Our Democracy”, he shows little concern for other countries' democracy. This should be of no surprise to anyone who has observed how Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists operate in a manner that is antithetical to democracy, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy" and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”.

03/17/24 Rotten Justice

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “That's forbidden love! ALAN DERSHOWITZ slams Georgia judge for letting DA Fani Willis continue her war on Trump despite paying her 'lover' with taxpayer dollars... ... it's more proof of America's rotten justice” he chastises Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee as essentially letting District Attorney Fani Willis off the hook. Rather than splitting the baby, Judge McAffee has cleaved justice by allowing a prosecutor who has lied in her depositions and testimony to continue being a prosecutor. President Trump should immediately appeal this decision for the reasons given In Professor Dershowitz's article. In addition, President Trump’s lawyers should seek to have DA Fani Willis's law license revoked for perjury to a court and to have the trial delayed until the revocation process is complete as if she is disbarred, she would be ineligible to prosecute President Trump.

He ends his article by stating, “But no matter the outcome, this prosecution has been irrevocably tainted – and the U.S. justice system sinks deeper into decay.” This is an opinion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

03/16/24 Impeachment Proceedings

As I have examined in my Chirp on "02/13/24 What is Impeachable?", I do not believe that the impeachment of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is Constitutional. However, the House of Representatives passed the Impeachment Articles against Secretary Mayorkas on February 13, 2024. Regrettably, indications are that the Senate may not even bring the Impeachment to a trial or vote, as most Senators do not believe Secretary Mayorkas has committed an impeachable offense.

I say regrettably because I do not believe that it is proper for the Senate to ignore an impeachment from the House, and I believe it is important for the Senate to consider and vote on what is impeachable. I, therefore, believe that the Senate should address this impeachment, but in a narrow manner.

The Senate should introduce the Articles of Impeachment in their chamber but then limit what is to be first debated in their chamber. The Senate should give the House Impeachment Managers thirty minutes to explain and defend why these Articles of Impeachment are Constitutional, then give the defenders of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas thirty minutes to explain and defend why these Articles of Impeachment are Unconstitutional. The Senate should then adjourn for two hours to think about and privately discuss these arguments.

When the Senate comes back from this adjournment, they should pose one question for a yes or no vote by the Senators: Do the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment rise to the level of Constitutional Impeachment? I believe that a large majority of Senators would vote nay, and then a motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment could be introduced and passed. Upon the dismissal of these Articles of Impeachment, the matter would be resolved, and a strong message would be sent to the House that Articles of Impeachment must pass Constitutional muster before the Senate would fully act on them.

03/15/24 RINO's and Unjustness

In an article in The Washington Times by Peter Navarro, “RINO opposition must unite around Trump to stop destruction of our country”, he cautions the Republicans In Name Only (RINO) opposition to Donald Trump that:

“Whatever complaints or quibbles you may have had with Mr. Trump over the years, all of these grievances pale in comparison to the very real and enormous damage that Mr. Biden as president is doing to our economy, our fiscal balance, our border security, our social and political fabric, and most dangerously, our national security. To oppose Mr. Trump is to support a Biden agenda that threatens the very viability of our republic.”
 - Peter Navarro

This caution is applicable to the Democrat electorate, which is concerned about the direction and future of our country. To them, I would say if you cannot vote for Donald Trump and you are concerned about Joe Biden, then I would suggest you don’t vote at all, for a vote for Joe Biden is a vote to continue the damage of his political policies and agenda.

I would also note that former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has been ordered to report to a Miami prison on March 19th, 2024, to begin serving a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena from the January 6th House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 “Insurrection”. Given that we now know that the January 6th Select Committee engaged in disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and a cover-up of information that exonerates President Trump, and that the committee itself may have been constructed contrary to House rules, a defiance of the subpoena seems justified.

The January 6th Select Committee was not properly authorized and constructed through normal House procedures. In addition, it did not properly operate with "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" that a normal House committee implements. As such, it had all the appearance of a Kangaroo Court befitting a Banana Republic. To imprison Peter Navarro under these circumstances seems unjust, especially when the committee itself was unjust.

This is but another example of a two-tiered system of justice that has become normal in today’s America. Anything dubious that President Trump or his advisors said or did becomes subject to criminal prosecutions, while anything dubious that his opponents did or said is ignored by the justice system. As dubious words and deeds have become all too common in today’s political arena, to prosecute only one side is another example of "The Weaponization of Government" that “threatens the very viability of our republic.”

03/14/24 Insurrection Cover-Up

It has been claimed by the House Committee investigating the January 6, 2001 “Insurrection” that President Trump took no actions to suppress the “Insurrection” that he instigated. An “Insurrection” of which I have extensively Chirped, which can be reviewed in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection".

What was not revealed by the committee, as they didn’t want it to be widely publicized, was the Trump administration’s security plans, which included 10,000 National Guard troops to protect Washington, DC., and that the city rejected his offer to provide these troops. These revelations were gleaned from an interview with Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, who heard conversations between White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. Meadows wanted the city to request whatever they needed to keep the city secure. Rep. Liz Cheney’s Cheney was reportedly present for these interviews, and as The Federalist journalist Mollie Hemingway has reported:

“Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.”

My question is, why would anyone who would instigate an “insurrection” want to use armed troops to suppress said “insurrection”? They wouldn’t—and it is oxymoronic (or political chicanery) to claim otherwise.

Thus, the members of the January 6, 2001, House Investigative Committee were either moronic or they were being deceptive. I doubt very much that they are moronic, but I have no doubts that they were being deceptive. A deception upon the American people that continues and is being utilized by Democrat politicians and the Democrat Party to advance their electioneering.

A deception that strikes at the heart of America, as it is based on disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation being propagated upon the American public, thereby creating an ill-informed electorate. Such deceptions are not uncommon among Democrat politicians and the Democrat Party, as facts and truths are a hindrance to the election of Democrats, not to mention an impediment to the enactment of social policies and political goals of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

03/13/24 It is a War

America has become "A Tale of Two Cities", as Progressivism has divided America into two cities—Progressives and non-Progressives. It has become a conflict between "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution" and a war between two visions of America. A war that pits "Progressivism and Progressives" on one side and a war for our "American Ideals and Ideas" on the other side. It is a war against Progressivism’s "Despotism in America", "The Weaponization of Government", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and a diminishment of "A Civil Society" in America, as well as a war on the West as I have Chirped on “01/05/24 The War on the West”. It is a war that is being waged that threatens our Republic, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy". It is a war that poses an existential threat to the future of America. It is a war that must be won by non-Progressives to preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

It is a war that is being waged through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” by the Progressives and their allies in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". It is a war that is not being waged effectively by non-Progressives, as their appeals to the American public require intelligent thought rather than the emotional appeals of Progressives; as I have written in "Think vs. Feel - or - Emotions are Easy, Thinking is Hard".

At this moment in America, it is a cold civil war between the two sides. However, it could break out into a hot civil war as more non-Progressives feel threatened by Progressives and governmental words and deeds that encroach upon their Liberties and Freedoms. This process has been accelerated by the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders. While most Americans would abhor a hot civil war, it should be remembered that historically, civil wars are initiated by a large minority that feels oppressed, as was the case in the American Revolutionary War.

In modern America, we are reaching that point where a hot civil war may be possible. The best means to avert a hot civil war is for the American people to turn out of elected and appointed office the Progressives who are leading us down this path to a hot civil war. The best means to accomplish this is for Americans to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates in the 2024 election. Otherwise, we will continue down the slippery slope to a hot civil war.

03/12/24 Onward, Progressive Soldiers

‘Onward, Christian Soldiers’ was a hymn sung during the American Civil War, which I have adapted to fit modern American times as follows:

1. Onward, Progressive soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the banner of DEI
going on before!
Wokeness, our only Master,
leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
see our banner go!

Refrain:
Onward, Progressive soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the banner of DEI
going on before!

2. At the sign of triumph
MAGA's hosts doth flee;
On, then, Progressive soldiers,
on to victory!
Evil's foundations quiver
at the shout of our indignation;
Comrades, lift your voices,
loud your demands raise! [Refrain]

3. Like a mighty army
moves the powerless aside;
Comrades, we are treading
where the self-righteous have trod;
We are not divided;
all one body we,
One in anger and doctrine,
one in solidarity. [Refrain]

4. Onward, then, ye people,
join our rowdy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
in the triumph song;
Glory, laud, and honor,
unto Wokeness our Master!
This thro' countless ages
Progressives we shall sing. [Refrain]

03/11/24 Backward to Intolerance

In the play and movie ‘Inherit the Wind’ by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, the following bit of dialogue occurs between Defense Attorney Drummond and the Judge:

“Drummond: (turns to Prosecuting Attorney BRADY, in righteous anger) I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at BRADY, then to various members of the audience and the JUDGE) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!

Judge: Colonel Drummond!

Drummond (Striding to the JUDGE’s bench. This speech builds to a crescendo at the end.) Can’t you understand that if you take a law like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it? (Turns to the crowd in the gallery and begins addressing them. The crowd has grown strangely quiet during all of this as they listen. BRADY looks worriedly.) And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man! If you can do one, you can do the other! Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. (Strides slowly back to the JUDGE’S bench) And soon, Your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating we’ll be marching backward – BACKWARD - to the glorious ages of that sixteenth century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind! (DRUMMOND turns with disgust back to the defense table as he continues to pack his bag.)

Judge: (In an angry, but shocked tone) I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.

Drummond: Your Honor has the right to hope!”
- Inherit the Wind: Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

While this play and movie spoke directly of religious intolerance and scientific advancement, in a larger sense, it was about trying to silence or impose a belief or opinion upon another person or persons who do not share this belief or opinion.

Alas, this reminds me of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who would silence or impose their beliefs upon Americans and, indeed, the rest of the world. Such a silencing or imposition is contrary to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of a person or persons. The statement “I will not tolerate intolerance” is an oxymoron, and it is an excuse to impose their intolerance upon Americans. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is to be tolerated, but who shall decide what is to be tolerated.”

As such, the warning of Defense Attorney Drummond “that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!” is apropos to modern America. If we continue to allow this silencing or imposition, we are moving backward in time when intolerance of another’s thoughts and speech is suppressed or punished if it does not agree with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders beliefs.

03/10/24 Another Impactful Decision

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

Those words from the Supreme Court in its Trump v. Anderson ruling on Monday put an end to the effort of Democratic secretaries of state to engage in ballot cleansing by removing former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. The court’s decision was one of the most important and impactful moments in its history, as Jonathan Turley has written in his article on this subject.

Another impactful decision awaits us in President Trump’s claim on Presidential Immunity. The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for April 25 to review Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. I am troubled by President Trump’s claim of blanket Presidential Immunity, but I am even more troubled if we allow prosecutors at all levels of government to lodge civil and criminal complaints against a former President. If we allow this to happen, then any prosecutor at any level of government, with a political axe to grind, could institute legal action against a former President.

The question is, where do we draw the line on legal actions against a former President, and is it even possible to draw a line? I do not have an answer to this question, but I am certain that in this age of hyperpartisanship, if we do not draw a line, then we will have a multitude of prosecutions against former Presidents motivated by political considerations. No President could effectively preside over an administration if they believed that any of their words or deeds were subject to future legal actions by politically motivated prosecutors at all levels of government. This situation will strike at the heart of our republic with ruinous consequences and chaos. Which brings me back to the ruling of the Supreme Court in its Trump v. Anderson decision:

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

03/09/24 Threats to Democracy - In Closing

In 20th century America, the rise of Progressivism and big government in the administrative state has gradually accumulated the threats to democracy so that the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy which have dangerously converged in the 21st century. In my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", I have examined the meaning and history of Progressivism and its impacts on American Governance and Society.

As to the current immediate threats to democracy, we have a convergence of forces in America that are the prime instigators of these threats in the 21st century. These forces are, as I have written in the "Terminology" webpage, "Democrat Party Leaders", "Progressives/Leftists", the "Administrative state", "Big Tech", "Mainstream Cultural Media (MCM)“, "Mainstream Media (MSM)", "Modern Big Business (MBB)", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate".

Accordingly, I have collected my Chirps on the "Threats to Democracy" into an article in the order in which they should be read. We should all read this article and weep for America if we do not correct this situation. Otherwise, as Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth,” and we will see an end to democracy in America.

03/08/24 Threats to Democracy - Getting Away With and Rewarded For It

One of the aggravating factors of the threats to democracy is that the officers in government who engage in actions that are a threat rarely suffer negative repercussions or legal consequences for their actions. Rarely does the government institute legal actions against its own officers, especially if they are acting on behalf of elected politicians’ wishes. Many times, their actions are not illegal by statute but are contrary to Constitutional principles and, therefore, not subject to legal proceedings. For those individuals or groups who have been harmed by their actions, it is legally difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to pursue a civil lawsuit against the government, especially if their actions were not illegal by statute (i.e., Unconstitutional actions). Consequently, legal consequences for their actions are rarely successful. There are sound reasons for making it difficult for an individual or group to pursue legal action against the government. However, it is possible and sometimes successful to sue the government for Unconstitutional actions, but it is rarely successful to sue for illegal actions as criminal actions are the purview of the judicial system of government.

Usually, the only time the government institutes legal actions against its officers is when a political uproar arises whenever their actions are discovered. Even then, the legal actions are mild, as there are political considerations that temper the government’s response. In today’s bitter hyper-partisan political environment, the actions that are a threat to democracy are often justified or vilified by the different sides of the issues, and just as often are defended or attacked by the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”. Rarely does the public understand the legalities or constitutionality of the issue at hand, and they often support one side or the other based on their politics.

A more insidious aggravating factor is that the perpetrators of these threats to democracy feel no shame for their actions, as they believe that their actions are justified by saving “Our Democracy” or their commitment to “A Higher Loyalty” than to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and act within the law. All people who work in the government have no higher duty than adherence to the Constitution and the Law. It is also expected that all government officers act with virtue, character, and ethics, and they should feel shame when they do not do so. However, virtue, character, ethics, and shame in modern politics seem to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history".

Another aggravating factor is that many of the government officers that have engaged in these threats to democracy leave their government position for lucrative jobs in the media, higher education, or big business as a reward for saving “Our Democracy” or their commitment to “A Higher Loyalty”. Some have even written books (with hefty advances and royalties) to justify their actions. Thus, we have instituted a perverse reward system for those who have been a threat to democracy. A reward system that encourages other government officers to engage in threats to democracy with expectations that they will be rewarded for their actions.

It should be noted that this perverse reward system most often favors Democrat officers and Democrat Party Leaders while rarely favoring Republican officers or Republican Party Leaders, as the predilections of the media, higher education, and big business are to promote Democrat Party politics and Progressivism.

Consequently, we glide down the slippery slope of losing our democracy by these government officers’ actions. Threats to democracy by government officers which are destabilizing America and leading us down the slippery slope of Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

03/07/24 Threats to Democracy - The Biden Presidency Scandals

America has seen many scandals during the Biden Administration. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many scandals of the Biden Administration. We have also seen how the Biden Family was involved in corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials.

The question for this chirp is, do these scandals rise to a level of a threat to democracy? Not all of them rise to this level, but some of them are threats to democracy. In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy.

It is an unfortunate fact that much of the Biden Administration has been a threat to democracy. From the very first day of his office, he and his administration have taken actions or sided with Progressive forces that pose a threat to democracy. Many of these threats to democracy have been examined in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America",  "The Weaponization of Government", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and many more have been examined in other of my Chirps. He also ignored and did not enforce the laws with which he disagreed, a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Consequently, President Biden has acted as a ruler rather than a leader of America, as I examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

The Biden Administration and the Democrats have called into question the freeness and fairness of elections by all the irregularities of the 2020 Presidential election. They have impinged on the rule of law by taking extraordinary and excessive legal actions against their opponents. They continually question the legitimacy of the opposition by derisively labeling them MAGA Republicans or right-wing extremists (along with their supporter’s derogatory labels of Fascists and Nazis) and questioning their commitment to our democracy. They have also tried to implement many social policies that most Americans do not support through the use of Executive Orders or regulatory changes, which have not been authorized by Congressional legislation. They have also harmed the integrity of our rights by continually trying to restrict the First and Second Amendment rights of individuals and groups.

In these actions, they have engendered political polarization by pitting one group of Americans against another group of Americans. Their attempts to legalize illegal immigration with future voting rights for those who entered America illegally create conflicts over who belongs in the political community. Their economic and inflationary policies have resulted in higher and growing economic inequality. They have also exercised excessive executive powers through a multitude of executive orders and burdensome regulations without Congressional authorization.

Alas, in the Biden Administration, we have seen all the threats to democracy in all the four key attributes and four specific threats of democracy as examined in the book ‘Four Threats’. The threats to the four key attributes pose a danger to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and the four specific threats are an assault on the body politic. The authors of ‘Four Threats’ note that these four specific threats have been present in America’s past, but not all four threats simultaneously, while in modern America, these four threats have arisen simultaneously and are threatening our democracy. They caution that the simultaneity of these threats is the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

Thus, the actions of President Biden and his administration pose an existential to democracy and America. A threat that is destabilizing America and leading us down the slippery slope of Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

03/06/24 Threats to Democracy - The Trump Presidency Scandals

President Trump continued the use of excessive executive powers through a multitude of executive orders, first by nullifying many of President Obama's executive orders and then by issuing his own executive orders. From the beginning of his administration, President Trump was at loggerheads with FBI Director James Comey, along with the entrenched leadership of the Intelligence community. This clashing extended to Attorney General Jeff Sessions when President Trump thought that he was not being proactive in protecting President Trump’s interests. This resulted in the scandals of the Firing of James Comey and forcing Jeff Sessions to resign. Some of the other scandals of the Trump administration were his Impeachment, the 2020 Election, the Russia Scandal, Travel Bans from Muslim Countries, the building of the Border Wall, the Resignation of Michael Flynn, Public Service and Private Gain, and Trump's Use of Twitter.

The question for this Chirp is, do these scandals rise to a level of a threat to democracy? Not all of them rise to this level, but some of them are threats to democracy. In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy.

There is also the question as to whether these scandals were actual scandals or fabricated scandals by President Trump’s political opponents, which I will address later in this Chirp. Some of these scandals were much ado about very little, and they were hyped by his political opposition and the "Mainstream Media" and "Mainstream Cultural Media", which were in almost unanimous opposition to the Presidency of Donald Trump. Part of the perception of these scandals is President Trump’s utilization of a forehand slap against his opponents and that he has a crude and in-your-face style of political fighting, which intensifies political polarization. However, President Trump’s bark was often louder than his bite. That said, President Trump had a bite that posed threats to democracy. These bites were of the same manner and magnitude that President Obama and now President Biden posed in their threats to democracy.

What President Trump did was more of a threat to the political goals and policy agendas of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They regard President Trump and his MAGA supporters as an existential threat to their political power and the "Administrative state" that they utilize to exercise their power. As such, they believe that any and all tactics to stop President Trump were acceptable, which in itself are threats to democracy. This is demonstrated by the Congressional actions against President Trump during his administration:

The House and Senate spent about two and a half years investigating allegations that candidate Trump colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 Presidential election. Allegations that were fabricated by the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign and supported by the FBI and Intelligence agencies even when they knew they were dubious allegations. The FBI even submitted false affidavits to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, to obtain warrants against Trump campaign advisors and Trump Administration officers. Allegations that were later revealed to be fabricated and false by the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation and FBI actions for which special counsel John Durham slammed the FBI in his 2016 probe scrutinizing then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. The conduct and statements of the Democrat House and Senate members during the Congressional investigations were inflammatory and reckless, which further polarized America.

As to the impeachments of President Trump, I have written an entire series of articles on "Impeachment" and why I thought that these impeachments were unwarranted. In bringing these impeachments against President Trump, Congress was engaging in a threat to democracy in trying to overturn an election and make Donald Trump ineligible to run for office again. By not utilizing "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" in the impeachment process, they have besmirched the concepts of justice and posed a threat to democracy.

As I have written in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection", the events at the Capitol building on January 6th, 2001, were more of a ruckus and riot than an insurrection. While many of the actions by the people involved were unlawful, they were not attempting to overthrow the government of the United States. Yet Democrats and some Republicans portrayed them as insurrectionists for political gain.

Thus, while President Trump posed a threat to democracy, it was the same threats to democracy that was posed by President Obama. However, the threats to democracy of the Biden presidency exceed those of Presidents Obama and Trump, which I will examine in my next chapter.

03/05/24 Threats to Democracy - The Obama Presidency Scandals

You often hear that the Obama administration, whatever its other failings, has been “scandal-free.” However, this is a myth propagated by Obama supporters and by a complacent "Mainstream Media" and "Mainstream Cultural Media" that hears no evil, speaks no evil, and sees no evil about the Obama administration.

Some of the Obama administration scandals include the AP Phone Records Scandal, the Attack on the Benghazi Compound, Secretary of State Clinton's Email Server, DOJ and the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation, Fast and Furious Gun Walking, GSA Spending Spree, Hacking Data Breach, IRS Targeting Scandal, Trump’s Russian Collusion fabrication and FISA Warrants, Solyndra Subsidies, and the VA Waiting List Scandal. These, and other scandals and controversies, are outlined in the following articles:

• “Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free Administration’ Is a Myth” by Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation
• “The Biggest Controversies of Barack Obama's Presidency” by Tom Murse of ThoughtCo
• “9 Controversies Obama Didn’t Mention When He Denied Any ‘Major Scandals’” by Fred Lucas of The Daily Signal

The question for this Chirp is, do these scandals rise to a level of a threat to democracy? Not all of them rise to this level, but some of them are threats to democracy. In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy.

We have learned that Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey, along with other prominent Obama Administration leaders, have been involved in activities that are threats to democracy, as I have Chirped on “03/03/24 Threats to Democracy – II”.

President Obama himself has also engaged in activities that are a threat to democracy, and more specifically, his utilization of Executive Actions and Executive Orders as a run-around against Congress. As President Obama announced at the beginning of his administration:

“I've got a pen, and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive action. I've got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won't. Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. I have got a pen and I got a phone. And that is all I need.”
 - President Barack Obama

President Obama did, indeed, use his pen and phone to bypass Congress and rule by executive fiat, which is a threat to democracy of the highest order. He expanded and enlarged on the predicates of executive aggrandization set by other presidents of the 20th century, but the breadth and depth of this bypassing of Congress exponentially increased in the Obama Administration, which continued in the Trump and Biden Administrations. He also had a disposition to not enforce the laws with which he disagreed, a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Consequently, President Obama tended to rule rather than lead America, as I examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Thus, the actions of President Obama and his administration did pose a threat to democracy. Threats to democracy that continued and expanded into further actions by the Trump and Biden administrations based upon the Obama administration predicates.

03/04/24 Threats to Democracy - III

In my previous Chirps on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy" and “03/03/24 Threats to Democracy – II”, I discussed the current and historical threats to democracy in America. The first Chirp is my opinion about the threats to democracy in modern America, while the second Chirp is about the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, in which the authors examine the history of America regarding the threats to democracy. This Chirp is about some critiques I have about the book and a current threat to democracy that the authors of this book have not considered.

In this book, they give no credence to the accusations that the modern  "Mainstream Media" and the  "Mainstream Cultural Media" have political predilections and biases that make it difficult, if not almost impossible, to have Conservatives and Republicans fairly represented in the mainstream media. This contributes to political polarization, as when Conservatives and Republicans believe that their voice is not being heard, they become frustrated and then angry. In addition, "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" are often utilized against Conservatives and Republicans, which belittles them. This is the main reason for the rise of alternative conservative media, rather than the threat of legitimacy of the opposition that the authors attribute to the rise of alternative conservative media. Recently, we have seen that the Conservative and Republican voices in the mainstream media are being censored or repressed, which further increases political polarization and the rise of alternative conservative media.

This mainstream media predilections and biases also gives rise to the differences in the electioneering between the Democrats and Republicans. Republicans and Conservatives must be more aggressive to get their message across in the mainstream media, which is demonstrated in the differences between Obama, Trump, and Biden electioneering. Obama utilizes a backhanded slap against his opponents, while Trump utilizes a forehand slap against his opponents. Obama has an elegant and debonair style of political fighting, while Trump has a crude and in-your-face style of political fighting, and Biden has adopted both types of slaps and styles. However, both types of slaps and styles from these presidents are politically polarizing.

The authors also attribute the rise of big money contributions of the rich and big business to Republicans as another threat to democracy in modern America. However, no mention is made of big money contributions of the rich and big business to Democrats, which has become greater than the contribution to Republicans per Open Secrets analysis of the 2022 election cycle, which is based on Federal Election Commission data.

I would also take issue with their utilization of economic inequality, as their analysis of economic inequalities is sophomoric, in some cases untrue, and betrays their lack of knowledge of basic economics. This analysis utilizes the perceived inequality in modern America without examining the underlying truths of the economic situation. Economic inequality can be a threat to democracy if the inequality is of the rich growing richer at the expense of the poor, as was true at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However, in the middle of the 20th century, the abuses of the wealthy against the lower classes were abated by the enactment of laws to prevent these abuses. Economic inequality in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century was a result of entrepreneurs providing goods and services at an affordable price to the middle and lower classes that generated wealth for those who succeeded in doing so, but it also elevated the living circumstances of the middle and lower classes. Technological creativity and innovation also contributed to this economic inequality, which led to explosive wealth generation for the creators and inventors of this technology, while at the same time, it bettered the lot of people in American society. The authors also do not account for the mobility of persons between economic classes that is prevalent in today’s America, which blunts the threat of economic inequality being a threat to democracy. These and other issues of economic inequality are best illuminated in an article by Thomas Sowell, “Using Statistics To Lie About Inequality”, which is based on his book “Wealth, Poverty and Politics”.

In modern America, this feeling of economic inequality is due to the loss of employment of previous lower-class labor-intensive jobs and the reduction of our middle-class industrial base employment due to foreign competition. However, perceptions often become a reality in the minds of people, and it is the perception of economic inequality that often drives this threat to democracy.

I believe that one of the modern threats to democracy is our poor and improper public education, as I have written in my articles on "Indoctrination versus Education", "Public Education", and “College and University Education”. We also have the problems of "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" that plague America. Much of these problems are a result of Progressivism, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". These problems engender an electorate that can be easily swayed by undemocratic forces, especially unscrupulous politicians that are more concerned about power than democracy while professing their commitment to “Our Democracy”, as I have examined in my Chirps on “02/18/24 The Greatest Danger to Democracy” and "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".

This lack of proper public education is the greatest threat to democracy in modern America. It is a threat in that modern education is producing a one-eyed man, blind in his right eye, which does not allow for the full consideration of the issues and concerns of the threats to democracy.

Consequently, the author's analysis of the causes of the modern American threats to democracy is deeply flawed and biased. It is a flaw and bias that is all too common in the intelligentsia in modern America, and it is a flaw and bias that is contributing to the threats to democracy in modern America. It is a flaw and bias based upon a lack of proportionality between Democrats and Republicans in modern America, where the Republican threats weigh heavily, and the Democrat threats are minimized or ignored. Based on my knowledge of history, chapters two through seven are a good analysis of the historical threats to democracy in America. While chapter one exhibits some flaws and biases, chapters eight and nine are not a worthy effort by the authors. As such, the author’s analysis in Chapters 8 and much of Chapter 9 is not helpful but hurtful to the cause of democracy in America.

03/03/24 Threats to Democracy - II

In my Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy", I discussed the biggest threat to democracy in modern America is the people who utilize the phrase “A threat to our Democracy”. Democracy is all about a cacophony of opinions freely expressed and freely debated. The phrase “A threat to our Democracy” is often used by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as an attempt to intimidate into silence those that disagree with them. In some cases, it is an excuse to persecute and sometimes prosecute those who disagree with them.

In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the history of America regarding the threats to democracy. In Chapter 1 of the book, ‘Threats to Democracy’, they examine the meaning of democracy and the threats to democracy. The authors state that functioning democratic systems tend to share four key attributes: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights. They then go on to explain the presence of four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy. While Chapter 1 exhibits some of the authors' political biases, these biases are not detrimental to the topic of this chapter.

In Chapters 2 through 6, they examine these threats in American history: ‘Chapter 2—Polarization Wreaks Havoc in the 1790s’, ‘Chapter 3—Democratic Disintegration in the 1850s’, ‘Chapter 4—Backsliding in the 1890s’, ‘Chapter 5—Executive Aggrandizement in the 1930s’, and ‘Chapter 6—The Weaponized Presidency in the 1970s’. These chapters provide an excellent overview of the events in American history that posed threats to democracy.

In Chapter 7— ‘At All Costs, How the Four Threats Endanger Democracy’, they examine the extent and impacts of these four threats and four key attributes to American democracy.

Chapter 8— ‘Dangerous Convergence’, is the most disappointing chapter in this book. It is nothing more than a diatribe against Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, placing the blame on them for the modern-day threats to democracy. It is based upon the premise that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders represent moderation and restraint in their approaches to the issues and concerns of modern America. The authors express a viewpoint that Democrats and Progressives have not stoked any political polarization, but they have only reacted to Republican and Conservatives stoking of political polarization. Very little is said of the Threats to Democracy by the Obama Administration (partly because the chicanery of the Obama Administration has only come to light about and after this book was written), and as this book was published in 2020, there is no examination of the threats that the Biden Administration to democracy.

In Chapter 9— ‘Putting Democracy First’, the authors continue this diatribe against Trump but then rise above it in the section on ‘Learning from the Past’. However, in the next section ‘Putting Democracy First’ they espouse that “equal representation of the states in the Senate” and the “Electoral College” are undemocratic without noting that both ideas contribute to democracy for all across America, as without them, politics would gravitate to densely populated areas leaving behind other areas of the country. Such gravitation was ultimately responsible for the Ancient Greek Athenian democratic state to collapse, as our Founding Fathers were aware of and tried to prevent this collapse by including these two ideas in the Constitution.

Therefore, I would suggest that the authors issue a new edition of this book that rewrites Chapters 8 and 9 with a more evenhanded approach through an examination of the threats to America by the Obama and Biden administrations. To do so, however, would require them to cast aside their political predilections and biases, which, given their tone in Chapters 8 and the beginning of Chapter 9, I do not expect will happen.

The authors note that these four threats have been present in America’s past, but not all four threats simultaneously, while in modern America, these four threats have arisen simultaneously and are threatening our democracy. They caution that the simultaneity of these threats is the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

The main issue I have with this book is when the authors look at modern America through the right lens of their eyeglasses, they see much of these threats in Conservatives and Republicans. However, when the authors look at modern America through the left lens of their eyeglasses, they seem a little short-sighted to these threats in Progressives and Democrats.

If you believe, as I do, that the Federalist policies of Alexander Hamilton are more like the policies of the Democrats of today, while the Republican policies of Thomas Jefferson are more like the policies of the Republicans of today, then their historical analysis shows that the Democratic party politics was responsible for most of the initiation of the threats to democracy, while the Republican party politics were often apathetic or supine in the face of these threats. This does not let the Republicans off the hook, as apathetic or supine in the face of wrongs is no excuse, and standing up for what is right and not allowing the wrong is the only proper course of action.

In my next Chirp on “03/04/24 Threats to Democracy – III”, I will examine some more of the critiques that I have of this book.

03/02/24 Mega-Fines

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “Is Trump's Mega-Fine Unconstitutional?”, he examines the constitutionality of the fines imposed upon Donald Trump in the New York state court case against him:

“Arthur Engoron, the New York Supreme Court judge in the real estate case brought against Donald Trump by the state attorney general, has fined Trump and members of his family $464 million. This raises the question of whether the fine – which does not reflect damages actually done – is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."”

I would also note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in Section 1 states that:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Consequently, this trial may have also been unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as it deprived Donald Trump of property, without due process of law, nor with the equal protection of the laws.

This article is a perfect complement to his book, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law”. The actions of the state are also an example of "Lawfare", as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, this trial and the fines imposed by Judge Engoron are an assault on the Constitution. As such, any person concerned about our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" should stand in opposition to this trial and the fines imposed. Thus, I hope that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this and will declare the entire trial and fines as Unconstitutional under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

03/01/24 Supreme Civil War Scholarship

James Munro McPherson is a preeminent American Civil War historian. He, along with Allen C. Guelzo, are my favorite historians of the Civil War Era. While I have reviewed several of Professor Guelzo’s books in my Book It of “09/01/20 The Meaning of History”, I have yet to review books of Professor McPherson. This month’s Book It selections are of my favorite books by Professor McPherson.

02/29/24 Thoughts on a Life Worth Living and Death

As I am now firmly ensconced in my senior years, I have the luxury of reminiscing on my life and taking stock of it. The question that I have often asked myself is what makes a life worth living, and how do you determine if your life is or was worth living? For me, the ultimate answer is if you have lived a moral and ethical life and have acted with virtue and character in your life, as I have as I have written in my new article “A Life Worth Living”, you have lived a worthy life. If you can answer in the affirmative to these four attributes, then when your life comes to an end, you can pass away in peace, knowing that you have experienced a life worth living.

One of the certainties of life is that we will all die. The only question is when, where, and how we will die. Therefore, to be afraid of death is an emotional waste of time and energy. Rather than be afraid of death, we should be careful not to court death by taking actions (or inactions) that may court death. Live your life carefully to the fullest without being afraid of your inevitable death, and use your concern about death to guide you into minimizing your actions that may lead to your death.

The concept of hell is mostly a Christian concept, in which the souls of the dead who led an immoral life will suffer in the afterlife. Many historical concepts of hell involve fire and brimstone that inflict physical pain upon those consigned to hell. However, I believe that this concept is incorrect. A more painful hell would be for those consigned to hell to experience the pain and suffering they inflicted upon others during their lives. Thus, the suffering of those consigned to hell would be an emotional pain that is a far more appropriate punishment.

Of course, the truly evil persons of history deserve any and all punishments for all time that can be inflicted upon them in the afterlife. I also believe that a person can redeem themselves from this hell after they are fully cognizant of their misdeeds and repent to God. But only God can determine if they are fully cognizant and repentant, as only God can determine the truth of their repentance and bestow forgiveness.

For those who believe that there is no repentance from hell, I would remind them of the words in the Bible, “The judgments of the Lord are True and Just.”, and trust that God will make the proper decision on their repentance and forgiveness.

02/28/24 Relying On Others’ Opinions

In the research for my writings, I attempt to read and listen to the thoughts and opinions of other people with whom I agree or disagree. It is not possible to fully read or completely listen to the opinions of others, as it can be time-consuming to do so. This is especially difficult to accomplish when I may disagree with another, as it takes self-control and discipline to pay attention to those with whom I disagree. But it is important that you do so when forming an opinion or criticizing or critiquing another person. Too often in America today, we are quick to criticize or critique another person based on what someone else has said about the other person. In doing so, it is easy to mischaracterize what a person has written or said. In addition, what is said by someone else is often an Ad hominem-based argument rather than a reason-based argument, which is not illuminative of the topic that is being discussed. Consequently, if you wish to disagree with someone, you have the responsibility to read and/or listen to what they have written or spoken and not rely on what someone else has said about them.

In this, I am reminded of the words of wisdom by the great English philosopher, political economist, politician, and civil servant John Stuart Mill:

“He who only knows his own side of the case, knows little of that. . . Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do there very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. . .”
 - John Stuart Mill

02/27/24 Superlatives

It is all too common in today’s America to praise a person with superlatives such as great, wonderful, brilliant, marvelous, fantastic, first-rate, superb, marvelous, etc... Much too often, these superlatives are undeserved and are nothing but flattery. I find this inappropriate use of superlatives to be demeaning and repugnant, as it cheapens a person who is deserving of the superlative. It also has the pernicious effect of those so praised in believing that they are better than what they truly are and perhaps ameliorating their efforts to improve themselves. There is also the problem that those listening to the superlatives may not have the knowledge, intelligence, or experience to properly appraise whether the superlative is appropriate or inappropriate. All of this is to say that everyone, the speaker, the object of the praise, and the listener, needs to be more judgmental of the worthiness or unworthiness of the superlative.

Whenever I evaluate a person, I try to categorize their qualifications as follows:

1. Excellent or Great
2. Good
3. Average
4. Mediocre
5. Poor

Within these categories, I also sub-categorize them into three levels:

1. Upper
2. Middle
3. Lower

This is an imperfect and subjective scale, and a person may have a different categorization based on the topic that they are elucidating. This categorization and sub-categorization allow me to make a judgment on a topic by the quality of the person providing me with the information that I need to make a judgment. A person's higher categorization and sub-categorization also motivates me to think about and research a topic that they are elucidating that has piqued my interest, which sometimes results in my changing my opinion on a topic.

We would all do well to judge a person and what they are elucidating by their qualifications and to ignore the superlatives of others in making this judgment.

02/26/24 Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules

I have extracted and edited my Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules from my life observations web page that I have tried to apply to my life, and while I have not always succeeded, I have tried. While many of these items are wise, quite a few are also humorous. I hope that these items are helpful in your life, or at least put a smile on your face.

02/25/24 Depoliticize Our Lives

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he concludes the book with a section on “DEPOLITICIZE OUR LIVES”:

“The aim of identity politics would appear to be to politicize absolutely everything. To turn every aspect of human interaction into a matter of politics. To interpret every action and relationship in our lives along lines which are alleged to have been carved out by political actions. The calls to spend our time working out our own place and the places of others in the oppression hierarchy are invitations not just to an era of navel-gazing, but to turn every human relationship into a political power calibration. The new metaphysics includes a call to find meaning in this game: to struggle, and fight and campaign and ‘ally’ ourselves with people in order to reach the promised land. In an era without purpose, and in a universe without clear meaning, this call to politicize everything and then fight for it has an undoubted attraction. It fills life with meaning, of a kind.

But of all the ways in which people can find meaning in their lives, politics–let alone politics on such a scale–is one of the unhappiest. Politics may be an important aspect of our lives, but as a source of personal meaning it is disastrous. Not just because the ambitions it strives after nearly always go unachieved, but because finding purpose in politics laces politics with a passion–including a rage–that perverts the whole enterprise. If two people are in disagreement about something important, they may disagree as amicably as they like if it is just a matter of getting to the truth or the most amenable option. But if one party finds their whole purpose in life to reside in some aspect of that disagreement, then the chances of amicability fade fast and the likelihood of reaching any truth recedes.

One of the ways to distance ourselves from the madnesses of our times is to retain an interest in politics but not to rely on it as a source of meaning. The call should be for people to simplify their lives and not to mislead themselves by devoting their lives to a theory that answers no questions, makes no predictions and is easily falsifiable. Meaning can be found in all sorts of places. For most individuals it is found in the love of the people and places around them: in friends, family and loved ones, in culture, place and wonder. A sense of purpose is found in working out what is meaningful in our lives and then orienting ourselves over time as closely as possible to those centres of meaning. Using ourselves up on identity politics, social justice (in this manifestation) and intersectionality is a waste of a life.

We may certainly aim to live in a society in which nobody should be held back from what they can do because of some personal characteristic allotted to them by chance. If somebody has the competency to do something, and the desire to do something, then nothing about their race, sex or sexual orientation should hold them back. But minimizing difference is not the same as pretending difference does not exist. To assume that sex, sexuality and skin colour mean nothing would be ridiculous. But to assume that they mean everything will be fatal.”

Perhaps it would be best if all Americans make a resolution to depoliticize our lives. It would certainly lower the volume and heat of the political rhetoric in today’s America. I would also suspect that it would be a calming influence in everyone’s lives. Unfortunately, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have made this nearly impossible, as they have politicized almost all aspects of American life with a constant barrage of negativity about American society and Western Culture, as I have Chirped on "01/04/24 Western Culture".

02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction

As I have written in my recent Chirps on "02/22/24 The Administrative State" and "02/23/24 Unbalanced and Unlimited Powers", America is undergoing a “fundamental transformation” that negatively affects our "American Ideals and Ideas", "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This fundamental transformation is a result of sliding into a more Progressive and secular society that is hostile to our American values, and especially to our Judeo-Christian mores. This fundamental transformation is being led by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders through a process of Civil Deconstruction of American society.

In their attempts to fundamentally transform America, they often engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against anyone who disagrees with them, which has resulted in the pitting of Americans against Americans and a rise in hostility between different groups of Americans. Recently, we have seen a pushback against their ideology and ideas and their tactics to obtain their political goals and policy agendas. A pushback that has elicited even more hostility from them towards their opponents.

In the past, there have been many physical confrontations from the fundamental transformers against their opponents, and some of this hostility has resulted in physical violence. The mob violence of the 2020s, which resulted in deaths, injuries, arson, property destruction, and looting, perpetuated by Progressives/Leftists, was defended by the Democrats, assisted by the actions of Law Enforcement by Democrat Mayors and Governors, and not prosecuted by Democrat local District Attorneys or State Attorney Generals. However, the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by far-right individuals that resulted in trespass, theft, and destruction of property was vigorously confronted by Democrat Congressional Laws Enforcement and is being fully prosecuted, and in some cases, being maliciously prosecuted. There have been many other instances of violence by Progressives/Leftists against their opponents on a smaller scale. Thus, it can be said that violence is but one of the tactics that Progressives/Leftists utilize to achieve their goal of fundamentally transforming America.

Another recent tactic being utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is the weaponization of government via "Lawfare", as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government".

However, such hostility begets hostility to the point where physical altercations between the sides are a distinct possibility. Also, the weaponization of government may be turned against them if their opposition obtains control of the levers of government. Thus, the question is, are we headed for a Civil War between the two sides or a continuation of the Civil Deconstruction that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are engaged in?

In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, they discuss the presence of four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that lead to the destabilization of democracy. These four threats have arisen in modern America and are threatening our democracy, and they are the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

No sane person wants a civil war, as civil wars wreak havoc on society. Death, Disease, Destruction, serious injuries, and economic disruptions are the consequences of a civil war. But Civil Deconstruction also wreaks havoc on society. Civil Deconstruction leads to a collapse of the functioning of a society and destroys the civil bonds that bind a people together. With this civil deconstruction comes a devaluation or destruction of our American ideals and ideas, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and freedoms, liberties, equality, and equal justice for all. It then becomes a question of what is worse—a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction?

In examining this question, it is necessary to analyze both the pros and cons of a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction, as I have Chirped on “02/17/24 Both Sides Now”. As history has taught us, Civil War or Civil Deconstruction often leads to a collapse of society and just as often leads to new Forms of Governance that are antithetical to democracy. It is hoped that we can avoid both a Civil War and a Civil Deconstruction, but that hope is fading as each side digs in and hardens its stance against the other side. Thus, we should be fearful of both a Civil War and Civil Deconstruction, but we must also be aware that each is possible in today’s America.

As for me, I am unwilling to sacrifice our American ideals and ideas, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and freedoms, liberties, equality, and equal justice for all to civil deconstruction. Therefore, if it becomes a choice between either a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction, I will opt for a Civil War to retain our American values and mores.

Let us hope that it never becomes necessary to make this choice; however, let us also remember that our American way is the last best hope for humankind to retain what is best for humankind. Let us then do what is right, what is just, and what is true, as if we do not, then we shall die as one of the great civil libertarians of our time has said:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right.
A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice.
A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.”
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

02/23/24 Unbalanced and Unlimited Powers

The United States Constitution was designed to have three co-equal branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. It was also formulated to have a balance of power between the branches of government in which each branch has limited and enumerated powers. A balance of power that is needed to prevent the abuses of power, and limited and enumerated powers that are needed to prevent the proliferation of powers.

Unfortunately, with the rise of Progressivism and the Administrative state, this no longer seems to be the case in America. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the Legislative Branch as establishing the laws that the Executive Branch would faithfully execute, and the Judicial Branch would determine the Constitutionality of the laws and adjudicate any disputes of the laws. However, the rise of an “Administrative state”, along with an underlying "Bureaucratic Swamp", has shifted the balance of powers in America to an undeclared fourth branch of government—Independent Agencies and Government Bureaucracies.

We have also seen an unbalance between the branches of government with the ascendency of a powerful President, Congress ceding power to bureaucracies to formulate rules and regulations covering almost all aspects of American life, and a Judiciary that feels it can intervene in any aspect of government and society and make rulings that fall outside of their purview.

All these forces in modern America are like a spreading cancer. Elected or appointed officials within government seem to pay little heed to the Constitution or to our "American Ideals and Ideas". It seems that our elected or appointed officials often attempt to circumvent the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. Much of this is driven by the hubris of elected or appointed officials who believe that they can control the American people regardless of human nature or economic realities. In this, I would remind them that:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

This is also a fatal conceit that is devaluing our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and ruining America. It is also fueling the demise of "A Civil Society" as the hyper-partisanship of to whom and how much control will be exerted by the government is bitterly fought about between the partisans.  

Much of this is a result of the Supreme Court's reluctance to declare laws, rules, and regulations to be unconstitutional and to seek a compromise between the partisan parties, some of which I have examined in my Articles on “The Failures of the Supreme Court” and “Supreme, But Not Always Right”.

Alas, I am doubtful that the Supreme Court will change its approach or that it will be enough to change the course of America that we have embarked on in the last half-century. We, the people, need to be proactive in removing this cancer within our society. A removal of this cancer which will require an excising of our political leadership that has engaged in these unconstitutional actions, as I have discussed in my article “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials Who Violate their Oath of Office”.

Until we right the course of America, I can foresee more deconstruction of our American Ideals and Ideas or the possibility of a civil war to reestablish our American Ideals and Ideas.

02/22/24 The Administrative State

The "Administrative state" is a term used to describe the power that some government agencies have to write, judge, and enforce their own laws and regulations. Since it pertains to the structure and function of government, it is a frequent topic in political science, constitutional law, and public administration. The phenomenon was relatively unknown in representative democracies until the beginning of the 20th century. Its sudden rise has corresponded to the rise of Progressivism, and many claim that the two are interrelated. The impact of the Administrative State on Liberties and Freedoms and representative democracy is much debated.

In America, the administrative state is mostly found in the independent agencies of the federal government (although some states have independent agencies). The Constitution neither makes nor infers anything that resembles an Administrative state, and thus, many believe that Independent agencies are Unconstitutional.

In addition, in America, the way that some Independent agencies operate would seem to be in violation of justice and the rule of law as incorporated into the Constitution, as I have examined in my Article "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". The violation of these Constitutional protections would also make Independent agencies Unconstitutional. In America, the officials of Independent agencies are appointed (often without Senatorial approval) and usually with a fixed term of office, which makes it exceedingly difficult to remove them from office. Thus, they are not responsive to the will of the people as expressed by elections but can operate in opposition to our elected officials' will, which is an assault on democracy.

Consequently, these Independent agencies can operate on a capricious and arbitrary basis, and this must end. As I believe that independent agencies are Unconstitutional and are being done wrongly, perhaps the better solution would be to fold these independent agencies into the Executive Departments or the Executive Office of the President, which would then make them Constitutional and subject them to Constitutional constraints. Many supporters of Independent agencies would respond that they need independence to operate impartially and that all that is required to correct these problems is a reform of how an Independent agency operates. However, it is impossible to be impartial in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, and we should never compromise our Constitutional rights for the nebulous purposes of “impartially”. In this, I would paraphrase the words of Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is impartial, but who shall decide what is impartial?" and paraphrase Benjamin Frankin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase Impartially, deserve neither Liberty nor Impartially."

In our attempts to grapple with the issues and concerns about Independent agencies, we should also remember my allocution:

“It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.”
 - Mark Dawson

02/21/24 Human Nature or Free Will

Human nature is the shared psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings. Human Nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind or what it 'means' to be human. Human Nature has been molded by the physiological construction of the human brain and millions of years of human evolution.

Progressives/Leftists have an Unconstrained vision of human nature that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures. Conservatives have a Constrained vision of human nature that believes that human nature is not malleable and that people will act in their own best interests and of their own Free Will, while Moderates have a vision of human nature that believes that human nature is somewhat malleable and can be improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures.

Free Will is the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. Free Will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, and other judgments that apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is, and the implications of whether it exists or not constitute some of the longest-running debates of philosophy. Some conceive of free will as the ability to act beyond the limits of external influences or wishes.

Human Nature and Free Will would seem to conflict with each other. However, I believe that human nature is an unconscious guide, while free will is a conscious choice, and free will can and will override human nature as the individual so chooses.

Therefore, because of free will, each person is responsible for their own words and deeds. While there may be societal pressures and impediments that influence your decisions, it is possible to overcome these factors and achieve your goals. Your achievements are based on your physical and mental capacities, skills and abilities, intellect, knowledge, and hard work to achieve your individual goals and to rise above the circumstances of your birth.

However, it is only in a free society that respects "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" that each individual can rise above their circumstances and achieve their goals. Any other type of society artificially constrains an individual and defies human nature and free will.

02/20/24 Keeping Silent About Islamic Pathologies

In a recent forward to the book “Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam” by Raymond Ibrahim, the eminent scholar and commentator Victor Davis Hanson made the following cogent statement:

“And in the current mood, whether in academic circles or popular culture, Western browbeating manifests itself in virtue-signaling damnation of Western civilization—while quite timidly practicing self-censorship, or keeping silent, about Islamic pathologies, including those, ironically, most illiberal to race and gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
 - Victor Davis Hanson

This statement encapsulates what I have Chirped on “01/05/24 The War on the West”, as well as my Article “The Problems with Islam”. For those Western browbeaters and apologists of Islam, my reply to them is that which I have written in my aforementioned Chirp and Article.

02/19/24 The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials

In modern America, the Oaths of Office of Public Officials have become just a formality to start their term of office. Little thought and fidelity are given to their oaths once they begin their term of office. These Oaths of Office are a vow to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as their primary responsibility and the Constitutional constraints to their duties and responsibilities as defined by the Constitution. In the past, we have relied on the virtue and character of elected or appointed officials to keep their oath of office, along with the shame they engendered if they did not do so. However, virtue, character, and shame in modern politics seem to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history". Thus, little heed is given to their Oath of Office when they are executing the powers of their office. As such, they do not consider the Constitutional restraints on their powers, as they are more concerned about their political goals and policy agendas and the resulting political popularity gains and/or their reelection prospects to their current elected office or future elective or appointive office.

The question is, then, what can be done about reigning in these violations of their oath of office? The most common answer is their removal from office by impeachment. However, impeachment is not often available, is rarely utilized, and even more rarely results in their removal from office. This is because the Constitution is quite explicit and thus narrowly defines impeachment as “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Consequently, a violation of an Oath of Office is not considered sufficient grounds for impeachment, as rarely do the violations of their Oath of Office concern Treason, Bribery, or high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

My new Article, “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials”, examines this question and provides some possible answers. This article supersedes my previous articles on “Removal of Executive Officers” and “Removal of Justices and Judges”, and, as such, I have withdrawn these articles.

02/18/24 The Greatest Danger to Democracy

As I have written about in my Chirp on “02/16/24 A Slight of Hand”, the Biden Administration poses a threat to democracy in how they operate authoritatively and in secrecy:

“The greatest danger to democracy is not from outside sources but from insiders who operate authoritatively and secretly. Such has been the modus operandi throughout the Biden Administration, which makes them a great danger to our democracy, as I have Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".”.

But in a larger sense, the greatest danger to our democracy is an apathetic electorate not interested in our "American Ideals and Ideas", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", but only concerned with getting their piece of the pie. We also have the problem of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" utilized to engender fear of the opponent, and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify political agendas and policy goals that are threats to democracy. Adding into the mix of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" only makes for more confusion in the minds of the electorate.

Much of this is made possible by improper or incomplete civics instructions in modern public education, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" support for policy positions that are counter to our "American Ideals and Ideas". There is also a dearth of knowledge amongst the American public on "Capitalism and Free Markets", as well as much mistaken knowledge on "Socialism". This leads to confusion and improper economic understanding as to the repercussions on governance based on this lack of or incorrect knowledge. Much of this misunderstanding has been brought forth by Progressivism, as I have explained in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", and is being led by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in modern America. Despite their cries of saving “Our Democracy”, they operate in a manner that is antithetical to democracy, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy" and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”.

Consequently, the greatest danger to democracy is an electorate that is unaware or unconcerned about how the government operates or the means that they utilize to obtain their political agendas and policy goals. Alas, there seems little hope that the American electorate can be awakened to this danger, considering the political and social forces that would prefer to keep them in darkness of this greatest danger to democracy.

02/17/24 Both Sides Now

When discussing significant changes or new proposals to how our government functions, it is common and correct to be concerned about potential negative repercussions to any proposed change and/or new. What is less common and incorrect is to balance the fear of a change and/or new with the negative repercussions of the current functioning of government.

Politicians are loath to see any change in the functioning of government, as this could disrupt their control and power over the levers of government. They are often supportive of the new—when the new increases their control and power over the levers of government. Change and/or new can also impact their reelection prospects, as any change and/or new to government functioning will have impacts (both positive and negative) upon their constituents.

Many people are also fearful of any change to government functioning, as it could disrupt their lives and understanding of how to utilize the government to achieve their ends. However, the old saying “Better The Devil You Know Than The Devil You Don't” is not a good basis for resisting change and/or new, as the devil you know could be more harmful than the devil you don't.

Hence, change is often necessary when the government is not operating in the best interest of the people but in the best interests of the government. Often, the change is a choice of the lesser of two evils. However, it is necessary to examine the current evils and possible changes and/or new evils to determine the best future course to undertake. When examining these evils, it is best to remember my concerns on "Change and/or New" before undertaking any change or new proposal.

As such, we should examine both sides of the change and/or new government functioning before we undertake a change and/or new. We should also always remember that it is more important that change and/or new should be in the best interest of the people and not the best interests of the government or the politicians.

02/16/24 A Slight of Hand

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “The Rasputin Effect: Biden Moves To Make Podesta the Climate Czar With A Crown… or a Confirmation”:

“With the departure of John Kerry as “climate czar,” President Biden has announced that he will be replaced by John Podesta, a Democratic powerbroker and Washington insider.

Podesta, however, will take the power and not the title. He will be appointed as “coordinator,” thus sidestepping and confirmation by the Senate, which could have been brutal.

Such action will shield Podesta from questions about Kerry’s work and expenses as climate czar. Before leaving office, Kerry refused to turn over information on his staff to Congress and the public. The Biden Administration is now being sued over the secrecy.”

This is but another example of the government operating in secrecy from the public when secrecy from the public is not necessary. It is especially pernicious as the Biden Administration is attempting to operate in secrecy from Congressional oversight. The issues of government climate change policy are of such magnitude that secrecy is anathema to democracy. Thus, the Biden Administration is operating undemocratically and, ergo, poses a danger to democracy.

As usual, the words and deeds of the Biden Administration are in contraction to each other. They talk one game but walk another game. Such slights of hand are typical in the Biden Administration, as they do not want the American public to be aware of what they are actually doing. This is because they realize that much of the American public would not be supportive of what they are doing, so they must do it secretly to obtain their political agendas and policy goals.

The greatest danger to democracy is not from outside sources but from insiders who operate authoritatively and secretly. Such has been the modus operandi throughout the Biden Administration, which makes them a great danger to our democracy, as I have Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".

02/15/24 An Intriguing Legal Question

In an article by Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation, “Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?”, he points out a question of the legality of the appointment:

“Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.”

Mr. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Garland to be the chief prosecutor for all of the January 6, 2021, “Insurrectionist” litigation, as well as President Trump’s role in the “Insurrection”. This amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues as to whether Attorney General Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Mr. Smith as special counsel. If he was not legally appointed, then all actions taken by Mr. Smith are null and void, including the overturning of the convictions of the January 6th defendants and his prosecution of President Trump. It would also be necessary for the court to seal all evidence that Mr. Smith has obtained, as it would be the fruits of the poisonous tree.

This issue needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it will be possible for an Attorney General to appoint persons who would be the hounds of "Lawfare" against their political opponents.

02/14/24 The Persecutor in Atlanta

The political persecutor in Atlanta has found herself in troubled waters. Normally, I am not much concerned about the personal indiscretions of public officials, as we are all human and subject to human fallacies. However, when a public official’s personal indiscretions impact their official duties, we all should be concerned.

When Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County GA, who is responsible for the election case prosecution of former President Trump, hired attorney Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor to lead the Trump prosecution, she went over the line from personal indiscretion to official duties. It is now apparent that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were engaged in an extramarital relationship. A relationship that is inappropriate in a professional setting and creates concerns about a conflict of interest.

In hiring Mr. Wade at a large expense and for a prosecution in which he has no legal experience, Ms. Willis has enriched her lover. In addition, Mr. Wade has utilized his enrichment to pay for several expensive vacations with Ms. Willis and himself. In my opinion, this is corruption and a misallocation of government funding. In addition, she may also have perjured herself in the affidavits she filed with the court to explain her relationship with Mr. Wade. All of this points to a prosecutor who is derelict in her duty to engage in an above-board prosecution.

Consequently, I believe that a mistrial without prejudice should be declared and that a change of venue outside of Fulton County, GA, with another district attorney, should be instituted to determine if President Trump has run afoul of election laws.

02/13/24 What is Impeachable?

With the failure of the Impeachment vote against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the question of what impeachable offenses are has again arisen. The Constitution is quite explicit on impeachment in Article II, Section. 4. in that:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Many legal and Constitutional scholars have narrowly construed this clause to mean Treason, Bribery, or illegal actions. As I have written in my article, Impeachable Offenses, there are  good reasons to narrowly construe this clause, as Stanford law school professor Pamela Karlan has written about the impeachment clauses:

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts.”

As Secretary Mayorkas was not charged with Treason, Bribery, or illegal actions, but only the failure to faithfully execute the laws on immigration, his was not an impeachable offense under a narrowly construed interpretation of this clause.

The President of the United States has a duty, under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and the Oath of Office of Executive Officers requires them to discharge the duties of the office for which they enter, which includes faithfully executing the laws:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

However, Secretary Mayorkas has violated his Oath of Office by not enforcing immigration laws, and thus, he has not faithfully discharged the duties of his office. Many claim that he has the power to do so, usually under the guise of Prosecutorial Discretion or establishing regulations that make a mockery of Illegal Immigration laws. In doing so, he has challenged the authority of Congress to establish the laws of the United States by evading the immigration laws established by Congress. His utilization of Prosecutorial Discretion to not enforce the law has been beyond the pale, as I have written in my Chirp on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion".

This utilization of regulations to evade the law and Prosecutorial Discretion to not enforce the law has been on the rise in America in the 21st century, especially in the administrations of President Obama and President Biden. Thus, the question of how to bring the Executive branch into compliance with the laws passed by Congress is of paramount concern for the balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. In the case of illegal immigration it has also pitted State and Local governments against the Federal government, as the economic and criminal impacts of illegal immigration have placed a burden on them and the people within their jurisdiction.

In a larger sense, however, it is a question of what type of governance the American people will tolerate. Will we have a powerful Executive branch that can override the will of Congress or an Executive Branch that will faithfully execute the laws that Congress has passed? Consequently, it is a question of whether we will be true to our "American Ideals and Ideas" or whether we will reshape America into a more authoritative form of governance directed by the Presidency.

The answer to this question is how we respond to Executive Officers who do not faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. If they are allowed to continually flaunt the laws passed by Congress without consequences, then we will continue and expand an authoritative form of governance directed by the Presidency. Congress and the judiciary must find a way to impose consequences for those executive officers who flout the law. If we wait until the next Presidential election to correct this situation than much harm can be done to America (as can be seen from the negative impacts of this flaunting on America by the Biden Administration), and it will encourage future Executive Officers to flaunt the law as they see fit.

It should be remembered by all that if you don’t like a law, you should change the law, not evade nor enforce the law. To do otherwise is to make the law capricious and arbitrary, as well as to increase lawlessness and chaos in America to the detriment of all Americans.

Update – The House of Representatives passed the Impeachment Articles against Secretary Mayorkas this afternoon. However, indications are that the Senate may not even bring the Impeachment to a trial or vote, as most Senators do not believe Secretary Mayorkas has committed an impeachable offense. Therefore, the questions raised in this Chirp are still applicable, and the answers are unresolved.

02/12/24 The Supreme Law of the Land

In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but by the “spirit of Aloha.”  While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices of the United States Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.

When the people of Hawaii agreed to join the United States, they agreed with Article. VI. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Consequently, anything in Hawaii’s history, traditions, or laws that conflicted with the Constitution was null and void when they joined the United States. Thus, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is null and void as it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States as determined by previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

This is but another example of State courts trying to circumvent the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions on constitutionality when they disapprove of the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. This must stop, and any Legislative, Executive, or Judicial official who attempts this is not upholding their oath of office. Flagrant disregard of the Constitution should be met with removal from office by any Legislative, Executive, or Judicial official who engages in flaunting the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. To not do so is to allow for chaos to reign supreme and for the eventual dissolution of the rule of law in America.

02/11/24 Social Justice Fallacies

In an instant New York Times bestseller, the new book Social Justice Fallacies by renowned economist Thomas Sowell demolishes the myths that underpin the social justice movement. In the first four chapters, he examines the common fallacies, in both their history and economics, that social "Activists and Activism" labor under. He then concludes the book by examining the words and deeds of social justice and the dangers of implementing their policies based on their fallacies.

In reading this book and then thinking about this Chirp, I realized that a brief synopsis of these chapters would be inappropriate, as each chapter is a brief synopsis of the fallacy it describes. Indeed, the book is only 130 pages of narrative, with another 71 pages of notes and a comprehensive index. Instead, I will simply provide the chapter titles and subtitles in this book:

1. “Equal Chances” Fallacies
   • Reciprocal Inequalities
   • Origins of Inequalities
     • Inequalities Among Individuals
     • Inequalities Among Groups
     • Environment and Human Capital
     • Episodic Factors

2. Racial Fallacies
   • Assertions Versus Evidence
   • Genetic Determinism
     • Early Progressivism
     • Later Progressivism

3. Chess Pieces Fallacies
   • Redistribution of Wealth
     • History
     • Tax Rates versus Tax Revenues
     • The Inflation “Tax”
   • Chess Pees and Price Controls
     • Reaction to Price Controls
     • Minimum Wage Laws
   • Chess Pieces and Income Statistics
     • Trends Over Time
     • Different Numbers of People
     • “Stagnating” Income Growth
     • Turnover in Income Brackets
     • The “Rich” and The “Poor”
     • Implications for “Social Justice”

4. Knowledge Fallacies
   • Conflicting Visions of Knowledge
     • Consequential Knowledge
     • Opposite Visions
   • Facts and Myths
     • Employment Issues
     • Payday Loans
     • Housing Decisions
     • Children
   • Patterns and Consequences
   • Implications
5. Words, Deeds, and Dangers
   • Visions and Vocabularies
     • Merit
     • Racism
     • Affirmative Action
   • Implications

I would encourage all to read this book, as it provides illumination on the Social Justice Fallacies predominant in today’s America. For those who would disagree with his analysis, I would remind them of the importance of reading the words of those with whom you disagree, as expressed by the great English philosopher, political economist, politician, and civil servant John Stuart Mill:

“He who only knows his own side of the case, knows little of that. . . Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do there very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. . .”
 - John Stuart Mill

02/10/24 What Do You Expect of a Politician?

Most people have unreasonable expectations of politicians. They either expect that they will deliver the goods or that they provide leadership based on knowledge and wisdom of the issues and concerns. However, it is not possible for them to deliver the goods as they are constrained by what is allowable by the United States Constitution and their State Constitutions. They are also not very knowledgeable or wise on most of the issues and concerns, as no one person can be very knowledgeable or wise on all the issues and concerns.

Their motivations for entering into politics are also varied. Some see it as a career path to effect change for the betterment of society; some see it as a service to their country after they have achieved some success outside of government. All politicians are concerned about their reelection and often temper their decisions based on reelection criteria. Some politicians will tell you what you want to hear, while occasionally, some politicians will tell you what you need to hear. In this, they are like all persons who wish to obtain, retain, and advance in their employment, trade, or profession.

So, what should we expect of a politician? My personal opinion is that the most important expectation we should have of a politician is that they have virtue and character, as I have examined in my Chirps on "11/22/23 Virtue and Character" and "10/09/22 Financial Virtue in Public Office". When judging the virtue and character of a politician, it is important to remember that:

"It is much more difficult to be virtuous than it is to virtue signal."
 - Unknown

And:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said 'Well done is better than well said.'".
  - Mark Dawson

I also expect that a politician should be willing to change their opinion based on new or additional information that they may encounter and to explain to their constituents their reasoning for their change of opinion. For, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

These are high expectations that are difficult for a politician to achieve, but I expect politicians to strive for this achievement. Those politicians who do not strive for this are unworthy to be leaders of a Liberty and Freedom-loving people. Indeed, it seems that politicians who do not have virtue or character wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have examined in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

I, therefore, expect that politicians should be virtuous and act with character, work within the bounds of the Federal and State Constitutions, and be leaders rather than rulers, as I have examined in my article on “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”.

02/09/24 A State of Chaos

Any society in chaos is a society on the decline, and it will eventually slide into a form of a repressive government. When people feel that they are in danger from enemies both foreign and domestic, when crime has risen and remains unchecked, when the economy is deteriorating and not beneficial to the common person, when governmental intervention into the lives of the populace restricts their Liberties and Freedoms, the flowering of chaos leads to an overthrow of the government, often to be replaced by a repressive government.

This is because people will not live long in a state of fear, danger, and uncertainty that chaos engenders. They will demand that order and stability be restored, whatever the costs and the cost is often a repressive government. Many times throughout history, this chaos has led to rulership by a strong man and a repression of the populace of the society. This repression has often had a right-wing flavor, but the 20th century has proven that this repression can have a left-wing flavor.

When we observe the modern state of America, we can see the seeds of chaos. A chaos that seems to be deliberate with the intention of replacing our "American Ideals and Ideas" with those of "Socialism" ideals and ideas, as they believe that "Socialism is Acceptable". Alas, these seeds of chaos are being planted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in America.

The nonsense of "Activists and Activism", "Adjective Justice", "Big Bad Science", "Bureaucratic Swamp", "Cancel Culture", "Conspiracy Theory", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Greater Good versus the Common Good", "Hate Speech", "Herd Mentality", "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Lawfare", "LGBTQIA+", "Modern Feminism", "Political Correctness (PC)", "Racist", "Social Engineering", "Social Media", "Virtue Signaling", "White Privilege", "Wokeness", being spouted and implemented in America are the seeds of chaos.

Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, the American people are being bamboozled into believing that these seeds of chaos are in their best interest and the best interest of America. Do not be fooled—as the flowering of chaos always results in a repressive government.

The chaos that is being sown is an attempt to fundamentally transform America into a society that is under the control of a Progressive/Leftist ideology. A control that is based on rulership rather than leadership, as I have examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Such control and rulership can only be implemented by despotism, which will soon morph into Forms of Governance that are not respectful to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the American people.

02/08/24 It’s All About Control and Power

In my Chirp on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature", I discuss how Progressives/Leftists have an Unconstrained vision about humanity that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures. I also discuss how Conservatives have a Constrained vision of humanity that believes that human nature is determined by human evolution and that people will act in their own best interests, while Moderates have a vision of humanity that believes that human nature can be somewhat improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures.

With the Unconstrained vision comes a belief that it is possible to control what a person thinks and believes, as well as their speech and actions, for the purposes of improving society, while Moderates believe that some control is necessary to improve society. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that controlling people is specious and doomed to failure. It is also a fact that to control a person requires power over a person to exercise this control. This power over people is often in the form of despotism that just as often morphs into other "Forms of Governance" that suppresses the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the individuals in a society. For my own part, I have learned from my life experiences that:

"Control over others is illusionary, as the only control that you have is over yourself."
 - Mark Dawson

As such, I have learned that it is important to Be in Control of Yourself, as I have written on my Pearls of Wisdom webpage.

Thus, we have seen in America that Progressives and Leftists are attempting to gain power to institute control over others for the purpose of trying to improve humanity. This has been true for most of the 20th century and has accelerated in the 21st century, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". In doing so, they have staged an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" by attempting to control our thoughts and speech, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". Or, as I have said:

"The law is meant to control a person's actions, not their thoughts or speech. The thoughts and speech of each person are controlled by their own morality, ethics, and religious beliefs."
  - Mark Dawson

In this, they are restricting our Liberties and Freedoms for:

"Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, while Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights."
  - Mark Dawson

Thus, Liberty and Freedom are the antithesis of Control and Power. We should also remember my other quote:

"The hubris of a government that believes they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled."
- Mark Dawson

Finally, it should be remembered that human nature has been molded by six million years of evolution that cannot be changed over decades, as the efforts of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in the 20th century have demonstrated, for:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

02/07/24 The State is the Problem!

Argentina's new President, Javier Milei, surprised diplomats at the World Economic Forum last month by saying, "The state is the problem!"

He spoke up for capitalism, "Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state ... If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution."

He also said, "If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, competition, price systems, trade and ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty."

Perhaps he should be invited to address a joint session of Congress to impart his wisdom upon Congress’s members. I doubt, however, that this will happen, as Democrat members of Congress have no interest in hearing anything except their own predilections. They also seem incapable of understanding basic economics and the role of government in a free society.

02/06/24 A Democracy or a Republic

The question of whether the United States was to be a Democracy or a Republic was debated by the members of the Constitutional Convention. Many of the wisest members of the convention were rightly concerned about the stability of a Democracy, as well as the encroachments on the Liberties and Freedoms of the minority in a Democracy. This can be seen in some quotes from the members of the convention:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 - John Adams

“Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
 - James Madison

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
 - Alexander Hamilton

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
 - John Marshall

In addition, many others have had concerns about Democracy, as a few quotes illustrate:

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
 - John Quincy Adams

“Democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
 - Ambrose Bierce

“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”
 - Oscar Wilde

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
 - Winston Churchill

It is for these reasons that the Constitutional Convention instituted a Republic rather than a Democracy. In our Constitution, the only body that is democratically elected is the House of Representatives, while Senators were appointed by the State legislators until the 17th Amendment and the Presidency was elected by the Electoral College, whose members were democratically elected. Thus, we have a hybrid government that is best described as a Democratic-Republic form of governance, as I have Chirped on "01/12/24 Our Republic".

Therefore, when you hear the cries of “Our Democracy”, you should be wary of what the speaker has to say, as they are ignorant or duplicitous of the nature of democracies and our Founding Fathers' wisdom. To be guided by the cries of the ignorant or duplicitous is foolish and often leads down the slippery slope to despotism or other forms of governance that do not respect the rights of the individual.

02/05/24 The Firm®

U.S. Senator for Utah, Mike Lee (R), fired off a lengthy X (formerly Twitter) post on Thursday, Feb1, 2024, in which he thoroughly blistered both the bill—and Senators Schumer and McConnell. He began by recounting a short conversation with a reporter:

“Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm® plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

Rather, it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell (“The Firm®”), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which The Firm®:

(1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

(2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

(3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm® itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

(4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

Whenever The Firm® engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

By so doing, The Firm® effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans—at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand—and that’s tragic.

It’s also unAmerican, uncivil, uncollegial, and really uncool.

So why does The Firm® do it?

Every time The Firm® utilizes this approach and the bill passes—and it nearly always does—The Firm® becomes more powerful.

The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm® has become very adept at  (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm® with various privileges that The Firm® is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm® is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

It’s through this process that The Firm® passes most major spending legislation.

It’s through this process that The Firm® likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm® has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm® has been willing to share.

But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions, the minimum period of time we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months, not days or hours.

Please share this if you agree.”

As I could not agree more with this statement, I am sharing it with my readers.

02/04/24 This Too Shall Pass

In the history of governments, scholars throughout the ages have debated the rightness and efficacy of the various Forms of Governance. Most of these arguments have proven to be faulty or fallacious. This is not to say that the originators of these arguments were unknowledgeable or unintelligent, but that the experience of history has demonstrated the defects in their arguments. Thus, these theories of government have been consigned to the ash heap of history. So it should be, as experience and better information should be the determinate of the validity of an argument about governance.

Much of this change in the scholarship of governance has arisen because of a better understanding of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of individuals has expanded, as well as the negative economic impacts of bad governance upon the society and the groups and individual members of the society. When history has shown the failure of the different types of governance, then the scholarship on the failed governance should be put aside and relegated to historical analysis.

The history of the 20th century has shown that Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in their various forms (including Nazism and Fascism) have been abject failures in both the Natural, Human, and Civil Rights of the members of society and the negative economic repercussions to their society.

Consequently, we should relegate Marxism, Communism, and Socialism to the ash heap of history and only support historical scholarship of their failures. To do otherwise is to mislead people into believing that these forms of governance can be improved and made workable. A misleading which can have terrible consequences if some form of these governances is instituted in the future. We would all do well to remember that any government that does not recognize the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of its populace is doomed to failure, with terrible consequences for the people and their society.

02/03/24 The Lost Cause

In the aftermath of the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, there arose a mythology of “States Rights” and the “Lost Cause” and of the nobility, honor, dignity, bravery, and selflessness of the Confederate leaders, both military and civilian. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery. This mythology grew to such proportions that even reputable historians affirmed and propagated the mythology. At the same time these Southern sympathies were being disseminated, they were also disparaging, denigrating, and demonizing the Union Leaders. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and others were derided, and the cause of Union and Emancipation was taken to task by falsehoods and deceptions. This tide crested in the middle of the 20th century, but vestiges still remain, especially in public perceptions.

First enunciated in 1866, The Lost Cause has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religious attitudes in the Southern United States to the present day. The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos.

In the twenty-first century, many of the supporters of Communism and Socialism have claimed that their failures were because they were not implemented properly. There is no acknowledgment that Communism and Socialism may be contrary to human nature, governmentally unworkable, and not economically feasible. Thus, they are simply wrong, and as I have often said, “It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.”

However, Communism and Socialism supporters continue to make excuses, much like the supporters of the Lost Cause continue to make excuses. It is well past time that Communism and Socialism be historically dismantled and consigned to the dustbin of history. Such consignment would relegate them to the historical departments of academia, and be taught as contrary to Natural Rights, uneconomical, unworkable, and failed systems in the political, economic, and sociological departments of Colleges and Universities. To do otherwise is to ignore the facts and deprivations of Communism and Socialism, which is unworthy of any scholarship.

02/02/24 What Was the Civil War About?

Many modern historians in the last half century or so frame the Civil War in terms of race and racism, as well as the preservation of white privilege and white superiority. Despite a lack of documentary evidence for this framing, and because of the insertion of personal opinion by these historians, many Americans do not have a grasp of the true meaning and significance of the Civil War.

Most people would say that it was about slavery. However, the more complicated truth is that the Civil War was, at its root, a dispute about whether states could secede from the Union. The proximal issue was, of course, slavery, but in the 70 years prior to the firing on Fort Sumter, other issues had driven citizens to talk of secession or rebellion, including taxation during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791; the War of 1812, during which the Hartford Convention of New England states made it plain that they believed secession was legitimate, and trade and tariffs during the nullification crisis in 1832. In 1860, the riveting issue was slavery, but the underlying conflict was about secession.

At the beginning of the Civil War, President Lincoln and others sought to downplay the issue of slavery, as they knew it would fracture the Union cause and potentially lead to defeat. It was only in the middle of the Civil War after most in the Union fold realized that it was not possible to have a Union half free and half slave, that the issue of the abolition of slavery rose in prominence. By the end of the Civil War, the issues of the Union and the abolition of slavery were on equal footing (especially after the Union soldiers observed firsthand the deprivations of slavery and the humanity of the slaves).

Consequently, the result of the Civil War was that succession was not Constitutional, and the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. Thus, it is proper to say the Civil War was about the unconstitutionality of succession and the elimination of slavery.

02/01/24 Understanding Civil War Motivations

As I have mentioned in several of my Chirps and Articles, when you make judgments on historical events, you must understand the times in which they occurred. An understanding of what the people were thinking helps you understand their words and deeds. However, understanding their thinking is difficult to accomplish even for historians. Prior to the 19th century, historians had little documentary evidence of what the common people thought of the war.

With the rise of a free press that could praise or criticize the events of the war, and the extensive letter writing between those that fought the war and the those that remained on the home front, The American Civil War was a sea change in the volume of the historical information about what the people thought about the war. This month’s Book It selections examine the Civil War from the perspective of the people who fought the war and those that stayed behind at home. These books provide a good understanding of what the people of the Civil War thought they were fighting for.

01/31/24 Rabble-Rousers

Today's rabble-rousers demonstrate and demand (usually at the top of their voices and often with mob actions) for "Change and/or New" laws and/or policies in government actions. They have no interest in a proper "Dialog and Debate" to determine the impacts of the change/new, and they especially do not want the opposition to have any voice in the change and/or new.

In this, they remind me of those people who rabble roused for the sparing of the life of Barabbas rather than the life of Jesus. Barabbas was a criminal who may have been a rebel against Rome, a robber, or a murderer who was set free by the rabble-rousing mob. Jesus was a preacher of love, kindness, forgiveness, and charity for all, whose followers were not rabble-rousers but devotees of living the life that Jesus preached.

It is an unfortunate fact that the rabble-rousers are those who get almost all the attention. At the same time, those who live a life of peace, as defined by the Philosopher Baruch Spinoza as, “Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.”, receive little attention. The rabble-rousers are attempting to stampede society into the actions they desire rather than convince the American people of the desirability and effectiveness of their demands. In this, they are not trusting the good sense of the American people to choose the proper course for America. As such, they believe in a command-control form of government, where they command and control the people.

Their argument that they only want a democracy of the people to institute change and/or new is specious, as it is a democracy of mob rule that does not recognize the Natural Rights of the minority. Often, their demands are not approved of by most of the American people. In addition, a two-tiered justice system has been implemented in America in which the Barabbas of our society face little justice for their destructive actions. At the same time, the peace lovers are threatened by legal actions for exercising their First and Second Amendments Rights, as I have Chirp on "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System".

Consequently, we are setting free the Barabbas of our society to wreak their havoc while the peace-loving people are being condemned to suffer the consequences of their havoc.

01/30/24 Standing Up to Bullies

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, College and Universities students, professors, and administrators, LGBTQIA+, Antifa, BLM, and a host of other Activists and Activism all operate with the strategy of intimidation and bullying. Using the tactics of "Adjective Justice", "Cancel Culture", "Conspiracy Theory", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Greater Good versus the Common Good", "Hate Speech", "Herd Mentality", "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Lawfare", "LGBTQIA+", "Political Correctness (PC)", "Racist", "Virtue Signaling", "White Privilege", and "Wokeness", they attempt to bully their opponents into silence. There is a constant barrage of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" in their encounters with their opponents.

They have also utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their policies. Thus, they have become the thought and speech police with the support of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". In this, they are attempting to silence any opposition to their policies and political goals. They are also attempting to inflict reputational and financial harm, as well as the possibility of civil torts or criminal prosecutions, for any that would speak out against them.

In this, they are violating the Constitutional rights of their opponents, most especially their First and Second Amendment rights. They will ignore or discard the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" to achieve their goals.

As with all bullies, it is necessary to stand up and confront the bullies to stop the bullying. This is most difficult in today’s society, as the forces of bullying seem overwhelming. But as it was prior to and during the American Revolutionary War, overwhelming bullies can be successfully opposed. The preservation of our "American Ideals and Ideas" is worth the efforts and costs of standing up to bullies; otherwise, as Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” and succumb to despotism.

01/29/24 Swatting

In our Age of Rage against political opponents, a new tactic to express a person’s rage is “Swatting”. Swatting is the act of making a false report to emergency services to prompt a response at a particular address. The goal is to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to show up at a person’s home with whom they disagree and disrupt their lives.

Initially, this occurred against Conservatives and Republicans, but it is starting to occur against Progressives and Democrats. No matter who it occurs against, it is wrong and needs to stop. It is an attempt to intimidate the opposition into constricting their freedom of speech in that if they speak up, they run the risk of having their homes swatted, which endangers not only them but their families and their properties. As such, it is a form of terrorism and should be dealt with as if it were a terroristic act. Therefore, it should be made illegal and prosecuted as a terrorist act. Those who are convicted of swatting should receive long prison sentences and large fines because of these terrorist swatting acts.

If this continues, we will eventually see harm to personal property, injuries to the unsuspecting victims of swatting, the possible deaths of swatting victims, and perhaps harm to the response team members. It is also a violation of the Constitutional rights of those swatted, most especially their First Amendment rights.

01/28/24 Go Woke, Go Broke

Adam Smith, born 300 years ago on 16 June 1723, was a Scottish economist and philosopher who was a pioneer in the thinking of political economy and a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. Seen by some as "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism", he wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work that treats economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline. In The Wealth of Nations, he offers one of the world's first connected accounts of what builds nations' wealth and has become a fundamental work in classical economics. Reflecting upon economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Smith addresses topics such as the division of labor, productivity, and free markets. Smith refuses to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will and instead appeals to natural, political, social, economic, legal, environmental, and technological factors and the interactions between them.

While the academics of economics have significantly advanced in the intervening centuries, many of the core principles that Adam Smith elucidated still hold true. One of these principles is how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. This principle can shape economies and challenge whole governments. It is this principle that determines the success or failure of a business, as a business must produce something that a consumer wants or needs at a price that the consumer can afford, or it will go out of business. Thus, it is in their own interest to tailor their business to the consumer to ensure that sufficient profits are created for their own needs to be met. As Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “Happy Birthday, Adam: The Invisible Hand Just Slapped Disney”, he points out that alienating your consumers is not in your own interest. To do so will have negative repercussions on your business—even to the point of the failure of your business. To foist something upon your customers that they do not want or to demean or insult your customers is to risk the failure of your business. Yet, many businesses in today’s America seem intent on doing so in their attempts to institute Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, and Wokeness within their business. In doing so, they are alienating their consumers who do not believe in these principles, and these consumers make up a significant percentage (if not the majority) of Americans. Some of their words and deeds have become so offensive that those Americans who are so offended are taking their business elsewhere and significantly impacting the profitability of the businesses that engage in these words and deeds.

We also have the example of Sports Illustrated, in which they went woke in their annual swimsuit issue by featuring plus-sized models and a transgendered (male to female) model. Their sports coverage had also been veering from sports coverage to sports social activism coverage. As a result, they lost their subscribers and newsstand sales in the process and have laid off all their employees. Other companies (Bud Light, Target, Gillette, etc.) have also become woke in their marketing and social activism and have seen a decline in their sales.

Thus, the phrase “Go Woke, Go Broke” has arisen in America. This phrase, however, is just a restatement of Adam Smith’s principle of the “invisible hand” in the marketplace. Consequently, it would behoove business leaders to reacquaint themselves with Adam Smith’s principles and operate their businesses with these principles in mind.

01/27/24 Oligopoly

An Oligopoly is an economic system in which the control over the supply of a commodity in the marketplace is in the hands of a small number of producers, and each one can influence prices and affect competitors. In the latter part of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we have seen the rise of Oligopolies in America, as companies merge or are purchased by other companies. In financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, Mainstream Media, Social Media, Internet Access providers, Cell Phone service providers, transportation services, consumer electronics, and consumer goods purchases, a few companies dominate their marketplace. While they have competitors, their competition outside of the oligopolistic marketplace is not significant. It is also very difficult for an outside company to break into this Oligopoly.

While an Oligopoly may provide visible benefits to consumers (in terms of lowering prices and wider availability of products and services), the negative repercussions are not as visible. Often, these Oligopolies can freeze out smaller competitors and set prices unresponsive to the Free Market, where prices are determined by competition between businesses. In the past, America has been concerned about monopolistic companies, and as these Oligopolies are not monopolies, they are not subject to monopolistic regulation. Consequently, it may be necessary to create laws to regulate Oligopolies to ensure that they do not abuse their oligopolistic powers. The difficulty is in determining what constitutes an oligopoly, what is an abuse of power within an oligopoly, and what the proper laws and regulations are for an oligopoly.

The most pernicious abuse of an Oligopoly is their involvement in politics and social policy. All large businesses become involved in politics regarding the laws and regulations that impact their business operations. However, many of these Oligopolies have become heavily involved in areas outside of the laws and regulations of their business operations, in that they are supporting social activism and politicians that have their social activism propensities. Many of these Oligopolies have Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders propensities, and many times, they shut out voices that are in opposition to their social activism propensities. Thus, they are violating the spirit of our First Amendment rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, religious freedom, and, occasionally, our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Alas, the almost universal establishment of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" departments in these Oligopolies is also a violation of our rights, as I have Chirped on "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)".

Therefore, we have the additional problem of determining what constraints should apply to Oligopolies in their social activism and political support. My personal opinion is that no company should be involved in politics and social policy, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. As for Oligopolies' involvement in government regulations, I also believe that this is pernicious, as I have examined in my Chirp on "05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship".

Thus, it is time for the American people and Congress to examine Oligopolies and their powers to determine the limits to their powers for the protection of the American people’s rights within an Oligopoly. Otherwise, we will be subsumed by Oligopolies and subject to their propensities.

01/26/24 Intersectionality

Intersectionality in mathematics is the intersection of two or more objects consisting of everything that is contained in all of the objects simultaneously. For example, in Euclidean geometry, when two lines in a plane are not parallel, their intersection is the point at which they meet. More generally, in set theory, the intersection of sets is defined to be the set of elements that belong to all of them. Unlike the Euclidean definition, this does not presume that the objects under consideration lie in a common space (a set with some added structure).

The Set Theory of Intersectionality can be illustrated by the following Venn Diagram:

Venn four ellipse construction of Intersectionality

Complications arise when you apply the Set Theory of Intersectionality to groups of people, especially when it is done for social or political purposes. The following are the various definitions of Intersectionality based on a Progressive and Conservative viewpoint of Intersectionality when applied for social or political purposes:

Intersectionality (Wikipedia) is an analytical framework for understanding how individuals' various social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Intersectionality identifies multiple factors of advantages and disadvantages. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, weight, species, and physical appearance. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empowering and oppressing. However, little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the theory of Intersectionality.

Intersectionality (Conservapedia) is a form of left-wing identity politics and cultural Marxism. Intersectionality, so named because it relies on the intersection between race, class, sex, sexual preference, religion, gender identity, and a myriad of other irrelevant characteristics, is a bigoted ideology used by leftists to make policy. It is constantly pushed by university professors, journalists, and politicians, along with the rest of the establishment. One's level of oppression is determined by the number of oppressed groups they fall into, and/or where that group falls on the oppression hierarchy. Islam is at the top, followed by the LGBT community, then "people of color," then women, Jews, and WASPs.

At the highest level of all people-oriented Intersectionality is the set of “All Human Beings”, while the core of every people-oriented intersectionality diagram is an “Individual Human Being”. This core can only be subdivided by sex—Male and Female (XY DNA or XX DNA Chromosomes), but not gender identity, as that is a higher-level element in the intersection. Thus, a more accurate diagram of people-oriented Intersectionality is as follows:

Therefore, the core of all people Intersectionality is an individual human being, and this individual human being must be considered in dealing with all social or political purposes of Intersectionality. Those who do not acknowledge this highest level or core are not properly intersecting, or they are being duplicitous for social or political purposes. We all should be wary of those who are improperly intersecting or being duplicitous, as they are not trying to ascertain the truths of Intersectionality but are trying to push an agenda upon an unknowledgeable or unsuspicious public.

You must also be concerned about the percentage of Intersectionality within the set of All Human Beings and the percentage of each element in the Intersectionality to ascertain the scale of the Intersectionality. It is also true that each person has a weighted scale of the element's importance in their person, and weighted scales are challenging to incorporate into a Venn diagram. There is also the issue of multiple intersectionality sets within the set of all human beings. The question then becomes how each Intersectionality set intersects with the other Intersectionality sets in the human beings set, and what is the weighted importance of each Intersectionality set in the set of all human beings?

The pernicious impact of Intersectionality is in categorizing a person based on their intersections. An example of this is the Intersectionality of my nationality origins. I am one-quarter English, one-quarter Scottish, one-quarter German, and one-quarter other Eastern European nationality. This has little weight on my person (other than some minor pride or embarrassment of the contributions to humanity from these nationalities), but I am one hundred percent American, in which I take great pride. But above all, I am a human being who has Natural Rights that cannot be circumscribed by any intersectionality preferential treatment or discrimination. That is what we must remember when discussing Intersectionality—that every person is a human being entitled to their Natural Rights before all else and that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
 - The Declaration of Independence

01/25/24 How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration

In a series of articles by Rob Natelson, he examines the Constitutional questions and summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings. For those interested in the Constitutional questions and state powers in resolving the open borders problem we currently face, I would recommend these articles:

• Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I
• Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II
• Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III
• Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV
• Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship

Yesterday, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas sent a letter to President Biden after a Supreme Court decision that gave Border Patrol agents permission to slash state-installed razor wire at the border. Governor Abbott argued in this letter that Texas has a "Constitutional right to self-defense", explaining that the White House had failed to hold up its end of the Constitutional compact that guarantees the federal government will protect its 50 states and territories from external invasions. He noted that by not taking action to quell the influx of illegal immigrants over the past three years, President Biden has failed to meet his constitutional duty and, as such, Texas has the constitutional right to protect itself against invasion. This letter and his actions are certain to generate constitutional issues that will reverberate throughout America. This letter can be viewed here.

01/23/24 The Blade of Perseus - II

Victor Davis Hanson was a website, “The Blade of Perseus”, which I wrote about in my Chirp on "11/09/23 The Blade of Perseus". While this website is a paid subscription of $50 per year to have full access, it is worth every penny to be able to read, listen, and view his insights and wisdom on modern American society.

Some recent articles that he has written have especially intrigued me and are evidence of his knowledge, intelligence, experience, and wisdom. The first article is:

The 10 radical new rules that are changing America:

• Money is a construct.
• Laws are not necessarily binding anymore.
• Racialism is now acceptable.
• The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen.
• Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children.
• Hypocrisy is passe.
• Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it.
• McCarthyism is good.
• Ignorance is preferable to knowledge.
• Wokeness is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity.

He also has a series of articles on his thoughts about the current state of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in America:

• The DEI Ruse Is Imploding. Part One—Diversity
• The DEI Ruse Is Imploding. Part Two—Equity
• The DEI Ruse Is Imploding. Part Three—From Equity to Inclusion
• The DEI Ruse Is Imploding. Part Four—Epitaph

I would also recommend his thoughts about The Hysterical Style in American Politics and how Biden ‘Saves’ Democracy by Destroying it, as in the 21st century, we have seen Progressives and Democrat Party leaders engage in a left-wing, hysterical style of inventing scandals and manipulating perceived tensions, as well as engaging in "Lawfare", for the purposes of political advantage.

I would highly recommend that my readers review these articles, regularly read his other thoughts on America, and support Professor Hanson by subscribing to his website.

01/22/24 Does Political Moderation Work?

Many who are not politically attuned or unaware of the repercussions of government policies on "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" often claim to be "Moderates or Centrists". This can be an emotionally satisfying response, but it often has negative repercussions that impact our "American Ideals and Ideas". In addition, Moderation or Centrism rarely solves the problems in America and often introduces additional problems. Moderation or Centrism has also been a driving force for the growth of government and increased government spending and taxes, as a little bit here and there without corresponding cutbacks equates to growth in government, spending, and taxes. Moderation or Centrism also elects politicians who do not wish to make difficult choices for fear of losing electoral support in making a difficult decision, as these politicians often wish to be all things to most voters.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to list the great moderates of history, as Moderation or Centrism tends not to promote greatness but graduations of improvements in the lot of humankind. However, Moderation or Centrism can also result in a decline in the lot of humankind when it detracts from their Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. In addition, Moderates or Centrists often believe that the changes they support will have minimal impacts on themselves or society. This belief betrays a lack of knowledge of basic economics and "The Law of Unintended Consequences", as a change in government will have both positive and negative impacts.

Consequently, Moderation or Centrism is not a long-term solution to the problems that beset America. Difficult decisions need to be made as to the future direction of America in the role of government and the scope of spending and taxes. Postponing these difficult decisions by engaging in Moderation or Centrism only postpones the inevitable reckoning of not making difficult decisions. It also shifts the burden of not making these difficult decisions to our children and grandchildren, which is a moral failing on our part.

01/21/24 Socialism and Capitalism Disputations

In a series of short eBooks from the Hoover Institute, they examine the disputations between Socialism and Capitalism. Each one of these eBooks is less than a dozen pages long (except for the first one, which is twice as long as the others), and each page is well worth the read. These eBooks are:

• The History of Socialism and Capitalism
• Capitalism, Socialism, and Freedom
• Socialism And The Constitution
• Political Freedom and Human Prosperity

My new article, “Socialism and Capitalism Disputations”, is a short synopsis of the main differences between Socialism and Capitalism that these eBooks discuss. I also have a new article, “Economists You Should Know—Foundations for the Conversation On Socialism And Capitalism”.

I conclude my article on Socialism and Capitalism Disputations by warning that in utilizing democratic means to reform our American society, we must always be careful to ensure the importance of individual rights and protect the life, liberty, and property of each person. We must always carefully evaluate any socialistic proposal as to its impacts on our Liberties and Freedoms, as well as its impacts on our economy. Otherwise, we run the risk of severely impacting our society to the detriment of all Americans.

Therefore, I would highly recommend that you read these four eBooks from the Hoover Institution to properly understand the meaning of Socialism and Capitalism and to discuss the implications of Socialism intelligently.

01/20/24 Tear Down This Wall!

The  Berlin Wall Speech, which was delivered by United States President Ronald Reagan in West Berlin on June 12, 1987, is commonly known by a key line from the middle part: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The full paragraph from this speech was:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
 - Ronald Reagan

The speech drew controversy within the Reagan administration, with several senior staffers and aides advising against the phrase, saying anything that might cause further East-West tensions or potential embarrassment to Gorbachev, with whom President Reagan had built a good relationship, should be omitted. American officials in West Germany and presidential speechwriters, including Peter Robinson, thought otherwise. According to an account by Robinson, he traveled to West Germany to inspect potential speech venues and gained an overall sense that the majority of West Berliners opposed the wall. Despite getting little support for suggesting Reagan demand the removal of the wall, Robinson kept the phrase in the speech text. On Monday, May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential", and Deputy U.S. National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in."

And leave it in, he did, to the great effect of the people of Berlin and East and West Germany. An effect that spread across the world, as it signified the final collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and eventually the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan was a great communicator in that he said what he thought and believed, rather unlike other politicians who say what they think you want to hear and couch their statements in vapid language to disguise their true intentions. On many other issues that faced America during his Presidency, Ronald Reagan often utilized the same approach of saying what he thought and believed.

Today, we face a slate of politicians who will not say what they mean and often lie about their intentions. They often use polls and focus groups, as well as political consultants, to determine what they will say. As such, there is “no truth to power” in what they express, and, indeed, their statements are often “go along to get along”. Alas, they also often engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those with whom they disagree, in which they pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans. Consequently, the bitter hyper-partisanship we have in America continues and deepens.

Today, most politicians wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". However, there is one politician who is not engaged in these political rhetorical games but is instead saying what he thinks and believes. This politician is Vivek Ramaswamy, who was an entrepreneur before he began his 2024 Presidential Campaign. You may not agree with what he says, but you can clearly understand what he means. While I do not believe that Vivek Ramaswamy is yet qualified to be President of the United States, I do believe that he shows promise to eventually rise to the top in political leadership. He may also be the best person to be Vice-President, as a person who would clearly articulate the core issues in America and illuminate the choices of the future path of America, as Ronald Reagan did when he counseled General Secretary Gorbachev to tear down this wall.

01/19/24 Show-and-Tell

Show-and-Tell is a game that children engage in, but it is also an electioneering game that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders engage in. It is a Democrat Party game of style in their electioneering rather than of substance of their policies. The problems that beset America are problems of substance, but the Democrats do not address the substance but instead concentrate on a façade of lofty words to disguise the harmful deeds of their policies. This, along with their tactics of fearmongering and demonization, as I have written in my Chirp on "08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization", is the basis of their electioneering.

Thus, the Democrat candidates are often nominated based on their style rather than their substance on the issues. This gives them an appearance of concern for the issues and problems in America, but it does not provide any concrete solutions to these issues and problems. It is as if they are trying to disguise their solutions from a fear that the American electorate may reject their solutions (which is probably a rational fear). After winning an election, the Democrat Party candidate will then attempt to implement policies that do not comport with their lofty rhetoric and are often detrimental to America. Therefore, the Democrat Party candidates are engaged in lofty words while they perpetuate disreputable deeds.

America has seen many botches in the last few years under Democrat Party leadership. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and the reaction to Hamas Terrorism in Israel, and on the National stage, the negative impacts of their economic policies on the economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problems, to gas price increases, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, to the Suppressions of Free Speech and the Weaponization of Government, and to a host of other issues we have seen many botches. All these botches are the result of the policies of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and at the same time, they try to disguise these problems with a façade of words. In this, they are contemptible for not addressing and correcting these problems.

Consequently, they engage in a show-and-tell without substance when electioneering, but their substance when governing has been harmful to America.

01/18/24 Depressive Personality Disorder

Aaron Beck of the Beck Institute is the creator of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and he believes that a depressed person has three basic storylines: 1.) I’m a terrible person, 2.) the world is a terrible place, and 3.) the future is bleak. Having had bouts of depression in my past, I can attest to the truth of these storylines for depressed persons.

Michael Shellenberger is an Environmental activist who writes about politics, the environment, climate change, and nuclear power. He has commented that the advocates of Global Climate Change believe that humankind is destroying the planet, the future is bleak, and the world is failing. Hence, they share the common storyline of a depressed person in that it is a collective rather than an individual depression.

My own perception of Progressives/Leftists activists is that they share this storyline, in that they are always claiming that their opponents are terrible people, that the world is a terrible place to live in and needs to be put right, and that the future will be bleak if their policy prescriptions are not implemented.

Thus, using the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy criteria of a depressed person, we can conclude that Progressives/Leftists suffer from a form of depression. Being a depressed person leads you to make decisions that are not reality-based, and often, these decisions are not to your benefit. As such, we need to be wary of their policy prescriptions as they will often not be to our benefit, and they are not reality-based. Consequently, do not be taken in by their pronouncements and be leery of all their policy prescriptions, as they come from a depressed person’s perspective.

01/17/24 Totalitarian Evil: Crimes, Terror, Repression

In the 1997 book, “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Margolin, and several other European academics, the authors document a history of political repression by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and deaths in labor camps and artificially created famines.

My new article, “Totalitarian Evil: Crimes, Terror, Repression”, is a brief examination of the scope and impacts of these totalitarian evils that have a proven record of failure and that in these failures, they have committed crimes against humanity.

01/16/24 Who Are the “Privileged”

As an addendum to my Chirp on “01/15/24 CRT, DEI, and ESG as Destructive Forces”, I have discovered that John Hopkins recently sent out a list of people automatically guilty of "privilege", whether they know it or not. This message was emailed directly to employees from the DEI Office. Those so labeled as “Privileged” are:

• Males
• Whites
• Christians
• Mid-aged people
• Able-bodied people
• Middle & owning class people
• English-speaking people

When this email became publicly known, they were forced to withdraw this email after a public outcry. However, in sending this email, they disclosed the criteria that they were utilizing for DEI implementation at Johns Hopkins, which I suspect is the criteria for all DEI implementations in America. In doing so, they revealed a discriminatory criterion not based on a person’s knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, abilities, and talents. Thus, they are not meritocracy-based criteria, which is contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas". Indeed, they are a form of "Socialism" that has always proved to be unworkable and is harmful to all the persons who have to live within these criteria.

01/15/24 CRT, DEI, and ESG as Destructive Forces

In the last several years, we have seen three forces arise that are destructive to our Western traditions, as I have written in my Chips of “01/04/24 Western Culture” and “01/05/24 The War on the West”. The three largest forces are "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)".

CRT, DEI, and ESG are forces that involve the deconstruction of Western traditions that threaten the cohesion of society and civilization. CRT, DEI, and ESG are forces of racism, discrimination, and opposition to "Capitalism and Free Markets". CRT views all of society under the prism of race and categorizes a person based on their race, ordering them from the most oppressive to the most oppressed. DEI, while sounding lofty in its goals, requires that you discriminate against some people to favor other people rather than utilize meritocracy to evaluate a person. Much of this DEI discrimination is based on the "Intersectionality" of a person, with little regard to the knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, and abilities of a person. ESG does not reward the success of businesses in providing goods and services at an affordable cost, nor effective and efficient governmental policies, but uses "Progressives/Leftists" social criteria to determine the successes of a business/government.

In this, CRT, DEI, and ESG deconstruct society on an incomplete and artificial criterion. It is also a deconstruction without constructivism, which leads to nothing but the destruction of our society. When they try to reconstruct, their reconstructions are often "Socialism" or utopian based and do not account for human nature or economics. As such:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

When their failures become evident, they often claim that the failure was based on Racism or they were victims of an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society" or "White Privilege". This was most recently seen in the backlash to recent Congressional testimony by the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT on anti-Semitism on their campuses. After the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and Penn, they trotted out the usual excuses for their failure. However, as Konstantin Kisin has said in his article about Claudine Gay, who resigned as the President of Harvard:

“So here is the truth: we must return to pursuing the goal of a colour-blind society immediately. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. All discrimination is wrong. And because it is wrong, it will create precisely the kind of resentment that Claudine Gay is now facing. She is seen as the standard-bearer of the DEI industry and is being treated as such by people who have had enough.

All of us must be treated on the content of our character. When we refuse to follow this principle, we hurt everyone: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish. A healthy society relies on the equal treatment of all individuals. The fact that we have to say this out loud in 2024 is a sign of how far we’ve fallen.”

And fallen we have. CRT, DEI, and ESG are antithetical to our Western traditions and must be actively opposed and ended. Otherwise, Western society will collapse, and all the human progress that Western tradition has achieved will be negated.

01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature

It has been suggested that partisanship in today’s America is a result of a Constrained and Unconstrained vision of human nature, as examined by Thomas Sowell in his book “A Conflict of Visions”.

Progressives/Leftists is an Unconstrained vision that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures, and that appealing to the better nature of a person will accomplish this improvement. They also believe that social problems and issues can be resolved through governmental actions and the world can be made a better place by governmental actions. Thus, they believe in a big government that acts for the greater good, as I have defined as the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", and that the Natural Rights of the individual should be circumscribed to the needs of society.

Conservatives is a Constrained vision that believes that human nature is determined by human evolution and that people will act in their own best interests. They also believe that governmental and societal pressures on human actions have limited effects and that these societal and government pressures should only be utilized to constrain a person to lawful actions that do not impinge on the Natural Rights of a person. They also believe that social problems are inherent in human nature and are uncorrectable through governmental actions. Thus, they believe in a limited government that only acts on the common good, as I have defined as the "Greater Good versus the Common Good," which preserves the natural rights of the individual.

Moderates have a vision of human nature that believes that human nature can be somewhat improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures and that society can be improved by limited governmental actions. As such, they believe that it is possible to pick and choose from policy positions of both Progressives and Conservatives to achieve a better society. Therefore, Moderates want a government that addresses the common good and the major issues and concerns that will improve society and for the government to be as large as necessary to achieve the common good and to address important social policies. The difficulty of moderation is the determination of what the major societal issues and concerns are and how much governmental actions are required to address these problems without significantly impacting the natural rights of a person.

It is this dichotomy of beliefs that has pitted one group of Americans against another group. Thus, we have a conflict of visions that leads to the bitter partisanship that we see today. Progressives want big government to solve the issues and concerns facing Americans, while Conservates want limited government that allows individuals to resolve these issues and concerns, and Moderates want some of both for the benefit of society. Neither of these sides wishes to concede to the other side as they believe that their vision is correct, and to concede to the other side is to abandon their vision of human nature and governance.

01/13/24 Constitutional Supremacy

Today, we have seen many challenges to the supremacy of the Constitution from many politicians of the local, State, and Federal governments. While many such challenges may be justified, some are in direct opposition to Constitutional Supremacy as defined in the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 - U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

Legal challenges, adjudicated by the Judiciary, are proper and necessary when the Federal government oversteps its bounds. However, many of these challenges are in direct contradiction to the supremacy of the Constitution as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government, which also restricts the Federal Government to these powers. The Founding Fathers clearly articulated the limits of the federal government by the passage of the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which 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."

Therefore, no local or state government, nor the three branches of the Federal government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) may violate the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in today’s government, violations of the Constitution abound. Much sophistry is utilized to justify these actions, but sophistry in governance often leads to anarchy. Politicians engaged in these challenges and sophistry are also in violation of their Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. As such, they are deserving of impeachment and removal from office and barred from serving in any office of trust at all levels of government.

Much of this has occurred because politicians have corrupted the Judiciary by appointing judges who will make decisions based on politics rather than the law, who then engage in sophistry to justify their political decisions under the law. Such judges that engage in political decisions and sophistry are also in violation of their Oath of Office to “I, (NAME) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (TITLE) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” As such, they are also deserving of impeachment and removal from office and barred from serving in any office of trust at all levels of government.

However, I do not expect that this impeachment will happen as politicians are very good at protecting their power and privileges. Also, if impeachment is done injudiciously, it could lead to chaos in government. What needs to be done is for the electorate to turn out of office those politicians that violate the Oath of Office and for judges to face more strict scrutiny, before confirmation, on their philosophy in making judicial decisions (and not just on what they say but what they have said and done in the past). Again, I do not expect that this will happen, as the American electorate is not engaged in its electoral decisions by Constitutional concerns, and politicians want judges who will rule based on their predilections.

Consequently, we can expect that this situation will continue to occur, and our Constitution will continue to lose its supremacy.

01/12/24 Our Republic

As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?'
Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of a Democracy and the inherent instability of democracies. They knew that there were significant differences between a Republic and a Democracy in the governance of the people. They knew that democracies, through mob passions, would often trample upon minority rights, which often led to civil strife and civil wars that ended the democracy. They knew that democracies would tax and spend (or not spend) on the basis of popularity rather than necessity, which often led to economic hardships and an economic collapse of the democracy. They knew this from their studies on the histories of Democracies and Republics. They, therefore, were careful to institute a Republic rather than a Democracy for America.

Therefore, when you hear the cries of “Our Democracy”, you should be wary of what the speaker has to say, as they are ignorant or duplicitous of the nature of democracies and our Founding Fathers' wisdom. To be guided by the cries of the ignorant or duplicitous is foolish and often leads down the slippery slope to despotism or other forms of governance that do not respect the rights of the individual.

01/11/24 Equal Justice for All - II

Once again, the Justice Department announced that they would pursue prosecutions against those that were involved in the January 6, 2021 “Insurrection”, as I have written about my collection of "Insurrection". This time, the Justice Department will be charging people who were present at the Capitol building but did not engage in any lawlessness except for simply walking onto restricted areas of the Capitol grounds.

This is in contrast with the lack of prosecutions for the people who engaged in the Summer of Riots in 2020, in which the rioting and looting cost many more lives and much more property destruction and damage, as well as extensive looting then that which occurred at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. This summer of riots mob actions of murders, assaults, arsons, and lootings in many cities was well past the limits of a peaceable assembly to protest injustices in America. They were an insurrection against the legal and lawful authority of the State and local governments and, indeed, were directed at the legal and lawful authority of the Federal government. These rioters no longer wish to correct injustices but to overturn our republican government through mob rule.

It has become apparent that in the Biden Administration if you commit “Insurrections” in support of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders predilections, you will face little consequences, but if you commit “Insurrections” in support of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders predilections, you will face the full weight of the law. This is not limited to “Insurrections” but can also be seen in the threats of prosecutions of anyone who would oppose Democrat policy positions, from School Board meetings to other public policy gatherings in that if you would vigorously protest their predilections you are often threatened with prosecutions. This is in addition to the "Lawfare" that they are engaged in, as I have Chirped on "09/19/23 Lawfare".

Consequently, these actions by the Biden Administration are a direct threat to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". Such actions by the Biden Administration demonstrate that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Thus, it is the Biden Administration that is in Insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.

01/10/24 Equal Justice for All - I

Hunter Biden defied a Congressional subpoena to testify about his and his family’s financial involvement with foreign nationals, which is relevant to the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry as well as other Congressional Committees’ oversight investigations. As a result, the House of Representatives is considering a resolution to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress:

“Resolved, That Robert Hunter Biden shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.

Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, detailing the refusal of Robert Hunter Biden to appear for a deposition before the Committee on Oversight and Accountability as directed by subpoena, to an appropriate United States attorney, to the end that Mr. Biden be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.”

The particulars of his lack of compliance are:

“On December 13, 2023, Robert Hunter Biden failed to comply with deposition subpoenas issued by the Committees on Oversight and Accountability and the Judiciary for testimony relevant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the Committees’ oversight investigations. Instead, Mr. Biden opted to read a short, prepared statement in front of the Capitol. Accordingly, Mr. Biden has violated federal law, and must be held in contempt of Congress. Mr. Biden’s testimony is a critical component of the impeachment inquiry into, among other things, whether Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as Vice President and/or President: (1) took any official action or effected any change in government policy because of money or other things of value provided to himself or his family; (2) abused his office of public trust by providing foreign interests with access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or him; or (3) abused his office of public trust by knowingly participating in a scheme to enrich himself or his family by giving foreign interests the impression that they would receive access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or him.

[...]

The Oversight and Accountability Committee, with the other investigating committees, has accumulated significant evidence suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated in, and profited from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, about which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden during his deposition. Mr. Biden’s decision to defy the Committees’ subpoenas and deliver prepared remarks prevents the Committee from carrying out its Constitutional oversight function and its impeachment inquiry. Mr. Biden’s refusal to comply with the Committees’ subpoenas is a criminal act. It constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution as prescribed by law.”

Whether the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution will carry out their duties and responsibilities and pursue prosecution is another matter. If not, then there will be no equal justice in America, as the Rule of Law will not apply to the Biden family.

01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue

With the cries throughout the world for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas conflict and a pause for humanitarian aid for the Palestine people, we have another example of virtual signaling without virtue. While calls for a cease-fire and peace sound virtuous, it should always be remembered that:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

As there is no disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice with Israel amongst Hamas and the Palestine people, there is no virtue in calling for peace between the two sides. It is equivalent to calling for peace with Germany and Japan before World War II, in which peace would allow the German Nazis and Japanese Imperialists to continue their aggressions and murderous ways.

There have also been many calls for a two-state solution to the current crisis in Israel. However, this is nothing but a fable and virtual signaling. A fable in that you cannot have a two-state solution in which one state is dedicated to the eradication of the other state. It is not only the Hamas and the Palestine leadership that is dedicated to the eradication of Israel, but also a vast majority of the Palestine people also wish to eradicate Israel. Thus, those that call for a two-state solution are only virtue signaling, as the virtue of a two-state solution where one state is dedicated to the eradication of another state is not a virtue, but instead, it is a path to more violence against Israel.

The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is nothing but a phrase for the elimination of Israel, for Israel is totally between the river and the sea. As it is used in the slogan, the word “free” is either an adjective or an adverb. It modifies either a condition or an action. Dictionaries offer us several definitions of “free” when used. If it is used as an adjective, it can refer to a right to self-governance, suggesting an absence of constraints, restrictions, or controls. When used as an adverb, it can mean the removal of an obstruction or of an unwanted feature. As Hamas and the Palestine people have never (along with other mid-East Arab states) been dedicated to self-government and the individual rights of its populace, we can only conclude that the word “free” in this phrase means the removal of Israel.

The call for humanitarian aid to the Palestine people is also virtual signaling, as much of this humanitarian aid is directed into Hamas coffers, which is then utilized for terrorism purposes. Thus, humanitarian aid to the Palestine people is allowing them to continue their attempts to eradicate Israel. The Palestine people must bear the burden of the Hamas terrorists they supported and allowed to operate in their midst, and until Hamas is eliminated and the Palestine people adopt the meaning of free as self-government and the individual rights of its populace, and peaceful coexistence with Israel, humanitarian aid is counterproductive to peace.

For those who claim the situation in the Hamas-Israel conflict is complex, I am reminded of the thoughts of the famed Rabbi Jonathan Saks: 

“The Israeli Hamas conflict is not complex.
It's very simple: One side wants the other side dead.”
 - Rabbi Saks

When one side wants the other side dead, it is not virtuous to support the side that wants the other side dead. Thus, calling for a cease-fire, a two-state solution, and humanitarian aid for the Palestine people is not virtuous and, indeed, it is immoral.

01/08/24 Laws of War

As I have written in my Chirp on "09/01/19 War is Hell!", war is hell but often an unavoidable hell. In the course of the history of warfare, we have developed some rules of war to constrain the war to the combatants of the war. Colleterial damage and innocent casualties will be incurred in a war, but as a result of the concept of Just war theory as a doctrine of war, the colleterial damage and innocent casualties are to be minimized.

The Law of War is the component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello). Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law. Among other issues, modern laws of war address the declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality, and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering. The law of war is considered distinct from other bodies of law—such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict—which may provide additional legal limits to the conduct or justification of war.

These Laws of War are violated by Hamas daily. Such protocols as requiring combatants to wear uniforms, not to blend in with civilians, not to use them as shields, not to murder noncombatants, not to rape them, not to mutilate them, and not to execute civilians without trial have all been violated by Hamas. Consequently, Hamas is waging an unjust and immoral war, and anyone who supports them in any manner is supporting unjust war and immorality. As I have written in several of my Chirps, many of the supporters of Hamas are also exhibiting Anti-Semitism, which is in itself immoral. Thus, the supporters of Hamas are supporting unjust wars and immorality.

It is well past time that a people dedicated to justice and morality stand up to the supporters of Hamas and ostracize them from society. In no case should the supporters of Hamas be allowed in a position of authority or governance, as this institutes injustice and immorality. This ostracization is especially important for those who are involved in government, education, entertainment, sports, and business leaders, as they are influencers of our youth and society. Without ostracization, our society will no longer be a "A Civil Society" dedicated to our "American Ideals and Ideas", and, indeed, we will become corrupt of our values, which will result in our being relegated to the dustbin of history.

01/07/24 Why They Hate Us (in Their Own Words)

During 2014-2016, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) published a monthly magazine called Dabiq. The glossy publication was high in quality and was used to communicate with the world. In issue 15, Dabiq explained, in a short article, why they fight us. While there is no doubt that this is an extremist viewpoint in the Islamic world, it is, unfortunately, a viewpoint shared by millions of Muslims. Until this viewpoint is fully contained or eradicated, we will continue to see Islamic Terrorism throughout the world. While it is probably not possible to contain or eradicate Islamic extremism, a good start would be the removal of radical Imans who preach hate and extremism against non-Muslims. Thus, we must wage war on radical Islam and the Imans who preach for it. Otherwise, Islamic Terrorism shall plague us throughout the 21st century. This article can be read on my website at Why They Hate Us (In Their Own Words).

01/06/24 Higher Education Reforms

In my articles on "Indoctrination versus Education" and “College and University Education”, I lament the current state of higher education in the world. This was fully on display in the recent Congressional testimony by the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT on anti-Semitism on their campuses. Their answers (or lack thereof) displayed the hypocrisy of the leaders of these institutions with checkered records on free expression, suddenly claiming their institutional commitments to free speech prevented them from cracking down on anti-Semitic speech.

Their adherence to "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", also shows a lack of commitment to the ideals and ideas of University and College education that Western culture spawned. Indeed, they seem to be antithetical to anything that is rooted in Western culture and, indeed, seem to be engaged in a war on the West as I have written in my Chirp on “01/05/24 The War on the West”.

Three recent articles about their testimony highlight the problems in modern University and College education:

• “Dissolve the Universities?” By Helen Dale
• “FIRE to Congress, University Presidents: Don’t expand censorship. End it.—No hypocrisy. No double standards.” by Nico Perrino
• “Reverse Speech Codes Aren't the Answer—Fighting Campus Hate and Anti-Semitism at the Roots of the Problem” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

I would suggest that we take to heart the comments in these articles and begin the process of reforming our Universities and Colleges to our Western cultural ideals and ideas on a University and College education. Until this reform is accomplished, our universities and colleges will not achieve their purposes, and they will be unworthy of the esteem that they have or desire.

Note – This attitude and approach to educating our youth is also seeping down to K-12 education and needs to stop forthwith.

01/05/24 The War on the West

In the last several decades, we have seen a war on Western ideals and ideas. Do not be confused by the lofty words and political rhetoric of those engaged in this war, as it is a war to fundamentally transform Western civilization. Those who would wage war on the West have many criticisms of the West (some justifiable), but they are woefully short on practical solutions to these problems. Their solutions are often socialistic or utopian ideal-based and do not account for the dark side of human nature but instead depend on the goodwill of human nature. Such an ideal and dependence is doomed to failure as:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

This War on the West is a war against Republicanism, Judeo-Christian Religion, Capitalism and Free Markets, and the Culture of the West. In the introduction to the book by Douglas Murray, The War on the West, his first paragraph states:

“In recent years it has become clear that there is a war going on: a war on the west. This is not like earlier wars, where armies clash and victors are declared. It is a cultural war, and it is being raged remorselessly against all the roots of Western tradition and against everything good that the Western tradition has produced.”

And the Western tradition has produced much good, such as:

• The right to life, and the individual worth and dignity of all people.
• The preservation of the Natural Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties of all persons.
• The right to property and the pursuit of happiness.
• The right to equality of opportunity in the utilization of your intellect, talents, skills, and abilities.
• The right to be treated equally under the law.
• The right to think, speak, and publish whatever you wish.
• The right to peaceably associate with whomever you wish.
• The right to criticize and critique any person, organization, or government without fear of repression or despotism.
• The right to practice your religion or non-religion without fear or intimidation.
• The right to defend yourself, your family, and your community by any means necessary against anyone, organization, or government who would deprive you of your natural rights, freedoms, and liberties.

It can be reasonably said that whoever would violate any one of these rights violates all these rights, as these individual rights cannot exist without all of them existing. It is also true that:

“Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, and Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights.”
 - Mark Dawson

Thus, anyone who would curtail or abrogate any of these Western traditions is engaged in a War on the West. Much of this War on the West is a war on the white race, as they assert that white people are inherently racist and oppressive to non-whites. While some of this is historically true, the twentieth century saw much of this crumble. It is also historically true that other races were also racist and oppressive to those not of their race. Thus, this historical guilt of racism and oppression is a shared guilt of all humans and all cultures and societies. Consequently, historical guilt is not that important, except for the purposes of learning from and not repeating the ill lessons of history. What is important is how we conduct ourselves in the present and future.

Much of this War on the West is being conducted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as a means to obtain and retain power to implement their political goals and policy agendas. It is also being conducted by many white people to assuage their white guilt from the sins of their forefathers. But such assuaging is also a rejection of the Western tradition, in that in the Western tradition, the sins of the father are not to be invested upon the son. Each person should be judged by their own words and deeds and not be burdened by the guilt of their family members or by their association with others.

It is a War upon the West that must be lost by those who would wage it, and the defeated must be vanquished to ensure that it shall not fester and thrive again. Without doing so, we shall see the crumbling of Western civilization into despotism and anarchy and the repression and oppression of the individual rights of all persons throughout the world.

Note – for more on these Western traditions, I would direct you to my articles on "A Civil Society", "American Ideals and Ideas", "Aspects of Freedom", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and “How Christianity Transformed the World”.

01/04/24 Western Culture

All cultures are not equal, and all cultures have contributed to the advancement of humankind. However, one culture has contributed more, indeed much more, than other cultures to the advancement of humankind. This is the Western culture, and primarily, it has been accomplished by dead white men.

From the ancient Greeks to modern Americans, the Western culture has been primarily responsible for the advances of humankind in all spheres of Human interactions. From politics, economics, science and technology, medicine, the fine arts and music, literature, and many other spheres, Western culture has contributed much more than other cultures to the advancement of humankind. This is not said to denigrate any other culture, as other cultures have contributed to the advancement of humankind, but to explain that Western culture has done far more than any other culture to improve the lot of humans.

In weighing the benefits and harms of Western culture, it can be determined that Western culture has contributed much more positivity than negativity to the advancement of humankind. Those who try to denigrate Western culture because of the negativities often do not recognize the great positivity of Western culture. When evaluating any culture, it is necessary to look at both the good and the bad and to weigh the good and bad to determine the impact of a culture on humankind. We should also learn from the mistakes of every culture and try not to repeat the errors of the past, but we should also try to build upon the good of every culture for the advancement of humankind.

Much of Western culture has been the result of the adoption of the Christian religion by Western culture, as I have examined in my article “How Christianity Transformed the World”. Western culture has also incorporated the best of other cultures to try to improve itself. Thus, Western culture has not been exclusive of other cultures but indeed has built itself upon other cultures. Therefore, cultural appropriation of the good of other cultures has been to the benefit of Western culture, while the rejection of the bad of other cultures is also good for Western culture.

Those who would wage war on the West have many criticisms of the West. Some are justifiable, but they are woefully short on practical solutions to these problems. Their solutions are often "Socialism" or utopian based, and a rejection of "Capitalism and Free Markets", which do not account for human nature. Consequently, as I have often said:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

Many of socialism's advocates claim that socialism has never been implemented in the right manner, to which I have responded that “It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.” Thus, their solutions to the problems of Western culture will not improve Western culture and may lead to the destruction of Western culture. Such destruction will lead to the decay or reversal of the advancement of humankind, for which Western culture has been largely responsible.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others, I would say that Western culture was the worst culture in history, except for all the others. As such, to those that denigrate Western culture, I would respond, “What a load of crap!”

01/03/24 Knowledge of History

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

Those who do not know history are prone to making judgments about current events that have little basis in the facts and truths of history. Yet knowledge of history is necessary to make informed judgments about current events to determine the proper course for today and the future.

As Douglas Murray has written in his book, The War on the West:

“First, it runs on the presumption that knowledge of Western history inside the West is uniquely lacking; Westerners have become increasingly unaware of what is true and what is not about their own past. Second, it runs on the presumption—again also true—that almost nobody in the West has any knowledge of what countries such as China have done throughout history or are doing today.”

As well as:

“The only thing that modern Western populations are more ignorant about than their own history is the history of other peoples outside the West. Yet such knowledge is surely a prerequisite to be able to arrive at any moral judgments.”

In getting to know history, it is important to separate the myths from the facts. Myths of history abound today, as they are useful to sway public opinion to achieve a political goal. Facts and truths about history often contradict the myths and lead you to a different conclusion about historical events. Therefore, the problem is not only a lack of knowledge about history but also an abundance of incorrect knowledge of history. Or, as Mark Twain has said:

“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.”
 - Mark Twain

Some of these myths and facts of history I have examined in my section on “History” within this website.

Some have claimed that the advances of modern science and technology have changed the application of historical lessons to our modern society. But as the esteemed Professor J. Rufus Fears has stated in The Great Courses on “The World Was Never the Same: Events That Changed History”:

“There are those who believe that Science and Technology have negated the importance of history, that through Science and Technology, humans had moved to a new dimension where the lessons have of history have no meaning. This course shows how false that view is. human nature does not change. Men and women still have the same intellect and the same passions they did in the Babylonia of Hammurabi and the Florence of Dante. As long as human nature remains the same, history will be our best guide to life. The aim of this course is to make us think historically: to use the lessons of the pass to make decisions in the present and to plan for the future.”

For as long as human nature remains the same, the lessons from history are still applicable. To those who wish to transform human nature for the better, I would say that millions of years of human evolution cannot be redone in a few decades, and whenever it has been tried (i.e., Communism and Socialism), it has failed and brought much suffering and misery on the people who it was imposed upon.

Thus, it is important to know and understand history to ferret out the myths from the truths of history, to make better decisions in the present, and to plan properly for the future.

01/02/24 A Core Issue Person

This month’s Book It selections are three thought-provoking books by Douglas Murray, a British author and political commentator. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy has said of Murray, "Whether one agrees with him or not," he is "one of the most important public intellectuals today." While often controversial in his writings, he is always intellectual and thought-provoking. He often goes beyond the talking points of his critics and examines the core issues of what is bedeviling our society. As I am myself a core issue person, I have commented in my Chirps and Articles on the core issues he illuminates. Therefore, having recently read three of his books and found them to be enjoyable and thought-provoking read, I have decided to make them this month’s Book It selections.

01/01/24 How Christianity Transformed the World

As we have finished celebrating Christmas is important to reflect on how Christianity impacted the world. Wars, Oppressions, Slavery, Injustice, Degradation, Thefts, Murders, Rapes, Disease, Poverty, Destruction, and other harsh living conditions were the lot of the common man throughout history. With the advent and establishment of Christianity, this all began to change. In no other part of the world, except Christendom, was there any hope of change for the betterment of the common man. Christianity changed all that by its theology of the individual worth and dignity of all people. Christianity established that Human rights were a gift from God and could not be abrogated by any government, organization, or person, or as the Declaration of Independence stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In no other part of the world was this recognized as integral to the individual human being. Christianity was responsible for bringing these truths to light and establishing them as a basic tenet for all persons. This tenet changes the world for the better. The journey took two millennia to get us to where we are today, with several false starts, wrong turns, dead ends, and occasion retreats before much progress was made. My new article, “How Christianity Transformed the World” examines the impacts of Christianity upon the world.

12/04/23 A Respite

I am due to have my left knee replaced tomorrow due to my osteoarthritis, and my surgeon has informed me that during the first two weeks, I will be on strong pain relief medicine, and in the next few weeks, I will be in much discomfort. As such, I have decided to take a few weeks off from my Chirps and Article writings.

I, therefore, would wish everyone a happy holiday season. I also promise that ‘I Shall Return’ to my writing after I recover from my surgery.

12/03/23 How Dare You!

The war on the West is very real and very dangerous. Western values, especially Christian values, are under constant attack from both within and outside the Western world. As I have written in my Chirps of “12/01/23 How Christianity Transformed the World”, the Western World has been primarily responsible for the advancement of the individual worth and dignity of all persons and for the betterment of the common man. Although this advancement was not without its faults and setbacks, it did advance humankind as no other religion or civilization did, as I have written in my article How Christianity Transformed the World.

Thus, it can be said to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Western values are the worst in the world, except for all the other world’s values.” In the last few decades, we have seen a significant increase in attacks on the Western world’s values for its actual and perceived faults without an acknowledgment of its benefits to humankind. However, no current or historical civilization has been without its faults, but Western civilization has been by far the greatest positive influence in the advancement of humankind.

Much of these attacks have been upon Christianity, as a strong Christian faith precludes tearing down Christian values and Western civilization. These attacks have resulted in a decline in Christian faith in the Western world, as I have chirped on “12/02/23 The Decline of Christian Faith and Values”. Such a decline bodes ill for the advancement of humankind and perhaps a retreat into barbarism. This has been pointed out by Bill Maher in his monolog on The War on the West and in a book by Douglas Murray, The War on the West.

Konstantin Kisin is a Russian-British satirist, author, political commentator, and co-host (with Francis Foster) of the Triggernometry podcast. Kisin has written for a number of publications, including Quillette, The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and Standpoint, on issues relating to tech censorship, woke culture, comedy, and culture war topics in the past but currently publishes articles on these subjects on his website. With intelligence and humor, he comments on current events, and in a recent video, Konstantin Kisin’s full speech to world leaders at Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Conference 2023, he stated:

“There are some people whose brains have been broken. To them our past is abominable and our future is one of managed decline. My message is simple. How Dare You!? You will not steal my son’s future with empty words”.
 - Konstantin Kisin

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish. This thirteen-minute video is a good encapsulation of the attacks on Western values, and it is well worth the time to view as well as your time to think about what he said.

To those who constantly criticize, denigrate, or want to fundamentally change the West, I would respond, “How Dare You!” and I will continue to oppose your efforts to ensure the continued advancement of humankind.

12/02/23 The Decline of Christian Faith and Values

Today, in America and in other parts of Christendom, we are seeing a decline in Christian faith and ideals in the world. This bodes ill for the future advancement of humankind, and it bespeaks the possible increase of oppressive governments in the world. Indeed, we have seen an increase of oppression in the government actions within Christendom, with the most common being in the attempts to restrict the Liberties and Freedoms of thought, speech, association, press, and the practice of religious faiths, as well as constrict the concepts of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. We have also seen an increase in the weaponization of government against those who would disagree with government actions, as I have written in my collected Chirps on “The Weaponization of Government”. All such restrictions and constrictions fly in the face of our Christian values, as I have written in my article “How Christianity Transformed the World”.

In many of my Chirps and Articles, I have pointed out that the concepts and practices of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Identity Politics, Wokeness, Equity and Equality, Social Engineering, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good are antithetical to the  Christian theology of the individual worth and dignity of all people, as I have Chirped on “11/07/23 The Divine Sovereign Individual”. These concepts and practices are most often the words and deeds utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to obtain their political goals and policy agendas. Thus, they are engaging in unchristian-like behaviors and sowing disharmony and chaos in our society and governance.

Alas, until we return to our beliefs in Christian values and uphold them in our society and governance, we shall see more disharmony, oppression, and chaos in America and the world, to the detriment of all Americans and the freedom-loving peoples of the world. This decline of Christian faith and values will also result in the atrophy of the advancement of humankind and an increase of barbarianism in the world.

12/01/23 How Christianity Transformed the World

Wars, Oppressions, Slavery, Injustice, Degradation, Theft, Murder, Rape, Disease, Poverty, Destruction, and other harsh living conditions were the lot of the common man throughout history. With the advent and establishment of Christianity, this all began to change. In no other part of the world, except Christendom, was there any hope of change for the betterment of the common man. Christianity changed all that by its theology of the individual worth and dignity of all persons. Christianity established that Human rights were a gift from God and could not be abrogated by any government, organization, or person, or as the Declaration of Independence stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

In no other part of the world were these truths recognized as integral to the individual human being and incorporated into governing laws. Christianity was responsible for bringing these truths to light and establishing them as a basic tenet for all persons. This tenet changed the world for the better, as I have examined in my article How Christianity Transformed the World.

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ this month, the December Book It selection recommends three books that examine the importance of Christendom to the world, how it has positively impacted civilization, and how the abandonment of Christian ideals has been detrimental to our modern world.

11/30/23 Christian Wars

Widespread war is not peculiar to Christianity, as it has always been practiced by all religions in human history. What is peculiar about Christian wars is that the teachings of Christ would seem to preclude engaging in wars or violence, as he commanded:

• “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ but I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
• “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
• “You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

So why is it that Christendom has engaged in so many wars?

The simple answer is that humans are fallible and that they are often motivated by other concerns rather than Christian morality. Many Christian leaders looked to the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles to justify what they wished to do rather than for guidance on what they should do. Thus, we have Christian wars.

It is also because we have the concept of Just war theory as a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists, and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum ("right to go to war") and jus in bello ("right conduct in war"). The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory (jus post bellum) dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

Many wars have been fought within Christendom from its ascent to the present. Among those major wars were the Crusades (1095–1291), the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the American Revolution (1775–1783), the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), the American Civil War (1861–1865), World War I (1914–1918), and World War II (1939–1945), along with the European wars of religion of the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. Emperors, Kings, Princes, Popes, and other leaders and religious extremists have often claimed that their wars were just wars, but the real question is, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is a just war, but who shall decide what is a just war?".

We can certainly say that the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and World War II were just wars, as they were fought to reestablish the Natural Rights of individuals against oppression. The other Christian Wars have more ambiguity in their justification. Thus, we can condemn these wars as not being just, but we cannot condemn Christianity if it is an unjust war. However, we should condemn those who led Christians into an unjust war. The question is, should we condemn Christianity for engaging in any war? Unfortunately, evil, greed, and lust exist in the minds of men, and sometimes, it is not possible to confront and eliminate such evil without a war. To not engage in a war against evil portends the destruction of the good of Christianity without such confrontation. The first duty of a Christian is to attempt to change the minds of such evil men without a war, but when push comes to shove, evil should not be allowed to triumph. Thus, war is sometimes necessary to ensure that Christian values will triumph and humankind will not descend into barbarity once again.

11/29/23 An Intelligent Designer?

It is an unfortunate fact that many scientists are atheistic or agnostic. While many other scientists are believers in God, they often remain silent for fear of being deprecated or ostracized. Atheistic scientists often use their scientific knowledge to try to disprove God or disavow the need for God, while agnostic scientists often remain silent as they are unsure or unassertive in expressing their opinions.

This was not always so. At the beginning of the Scientific Revolution in the sixteenth century, a series of events marked the emergence of modern science during the early modern period of history. When developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy), and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature, most Natural Philosophers had a firm belief in God. They saw Natural Philosophy as a means of explaining the mind of God. With further advances in what is now termed Modern Science, Natural Philosophers became Scientists who believed that science could answer all the questions about the workings of the Universe. Thus, they lost their Theistic Science viewpoint and became believers in a Scientific Materialism viewpoint.

However, advances in modern Physics (1905-today) and Astronomy and Cosmology have raised questions as to whether scientific materialism can answer all the questions about the workings of the Universe. The discovery that the Universe must have been created in the Big Bang Theory and that the physical constants and properties of the Universe are extremely fine-tuned for the emergence of life. These discoveries have raised the scientific question of an Intelligent Designer that created the Universe.

We have also seen advances in Molecular Biology that show the incredible complexity of the internal workings of the cell and the enigma of the complex information coding of the DNA in the cell that is required for even the simplest forms of life to exist. This has raised the question of how life could have arisen that requires such complexity to exist, as we know that complex systems require an Intelligent Designer to create the system.

Materialist scientists have speculated and postulated some answers to these questions, but these explanations lack any scientific basis as they are not based on observations or experiments, nor do they determine the realities of the universe. They also make extensive use of mathematics to justify their claims. However, mathematics is needed to affirm a scientific theory, but you should not utilize mathematics to confirm a scientific theory. Only observation and/or experimentation can confirm a scientific theory; otherwise, you have a belief and not a science. These speculations and postulations also have several philosophical issues and conundrums that do not fully satisfy as an explanation.

A good book that examines the scientific basis for an Intelligent Designer is “Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe” by Stephen C. Meyer. While I still believe that most Intelligent Design proponents approach this topic from a theistic argument with insufficient or incorrect science and mathematics, which I find unconvincing, there are Intelligent Design proponents that approach this topic from a scientific argument, which I find is much more intriguing and convincing. It is within these scientific arguments that the topic of an Intelligent Designer should be considered.

As the late great Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow commented when confronted by the evidence of the reality of the Big Bang Theory in the creation of the Universe:

“it is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the bible. In the beginning God created the heaven and earth . . . . The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the highest rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Given the above, I have done additional research and reading on the question of a Naturalistic/Materialistic or an Intelligent Design Evolution. This has resulted in my writing a new science article that can be read here, which scientifically examines this issue. I have also revised another article, “Science versus Religion” that reflects my new understanding of this issue. I have also withdrawn my article of “PragerU and 'Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven”, as it does not comport with my new understanding of this issue.

11/28/23 Hardware versus Software

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he points out that in many of the contentious social issues of today, a core difference between the opposite sides is that one side believes that a person’s gender, race, and identity are inherent in their physiology (Hardware), while the other side believes that they are a result of the person’s psychology (Software). Thus, the disagreement is one of Nature vs. Nurture. There is also an undercurrent that your Hardware is a basis for your political and social beliefs. Thus, we hear the phrases not truly (insert race), not truly (insert gender), and not truly (insert identity).

This resort to claiming that Hardware is a basis for the correctness of their beliefs is one that also attempts to shut down opposition discussions on these issues, as these bases are innate and immutable and therefore indisputable. In On Liberty, first published in 1859, John Stuart Mill famously laid out four reasons for why speech is a necessity in a free society: the first and second being that a contrary opinion may be true, or true in part, and therefore may require to be heard in order to correct you own erroneous views; the third and fourth being that even if the contrary opinion is in error, the airing of it may help to remind people of a truth and prevent its slippage into an ignorant dogma which may in time—if unchallenged—itself become lost.

In the sciences, free speech is essential for the advancement of science. Almost as important is that a scientist needs to communicate exceptionally complex truths in as simple and clear a language as possible so that they can be evaluated and confirmed by other scientists and, hopefully, can be made understandable to the lay public. This clarity and this honesty, may still exist in the sciences, but it is dead—if it ever existed—in the social sciences. The practitioners and commentators of the social sciences often speak and write in unreadable prose that even its supporters do not fully understand, and its critics cannot dispute that which is not understandable.

Consequently, we have often seen that those who would dispute the claims of Hardware are often shouted down or prevented from espousing their viewpoints in violation of their Free Speech rights. As has often been said, the answer to free speech for that you disagree is free speech to disagree with what has been said by others. However, the free speech of all parties should strive for clarity and honesty so as to be understandable and subject to critique, as I have written in my article "Dialog and Debate".

Alas, this is infrequently occurring in America and seems to be absent in Colleges and Universities where it is most important for the enlightenment and the discovery of truths. This suppression of free speech in Colleges and Universities has also occurred against Professors who would dare to speak truth to power in challenging the orthodoxy of Progressives/Leftists. Two of many illuminating examples are:

As a self-identifying progressive, left-winger, and Bernie Sanders supporter, Professor Bret Weinstein attempted to defend himself against charges of racism by pointing out that “there is a difference between debate and dialectic”. As he also said, “Debate means you are trying to win. Dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I am interested in only dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me.” Professor Weinstein persevered: “I am talking about terms that serve the truth.” As it happened, Professor Weinstein never taught at his college again.

Professor Nicholas Christakis, as Master of the residential college at Yale, became involved in a ruckus with students when he tried to explain his view that even if two people do not share exactly the same life experiences, exactly the same skin color or gender, they can still understand each other. I did not work. Later, he tried to explain what a university should be and that it is the duty of a university to “cut at the root of a set of ideas that are wholly illiberal.” These include that “Disagreement is not oppression. Argument is not assault. Words—even provocative or repugnant ones—are not violence. The answer to speech we do not like is more speech.” Nevertheless, Professor Christakis was forced to resign his position as the Master of the residential college.

What is more alarming is that the Colleges and Universities leadership and other Professors, who should know better, are kowtowing to these suppressions of Free Speech. Whether through fear or intimidation or in agreement with the suppressors, they are permitting or sanctioning the suppression of Free Speech on their campuses. It seems that mob passions and mob rule are now the basis for instruction and education at Colleges and Universities, and indoctrination in the orthodoxy of Progressives/Leftists is de rigueur on campuses, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, we need to cleanse the College and University leadership and Professors that do not support and uphold Free Speech and institute and enforce protections for the Free Speech Rights of all viewpoints on campus.

Alas, this Hardware versus Software (i.e., Nature vs. Nurture) reasoning has spread throughout other areas of our society, which is having the same effect of the suppression of Free Speech and the cutting off of dialectic in the debates on the contentious social issues in today’s America. This suppression and cutting off of Free Speech is dangerous to the fabric of our society, as people who are muted will often rise in revolt against their mutters. In today’s America, the numbers of the muted far outnumber the mutters, and tragic consequences for the mutters may occur in a violent revolt against the mutters. What is needed is a peaceful revolt that turns out of power and responsibility to those who would mute others.

We should allow the Hardware believers to espouse their viewpoints, as it is their Free Speech Right to do so, but we should not allow them to be able to be in positions of power and responsibility if they are muting the Free Speech Rights of those with whom they disagree. An insistence on dialectic, which means I listen to you, and you listen to me, without resorting to pejoratives and intimidations, as I have written in my article "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" would be a good start in restoring "A Civil Society" in America.

11/27/23 Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

In my new article, Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant, I have republished an article by Paul E. Marek, which explains that throughout history, wars have been initiated in which most of the populace desired peace. This article explains why this can happen, as the majority often sit back and let it all happen as the fanatics gain control of a government. He subtitles this article: ‘History lessons are often incredibly simple’, and this simple history lesson is that we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life. This article is a good companion piece to my Article on “The Problems with Islam”, and both articles should be considered when determining the best approach to dealing with Islam and Islamic nations.

But fanaticism is not constrained by religious fanatism. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, we have seen the rise of fanaticism toward political ideology. In the twentieth century Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism in Japan, Islamism, and all their variants became fanatical, and in the twenty-first century, we have seen Progressives/Leftists become fanatical in their ideology.

This fanaticism is in their policies and political goals regarding Abortion, Modern Feminism, Racism, Transgenderism, Illegal Immigration, Law and Order, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Modern Education, Global Warming, etc., and can be seen in their tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Conspiracy Theory,  Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Hyper-Partisanship.

This fanaticism is made possible by the American people believing in the good intentions of their lofty rhetoric while discounting the dastardly deeds of their actions, as I have written in my article “Grandiloquent Statements” and  Chirped on "01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds". In this, the American people have forgotten the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Fanatics also invent boogeymen for the populace to fear and to unite against as threats to their safety, security, and well-being, not to mention their being a threat to democracy, as I have Chirped on “11/08/23 Threats to Democracy”. This can be seen in the Democrat Party Leaders demonizing, denigrating, and disparaging their opponents as Right-Wingers, Far-right, Extreme-right, Fascists, Nazis, Racists, and other pejoratives, as I have written in my articles on "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and "Divisiveness in America".

Fanaticism rarely regards any boundaries of civility, and it is destructive to any society that condones it. Unfortunately, the fanatics in America hold the reins of power and are exercising their fanaticism. In pursuit of their fanatical goals, they are endangering our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", placing in jeopardy our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and putting an end to "A Civil Society" in America.

We must learn the lesson of history that fanatics are dangerous to civil society and to anyone that they oppose. Consequently, we must put an end to and eradicate fanatism. Otherwise, we can expect that our "American Ideals and Ideas" will be confined to the dustbin of history.

11/26/23 Forgiveness

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he has an interlude between chapters titled “On Forgiveness”. This interlude highlights one of the more pernicious problems of the Internet age of Social Media. Social Media gives everyone a voice in expressing their thoughts, but it also records for posterity their thoughts. Thoughts that are often ill-informed, capricious, impulsive, hotheaded, and sometimes offensive. Thoughts that, upon reflection, the person often regrets or has a change of mind, which cannot be forgotten, withdrawn, or sufficiently nor suitably apologized for.

Many of these thoughts are posted by young people who are incapable of curbing their thoughts due to the fact that the human brain does not fully develop until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to develop is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is responsible for most "higher-order" or intellectual brain functions such as thinking, reasoning, judging, planning, voluntary movement, and overall behavior. Thus, until the cerebral cortex is fully mature, impulsive behavior and thoughts are the norm of youth, as I have Chirped on "07/20/20 Ah, Youth”. Even after our cerebral cortex is fully developed, the habits of our youth often impulsively supersede our discretion, and we say or do things that we quickly regret. But the Internet does not forget what we have posted on social media in our youthful exuberance or thoughtlessness.

The Internet and Social Media forever remembering is also a problem in our adult life. After our brains mature and we accumulate more knowledge, life experiences, and perhaps wisdom, we come to realize that what we believe to be certainly true becomes less certain as we mature. Indeed, many times, we reach a different conclusion as we age. This often forces us to reevaluate what we may have said or written in our past, and many times makes us regretful of our words and deeds of the past. Or, as one of our Founding Fathers has so eloquently stated:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Thus, for the mistakes of youth and for changes of mind based on fuller consideration, it is best to forgive our and others’ past words and deeds. Ergo, I have elucidated upon this in “To Err is Human, To Forgive is Divine” in my Pearls of Wisdom, which is based upon a great English Poet who wrote in his An Essay on Criticism:

“To err is human; to forgive, divine.”
 - Alexander Pope

For those who believe that they have nothing to be forgiven, they are delusional, as all humans err in their words and deeds. Unfortunately, in today’s society, many apologies are not sincere apologies but an attempt to paper over objectionable words and deeds. An insincere apology that attempts to dodge, duck, or shift responsibility to others is no apology at all. And anyone who attempts to cover up their past words and deeds is not worthy of forgiveness. Only a sincere apology should be reciprocated with forgiveness.

In forgiving, it is important to Forgive Ourselves, Forgive Others, and Forgive Past history. We must Forgive Ourselves for the mistakes of our youth and our regrets over the words and deeds that we now conclude were in error. For if we cannot forgive ourselves, then we will find it almost impossible to forgive others. We must Forgive Others for their youthful mistakes and their past regrets, for without forgiving them, we cannot ask for forgiveness for ourselves. We must also Forgive, but not forget, the Past History of a nation or society, as all nations and societies have regrettable pasts. The past should be utilized to learn from mistakes and to not repeat them, and all other words and deeds about the past are nothing but flagellations that do not lead to improvements in a nation or society.

If we cannot forgive ourselves, others, and the historical past, then we shall always be at each other’s throats, and our past words and deeds will hang like an albatross around our neck for the rest of our lives. An albatross that impedes a person or society from becoming a better person or society and which damages all in society. In November 1964, Hannah Arendt, a German-born American historian and political philosopher, delivered a lecture at the University of Chicago in which she stated:

“Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victim of its consequences, forever, not unlike the sorcerer’s apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell.”

In all forgiveness, we should remember that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone. This does not, however, constrict us from critiquing another’s words and deeds, but we should remember the difference between "Criticism vs. Critique" and confine ourselves to critiquing rather than criticizing others, except in the case of immoral or criminal actions of others. In our forgiveness, we should also remember the words from the Lord’s Prayer:

“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”

11/25/23 Domains and Virtue, Character, and Ethics

We all have only one life to live, but in living our lives, we exist in several domains—the domains of a personal life, a family life, a friends’ life, a public life, and an employment life. These domains are shaped by our knowledge, understanding, and experiences in the domains of humanity—a Political Domain, the Religious and/or Philosophical Domains, the Economic Domain, the Scientific Domain, the Sports and Entertainment Domain, and the Artistic Domains (Literary, Fine Arts, Musical).

It is how we live in these domains that is a test of our Virtue, Character, and Ethics. There is no doubt that our words and deeds vary between these domains, but our virtue, character, and ethics should remain the same between and within these domains. To do otherwise is a betrayal of our Virtue, Character, and Ethics, which is demeaning to ourselves.

As the Bard has written:

“This above all: to thine own self be true.”
 – William Shakespeare in Hamlet

Most modern people interpret this saying as to mean to pursue that for which you are desirous and beneficial to yourself. But it means much more than this. It also has three other meanings; the first meaning is that someone can better judge themselves if they have done what they should or could have done. The second meaning is that one must be honest in their ways and relations. The third meaning is that one must always do the right thing.

As I have written in my Chirp on "05/17/20 Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage Within Ourselves", Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage are essential to becoming fully human. Without these items, you cannot be fully functional within yourselves and within society. You also cannot be truly Virtuous, Character-laden, and Ethical without remaining true to your Virtue, Character, and Ethics across the domains that you inhabit. Consequently, you should always be true to your own self in all its meanings.

11/24/23 You Cannot Legislate Virtue, Character, or Ethics

In my previous Chirps on “11/22/23 Virtue and Character” and “11/23/23 Ethical Conduct”, I discussed the importance of Virtue, Character, and Ethics in our lives and society. While we have laws against conduct that harm others, it is not possible to legislate Virtue, Character, or Ethics, for "The Law is Not All". Virtue, Character, and Ethics exist above the law and are necessary for a just society, as I have discussed in my article "A Just Government and a Just Society". We should also remember what one of our Founding Fathers has said about this:

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
 - James Madison

Thus, Virtue, Character, and Ethics are necessary and above the law and as a foundation for the law. For those that would respond to their non-virtuous, lack of character, or ethical violations that they have done nothing illegal, I would respond that justice requires more than obedience to the law. While you may not face prosecutions for your transgressions of Virtue, Character, or Ethics, you deserve disdain from all who value justice.

There is also the question of the violation of the Natural Rights of others from non-Virtuous, Lack of Character, or Ethical violations, as I have discussed in my article "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". To violate the Natural Rights of others while remaining within the law raises the question of a person’s Virtue, Character, or Ethics. These questions should make all wary of dealing with such a person. Thus, not only should a person remain within the confines of the law, but they should also constrict themselves to conduct which is of Virtue, Character, and Ethical.

As I cannot claim that I have lived a life of virtue, character, and ethics, especially in my youth, I can claim that since I have examined this issue in my early adulthood, I have tried to live a life of virtue, character, and ethics. As such, I can be at peace with myself for my past words and deeds, and I can recommend to all that they lead a Virtuous, Character-laden, and Ethical life as it will be rewarding.

11/23/23 Ethical Conduct

In my previous Chirp on “11/22/23 Virtue and Character”, I proselytize on the importance of virtue and character within a person. However, virtue and character are not only important within a person but are extremely important within many professions. Doctors, lawyers, judges, accountants, financial advisors, and other professionals must have virtue and character in their professions, as they have a direct impact on the well-being of their clients. This is why most professions have a code of ethics for their practitioners. It is also why we have laws to prosecute professionals who transgress their professional duties and responsibilities.

There is another group of people who profess to a code of ethics — politicians, but these ethics are often not followed in their spirit and almost as often not prosecuted. Too often, we have seen what a common person would regard as unethical conduct of a politician that does not result in a serious consequence for their breach, or at most; they suffer an official rebuke with only minor penalties from their colleagues. These politicians often run for reelection and are often reelected despite their unethical conduct.

Thus, we have lower standards for politicians than for other professionals. This is pernicious as politicians have a direct impact on all Americans, and most especially on the Liberties, Freedoms, and governance of Americans. However, much of the blame for this situation is shared by the American electorate for electing and reelecting those politicians who do not engage in ethical conduct. This is also a sad commentary on the American electorate, as had been said as a warning by one of our Founding Fathers:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."
  - Benjamin Franklin

We have also seen a rise in unethical conduct by our government bureaucrats. This is in the dual problems of fidelity to our Constitutional Ideals and Regulatory Capture, as I have written in my article on "American Ideals and Ideas" and my Chirp on "08/20/23 The Administrative State and Practical Difficulties". Many bureaucrats wish to rule by regulation rather than serve with fidelity to our principles. Thus, they are behaving in an unethical manner.

It is also true that, too often, the American electorate becomes caught up in the words rather than the deeds of politicians. When the words are virtuous, we often overlook the deeds that reveal the character of the politician. Thus, whenever we cast our votes, we should always remember in our evaluation of a candidate that:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said, 'Well done is better than well said.'".
  - Mark Dawson

Consequently, America is becoming a society in which materialism is predominant while Virtue, Character, and Ethics are receding in importance.

11/22/23 Virtue and Character

Virtue is the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. It is also a test of one’s character, which is the inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions. To be virtuous also requires that you do what you think is proper, notwithstanding all the pressures for you to do otherwise. As been said by one of our Founding Fathers (who practiced what he preached):

"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone."
  - John Adams

As to character, we should remember what an American author who was best known for his inspirational book, ‘Life's Little Instruction Book’ has said:

“Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.”
  -  H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

But both virtue and character require that you confront and admit the truths about yourself so that you can make a virtuous decision and act with character. However, if you should do this, then be forewarned:

"Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them."
  - Albert Camus

When adjudging a person’s virtue or character, we should always bear in mind:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said, 'Well done is better than well said.'".
  - Mark Dawson

The strongest test of Virtue and Character is when it becomes necessary to confront wickedness or evil. Any person unwilling to confront wickedness or evil or to temporize or excuse wickedness or evil is a person without virtue or character. Such people who do so are complicit in the wickedness or evil of others. As two of the great Philosophers of the Enlightenment have stated:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
 - attributed to Edmund Burke

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
 - John Stuart Mill

11/21/23 Proportional War

War is not waged proportionally. You are either in a war to win the war, or you will lose the war. Response to terrorism also cannot be proportional, as you either eliminate the terrorists, or you will be subject to more terrorism. And by their very nature, both modern war and terrorism will result in civilian casualties on both sides. Some of these civilian casualties are the result of inadvertent casualties during the course of military operations (i.e., collateral damage), some are a result of their being targeted for their active involvement in the war or terrorism efforts, and some are targeted for psychological warfare or terrorism purposes. Regrettably, in modern terrorism, some of these causalities are a result of the terrorist using them as human shields as protection to thwart retribution for their terrorism.

In war or terrorism, the moral side is the side that seeks to minimize civilian casualties, while the immoral side seeks to maximize civilian casualties. So, it is, for what is occurring in present-day Israel. Those who are confused about which side is moral and which side is immoral are confused because they have no true understanding of morality. To deliberately target civilians as a goal is the moral equivalent of murder. Consequently, Hamas terrorists are murderers and immoral, and their supporters are either directly or indirectly aiding and abetting this murder.

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “When Has War Ever Been 'Proportional?” he outlines the moral and immoral actions of both Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Upon reading this article, it becomes very clear which side is moral and which side is immoral in the present conflict in Israel.

11/20/23 Humanitarianism and Terrorism

With the rise in rhetoric for a humanitarian response to Hamas's Terrorism in Israel, those who engage in or are supportive of this humanitarian response have forgotten or did not know that Terrorism does not recognize Humanitarianism and that Terrorism is the antithesis of Humanitarianism.

To respond with Humanitarianism to Terrorism is to allow for the continuation of Terrorism, as it protects the terrorist from the consequences of their actions. It allows the terrorists to slip away to continue their Terrorism, and it shields them from being exposed by the non-terrorists whom they hide amongst. Until the terrorists are rooted out and eliminated, humanitarian responses aid and abet the terrorists. Once the terrorists are rooted out and eliminated, then Humanitarianism for those remaining is warranted and should be given. Until then, however, Humanitarianism in response to Terrorism plays into the hand of Terrorism, and to play into the hand of Terrorism is immoral and counterproductive to Humanitarianism. Thus, those who demand humanitarian responses before Terrorism is eliminated are reacting in an immoral manner, for to aid and abet Terrorism is immoral, and those who engage in these humanitarian words and deeds are bereft of morality.

Many would respond that these words and deeds of Humanitarianism are a response based upon our Christian heritage values. As Jesus spoke in the Gospels of the Bible:

“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

But Terrorism is not a slap on the cheek that hurts a person but a stab to the body that maims or kills a person. We all have the Natural Right to protect ourselves from harm by another, to the point of justifiably taking the life of another to protect our lives, our family's lives, and the lives of others from the violent deeds of others. And Terrorism is one of the most violent deeds that can be inflicted upon ourselves and others.

This protection for our lives, our family's lives, and the lives of others is thus a moral act, and it is immoral to deny someone this moral right. As it is in all modern warfare, when engaged in a just conflict with an immoral enemy, there will be civilian casualties. The minimization of these civilian casualties should be a goal in this warfare, but not a reason not to engage in a just war. The war on Terrorism is a just war, as it is a war against the evil acts of the terrorists. Regrettably, there will be civilian casualties in this war on Terrorism, but it is something that must be endured for the greater good of eliminating the evil of Terrorism.

Consequently, Israel’s response to the Terrorism of Hamas is moral, and the efforts to thwart this response based on Humanitarianism are immoral.

11/19/23 Reaping What You Sow

The phrase “whatever one sows, that will he also reap” is third within a series of three statements by Paul in Galatians 6:7. The first statement is, “Do not be deceived” and the second is, “God is not mocked.” Although this is a New Testament saying, it is applicable to all human activities and not restricted to any religious faith. Our words and deeds have consequences, and not all consequences are favorable. In today’s America, we are experiencing the unfavorable consequences of what has been sowed in the last half of the 20th century by events in the first half of the 20th century.

In the first half of the 20th century, America was a nation dominated by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), and there was much bigotry and prejudice against non-WASPs. This was reflected in our electoral politics, in which Republicans were often WASPs and Conservative in their outlook, while Democrats were often non-WASPs and Liberal in their outlook. In the second half of the 20th century America, this gradually changed in that the Civil Rights movement awoken Americans to unjustness and, indeed, the immorality of the bigotry and prejudice against non-WASPs (especially Black and Jewish Americans). This reaped great benefits for all races and religions in America, and we seemed to be on a path of tolerance and acceptance for all races and creeds in America.

However, the fidelities of non-WASPs to the Democrat party in the first half of the 20th century often remained and became ingrained in our politics in the second half of the 20th century. This was most predominant among Black and Jewish Americans. They overwhelmingly supported the Democrat Party and their candidates in elections, and it was a given that upwards of 90% of this populace would vote for Democrat candidates. In addition, in the last few decades, the Democrats and Liberals morphed into Progressivism and an intolerance for religion in America. Many people lost or were not raised in their faith, and atheism and agnosticism began to rise in America.

Yet, despite this rise in Anti-Semitism, we continue to see continued overwhelming support for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders within the Jewish community. The same can be said for the deterioration of race relations in America. Despite the overwhelming support of the Black community for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, race relations have declined in America in the last several decades. Much of this decline in Black America can be attributed to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders politics, as I have noted in my Chirp on “11/04/23 It’s Working Just Fine”. This overwhelming support of Blacks and Jews for the Democrat Party must end, for it is sowing and reaping Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America, and stymieing Black progress in America.

Despite the protestations by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that they are the party of inclusiveness and tolerance, “Do not be deceived”, for their actions speak louder than their words, and their words often contrary to “God is not mocked.” If Americans can retain their Judeo-Christian values, then we can overcome these problems in America. If not, then these problems will continue to bedevil America, and we will continue to be a nation in decline.

In the last decades in America, we have seen a rise in Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America within the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in America. With the recent Hamas terror attacks in Israel, this Anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head within these ranks. With this rise of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America, I have decided to change my logo. A Mezuzah and a Cross have been added to remind all Americans that our values are based upon our Judeo-Christian Heritage. A heritage to all humankind that has resulted in the greatest advancement of humankind in our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as the Advancements in the Sciences and the Arts, as I have written in my Articles “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and “How Christianity Transformed the World”. Thus, my new logo is a reminder that our Judeo-Christian values are essential to all aspects of our society, and all aspects of our society must be evaluated within these Judeo-Christian values:

11/18/23 Senseless Criminal Acts

The unalienable right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is not possible without a lawful, just, and peaceable society. Any society that cannot guarantee these unalienable rights is doomed to anarchy and destruction or to tyranny. Unfortunately, in modern America, we are degenerating into anarchy as the increase of senseless criminal acts is on the rise. Individual criminal acts, along with gang and mob criminal acts, have surged in America. Nobody and no place is safe from these criminal acts, and fear of these criminal acts has permeated our society. Not only are these acts committed in public places, but they have occurred in personal and business abodes.

In my Chirp on “11/17/23 The Dark Triad and Psychopathy”, I raise the question about the psychology of the perpetrators of these criminal acts, as well as the possible reasons for the increase of senseless criminal acts. There is, however, a more direct reason for an increase in these criminal acts. The perpetrators have little fear of being arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned for these criminal acts. They, therefore, feel unconstrained in their actions, and without self-constraint, they act impulsively and without forethought of the possible consequences of their actions.

This little fear has been brought forth by Progressive District Attorneys, Progressive Police Commissioners, and Progressive Politicians, who seem to be more concerned about the perpetrators rather than the victims. In their quest for a more perfect society (as they view a perfect society), they have failed to faithfully execute the laws as their Oath of Office requires them to do so. They ignore or neglect to enforce the laws that they disagree with or use prosecutorial discretion to circumvent the laws, as I have Chirped on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion". They often use lofty or supercilious language to justify their actions, but the results are that senseless criminal acts are on the rise. In this lack of performing their duties and responsibilities, they have become autocratic rather than public servants responsible for ensuring a lawful, just, and peaceable society.

People who believe, speak, or act upon compassion and understanding for the perpetrators without justice for the victims are either inane or nefarious. If compassion and understanding of the criminal behavior of a person is to be considered, it should be done after a conviction and during the sentencing, and it should be tempered with justice for the victim. No allowance for criminal acts should be tolerated before a conviction, as only empathy for the victims and their families is acceptable.

11/17/23 The Dark Triad and Psychopathy

The Dark Triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct, although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.

• Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.
• Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a strategic focus on self-interest.
• Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU), and remorselessness.

High scores in these traits have been found to statistically increase a person's likelihood to commit crimes, cause social distress, and create severe problems for organizations, especially if they are in leadership positions. They also tend to be less compassionate, agreeable, empathetic, and satisfied with their lives and less likely to believe they and others are good.

A factor analysis found that among the big five personality traits, low agreeableness is the strongest correlate of the dark triad, while neuroticism and a lack of conscientiousness were associated with some of the dark triad members. Research indicates that there is a consistent association between changes in agreeableness and the dark triad traits over the course of an individual's life.

Robert D. Hare, a Canadian forensic psychologist known for his research in the field of criminal psychology, developed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-Revised), used to assess cases of psychopathy. This tool is commonly used to assess the presence and extent of the personality trait psychopathy in individuals—most often those institutionalized in the criminal justice system—and to differentiate those high in this trait from those with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a related diagnosable disorder. He has identified the psychopathy as consisting of:

• Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm
• Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Item 4: Pathological lying
• Item 5: Conning/manipulative
• Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt
• Item 7: Shallow affect
• Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy
• Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle
• Item 10: Poor behavioral controls
• Item 11: Promiscuous sexual behavior
• Item 12: Early behavior problems
• Item 13: Lack of realistic long-term goals
• Item 14: Impulsivity
• Item 15: Irresponsibility
• Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
• Item 17: Many short-term marital relationships
• Item 18: Juvenile delinquency
• Item 19: Revocation of conditional release
• Item 20: Criminal versatility

It has been affirmed that about 3% of the American population suffers from this mental health issue. It has also been stated that it can sink to 1% in peaceful times but rise to 5% in troubled times. The question, therefore, is what the causes of this decrease or increase are. It is Nature or Nurture, Sociological or Economic, lack of deterrence by the failure of law enforcement to aggressively arrest and prosecute such persons, or perhaps other unknown reasons, and what can be done to keep this at a minimum? One can also wonder if the Dark Triad and personality trait psychopathy in individuals are responsible for the increase of criminality in America. In either case, this must be examined to determine the causes and hopefully cures for this mental health issue.

11/16/23 Gay or Queer Rights

In a book by self-professed homosexual Douglas Murray, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, he has pointed out that the LGBTQIA+ community (an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more) is not a united community as it is perceived. Within this community, there are sharp differences in the goals, strategy, and tactics to obtain their goals, and there are factions within the community that dislike each other.

One of these fractures is in the differences between “Gay” and “Queer”. The Gay faction believes that gays are—and should be—just like everyone else. As he has stated about the Gay faction:

“That they will win any and all remaining rights battles by demonstrating that nothing makes them different from their heterosexual friends and neighbors. Just like straight people, gays can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and eventually produce and raise children like everybody else. In essence they can be respectable.”

The “Queer” faction was—and is—the homosexuals that believe that being attracted to the same sex means more than being attracted to the same sex. As he has stated:

“It is a group of people who believe that being attracted to the same sex should merely be the first stage in a wilder journey. The first step not just to getting on with life but to transgressing the normal modes of life. Whereas gays may want to be just accepted like everyone else, queers want to be recognized as fundamentally different to everyone else and to use that difference to tear down the kind of order that gays are working to get into.”

This has resulted in the Queers believing that they have the right to public exhibitionism, most prominently in ‘Gay Pride’ marches in their dressing in puppy gear and to be led on all fours by a ‘master’ down a public street, along with their antics of simulated homosexual sexual acts. As Mr. Murray has said:

“There is nothing wrong with people enjoying whatever kinks they like in the privacy of their own homes. But you don’t have to be prudish to feel that the phalanxes of people at such protests dressed in fetish gear, in chaps and more, is off putting to whatever cause they are hoping to advance. If the black civil rights movement had included a fetish section it would have been considerably easier to ignore its moral force.”

Just as I am opposed to overt sexual actions in public by heterosexuals, so I am opposed to overt sexual actions in public by Queers. I also believe that it is acceptable if the acts are mutually agreed upon by all parties, for people to enjoy whatever sexual kinks they like in the privacy of their own homes. The government has no business in intruding into the privacy of a person’s home unless they are engaged in criminal activities. And sexual acts between mutually agreeable persons is not a criminal act.

While I am in favor of Gay Rights, I do not believe in Queer Rights. Thus, I have no problem with banning such overt public exhibitionism by all sexual orientations. The right to free assembly gives homosexuals the right to demonstrate, but the right to free assembly does not give anyone license to do whatever they want in the assembly. After all, as we ban any criminal actions or exhortations to violence in any assembly, so should we ban displays of simulated sexual acts and sexual fetishes in a public assembly. Common decency should also preclude any overt sexual licentious in public by anyone or any group.

I have also written about homosexuality in my articles on Homosexuality Nature and Homosexual Marriage and The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered  and Assisted Suicide, which explains my stances on Homosexual Rights.

11/15/23 Deepfake

A deepfake is a computer-generated image or video of someone based on manipulating existing images using Artificial Intelligence (AI), esp. to make them appear to do or say something that they did not do. With the advent of more AI tools available to the public, it has become easier to create a deepfake that is convincing and harder to detect. This can lead to serious repercussions for those who have been a target of deepfake.

Images, videos, and words have been attributed to people that are not about or from them. In one case, an adolescent boy superimposed images of some girls in his school on pornographic images that were not discernable to the viewer. The girls and their parents were aghast when he started to electronically distribute these deepfake images to other boys in his school. There have been numerous other cases where deepfake words have been attributed to someone, and deepfake photos and videos have been distributed to tarnish a person’s reputation. For as Shakespeare has said in Othello:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
 - William Shakespeare

It is not only our reputations that need to be protected, but deepfake makes it easier to sow disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation to mislead the American people into making poor decisions, as well as sowing more divisiveness in America.

Indeed, Mounir Ibrahim, executive president of Truepic, a technology company focused on transparency and authenticity in digital content, has stated about Deepfake technology, “In my opinion, this is one of the greatest challenges we face today" he said. "Some estimates are that in one to two years, 90 percent of new digital content created online will be wholly or partially synthetic. Without wide adoption of interoperable standards to clearly differentiate authentic content, AI-assisted, and fully generated content, our entire informational ecosystem will be at risk.”

In an article by Leah Barkoukis, “Deepfake Technology Is Now 'One of the Greatest Challenges We Face,' Expert Tells Lawmakers”, she stated that “Artificial intelligence is developing faster than any rules or regulations can keep up.” She has also stated that:

“A legislative fix is one tool but Ibrahim said it won't be enough. Work on content provenance is already being advanced, while other stakeholders are exploring different remedies.”

We would all be advised to read her article and begin to think about and implement the processes necessary to deal with deepfakes. For without doing so, we risk more reputational harm, more bad decisions, and more divisiveness, and we and America will all be poorer.

11/14/23 What is Wrong with Our Universities?

In a column by Alan Joseph Bauer, “The Left Has Shown Its Moral Bankruptcy”, he begins the column by stating, “The response to the barbaric attack in Israel has exposed the liberal and intellectual left as being bereft of knowledge, insights, judgment, and compassion. The left has become a pathetic collection of ideological zealots.” The then proceeds to excoriate the left for their lack of moral clarity and states that “. . . our modern liberal left which has great technical knowledge but no moral depth. All of our leaders are university-trained, without exception. Some have bachelor's degrees while others have advanced diplomas. Yet, they have shown themselves to be morally bereft of compassion and understanding of the severity of the events in southern Israel two weeks ago.”

In a series of articles by Rob Natelson, he examines what is wrong with the Universities. He begins by stating his credentials for analyzing the problems of universities:

“I have studied and worked in a wide range of campus settings. I earned my bachelor’s degree at a private college. I attended law school at a large university, half private and half state, after turning down offers from more prestigious institutions. (I’ll explain the practical implications of that decision later.) I also studied Greco-Roman classics in a large state university.

While practicing law, I was an adjunct (part-time) professor at a community college and later at both a large state university and a large private university.

After taking a basic course in teaching techniques, I served briefly as the manager of a community college program and eventually returned to academia on a full-time basis. I became a tenure-track and later a tenured professor and remained one for the next 25 years. I initially taught at a small private university and then at a medium-sized state university. I also served as a visiting professor at a large state university and as a researcher at a large foreign one.

I can compare academia to other institutions in a way most professors can't, because I’ve also worked extensively in private business, mostly small business, and currently operate a consulting practice.”

With such credentials and experience, he is eminently qualified to dissect the problems of universities, and he has done so in the following articles:

• What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 1 - Laboring under a toxic cultural virus.
• What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 2 - How the university model creates bad results.
• What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 3 - Certification, sports-fever, and other distractions.
• What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 4 - Proposed Solutions.

Alas, our current College and University are not producing graduates who can think dispassionately and analytically, using proper reasoning grounded in facts and truths. Instead, they are being indoctrinated into the ideology of their professors that is skewed to Progressive/Leftists viewpoints devoid of intellectual rigor. They are also emotionally coddling their students against the harsh tumults of the real world into which they will enter upon graduation. As such, they are failing their students, parents, and society. That they are doing this to young minds that have not fully developed physiologically, intellectually, and emotionally is unethical and an act of turpitude on their part. This must stop! Otherwise, our society will further collapse into a state of chaos ruled by mob passions rather than rationality.

11/13/23 Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

Res ipsa loquitur is the website blog of Jonathan Turley, one of America’s foremost Constitutional scholars. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation.

His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO.com, an online marketplace for legal services. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018.  It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.

Professor Turley’s political inclinations are left of center, but he is a passionate defender of Freedom of Speech and Constitutional adherence to laws, rules, and regulations of government. As such, I often quote Professor Turley in my Chirps and Articles on these topics, and I visit his website blog almost daily to see and read his thoughts. I would suggest that my readers make it a point to frequently visit his website blog to partake in his wisdom.

11/12/23 Americans Estimate

Apparently, when it comes to estimating the size of demographic groups, Americans rarely get it right. In two recent YouGov polls, they asked respondents to guess the percentage (ranging from 0% to 100%) of American adults who are members of 43 different groups, including racial and religious groups, as well as other less frequently studied groups, such as pet owners and those who are left-handed. The results of this polling can be reviewed in their article “From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans”, while the main graphic from this poll is as follows:

The other results from this poll provide some interesting food for thought, and I would recommend that you read this article and ponder the impacts on our social polices of these misestimations.

11/11/23 The Failure of Consensus and Compromise

Consensus and Compromise leave no one satisfied and resolve no important issue. Consensus and compromise are important for smaller issues or the details for the resolution of larger issues, but larger issues need to be resolved by a commitment to scrupulousness and righteousness of the core of a major issue. Even then, people of goodwill can disagree about the core of a major issue.

This is best exemplified in the Constitutional Convention when much dissension was overcome by consensus and compromise. However, the consensus and compromise left many unresolved major issues that bedeviled America in the next several decades. This bedevilment rose to a peak in the antebellum and Civil War era of American history. The importance of the Union and the end to Slavery were the core issues for one side, while the other side’s importance was for self-determination and for the preservation of property in the form of slavery. Each side thought that they had a moral and justifiable stance on the core issues. Compromises had been tried prior to the Civil War, and compromise had failed, resulting in a Civil War to resolve the major core issues.

Thus, it has been throughout history. When consensus and compromise fail on a major issue, it often results in a rebellion or war to resolve the core issues. Even then, the victor may not partially or fully resolve the core issue, which leads to further conflicts. Such was the Case of the American Civil War, as the core issues were resolved, but the ancillary issues of civil rights, bigotry, and discrimination remained unresolved until over a hundred years after the Civil War ended.

In America today, we are facing several core issues that cannot be resolved by Consensus and Compromise, as they each have core issues that must be decided in favor of one side or the other. These issues are:

• What are the proper powers, limits, and size of the Federal Government?
• What are the Human Rights of an unborn child?
• What is the extent of the Civil Rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals?
• How we eradicate the Weaponization of Government against political opponents?
• What are the permissible limits on First and Second Amendment Rights by non-governmental entities?
• What are the limitations on government regarding the Parental Rights of underage children?

These core issues define the character and substance of a society, which require the thoughtful consideration of all parties to resolve the core issues. Sometimes, however, the parties are so far apart in their beliefs that it cannot be resolved peacefully. At such times, one party must impose its beliefs upon the other party. It is not always the majority that gets to impose its beliefs, as a moral and just minority should prevail as it was during the American Revolution and Civil War.

Alas, we are at this point on the core issues facing America today. The only question is by which means, peaceable or belligerent, will be used to resolve the core issues, as Consensus and Compromise have failed us on these core issues.

11/10/23 An Unjust Law

Much has been said and written about the recent elections in which several States have incorporated the “Right to Abortion” in their Constitutions or laws. The political ramifications of the majority of voters accepting this right and swaying elections in favor of the Democrats that support abortion have led many commentators to suggest the Republicans drop their anti-abortion stances in order to win elections.

However, the core concern should not be about winning elections but about the morality of the “Right to Abortion”. As Martin Luther King Jr. has stated in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ of April 16, 1963:

“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I–it” relationship for an “I–thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

If abortion is the unjust taking of human life, as I have written in my article on "The Abortion Question", then the incorporation of the “Right to Abortion” in their Constitutions or laws is immoral and unjust, and that “an unjust law is no law at all.” In America’s past, we have had many unjust laws that have been overturned upon further consideration, and we have had slavery, which is among the most morally unjust laws possible. As abortion is also morally unjust and morally equivalent to slavery, as I have written in my article "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery", it should not be incorporated into our Constitutions and Laws.

In the movie “Inherit the Wind”, which is about the Scopes Monkey Trial on the law against the teaching of evolution in the classroom, there is a courtroom scene in which the Defense Attorney Drummond turns to the Prosecuting Attorney Brady and says in righteous anger:

“I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at Brady, then to various members of the audience and the Judge) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!”

The “Right to Abortion” is a wicked law that will destroy America. In the Gospels of the Bible, Jesus says to his followers, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” What have we given of our soul in the incorporation of the “Right to Abortion” in our Constitutions or laws? Will the righting of the wrong of abortion tear us apart as the slavery laws did?

The wicked often find justification for their actions in the use of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to vindicate their actions. But there is no justification for enacting unjust laws, and it is but a hollow victory when we do so.

Abortion Rights are not the only laws that pose the question of just and unjust laws. As I have written in my article, “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, the issue of morality and just and unjust law is the core concern that must be addressed in these issues. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As much as these laws are being formulated that uplift the rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide, they often do so at the expense of degrading the rights of others not covered within the scope of these laws.

Thus, we should not be addressing the political ramifications of the laws, for to do so is to put politics above morality and the institution of just laws. As such, we must act with virtue in doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong in the creation of our laws.

11/09/23 The Blade of Perseus

Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. Hanson has written over a dozen books, which can be reviewed here, hundreds of columns in various media outlets, and he maintains a website, “The Blade of Perseus”, that has his many columns and videos. A search of YouTube also reveals hundreds of clips and interviews with him.

However, his website requires a subscription of $50 per year to have full access, but it is worth every penny to have access to his insight and wisdom on modern American society. Three recent series of short articles from his website have especially intrigued me, and I have extracted the first few paragraphs from each part of the three series. Hopefully, they will intrigue my readers to support Professor Hanson by subscribing to his website.

Woke Hits the Wall

Part One - The hard-left revolution is running out of gas. We can tell that because the inherent anti-civilizational nature of wokism is beginning to devour the very architects of its creation.

Part Two - Wokeism also sought to defund the police, end cash bail, and empty the jails. George Soros and others poured millions into electing nihilist city and state prosecutors who simply did not enforce the law and let criminals out, often just hours after committing heinous crimes.

Part Three - The entire BLM movement is now in shambles, due not just to its racist tropes, but the sheer corruption and grift of the entire enterprise of mostly middle-class black activists using the threat of riot and violence of the poor underclass as leverage to enrich themselves.

Part Four - Another tenet of woke was a veritable war on gas and oil. Note the same serial ironic theme: if Biden inherited a calm border, he had the luxury or rather the margin of error to demagogue it, destroy it, and not be swamped by illegals—for a while.

American Pravda

Part One - In communist countries, there were two levels of consciousness, two mindsets in other words. What all people mouthed publicly became the opposite of what most thought in private. When the private mind finally became all dominant, the entire system of the Soviet Union and communist Eastern Europe abruptly collapsed under the weight of its own lies.

Part Two - Most believe saying the truth is not worth the cultural opprobrium that honesty earns. So, they keep quiet and, in matters of trans topics, watch female sports wrecked by the participation of biological males, females with male genitalia in their daughters’ school locker rooms, and often obscene drag shows conducted at libraries and army bases.

Part Three - There is a host of other lies that utopian progressives have constructed as orthodox “truths” in order to sabotage reality and ensure a particular code of behavior and thought.

Part Four - Call all this mere “political correctness” or “woke” nonsense. But these disconnects are in essence Maoism. They are dangerous lies that are promulgated by elites to further their own selfish agendas at the expense of the general public, who is to be shamed and ostracized as counterrevolutionaries.

The U.S. Is In Real Decline—No Kidding!

Part One: Energy - There is proverbially a lot of rot in any great nation, which accordingly can endure a lot of self-induced damage.

But has the U.S. exhausted its reserves? Britain after World War I denied that its empire was doomed and its standard of living unsustainable. The Soviet Union was in decline gradually, then abruptly by 1989 became doomed. In the fourth century AD, Rome had established a modus vivendi of incorporating non-Romans into the empire, defending its borders, and tamping down on corruption. A century later, the Western empire collapsed from internal decay and tribal invasions across the Danube and Rhine.

Part Two: Racial Relations - I say America is in serious trouble because the Left has attacked systematically all of the U.S.’s great strengths and advantages on the world stage. It apparently thinks it must dismantle the old America before it can create a “new” America, something like a European Union state, only far more radical and volatile.

Part Three: Insecurity - There are unfortunately other barometers of U.S. ossification.

America’s great strength was also its security. We were protected by two oceans and a similar English-majority speaking and constitutional state on our northern border. In the modern age, we used to insist on only legal immigration from an often corrupt and impoverished Mexico. No longer.

Corruption and lawlessness destroy civilizations. The 20th-century American ability to curb both, at least on the everyday level, explains in part the American success story. But now?

Part Four: Lawlessness and Corruption - Corruption and lawlessness destroy civilizations. The 20th-century American ability to curb both, at least on the everyday level, explains in part the American success story. But now?

Part Five. News Corruption - There is no news media as we once knew it. And without an independent media reporting the news, democracy “dies in darkness.” That Washington Post motto applies best to itself. If every story is milked for political purposes, if any unhelpful news account is censored, if the purpose of reporting is to magnify a leftist and diminish a rightist, then how do the people navigate around our Pravda conglomerate to find the truth?

11/08/23 Threats to Democracy

The biggest threat to our democracy is the people who utilize the phrase “A threat to our Democracy”. Democracy is all about a cacophony of opinions freely expressed and freely debated. The phrase “A threat to our Democracy” is often used by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as an attempt to intimidate into silence those that disagree with them. In some cases, it is an excuse to persecute and sometimes prosecute those who disagree with them.

The true threat to democracy is the issues I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "Despotism in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and my Chirps on "07/28/19 Executive Orders",  and "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders". Lying to Congress and the American people with no consequences when discovered is another true threat to democracy, as I have Chirped on "06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying". Stonewalling Congressional Investigations for the purposes of political cover-ups also plays a role in the true threats to democracy. When the people in power, whether elected, appointed, or bureaucratic, have no accountability for their words or deeds, then democracy is threatened. The big lies and deplorable actions of these people in power over the last few years about the Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Wuhan Lab COVID-19 origination and the virus lockdowns, and the Hunter Biden Laptop directly impacted democratic elections and are a threat to democracy.

Another big lie being perpetuated that threatens democracy is Climate Change, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Climate Change" and my science article on “Climate Change”. Prior to the Climate Change lies, we have seen other big lies, as I have written in my article "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

In almost all cases, these big lies have come from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, with assistance from Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. The tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Conspiracy Theory,  Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, and Wokeness also constitute a threat to democracy.

Consequently, the true threats to our Democracy are from the false words and nefarious deeds of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". For more on the threats to our democracy, I would recommend that you watch the video “Victor Davis Hanson: Threats to Our Democracy w/ Dr. Scott Atlas”. His words of wisdom on this topic are a warning to Americans that we can ill afford to ignore.

11/07/23 The Divine Sovereign Individual

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
 - The Declaration of Independence

With these words, our Founding Fathers expressed an eternal truth about the Natural Rights of an individual. It is an eternal truth that the Sovereignty and the Dignity of the Individual are supreme over any other considerations and that it is divinely bestowed. Any government, organization, or person who does not recognize the divine sovereign individual is corrupt and devoid of virtue, ethics, and morality.

An individual bestows some of their divine sovereign individual rights unto a government for the purposes of a peaceful, orderly, just, and safe society and the protection of their other rights. Governments do not decide what the rights of their citizens are, nor does any organization or person have the right to violate an individual’s rights. The Constitution of the United States was formulated in an effort to establish a government that protects the rights of the divine sovereign individual while maintaining a government and society that is peaceful, orderly, just, and safe.

A prosperous society is no excuse for the abjuration of divine sovereign individual rights, as it effectively results in the subjugation or slavery of the individual. Or as it has been said in the Bible in Deuteronomy 8:3, “that man does not live on bread alone”. Nor is the redistribution of wealth or the favorable treatment of one person or a group of people over another justification for infringing upon divine sovereign individual rights. Any governmental law, rule, regulation, or social policy that infringes upon divine sovereign individual rights is, therefore, contrary to Natural Rights and consequently unjust.

Today, in America, we are seeing an assault on the divine sovereign individual rights. Thru the use of  "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, the American people are being bamboozled by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders into believing that they are enhancing and extending the Natural Rights of its populace. But anything that infringes upon divine sovereign individual rights is not an enhancement or extension of Natural Rights but an attempt to disaffirm the Divine Sovereign Individual.

11/06/23 The Pro-Islamic Gamesmanship - Part II

With the Islamic terrorist attacks in Israel, we have seen a rise in Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islamism in much of the world, particularly in America. This rise has also seen an increase in violence against persons and organizations of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Such violence is never acceptable, as it never resolves the problem and often begets more violence. But as I have pointed out in my Chirp on “11/05/23 The Pro-Islamic Game - Part I”, Anti-Semitism is immoral, while Anti-Islamism is moral if it is based on critiques of Islam tenants or criticisms of immoral words and deeds of Islamists.

Alas, another game has arisen in America, where many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders offer perfunctory criticisms and little actions against Anti-Semitism, while at the same time, they are offering vigorous words and enacting deeds against those that engage in Anti-Islamism actions. In doing so, they are demonstrating a lack of morality. A lack of morality by equating Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islamism, and a lack of morality by not vigorously condemning Anti-Semitism while at the same time they are defending immoral Islamic actions by such an equation.

Their silence in condemning the support in America of Hamas terrorism in Israel, under the guise of pro-Palestinian sentiments, is deafening. It is only understandable by political gamesmanship in not alienating a voting block within the Democrat Party. As such, they are once again demonstrating they are more concerned with votes rather than doing the right thing.

The cowardness of College and University administrators in condemning the words and deeds of their professors and students in support of Hamas is astounding and very troubling. It is troubling as Colleges and Universities are not only responsible for providing an education, but they are also responsible for molding the character and virtue of their students. In not doing so, they are creating a generation of ill-educated students who cannot discern right from wrong. A generation that will enter and lead our society without a moral code to guide them in their decision-making.

Thus, in America, we have one party, the Democrat Party, that has little concern for morality or virtue and that is driven by a lust for votes and, therefore, power. Such a party is not fit to lead a people dedicated to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". If we continue down this road, we will lose our "American Ideals and Ideas", and descend into the chaos of mobocracy and lose the last best hope for humankind.

11/05/23 The Pro-Islamic Gamesmanship - Part I

There has been a tendency in modern America to equate Anti-Semitism with Anti-Islamism and to label Islam as a religion of peace. But this equation is improper and immoral. Anti-Semitism is based upon falsehoods about the Jewish religion, people, history, and their traditions and customs. Anti-Islamism, however, is based on truths about the practices of Islam, as I have written in my Article “The Problems with Islam”. Some of these truths are:

• A religion in which the majority believes that criticism of the Prophet Muhammed is punishable by death.
• A religion in which the majority believes that apostates should be put to death.
• A religion in which the majority believes that non-believers should be eradicated or subjugated.
• A religion of which the majority believes that non-heterosexuals should be executed.
• A religion in which the majority believes that education should be restricted to males.
• A religion in which the majority believes that women should be subservient to and dominated by males.
• A religion in which the majority believes that female genital mutilation and honor killings are acceptable.
• A religion in which the majority believes that the rule of law is subservient to religious doctrine and tenets and that fatwas supersede the due process of law.
• A religion in which the majority believes in a theocracy with no participation by individuals.
• A religion in which the majority believes that lying about their beliefs to non-believers is acceptable if done to advance Islamism.

While this list of the practices of Islamism is hardly inclusive, it demonstrates that Islam is a far cry from a religion of peace as well as a violator of the Natural Rights of people. While I recognize that many Muslims are attempting to reform these practices, while these practices remain, it is not possible to include Islam as a religion of peace. As a great philosopher of Jewish origins has said:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

As a majority of Islamic believers do not have a disposition for benevolence, confidence, or justice, it is immoral to equate Anti-Semitism with Anti-Islamism and, indeed, to have an Anti-Islamism bias is a moral stance. It is especially not moral to excuse or accept the violence of much of the Islamic world, and until Islam becomes understanding and tolerant of others and discards its Anti-Semitism, they should not be allowed to join the ranks of the civilized world, as they are a danger to civilization and non-Islamic peoples.

11/04/23 It’s Working Just Fine

The state of America’s urban areas has reached the level of pathetic. Education, housing, employment, crime, infrastructure, and governmental services are uneffective, decrepit, or dilapidated. Many reforms have been suggested, and a few of them have been implemented with negligible or marginal results and sometimes the reforms have produced unintended negative consequences. Reformers and Republicans criticize this state of affairs, and many are baffled as to the fruitlessness of reforms. All decry this situation and wonder why the reforms are not working.

My contention is that the urban areas are working just fine. As much of these urban areas have been under Democrat Party control for decades, I believe that if you define working just fine as the successful election and reelection of Democrats in these urban areas, then these urban areas are working just fine. It is the achievement of this goal that leads the Democrat leadership to believe that everything is working just fine in urban areas.

If your primary goal is to be elected and reelected, and you have been successful in this goal, then you have little inclination to change and much fear that a change will impact your success in this election and reelection goal. Thus, the status quo is preferable to change. This is the main reason that reforms in urban areas are marginal or ineffective. For a party to declare itself the party of change, as the Democrats often do, there is very little "Change and/or New" that they are interested in if it could disrupt their election or reelection chances. This situation is also exacerbated by the implementation of Liberal/Progressive policies, and now some Leftist policies in these Urban areas, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

The example of New York City is illuminating. In the modern history of New York City (1974-2023), in the first twenty years, they had liberal Democrats in control (Abraham Beame, Ed Koch, and David Dinkins). This was followed by eight years of moderate/conservative Republican control (Rudy Giuliani) and twelve years of liberal Republican control (Michael Bloomberg). In the last nine years, New York City has been under Progressive Democrat control (Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams). In the first twenty years under Democrat control, the quality of life in New York City declined to the point that the people of New York City elected a Republican to reform the city. For the first eight years of Republican control, the quality of life in New York City significantly improved, while in the next twelve years of Republican control, the quality of life in New York City began to fall. In the last nine years under Democrat control, the quality of life in New York City precipitously fell to the point that New York City is almost unlivable. This is also indicative that Liberal and Progressive policies are prone to failure, while moderate to conservative policies tend to stabilize or improve the quality of life in New York City. This is true for other urban areas, as Republican control has been nonexistent or very brief, and these urban areas have been in steady decline under Democrat control and Liberal/Progressive policies.

Consequently, it can be said that Democrat control and Liberal/Progressive/Leftists policies result in the decline of the quality of life in urban areas. It can also be said that urban areas work just fine in electing and reelecting Democrats and that the only means to reform urban areas is in the election of Moderate/Conservative Republicans. Until this happens, you can expect that urban areas will continue to decline in the quality of life, and no effective reforms will be possible as urban areas are working just fine in electing and reelecting Democrats.

11/03/23 The Behavior of Bullies

With the recent election of the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, the bullying tactics by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media started immediately, as I have Chirped on, "09/21/21 Bullies and Brownshirts". They immediately engaged in an effort to discredit him, as I examined in my article on "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". Is it any wonder that America is so divided when they engage in "Hyper-Partisanship" at a moment’s notice?

The Republican National Committee just put out seven principles for new House Speaker Johnson. The principles include freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity. It is a set of principles that is contrary to the principles of the Democrat Party's political goals and policy agendas. Thus, I would expect them to oppose House Speaker Johnson, but I also hope that they will do so in a civilized manner.

Alas, it is an unrealized hope, as this is not how Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists oppose those who disagree with them. They utilize the tactics of a bully attempting to impose his or her will upon another. For bullies, they have become, and bullies they will remain, until the American people turn them out of office and force them to change their tactics.

Thus, it is the American electorate that bears the ultimate responsibility for the hyper-partisanship in modern America. By electing and reelecting the Democrats that engage in these tactics, the American people are giving tacit approval for these tactics. Regrettably, I expect this bullying and hyper-partisanship to continue, as I have not seen any attempts by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to temper their bullying behavior. Alas, this bullying behavior further increases hyper-partisanship and also stokes fear between groups of Americans, all of which is much to the detriment of American society.

11/02/23 Two Sides of the Same Coin

The ability of the Democrat Party leaders to see Russian Collusion with President Trump where none existed is one side of the coin. The ability of the Democrat Party leaders to not see the influence peddling of President Biden and his family, as it has been revealed, is the other side of the coin. It is the coin of hyper-partisanship in that Republicans are always in the wrong, while Democrats can do no wrong. It is a coin flip of heads and the Democrats win, while on tails the Republicans lose. As such, it is a coin flip in which the American people always lose.

To not recognize wrong when it occurs on your side and to presume wrong on the other side bespeaks to a moral failure. The moral failure of not recognizing what is rightful and what is wrongful, no matter which side is rightful or wrongful. Such people who do so do not deserve to be in a position of leadership or authority, for such people cannot make a decision based on moral grounds, no matter where the chips may fall. It is, therefore, the coin of immorality.

Such moral failure is predominant amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons. It is also a sign of their lust for power and lack of virtue, as they will think and speak immorally if they believe it will further the election and reelection of Democrats. This lust for power and lack of virtue also leads them to select and retain appointed or bureaucratic officials that will support them regardless of the person’s wrongful conduct.

This lust for power and lack of virtue is also seen in their political goals and policy agendas, as they will make decisions based on electoral advantage rather than morality and virtue. When doing so, they will often utilize the tactics of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their positions. However, immoral policies and agendas have no moral justification, and the utilization of these tactics is also a sign of immorality.  

The "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" also bear a large responsibility for this state of affairs, as their predilection is to support Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists regardless of their immoral conduct, decisions, and tactics.

Thus, when Democrats are in a position of authority, we see immorality in their conduct and decisions, as they have little fear of losing their reelection or appointments from their immoral conduct.

11/01/23 Abortion, Transgenderism, Same-Sex Marriage, and Assisted Suicide

In my article, “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, I examine these rights and their dichotomy between individual and societal rights. As these topics are deep and nuanced, they deserve to be considered in depth. This month’s Book It selections are about these four topics that provide the depth and nuance to fully understand these topics. While I have mentioned these books in my article, I believe that they are deserving of a Book It recommendation as these books are an intellectual, philosophical, and reasoned discourse on these topics. For those who are interested in a dispassionate analysis of these topics, I would highly recommend these books. These books will inform you on what you need to know, not what you want to hear, a practice that I have endeavored to keep all my adult life.

10/31/23 Are the Intelligentsia Intelligent?

The Intelligentsia (the educated and intellectual elite) have forgotten the intelligence aspect of the meaning of Intelligentsia and have instead focused on the education aspect of the meaning. In doing so, they have focused on information and understanding while not fully applying intelligence and not recognizing the importance of experience and wisdom, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". As illustrated in the following diagram from my article, the Intelligentsia gathers a large amount of knowledge and understanding on topics but only organizes it intelligently to fit their biases and without recognizing the gaps in their information and understanding. It is also rare that an Intelligentsia person has real-world experience that allows them to derive wisdom.

This is often the result of the failures of modern "Public Education" and “College and University Education”. It is further exacerbated by a sense of self-importance and infallibility that permeates most of the Intelligentsia. Coupled with a sense of self-righteousness, the Intelligentsia believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. Anyone who disagrees with them is viewed as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil people.

Thus, anything that an Intelligentsia person has to say should be viewed with skepticism, as an Intelligentsia person has often become an ignoramus person.

10/30/23 A Life of Illusions

The great playwright Eugene O'Neill once said, “A life without Illusions is unpardonable and a life with Illusions is unbearable.” It is most common for a person to begin their adult life with illusions, but as they experience life, they often shed many illusions. Or, as King Oscar II of Sweden has said, "A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head." I disagree with O'Neill that their lives are unbearable or unpardonable. Life is a burden, but it is a burden that most people learn to deal with, while others wallow in victimhood and shift blame to anyone other than themselves. As for being unpardonable, many people can forgive themselves if they believe that their intentions were not malicious. I agree with King Oscar II that youth is intoxicating with optimism while getting older sobers us into reality.

In my life, I have observed that most conservative people tend to live life without illusions, and I believe that most Progressive/Leftists tend to live a life of illusion, while moderate persons live a life of both. I have also observed that a person with illusions often has difficulty understanding those people who do not conform to their illusions about life, while a person without illusions cannot understand why others are not realistic. Thus, the divisiveness in America often is between those who live a life of illusionistic optimism and those who live a life of non-illusion realism.

Many of the Progressive/Leftists illusions are of human nature and the economic forces that drive human nature, while the realism of Conservatism often mitigates optimism and can often lead to cynicism. It is also an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, attending a college or university delays experiencing reality and reinforces illusions. A reinforcement that can linger for several years after graduation and sometimes for their entire life. It is most often the bitter experience of the real world that morphs someone from a life of optimistic illusions to a life of realism. But it is also true that this bitter experience of life can lead you on a path of wisdom. As I have often said, "True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!" but you must consider the bitter experience realistically and without excuses for your own culpability in the bitter experience. Otherwise, you will reach the wrong conclusion as to the reasons for the bitter experience, and you will not be able to make better choices in the future to avoid bitter experiences. You should also remember that:

"Shit happens. Sometimes you shit on yourself, sometimes others shit on you,
and other times shit just happens.
It doesn't matter how shit happens, it only matters how you deal with the shit.
You can either clean yourself up and smell the roses,
Or you can wallow in the shit and everything stinks.
And remember; It's just as important to learn from the shit,
as it is to clean yourself up from the shit!"
  - Mark Dawson 

As I have examined my life, I have determined that I began my life with illusions but have learned to live a life without illusions. I, therefore, have experienced both the unbearable and unpardonable in my life. I also have had many bitter experiences, and all the types of shit have happened to me. But I have learned from the bitter experiences and the shit, and I have had a better life from living a life of consideration and realism.

10/29/23 Living a Life of Lies

It is an unfortunate fact that in the 20th and 21st centuries, a large percentage of many counties’ populace were and are living a life of lies. From Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Dictatorships, and a whole host of oppressive governments, their populace has been told lies, and they must repeat these lies or face frightful repercussions from their governments. Nowadays, the rise and dominance of Progressivism is repeating this scenario in countries that are supposedly free.

In America, this life of lies is being fostered by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are under attack by the tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering, and a Herd Mentality common in today's American society. These tactics are to reinforce the lies being told and to instill fear into anyone who would challenge these lies. These lies started with "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" but have expanded to include, but are not limited to, the following lies:

As Victor Davis Hanson has said, despite the claims of government officials to the contrary that “. . . most Americans saw January 6 for what it was—a buffoonish protest that for some devolved into a spontaneous riot and felonious behavior that desecrated chambers in the Capitol. But the public did not see evidence of a planned armed “insurrection” or “rebellion” or “conspiracy” to “overthrow the government”.

Most Americans had concluded that the Wuhan virology lab was the source of the COVID-19 virus and that the quarantines and lockdowns ruined the economy and had negative social repercussions. Most Americans became suspicious that the COVID-19 vaccines were not nearly as effective as touted by the government and that there were negative reactions to these vaccines for many persons. All this despite the contrary claims by government officials and the Mainstream Media.

Most Americans are furious that the border has ceased to exist while the government claims that the border is secure and that these illegal immigrants pose no danger to Americans despite government assurances to the contrary.

Most Americans believe that crime in the street is being fostered by Progressive law enforcement that is more concerned about the criminal rather than the victim and that it is not racist to believe otherwise.

Most Americans know that Transgenderism is not a major concern and that transgender counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery for minors is wrong without parental permission. They also know that thrusting transgenderism into public arenas such as schools, libraries, and the restrooms and locker rooms of children is harmful to the non-transgendered child and should not be allowed. They also know that transgender males competing in female sports events give the transgendered male an unfair advantage, and that is unfair to the female athletes competing for prizes and scholarships.

Most Americans, upon a cursory examination of the facts, knew that Hunter Biden’s laptop was his and not Russian disinformation and that it revealed the corruption of the Biden family, despite the claims that it revealed no criminality or unethical conduct by Joe Biden and his family.

Most Americans believe that the FBI, DOJ, DHS, IRS, and intelligence agencies have been corrupted and that the DOD is following in their path.

And now, most Americans believe that the "The Weaponization of Government" is occurring and that "Lawfare" is being practiced against those that opposed the Progressive political agenda and policy goals.

Alas, most Americans are afraid to publicly speak up about their beliefs for fear of negative repercussions to themselves, their families, or their career and/or their employment. This fear is thus leading most Americans to live a life of lies. But as Victor Davis Hanson has also pointed out, those governments that practice and allow for lies eventually collapse upon themselves, as the people often rebel against these lies. Let us hope that America can dig itself out of these lies before it collapses or rebels against a government of lies.

10/28/23 Speaking Truth to Power

Speaking Truth to Power used to be a badge of courage when confronting the orthodoxy of the political, economic, and social forces in America. Nowadays, it has become a mark of shame to do so. This major change was wrought by those who have become the powerful. In the past, it was the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders powers that were being challenged. Today, it is the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders powers that are being challenged.

And woe be to those who have a change of heart and head to speak the truth to the powers of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Those who have changed their opinions to the center or to the right of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are instantly subject to vitriol, and the tactics of Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and possible Lawfare, as well as the allegations of Conspiracy Theory, Hate Speech, Racist, LGBTQIA+ phobia, and Hyper-Partisanship fury.

One of those who has had a change of heart and head is Michael Shellenberger. He has written two books that speak truth to power that the Progressives/Leftists have employed vitriolic comments, and he has been subject to the tactics stated above. These books, “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” and “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities”, have engendered the wrath of Progressives/Leftists as they have spoken truth to power.

Michael Shellenberger is the founder and president of Environmental Progress (EP), which was founded in 2016 with the mission of achieving nature, peace, and prosperity for all. They believe everyone has a right to affordable energy, a healthy planet, and urban environments that enable citizens to thrive. Their strategy has been to organize grassroots movements to defend these rights and to fund research into why they are threatened.

He also has many videos posted on YouTube, with “Michael Shellenberger's Guide to Escaping the Woke Matrix” being particularly apropos of speaking truth to power. I would recommend his website and the two books previously mentioned as a starting point for understanding the truths as opposed to the orthodoxies of the current powers.

10/27/23 How Pathetic

The satirical site Babylon Bee has an excellent record of capturing the inanity of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Some of their recent headlines about the Hamas attack in Israel are pathetic in their pointiness:

• Emperor Hirohito Calls For Ceasefire After Bombing Of Pearl Harbor
• Harvard Student Leaves Lecture On Microaggressions To Attend ‘Kill The Jews’ Rally
• Islam Downgraded To Religion Of Mostly Peace
• State Department Issues Stern Warning To Hamas Not To Misgender American Hostages
• White House Claims $6 Billion To Iran Absolutely Not Related To The Exactly $6 Billion Worth Of Rockets Being Fired Into Israel
• White House Issues Condemnation Of Attack Biden Funded
• Biden Offers The Palestinians $100 Million In Exchange For None Of The Hostages

In fact, much of what the Babylon Bee has satirized has turned out to be prophetic, so much so that they have a webpage, Book of Prophecy, that catalogs their prophecies. I often visit the Babylon Bee website to get a good laugh at the inanities of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and to maintain my sanity, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/25/23 That of Laughter”. I would suggest to all my readers that they make this website a frequent source of information along with the other websites I have mentioned in my Chirp on “10/26/23 Where Do I Get My News From?”.

10/26/23 Where Do I Get My News and Opinions From?

It is an unfortunate fact that Modern Journalism has descended into Progressive predilections and Democrat Party bias, as I have written in my article on Modern Journalism. While my own predilections are of Constitutional Conservatism with a hint of Libertarianism, I do attempt to read contrary viewpoints if they are knowledgeable and intelligent and presented with "Rationality" and "Reasoning" that utilizes a "A Philosophical Approach". However, I do have regular sources of news and opinions that I check on a daily basis. These news sources are:

National Review

The Epoch Times

The New York Sun

The Washington Times

Townhall.com

As for opinion pieces, I believe that the following columnists have intelligent, reasonable, and cogent opinions, and I read their articles whenever a new column appears from them:

Allan Dershowitz

Andrew C. McCarthy

Dennis Prager

Jonathan Turley

Rob Natelson

Victor Davis Hanson

Finally, when it comes to wisdom about human nature, I regularly view the YouTube videos of Jordon B. Peterson.

While I do not always agree with this news reporting or the viewpoints of these columnists, I do find that they are thought-provoking and deserving of consideration.

10/25/23 That of Laughter

As I have often mentioned Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are wont to utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to bolster their arguments for their political goals and policy agendas. A careful analysis of their arguments reveals a lack of proper facts and proper truths along with incorrect "Reasoning" and "Rationality". Some of their arguments are so outlandish that it is exceedingly difficult to respond to their assertions in an intellectual manner. When reviewing their arguments, I often find myself responding in the manner of the following quote:

" I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers- that of laughter."
  - Charles L. Black (American Scholar)

But it is laughter to relieve the anguish of remorse that these arguments hold any weight with the American people. I also do so by remembering the aphorism that “Tis better to laugh than to cry.”, for if I didn’t laugh, I would find myself constantly crying for America. I also remember that in responding to these arguments, it is best to apply Hitchens's philosophical razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." and that their assertions should be challenged by insisting that they prove their assertions, for:

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is impossible."
  - Mark Dawson

Otherwise, their incoherent arguments will continue to plague America to the detriment of the American people.

10/24/23 It’s a Conspiracy Theory

A new term has arisen amongst Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media—“Conspiracy Theory”. It has no formal definition, but it is being applied to anybody who disputes the Progressive political narrative, Mainstream Media accounts, or government assertions. Therefore, it is just a dismissive means of labeling dissenters and questioners as kooky. The word conspiracy also has a dark undertone connotating some nefarious, harmful, or illegal purpose to their words or deeds. It is also being used to ignore the allegations of those labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. However, it should be remembered that allegations with veracity are not a “Conspiracy Theory” but are simply unproven allegations. And allegations with veracity need to be investigated to determine the facts and truths.

In the past, the term bogeyman was used as an imaginary monster used to frighten children. Today, we are using the term Conspiracy Theorists to frighten adults for the purpose of psychologically intimidating them into not examining the allegations and evidence. In doing so, the labelers are also attempting to suppress the free speech of dissenters and questioners by relegating their free speech to a black hole where it will not be examined. As such, we should all remember the words of wisdom of our first President:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

This dumbing and silencing of dissenters and questioners is the goal of those who label them Conspiracy Theorists.

It was not too long ago when persons who raised the allegation that the Wuhan virology lab was the source of the COVID-19 virus were labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. The same is true for those who raised concerns that the COVID-19 virus vaccines may not be as effective as promoted or possibly harmful to many people.

We also had allegations of irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election that raised concerns as to the fairness and outcome of the election. Without any proper investigation of these irregularities, the people concerned about possible voter fraud were labeled as Conspiracy Theorists.

Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, we have seen a sharp rise in the usage of the term Conspiracy Theorists. Almost anyone who questions the motives or goals of the Biden Administration has been labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist.

This time-worn tactic of labeling those in opposition to government words and deeds for the purpose of marginalizing then ostracizing them from society has often been the first step into despotism, then dictatorialness. A step that, if successful, often leads to terrible consequences, as we have seen in the 20th and 21st centuries pogroms, concentration and work camps, gulags, and massacres of those that oppose a government.

10/23/23 Avarice Not Empathy

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “The Biden Family Tree: How Investigations are Exposing the Bidens’ Influence-Peddling Dynasty”, he examines “. . . the exposure of the Biden family and its long-standing business of influence peddling. Newly released evidence from the House Committee on Ways and Means reveals over $20 million coming from 23 separate countries on four continents to at least nine Biden family members. Not only are the Biden transfers becoming clear, so is the Biden family tree in this lucrative form of corruption.”

Professor Turley points out that “There is a sharp disconnect between the public persona long maintained by the press and what is becoming more apparent to the public now.” Joe Biden has long portrayed himself as a common person and a man of the people who is empathetic to the concerns of the people. As Professor Turley also points out, “That is not the image that emerges from the growing evidence about Biden and his family. The Bidens are suffering from legal exposure in actions concerning everything from withholding child support to peddling influence to federal felonies.” and that “. . . it is not empathy but avarice that defines the Bidens.”

It has thus been revealed that Joe Biden and his family are bad actors on the American stage of politics. They are what most Americans despise about politicians—self-centeredness composed of deceptions, corruption, and power hunger. It is time for Joe Biden and his family to exit stage-left from the American stage and face the legal repercussions of their avarice.

10/22/23 Learning History

It is an unfortunate fact that much of people’s knowledge of history comes from movies and television. While movies and television about history are often entertaining, they are just as often not historically accurate nor comprehensive. Even television documentaries about history contain inaccuracies, and they are definitely not comprehensive. There is also the question of the comprehensiveness of the historical knowledge of the people involved in the production. This is because the producers, writers, directors, and even the actors need to be entertaining and often have a viewpoint that they wish to express, and they are willing to fit the facts into the story. Even the historians that they utilize in the production of their movies, television, and documentaries have viewpoints, and sometimes biases, that they incorporate into the production. However, we should all remember:

“You should not learn your history from movies and television, but you should be inspired to learn history from movies and television.”
 - Mark Dawson

Many times, I have viewed historical movies, television, and documentaries and have become inspired to learn more about the history that they depicted. I will often do an Amazon search for books on the topic and carefully review the Publisher's Synopsis and Editorial Reviews of the books that have piqued my interest. I also scan the user reviews of the book but do not place much credence on these reviews, as I have no way of discerning if the review is by a village-wise or a village idiot person or someone who has an axe to grind. If I am interested in a book, I will do a library search to see if I can borrow the book from my local library. If it is not available from my library, and I desire to read the book, I will purchase a copy for my personal library. In some cases, if the author or reviewer is someone with whom I am familiar and whom I think highly of, I may purchase the book. After I have read a library book and have determined that it is of high quality that I may want to refer to in the future, I will purchase a copy of the book for inclusion in my personal library.

This has led me to have hundreds of books in my personal library that I often refer to when writing my Chirps and Articles. These books are not only about historical topics but span science and engineering, computer technology, mathematics, economics, politics, music, fine arts (while my wife has many books of English literature and fine arts), and a sundry of other topics.

I must confess, however, that I have not read all the books that I have purchased. I would guesstimate that I have read about 75% of the books in my personal library, while 20% are books that I have purchased for reference purposes, and the remaining 5% are books that I will hopefully read before I pass away. I have also discarded dozens of books that I have purchased and read as unworthy of being retained in my personal library.

Thus, I believe that I have a broad spectrum of knowledge, but while my depth of knowledge is limited to computer technology, I believe that I have a sufficient depth of knowledge to comment on the topics that I have written about in my Chirps and Articles. For more of the books that I deem worthy of your own reading, I would direct you to my Book It webpage.

10/21/23 Historical Knowledge and Historical Mythology

Most people’s historical knowledge is limited to events that occurred during their lifetime and occasionally a few decades before their birth. This knowledge is often incomplete or erroneous, as they do not have sufficient knowledge or proper facts and proper reasoning to understand historical events. What they have is beliefs based upon what they have seen or heard from others, and often, they only pay attention to others who confirm their beliefs. Many times, their historical understanding is of memories that are prone to inaccuracies or contorted to fit their beliefs. This unconscious process is what I describe as Historical Mythology rather than Historical Knowledge.

This unconscious process has been illuminated for me by my interest and extensive readings on American history and by what others have written or said about American history, as well as my conversations on history with others. This dearth of accurate historical knowledge is self-obvious to those who have extensive historical knowledge. The other issue is that even those who have some historical knowledge often do not examine historical knowledge contrary to their beliefs. Thus, their historical knowledge is incomplete or inaccurate.

This lack of historical knowledge allows unknowledgeable or unscrupulous politicians to manipulate the public for political purposes. Examples of this include a lack of knowledge of the history and meaning of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation. If the public had the proper historical knowledge of these events, they might have a different attitude about American history and a different outlook on the racial divisiveness in America than what is propagated by unknowledgeable or unscrupulous politicians. This is usually true for many great historical events in American history, and this lack of historical knowledge leads to the repetition of mistakes, as I have written in my Chirp on “Condemned to Repeat It”. This is also a condemnation of the public education system failures in modern America, as I have written in my article “Indoctrination versus Education”.

Alas, in modern America, we live in a society of historical mythology rather than historical knowledge. This historical mythology allows for social policy to be determined not by historical knowledge but by the passions of historical mythology that are without foundation. This also is a factor in the breakdown of "A Civil Society" in America, as civility requires "Rationality" and "Reasoning" based on knowledge founded on proper facts and proper truths, as I have Chirped on "08/11/23 Proper Reasoning".

10/20/23 A More Dangerous World

In foreign affairs, the modern Democrat Party has been all about giving peace a chance and depending upon the goodwill of those intent upon harming America and others that they oppose, most especially in the Middle Eastern countries of the world. Jimmy Carter’s debacle in Iran started a downward slide by the Democrats regarding dealing with terrorism. Terrorism increased during the Clinton Administration, and while the 9/11 attacks occurred nine months after Bush took office, they were planned and practiced during the Clinton Administration. During the Obama Administration, America has endured seven major Islamic terrorist attacks on its soil on Obama's watch, as well as the Arab Spring uprisings, a political crisis in Egypt, the collapse of Libya into a Civil War, and Syria’s bloody civil war. The Biden Administration has seen more aggression from Russia and China, while Iran and North Korea have become more threatening. The haphazardness of the Afghanistan withdrawal by the Biden Administration once again turned Afghanistan into a hostile country engaged in terrorism.

During Republican Administrations in this same time period, the incidents of world instability and terrorism subsided to manageable levels that did not threaten world peace. Thus, it can be said that Democrat administrations engender more instability in world affairs, while Republican administrations bring more stability to the world.

The main reason for this difference is that the Democrat leadership often sees the world for what they want it to be, while the Republican leadership sees the world as it is. The propensity of Democrat leaders to believe that goodwill will be matched by goodwill demonstrates their unwillingness to believe that self-interest, economics, passions, and a lust for power and influence of human nature is often the prime consideration motivating the decisions of other parties. Thus, they miscalculate the intentions of others by assuming the best in others.

Consequently, whenever Democrats assume control over foreign affairs, the world becomes a more dangerous place. This, alone, is a sufficient reason for the American electorate to be wary of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate. Until the Democrat Party leadership wakes up and smells the coffee, the world will be a more dangerous place with them in control.

10/19/23 Moral Equivalence

In an article by Dennis Prager, “Moral Equivalence Means Either Moral Confusion or Hatred of Israel”, he examines the use of moral equivalence by the defenders of the Hamas evildoers. The opening sentence of this article has pertinence to all users of moral equivalency:

"Moral equivalence has two purposes. One is to enable the morally confused to hide their confusion. The other is to enable the immoral to hide their immorality."
 - Dennis Prager

Thus, it is so for almost all users of moral equivalency when contrasting the wrongdoing of both sides of any issue. To properly utilize the moral equivalency argument requires that you have a weighted scale of moral wrongdoing and apply this balance in your arguments. Without this weighted scale, moral equivalency equates the morally insignificant with the morally grave. This leads to an overreaction to the morally insignificant and underreaction to the morally grave.

Alas, this moral equivalency in modern America is predominant and often paralyzes the proper response to morally grave events, and thus, we do not take the proper and effective response to morally grave events. Calls for reasonable and proportionate reactions to morally grave events are not effective in stopping these morally grave events and, indeed, encourage future morally grave events. The reasonable response to morally grave events is that which is necessary to punish these morally grave actions, and the proportionate response to morally grave events is that which is necessary to deter any future morally grave actions. Consequently, for morally grave events, we need to take the necessary actions, and not a reasonable and proportionate response, to punish and deter morally grave events.

10/18/23 Unadulterated Evil

As President Biden has stated, the Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel are “unadulterated evil”. My righteous anger at the events of Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel has delayed my response to this event. This anger leads me to believe that the people who planned and carried out these evil attacks need to be eliminated as both retribution and deterrence from future evil acts. This anger is also directed at the people who supported these evil attacks, either by their silence or vocal support, and they need to be driven from our midst and consigned to wander a desolate wilderness (literally for those in the Middle East and figuratively for their supporters around the world). However, the return of my rational and reasonable thought has given me pause to determine the best course of action to undertake in a manner that confronts evil without trampling on the Natural Rights of others.

However, these attacks were an act of war, and in war, it is often not possible to preserve the Natural Rights of all in confronting evil. The only question is what the response to such unadulterated evil should be. The Biden response is pathetic, as it does not actively confront the evildoers nor their supporters. Consequently, all humanitarian peoples and governments must proceed as if we are at war with these evildoers and temper our concerns for Natural Rights to eliminate these evildoers.

As these attacks were planned and funded by Iran, the rulership in Iran must be destroyed and replaced by a humanitarian government. All members of Hamas (and Hezbollah) need to be executed for their crimes against humanity. As some of the people of Palestine had to know something was about to occur, and they did not even clandestinely inform Israeli authorities of such, they should be relocated away from Israel for the security of Israel and its people. In doing so, we should remember the words of the Civil War Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's Letter to Atlanta in our reasoning for doing so, as well as some other of his wisdom on war:

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
 - William Tecumseh Sherman

"We can make war so terrible and make them so sick of war that generations pass away before they again appeal to it."
 - William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
 - William Tecumseh Sherman

As for the vocal supporters of these evil acts, they should be branded as enablers and be shunned by all decent law-abiding and peaceful persons. They have the freedom of speech to articulate their opinions, but decent people have the freedom of speech to condemn these enablers and the freedom to not associate with these enablers. Any group or organization that enables these evildoers should in no way receive any government funding, nor should any elected or appointed official that enables these evildoers be permitted to retain their office.

“Never Again” should mean never again, and we should wage war against these evildoers and censure their enables to ensure that it will never happen again. For those who are fearful of the possible terrible consequences that may be incurred from taking these actions, or those who believe that this evil has no direct consequences on America, I would remind them of the following words of warning:

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

10/17/23 Out of Their Senses

In their infinite wisdom, the Continental Congress sent John Adams over to France to assist Benjamin Franklin with his diplomacy in obtaining French assistance and an alliance with France for them to engage in a war with Britain. They did this because they had heard of the unorthodox diplomacy of Franklin, and they were impatient with the pace of diplomacy. This did not turn out well, as the King of France, the French Aristocracy, and French society did not care for Adam’s or his style of diplomacy. After a short time in France, Adam’s was reassigned to Holland to obtain their assistance (which also did not work out well for other reasons).

Upon reflection, Franklin wrote:

“I am persuaded however that he [John Adams] means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his Senses.”
  - Benjamin Franklin

I feel the same as Franklin on Adams when I consider the words and deeds of Global Climate Change activists. I believe that they are honest and sincere in their beliefs and mean well, but in most things, they are out of their senses. Out of their senses as they often do not utilize proper facts and proper reasoning, do not account for the economics of their solutions, and often depend on a change in human nature to obtain their goals. They operate in a blind faith mode in their dedication to their objectives, and they brook no dissent in their ranks or contrary viewpoints outside their ranks. This is also occurring within the ranks of Climate Change scientists, as:

“To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
 - Patrick T. Brown, Climate Change Scientist

Consequently, it is dogma that drives Climate Change activists rather than provable facts. As such, they are not rational, and they behave vindictively to those that disagree with them. Thus, they are out of their senses, and rational and reasonable people should pay no heed to senseless people.

10/16/23 We Are Past That Point

There has never been any large-scale technological development that has been without risks. Economic, Political, Social, and Engineering risks are inherent in major technological developments, especially in their gestation and early life. So, it has been for Nuclear Power Generation. As Nuclear Power Generation was born out of the development of the atomic bomb, there were fears among the general public that a Nuclear Power plant could blow up (impossible for the reactor but possible for the surrounding container and building) or the nuclear reactor could melt down (which is possible but unlikely with proper safety engineering). There were also concerns about the safety of spent nuclear fuel disposal. People were also concerned about the possible increased exposure to radioactivity from the use of Nuclear Power Generation. Consequently, Nuclear Power Generation became untenable to the American public.

Just as Hydroelectric and Fossil Fuel electrical generation plants have had accidents and disasters, there have been accidents, but only one disaster, with Nuclear Power Generation. The Three Mile Island Accident was an engineering flaw that began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a flaw in the primary system that allowed large amounts of water to escape from the pressurized isolated coolant loop. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The Fukushima nuclear accident was because of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a mediocre nuclear reactor design, defective safety engineering, and poor emergency responses as a result of the Soviet Union’s haste to achieve Nuclear Power Generation at a low cost. We are also beginning to see the ecological impacts of Wind and Solar electrical power in their mining, manufacturing, and end-of-life disposal, as well as the harm to wildlife in their operation.

However, most of the design and safety engineering, as well as the emergency responses, have been improved to the point that these fears are unjustifiable and, thus, we are past that point where we should reflexively reject Nuclear Power Generation. It is time to rethink using Nuclear Power Generation properly, assess the risks, and determine the cost/benefits of utilizing Nuclear Power Generation.

For those who are willing to consider using Nuclear Power Generation, I would direct you to a TEDxBerlin video by Michael Shellenberger, “Why I changed my mind about nuclear power”, that examines this issue. For those who continue to reject Nuclear Power Generation, I would ask you to think about the negative risks and consequences of using other electrical generation technologies (which are many), and I would suggest that you view the same video to obtain the facts and truths about Nuclear Power Generation before making up your mind. I would also ask you to remember some prescient words of wisdom:

“If we’re going to tackle Global Warming, Nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power.”
 - Sting, Dec 2016

I would also ask all to remember that:

"The best way to overcome irrational fear is with proper facts and proper reasoning."
 - Mark Dawson

10/15/23 Rational and Reasonable Contrariness on Climate Change

Most Global Climate Change activists like to claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and that the science is settled. As I have written in my article on Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, no science is settled, as new scientific thought often replaces old scientific thought. Also, scientific consensus is often wrong as new observations and experiments contradict the consensus. Thus, “consensus science” is an oxymoron, as the following quote succinctly points out:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
 - Michael Crichton

Those that disagree with the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science are often labeled as “Science Deniers”. As I have written in my Chirp on "08/03/23 Climate Science Denial", Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus and settledness of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. Three leading scientists and two knowledgeable and intelligent person on climate science have spoken of their doubts about the consensus and settledness of Climate Change science in the following videos:

Dr. Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology

Dr. Richard Lindzen on Climate Alarmism

Dr. Judith Curry: "Relax, there is no climate emergency!"

Bjorn Lomborg - Is there a Climate Crisis?

Michael Shellenberger: Climate Change Is Real, But It's Not the End of the World

It would behoove all to view these videos before they reach a conclusion on the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science. To not do so is to have forgotten the adage:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism 

10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

In a NY Post article by Jonathan Lesser, “Why wind and solar power are running out of juice”, he points out that:

“Wind turbine manufacturers like Siemens and General Electric have reported huge losses for the first half of this year, almost $5 billion for the former and $1 billion for the latter.
Among other problems, turbine quality control has suffered, forcing manufacturers such as Siemens and Vestas to incur costly warranty repairs.
In Europe, offshore wind output has been less than promised, while operating costs have been much higher than advertised.
Offshore wind developers in Europe and the US are canceling projects because of higher materials and construction costs.”

Other reports have pointed out the economic and ecological impacts of Wind turbine failures that sow debris under the fields on which they stand and decimate birds of prey and the hefty costs of disposal and recycling when a wind turbine reaches its end of life. These economic and ecological impacts also hold true for Solar panels, but as they are a newer technology, the economic and ecological impacts are not yet fully known.

It is also true that Wind turbines and Solar panels are heavily dependent on government subsidies and tax credits, which camouflage the economics of these technologies. These government subsidies and tax credits are also a cost-shifting from the companies to the taxpayers that shift the economic risks of these technologies onto the public. Alas, this may make for good politics, but it is not good economics. It is not the function of government to provide subsidies and tax credits to companies or individuals, as it puts them in the position of choosing winners and losers, which a government is ill-suited to accomplish. It also allows politicians to reward and enrich political friends while encumbering political opponents, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Thus, in all economic forecasts and projections of Wind turbines and Solar panels, the costs/benefits are skewered and should not be accepted as reality.

10/13/23 Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Two prominent climate scientists, physicist Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), submitted a response for comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation. In this response, they argue that the regulations will have “disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, and the United States if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are reduced to ‘Net Zero’”.

As Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen have also stated, “The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule.” and “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

They also noted that Professor Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, incisively explained the scientific method:

“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

Thus, the scientific method is very simple and very profound: Does theory work with observations? If not, it is rejected and not used. Since theories are tested with observations, fabricating data, falsifying data, and omitting contradictory facts to make a theory work is an egregious violation of the scientific method.

Richard Feynman stated this fundamental principle of the scientific method:

“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”

In Albert Einstein’s words: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen commented that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth, as well as commenting on the Unscientific Method Commonly Used by the EPA and Studies. The entire response of Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen can be downloaded here, and I would encourage all to read this response.

Additionally, Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message, “there is no climate emergency”. Dr. Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, with the first being Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on Solid-state physics. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly and is now over 1600 people.

Their response, and the Clintel World Climate Declaration, only reinforces what I have written in my articles on The Problems with Modern Science, Orthodoxy in Science, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, and Climate Change. For those that would claim that Drs. Happer and Lindzen are climate science deniers, I would recommend that you read my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial” to this assertion.

10/12/23 Net Zero CO2

The Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400. Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted but that they could not set fruit there. The Winter of 536 AD was the most severe and protracted episode of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years and initiated the Late Antique Little Ice Age, which lasted from 536 to 560 AD. The medieval scholar Michael McCormick wrote that 536 was the worst year in history to be alive: "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year.” In addition, a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (about 850–1250 A.D.), Greenland supported Norse farmers who grew crops such as barley, which cannot be grown there now because of the cold. There followed the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1250–1850 A.D., and glaciers have been retreating ever since then.

None of these fluctuations, far more dramatic than anything predicted by Global Climate Change studies, were caused by or had any correlation with, changing CO2 levels. All these severe weather changes were regional, not global, and were abated by natural forces unrelated to CO2 levels. Hence, there is reason to doubt that CO2 levels are directly related to weather changes and that other factors are more impactful to the weather on a regional basis.

In addition, Global Climate Change studies grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that CO2 and fossils fuels provide enormous social benefits for the poor, the United States, people worldwide, and future generations; that reduction of CO2 to Net Zero would be a worldwide disaster; and that there is no significant risk that CO2 and fossils fuels will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather events.

CO2 is the basis for nearly all life on Earth. We owe our very existence to green plants that, through photosynthesis, convert CO2 and water to carbohydrates and oxygen with sunlight. Land plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Other essential nutrients—water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.—come from the soil. In turn, livestock depends on the availability of green plants to consume so that humans can consume the livestock. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, no food, and no human or other life.

Therefore, we should all be wary of claims that Global Climate Change is responsible for weather events, as well as consider the benefits to humanity of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

10/11/23 It’s All About Power and Money

My previous Chirp on “10/09/23 Quotes on Good Science” is especially applicable to Global Climate Change. As I mention in the conclusion of these quotes, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”. As Global Climate Change predictions do not comport to reality, then I can categorically state that Global Climate Change is not science. Although some parts of the science of Global Climate Change are scientific, when aggregated into the whole of Global Climate Change science, they are dubious science.

Additionally, Climate Change activists enrich themselves through the public fear of Global Climate Change, while politicians electioneer on the fear of Global Climate Change, and scientists obtain funding and grants to investigate Global Climate Change based on the public fear of Global Climate Change. Hence, Global Climate Change is more about money and power than science.

Fear, however, is not a good basis for power and money, as when the fear abates, the former fearful often turns to those that engendered fear. It also pits those that are fearful against those that are not fearful, and using fear as a basis for scientific research corrupts science and scientists. Fear also almost always makes for irrational and unreasonable decisions, decisions that can have detrimental repercussions on people, society, and the economy, especially when a government makes these fearful decisions.

Often these government decisions are also made based on the desire for governmental control of society and/or the economy. Thus, these decisions often increase governmental power to the detriment of the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. In the case of international Global Climate Change accords, we see governments not only trying to control their people but also trying to control the people of other nations.

Much of this fear and control is instituted by the attempts to restrict or suppress the freedom of speech of those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science. In these restrictions, the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media are complicit. By labeling all dissent of Global Climate Change science as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, as well as disparaging and denigrating dissenters as Climate Change Deniers, as in my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial”, they are implicated in the suppression of Freedom of Speech. In this, we should remember the words of wisdom of George Washington:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

In restricting or suppressing those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science, they are echoing and repeating only one side of the Global Climate Change issue, which results in:

"When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly."
 - George Washington

An insensibly that leads people to unquestionably accept Global Climate Change as factual when there are many legitimate questions and doubts about the science of Global Climate Change science.

10/10/23 A Scientist’s Duty

As I have written in my Science Article, “Orthodoxy in Science”, dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. Today, however, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation that is especially prevalent in the science of Climate Change, COVID-19, and now Transgenderism. Most disconcerting is that the Scientific Journals and Science magazines are suppressing this dissent and disputations between their covers. In doing so, they have forgotten the admonishment of one of the greatest scientists of all time:

“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
 - Albert Einstein

But conceal is what they do, mostly by not publishing dissent and disputations or constricting what can be said in these articles. This has been pointed out in an article by Patrick T Brown on September 5, 2023, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published”, he relates that “I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.” As he stated in his article:

“This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

He then goes on to explain why this is happening and how it works, ending the article by stating, “What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics—but research that actually helps society.”

When Scientific Journals and Science magazines are not doing this on their own, they often bow to pressure from the government to censor their articles. In an article by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on September 11, 2023, The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won, he relates that “Last week, a federal appeals court confirmed that science cannot function without free speech. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reflects on a victory for himself—and every American.” Dr. Bhattacharya then goes on to explain his background, his experience in challenging the official government position on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the censorship he encountered when he tried to publish his findings. Using proper facts and proper reasoning to reach his conclusions was no defense against the suppression he encountered in trying to publish his findings. The government put pressure on Scientific Journals and Social Media companies to suppress or defame his conclusions, thus violating his Free Speech Rights and his scientific duty not to conceal any part of what he recognized to be true.

In their doing so, the Scientific Journals and Science magazines, along with the government and Social Media companies, are also forgetful of another of Alber Einstein’s words of wisdom:

"A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be."
 - Albert Einstein

10/09/23 Quotes on Good Science

The world is awash in scientific studies. Many of these studies are hogwash, as they employ unscientific methods to reach a conclusion that the scientists desire. All scientists, and the public, should remember the following quotes when evaluating scientific studies:

• "A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be."
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, and widely held to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time.
  
  
• “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Reality is the real business of physics."
   - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics

• “[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
  - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• “If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
  - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully."
   - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call “techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes."
  - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• "Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination."
  - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
  
  
• “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
  Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
  There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
   - Michael Crichton, American writer, and filmmaker educated as a Medical Doctor at Harvard University (BA, MD)
  

As for Albert Einstein's quote on reality I would amend it to say, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”

10/08/23 Historical Events Judgements are Complicated

As I have mentioned in several of my Chirps and Articles, when you make judgments on historical events, you must understand the times in which they occurred. An understanding of what the people were thinking helps you understand their words and deeds. However, understanding their thinking is difficult to accomplish even for historians. Up until the 20th century, historians had only documentary evidence such as letters, pamphlets and books, newspapers, transcriptions of speeches, legal records, proclamations, and other written evidence. With the inventions of sound recordings, movies, radio, television, and videos, the documentary evidence expanded and became more comprehensive. Still, it is but an incomplete and imperfect understanding of their thinking that can be achieved.

In addition, historians often bring their modern sensibilities of morals and ethics to bear on their thinking. A good historian will attempt to constrain the influence of their modern sensibilities in their research and writing to be within the bounds of delineated judgment. However, not all historians are so principled, and quite a few of them write their histories with an agenda in mind. Such historians should be challenged and reputed by principled historians, and they often are, but it is difficult for the public to determine and discriminate against unprincipled historians. In addition, some historical writings are not done by historians but by persons who have an axe to grind for or against a historical event or personage. Therefore, we must all be wary of any historical accounting before accepting it as factual or truthful.

This was again accentuated for me in my reading of the book The Union War by Gary W. Gallagher. In his book, he attempts to eliminate his modern sensibilities to determine what the people who supported the Union cause in the Civil War thought that they were fighting for. However, he does point out the contradictions and hypocrisy of their thinking, as the following passage demonstrates:

“American democracy as practiced in 1860 exhibited glaring weaknesses. Woman, free and enslaved black people, did not partake fully of what most northerners would have defined as liberties and freedoms at the center of their popular republic. But it is important to remember, the global context within which the Civil War generation lived and fought—within which, over the proceeding decades, political and economic opportunity had been on the rise in the United States while privilege, with the failures of the European revolutions of the late 1840’s, had seemed to gain a greater stranglehold on other nations in the western world. Falling far short of perfection (as all other governments and political systems everywhere and always do) the American republic nonetheless followed a trajectory toward expansion of opportunity of its citizenry and functioned as a great magnet for immigrants seeking to improve their economical and political circumstances. Across the Atlantic, the United States stood for possibilities and change. The International Workingmen’s Association congratulated Abraham Lincoln on his reelection of 1864, presenting him with an address drafted in late November. Europe’s laboring men “felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class” and believed “their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in the tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic.”

He also discusses the efforts of many modern historians in the last half century or so to frame the Civil War in terms of race and racism, as well as the preservation of white privilege and white superiority. Despite a lack of documentary evidence and the insertion of personal opinion by these historians, the documentary evidence of the Union supporters’ motivations was for the preservation of the Union. As he states in his book:

“Much recent Civil War scholarship obscures the importance of Union for the wartime generation. Two interpretative threads run through such literature. The first and most prominent suggests that the Union of 1860—1861 scarcely deserved to be defended at the cost of any bloodshed. The second argues that a major shift in war aims occurred when northerners realized that only emancipation made their level of sacrifice worthwhile. In both instances, modern sensibilities distort our view of how participants of a distant era understood the war.”

He also has a companion book, The Confederate War, which examines what people who supported the Confederate cause in the Civil War thought that they were fighting for. Both books are well worth the read to understand the thinking of the American people of the time and to better adjudge the historical events of the Civil War and its impacts on American history.

10/07/23 Historical Personages Judgements are Complicated

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “History is a lot more complicated than City Council’s statue-haters can admit”, he commented on the campaign to get rid of monuments honoring anyone who owned enslaved people or profited from slavery and anyone who “participated in systematic crimes against indigenous people or other crimes against humanity.” In doing so, however, you need to be aware of the full history of a person and the political and cultural environment in which they lived to make a proper judgment on a historical person, as well as the other aspects of their history. As an example, as Professor Dershowitz stated in this article:

“Consider, for example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who has an island named after him.

He did a great many good things, but his failures were monumental and costly.

They include maintaining racial segregation in our armed forces while thousands of young African Americans were sent into battle defending democracy.

He closed the doors to Jewish immigration before and during the Holocaust, deliberately making it difficult for Jewish refugees even to fill the unused “quotas” authorized by law.

He is personally responsible for the deaths of many Jews who could have been saved had Roosevelt simply followed the law rather than pandered to the antisemites in Congress and the State Department.

History is filled with these complexities.

Thomas Jefferson’s views on slavery were complex. Abraham Lincoln’s views on the rights of African Americans were likewise complicated.

Woodrow Wilson was a man of peace but a virulent racist.”

Therefore, making judgments on a historical person based on our current morality and ethics is fraught with difficulties. You should not use our current morality and ethics as a basis of the judgment of what happened in a historical period or location but only use it as a guidepost. You should, therefore, be aware of the morals and ethics of a historical person’s time or location so that you can judge the words and deeds of the people of that time or location. You can then utilize our current morals and ethics for comparison to their morals and ethics to reach a fuller understanding of the people or events that historically occurred, as I have written in my article “Condemned to Repeat It”.

To do otherwise is nothing but "Virtue Signaling" without being virtuous, and as it has been said:

"It is much more difficult to be virtuous than it is to virtue signal."
 - Unknown

10/06/23 Another Obama for President

With the decline of President Biden in public opinion polls and with questions about his age, honesty, and integrity, the Democrat Party Leaders are searching for an alternative candidate for the 2024 Presidential elections. As they search for a viable candidate that is acceptable to the American public, one name continues to pop up—Michelle Obama. The possibility of her becoming a presidential candidate demonstrates how bereft the Democrat Party is of viable candidates and how the Democratic Party will resort to appearance over substance to obtain and retain power.

Michelle Obama may be an attractive candidate to those on the left, but she is objectionable to those on the right. Her stances on the issues have reflected her extreme progressiveness, and her comments have further provoked "Divisiveness in America", as the following quote illustrates:

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”
 — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008

I can also hear the wailing of racism and sexism against anyone who would disagree with her or critique or criticize her, which would further divide America. Given that she has no political or governmental experience, nor any business acumen or leadership, her credentials to lead or manage the Federal government are thin too nonexistent.

Thus, if the Democrat Party nominates her as their 2024 Presidential candidate, they are pinning their hopes for winning the election on appearances rather than substance on the issues. They are also demonstrating that they are more interested in rulership rather than leadership, as an unqualified President cannot lead but only rule.

10/05/23 Biden Impeachment Inquiry Simplified

South Carolina’s Representative William Timmons has made the most concise and trenchant statements about the purpose of the current inquiry on the possibility of the Impeachment of President Biden. The big three comments he made are:

“Let me simplify our impeachment inquiry for the American people. We have enormous amounts of evidence of Hunter Biden's nefarious and illegal activity. But the question is... was Joe Biden complicit and did he receive a financial benefit? With a few more subpoenas, we will do the job the DOJ, FBI, and IRS actively avoided.”

“This Congress has a duty to further investigate whether Vice President Joe Biden was an affable, loving father simply taken advantage of by his delinquent son, or a knowing participant who was complicit in the scheme and financially compensated for his role. That is why we are here today, to answer that simple question, to determine if our current president is compromised.”

“Look, this scheme is complicated. You’ve got all these countries and all these different roles different people played. But the plan is simple and repeated often. A foreign client has a problem. The foreign client pays a Biden. The vice president leverages influence to force a favorable outcome for the client. The Biden family earns its fee. That’s the scheme.”

As to whether there is sufficient evidence, at this time, to impeach President Biden, I would agree with the statement before the committee of constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who said that he doesn’t believe the evidence as it currently exists supports impeaching Joe Biden. What he also said, however, was that he also believed the evidence uncovered so far merited the impeachment inquiry, which is precisely as far as the House GOP has gone. Professor Turley added:

“The only way you’ll be able to get that information is to follow this evidence. What I suggest is you do so without any prejudice, you do so without any assumptions. In fact, I hope that the president will be able to show that there is no such nexus. But you won’t get those answers until you ask these questions.”

Consequently, it is important for the committee to uncover all the evidence, connect the dots, and reveal the facts and truths of Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s schemes. Only then can the American people determine whether an Impeachment of Joe Biden is warranted.

10/04/23 I Am Not in Favor of Democracy

If democracy means the violation of the Natural Rights of a person, then I am not in favor of democracy. If democracy means ignoring or circumventing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, then I am not in favor of democracy. If democracy means the imposition of Progressive Ideology and Ideas on America, then I am not in favor of democracy.

Unfortunately, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that the meaning of democracy is that they can implement their policy goals and political agendas without remaining within the boundaries of Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. Through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, they have bamboozled the American people into believing that they are within these boundaries. To my fellow Americans, I would say do not be hoodwinked by them, as they are not within these boundaries!

Even if they obtain a broad majority of support for their policy goals and political agendas, it is not democracy if it violates the boundaries of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, for the majority may never violate the rights of the minority in a democracy. It is not democracy but majoritarianism if they violate these boundaries and majoritarianism, which can only be enforced by despotism.

Therefore, when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders speak of “our democracy”, as I have examined in Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", they are not speaking of a real democracy. They are speaking of their majoritarian oligarchy, as Rob Natelson has explained in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. Do not let them gaslight you into believing their pronouncements, but do resist their efforts as I have Chirped on “09/30/23 Resistance Movements in Modern America”.

10/03/23 Who’s to Blame?

America has seen many botches during the Biden Administration. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many botches of the Biden Administration. We have also seen how the Biden Family was involved in corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials.

The question is who is responsible for these blunders? Many have pointed to specific individuals in the Biden Administration and to President Biden himself as responsible for these blunders. In this, there is much truth, but we should also consider the larger picture which allowed for these blunders.

One of the contributing factors is a belief in Progressivism as a governing philosophy, an unfounded belief, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". Another contributing factor is the decline of "Modern Journalism" to become advocacy journalism rather than uncovering the facts and truths. An advocacy journalism of Progressive ideology and ideas, and a support of Democrat candidates and politicians in their journalism. Finally, the American people shoulder some of this blame by electing and supporting Progressives and Democrats despite their many blunders.

It is understandable that the American people shoulder some of this blame, for after decades of progressive propaganda and advocacy journalism, they are unknowledgeable of the failures of progressivism and the facts and truths not reported or covered up by modern journalism. The biggest failure of modern journalism was in the 2020 presidential campaign. A failure of modern journalism to draw out candidate Joe Biden from his basement for the American people to make a judgment on his policies and character, the covering up of the Hunter Biden laptop, which revealed his corruption, and the lack of investigative reporting on the irregularities of the 2020 election process. Thus, the American people did not have the information they needed to make a proper judgment in electing Joe Biden.

It should also be noted that the failures of "Public Education" have produced a body politic unfamiliar with our "American Ideals and Ideas" and has degenerated into indoctrination rather than education, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education".

These larger picture factors, along with the "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" in America, have produced a society that blunders its way from one botch to another. A blundering which, if not corrected, bodes ill for the future of America.

10/02/23 Going Too Far

The book and movie “A Bridge Too Far” was the story of Operation Market Garden, the World War II Allies' attempt, in September 1944, to hasten the end of World War II by driving through Belgium and Holland into Germany to capture several bridges. Faulty intelligence, Allied high command hubris, and stubborn German resistance would ensure that the Arnhem Bridge was a bridge too far, which resulted in the failure of Operation Market Garden to achieve its goals.

In a Podcast, Jordan Peterson at Club Random with Bill Maher, Jordon Peterson related that he has posed an interesting question for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders; “When do you think the left go too far?” He also related that he has never gotten a clear answer to this question to those he posited the question.

So, what is the answer to this question? The answer is that you go too far when you violate the Natural Rights of a person. This includes the words and deeds that you engage in to achieve your goals. The strategy of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", "The Weaponization of Government", the violations of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, and the tactics of Cancel Culture, Doxing, Hate Speech, Herd Mentality, Hyper-Partisanship, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, and Wokeness are all a bridge too far.

Too often, the policies of Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQIA+, Equity and Equality, Modern Feminism, Social Engineering, and allegations of Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, or Bigoted are a bridge too far and result in "Divisiveness in America".

In their self-righteousness, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they have the morality to engage in these strategies and tactics for the greater good, as I have written in my article on the Greater Good versus the Common Good. But no greater good can be achieved by violating the Natural Rights of a person. What they will achieve is despotism against those who disagree with them.

Let us hope that by going a bridge too far, the American people will awaken to the harm that they are doing. And, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Resistance Movements", that a resistance will arise in America against these bridges too far.

10/01/23 The Mythologies of Progressivism

As I have noted in my Chirp on "08/25/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History", Progressives rely on the “facts” and “truths” of science and history to buttress their ideology. However, they pick and choose tidbits of facts and truths and surround them with their ideology rather than elucidating all the facts and truths. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history and creating myths of science and history, which they propagate to an unknowing public. This month’s Book It selections examine some of these Progressive myths and repudiate them with facts and truths.

09/30/23 Resistance Movements in Modern America

When Donald Trump won the Presidential election in 2016, the cries of “Resistance” rang through Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. But this resistance was not based upon self-rule and self-determination, nor the preservation of Liberties and Freedoms, but of resistance to preserve their Progressive ideology and ideas. As such, it was not a legitimate and praiseworthy resistance. In this resistance, no strategy or tactic was to be excluded, and nothing was off-limits to their resistance. False accusations, Congressional Hearings with no veracity, corruption of the FBI and the Intelligence community, IRS shenanigans, indictments and lawsuits of his supporters, physical and psychological intimidation, violence on the streets, and a steady drumbeat in the Mainstream Media against Trump and his supporters were all in play. The 2020 Presidential elections were all about covering up the infirmities, lies, and corruption of Joe Biden and his family, while the negative drumbeat against President Trump in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education" was incessant. They even resorted to the suppression of Free Speech, Free Assembly, and the Freedom of the Press to further this resistance. Thus, this was not resistance but repression.

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “What the Left Did to Our Country”, he lays out a litany of actions that the Left has taken in the last two decades to “fundamentally transform” America. A transformation not based on our "American Ideals and Ideas" but on the imposition of Progressive ideology and ideas upon America. As such, it is time for resistance to arise in America to reclaim our American Ideals and Ideas. A resistance to reaffirming the ideals of The Declaration of Independence and the ideas of the Constitution of the United States. In such resistance, it should be remembered by the resistors that:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

Without this active resistance and the success thereof, it is quite possible that America will slide into despotism. Let us hope that we can counter this slide with the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box rather than having to resort to the ammo box, as I have written in my Article, “The Four Boxes of Liberty”. But if we cannot successfully resist through the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, the ammo box may be necessary to preserve the last best hope of Liberty and Freedom from perishing from the Earth.

09/29/23 Resistance Movements in Modern World History

Post World War II, there were many resistance movements to oppose established authorities in the hopes of establishing Natural Rights amongst all the people of the world. These resistance movements were primarily against Communism and British and French Colonialism. In the case of British and French Colonialism, the resistance movements were successful in ending colonialism, sometimes peaceably and sometimes not. These colonialist resistance movements were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination of the people of a country. Thus, they were legitimate and praiseworthy resistance movements. Unfortunately, violence often erupted during this resistance, and Natural Rights were often violated during the resistance. In some cases, the end of colonialism did not bring about self-rule and self-determination but tyranny that violated the Natural Rights of the people.

The yearning for Liberty and Freedom in post-World War II Communist countries led to many resistance movements in these countries. Some resistance movements were organized, and some were spontaneous. All were in an effort to establish self-rule, self-determination, and Natural Rights in these countries, and all were opposed by the communist governments. The Gulag in the Soviet Union, the State Police in Eastern Block European Iron Curtain countries, the Cultural Revolution in Red China, and other Crimes against Humanity under Communist Regimes occurred as a result of resistance to Communist authorities. Eventually, Communism collapsed due to economic forces and the mass support for the resistance movements. The few remaining Communist countries adopted economic reforms to forestall economic ruination, but they continued to impose political oppressions and violations of the Natural Rights of their people.

In Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, resistance movements were often targeted against tyrannies and dictatorships. They were often violent and not often successful, and where they were successful, they often replaced one form of tyranny and dictatorship with another form of tyranny and dictatorship. Thus, the peoples of those countries did not achieve self-rule and self-determination, the Natural Rights of their peoples were ignored or suppressed, and the economic condition of the people was not improved and sometimes deteriorated.

Consequently, when evaluating resistance movements, it is necessary to determine if the resistors are attempting to institute self-rule and self-determination and establish the Natural Rights of their people. Too often, a resistance movement has espoused laudatory purposes, but the ends are not commendable, or they become corrupted. Thus, it is even more important to determine if their intended goals are just words rather than deeds. A determination that is often difficult to ascertain and requires constant surveillance of the words and deeds of a resistance movement. For, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
  - Thomas Jefferson

Any resistance movement that is for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination and the Liberties and Freedoms of its people is legitimate and should be supported by all liberty and freedom-loving persons of the world. Conversely, any resistance movements that are not for these purposes should be opposed by all liberty and freedom-loving persons of the world.

09/28/23 Resistance Movements in World War II

In the warmongering, before and during World War II, it was often downplayed or forgotten that many of the peoples of NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan resisted against their governments. The British and American authorities did not provide any support for these resisters and often engaged in words and deeds that were counterproductive to their efforts. The book The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming details many of the words and deeds that were counterproductive to the resistance and how the Allies could have provided assistance to the resisters.

The German resistance to Nazism was composed of many individuals and groups in Germany that were opposed to the Nazi regime and engaged in resistance, including assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler or by overthrowing his regime. It has been estimated that during the course of World War II 800,000 Germans were arrested by the Gestapo for resistance activities. It has also been estimated that between 15,000 and 77,000 of the Germans were executed by the Nazis. Resistance members were usually tried, mostly in show trials, by Sondergerichte (Special Courts), courts-martial, People's Courts, and the civil justice system. Many of the German resistance had served in government in military or civil positions, which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy.

The Italian resistance movement, Resistenza, is an umbrella term for the Italian resistance groups who fought the occupying forces of Nazi Germany and the fascist collaborationists of the Italian Social Republic during the Second World War in Italy from 1943 to 1945. As a diverse anti-fascist movement and organization, the Resistenza opposed Nazi Germany, as well as Nazi Germany's Italian puppet state regime, the Italian Social Republic, which the Germans created following the Nazi German invasion and military occupation of Italy by the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS from 8 September 1943 until 25 April 1945.

Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan consisted of individual Japanese dissidents against the policies of the Empire of Japan, but there were no formal resistance groups or movements.

What is important for the purposes of this Chirp is that it is crucial to support any resistance group that opposes evil and the violations of Natural Rights. If we had done so in NAZI Germany and Fascist Italy before and during World War II, the history of this war may have been quite different. Therefore, it is important that we remember these resistance movements and learn the lessons of history if we do not support them. Thus, this Chirp is a remembrance of those people and groups in NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan that opposed the forces of evil in their countries. It is also a plea for support for resistance movements of those people who are standing up for self-rule and self-determination and the Liberties and Freedoms of the people of their country in our modern world.

09/27/23 Resistance Movements in American History

Resistance to authority in the form of despotism, totalitarianism, tyranny, monarchy, dictatorship, and other oppressions of self-rule and self-determination have been common throughout human history. The yearning for and understanding of Natural Rights has grown throughout human history, and with it, the desire for Liberty and Freedom has increased.

America itself was born out of resistance to the authoritarianism of the British government that attempted to suppress self-rule and self-determination and the Natural Rights of the colonists as expressed in the particulars of the Declaration of Independence. In doing so, they formulated a new expression of the purpose of government and basic Natural Rights in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

In this paragraph, they also established the legitimacy of resistance if it were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination and the desire for governmental protection of Liberties and Freedoms that flow from the Natural Rights of the people.

After winning its freedom from England, Americans attempted to enshrine the principles of this new formulation of government in the Constitution of the United States, as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Yet, they were not perfect in these principles, as they violated them by allowing the stain and evil of slavery to exist in America. This led to the second great resistance in America and eventually to the Civil War that ended this stain and evil.

Prior to America’s entrance into World Wars I and II, there was significant resistance in America to our entrance into these wars. Only when these wars were framed in the context of Liberty and Freedom did the resistance to these wars dissipate.

The next great resistance movement in American history was in the form of the Civil Rights movement. This (mostly) non-violent movement, placed in the context of Liberty and Freedom, gained the support of the American people and ended systemic bigotry and discrimination in America.

The next resistance occurred in the protests against the Vietnam War. While initially, many of the resistors were non-violent, as the war dragged on, much resistance turned violent. This violence divided Americans, and these divisions lingered on for many decades.

Thus, American resistance movements were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination, the reaffirmation of Natural Rights, and the expansion of Liberty and Freedoms for the people. As such, they were legitimate and praiseworthy resistance movements.

09/26/23 You Have to Wonder

When thinking about the career of Senator, Vice President, and now President Joe Biden, you must wonder whether he does or says something because he’s a liar or because he’s genuinely stupid. Now you need to add a third and fourth option: corruption and senility. His entire political career has been about him: his egotism, his nihilism, his self-importance, his expedience in saying anything to advance his career, and his avarice to enrich himself and his family. This bespeaks his being a person without character and principles. His motivations appear to be to obtain and retain power and to enrich himself and his family from that power.

Also, as Robert Gates, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, once put it, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” and as President Obama has stated, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.” This also bespeaks his being limited in knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom.

And wrong and f**k things up has been the story of Joe Biden’s Presidency. America is far the worse by the presence of Joe Biden on our political scene. A nation divided and floundering characterizes his Presidency. The American people have been hoodwinked by his stay-at-home presidential campaign of 2020 and the many cover-ups of his lies, incompetencies, and corruption by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media".

Given Joe Biden’s history, you need not wonder anymore—he is a liar, stupid, corrupt, and now senile. For those who do not believe this, I would remind them of the words of the American Scholar Charles L. Black, " I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers- that of laughter."

09/25/23 Influence Peddling and Lobbying

Influence peddling is the practice of using one's influence in government or connections with authorities to obtain favors or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment. It is also called traffic of influence or trading in influence. Influence peddling per se is not necessarily illegal, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has often used the modified term "undue influence peddling" to refer to illegal acts of lobbying. However, influence peddling is typically associated with corruption and may, therefore, delegitimize democratic politics with the general public.

Lobbying or advocacy in politics is the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies, but also judges of the judiciary. Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations, and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as voters, constituents, or private citizens; it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own business interests; by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector through advocacy groups (interest groups) to fulfill their mission such as requesting humanitarian aid or grantmaking; and by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector. Lobbying or certain practices that share commonalities with lobbying are sometimes referred to as government relations or government affairs, and sometimes legislative relations or legislative affairs.

Influence peddling and lobbying have been part and parcel of governance throughout history and are a result of powerful governments that can enrich or immiserate persons or organizations outside of government. A main difference between influence peddling and lobbying is that influence peddling enriches those in power while lobbying influences those in power to obtain favorable treatment that would enrich those not in power. Consequently, influence peddling satisfies the avariciousness of the politician or bureaucrat, while lobbying satisfies the greed and desires of the non-politician.

The perils of influence peddling and lobbying are that the decisions reached under their influence may have serious (negative) repercussions on the public welfare. The policies of international relationships may be detrimental, the health and safety of the public may be impacted, and the economic impacts may redound negatively to the general good. It is also an unfortunate fact that influence peddling has enriched many a politician, their spouses, families, and friends, as well as their campaign coffers. There is no practical way to eliminate influence peddling and lobbying in government, but when these activities rise to the level of consequential impacts, those involved must be punished either judicially, politically, or economically for their avarice or greed that has brought harm to the general public.

Such is the case of the alleged Biden Family corruption. Not only have they enriched themselves by their influence peddling, but they have corrupted the justice system to deny their wrongdoing. Both actions have wrought great harm to America. While there may be judicial actions that can be utilized to prosecute Joe Biden’s family and friends, the only action that can be taken against Joe Biden while he is the sitting president is Impeachment.

While I am generally against Impeachment, for the reasons that I have written in several articles on The Impeachment of President Trump, the influence peddling of Joe Biden and his family may rise to the level of impeachment. In my article on The Case for the Impeachment of President Biden, I have stated that in evaluating the wisdom of impeachment, you must balance the harm to the functioning of the government and the balance of powers between Congress and the Presidency as a result of an impeachment process, as well as the harm done to the Constitution and America as a result of the Unconstitutional governance by a President. In doing so, you must also keep in mind that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” when you make a judgment to proceed or not to proceed with an impeachment process. Often, you must make a Sophie’s Choice of the lesser of two evils when faced with this dilemma.

I, therefore, believe that President Biden is deserving of impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. However, as Rob Natelson has explained in his article, “Constitution’s Impeachment Rules Require Biden Inquiry to Be Narrowly Focused”, the impeachment inquiry and possible articles of impeachment must be limited to Joe Biden’s role in the Biden Family corruption. I also believe that on balance, and in both the short and long term, the harm he has done by his influence peddling and to the corruption of the judicial system is far greater than the harm that may result from his impeachment.

09/24/23 Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for actions committed by or on behalf of members of their organizational hierarchy. They may do so because of a lack or absence of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. If illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift the blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible (credible), but sometimes, it makes any accusations only unactionable.

Plausible deniability has often been deliberately utilized by politicians to obtain the goals they desire while shirking the responsibility if the goal is unpopular and, if uncovered, could result in electoral harm. In the case of the Biden family corruption, the entire scheme was designed for plausible deniability. Shell companies, secretive bank accounts, overseas bank transfers, pseudonyms and codewords, duplicitous email addresses, and non-reporting of income to the IRS do not speak of above-board actions by those involved. And besides the goal of enriching themselves without honest efforts, it appears that they were trying to isolate Joe Biden from the appearance of direct involvement in their schemes. To believe otherwise calls for, as Hillary Clinton once stated, “…  a willing suspension of disbelief.”

The one thing that they have forgotten is that for plausible deniability to succeed, it is necessary that the deniability be plausible. As such, as nobody of intelligence and integrity believes their explanations, rather than plausible deniability, they have resorted to the corruption of the justice system to deny wrongdoing.

A corruption of the justice system by slow-walking investigation until the statute of limitations expires, a corruption of the justice system by not utilizing proper investigative techniques, a corruption of the justice system by attempts to plea deal with future immunities and a corruption of the justice system by covering up the other corruptions. They have also corrupted our governance by refusing to release information, redacting information, withholding witnesses, and sometimes deceit or dissembling testimony to Congressional oversight committees.

In this corruption, they have been assisted by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists commentators, as well as by the Mainstream Media’s lack of accurate and truthful reporting. A corruption of the justice system that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and antithetical to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A corruption of the justice system that, if successful, leads to further corruption in the future by other parties.

09/23/23 Economical or Not

To be economical or not to be economical, that is the question. It is an unfortunate fact that "Progressives/Leftists" and "Activists and Activism" have given little or no consideration of the economic impacts of their words and deeds. Without understanding the economics of their words and deeds, it is not possible to create a policy to deal with their concerns. Indeed, any policy that does not account for economics (or human nature) is doomed to failure. And you cannot counter or ignore the economics of any policy decision, or, to paraphrase one of my quotes:

"To deny economics, or to not acknowledge economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

The problem with economics is that it is inexact. The very complexity of economics and the interrelationships between the different complexities make it an inexact science. Economics is also bound up in human nature, and the reactions of humans to changes in their economic circumstances make it impossible to predict the economic impacts of a policy. Different economists have different opinions, often contrary to each other, that are often incompatible and unresolvable. This is why predictions in economics are more often wrong than right.

When Activists, Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders make economic statements, they are often based upon rosy assumptions of what they desire it to be, and when the government makes economic statements, they are most often wrong. Alas, this is most especially true of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), as their economic models are constrained by limitations, assumptions, and presumptions imposed by Congressional politicians. Thus, Congress operates on false economic models of their own making that are constrained to provide rosy economic projections of their policies. Anytime you have a model with constraints that contain assumptions and presumptions, it will most likely produce incorrect results (one only has to look at Climate Change models that are consistently incorrect for proof of the assertion). Indeed, it can be said that the greater the complexity and interrelationships of a model and the further it projects into the future, the more likely it is to be wrong.

Consequently, all economic models and projections should be taken with a grain of salt, as they often are wrong and tinged by the desires of those who do the modeling. And always remember:

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics" (1954)

And:

"All models are wrong, some are useful."
  - George E. P. Box, one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century

09/22/23 Truth, Justice, and the American Way

The articulation “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” was a catchphrase of the comic-book character Superman until they went woke in 2021 and changed it to "Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow." Of course, “a Better Tomorrow” is highly subjective and open to interpretation as to what constitutes a better tomorrow. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is a Better Tomorrow, but who shall decide what is a Better Tomorrow?” I do not believe it is wise to allow comic book authors to determine a Better Tomorrow, nor wise to allow any group of people to determine what is a better tomorrow. Each person must have the Liberty and Freedom to determine what is a better tomorrow for them and society through the democratic process to determine what is a better tomorrow for society.

The original phrase is much less subjective, as it is based upon our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our commitment to  "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Thus, once again, we see Progressives/Leftists sowing doubt and confusion to achieve their political goals. Therefore, have no doubts and do not be confused, as “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is the proper articulation of Americans and America.

09/21/23 Be Careful What You Ask For

In an article by Charles C. W. Cooke, “Why Not Arrest Governor Lujan Grisham?” and an additional commentary article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Why Not Arrest Governor Lujan Grisham . . . Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law the Biden Justice Department Is Using to Prosecute Donald Trump?”, they both make some interesting points.

As Mr. Cooke points out that:

“More than anything else, the Framers of America’s constitutional order feared executive tyranny. They built a nation of laws not men, of constitutions not caprice, of legislatures not kings.”

As such, no Executive or Executive Officer can act without Legislative approval. When an Executive or Executive Officer arbitrarily acts without Legislative approval, then they are violating the foundations of our governance and leading us into tyranny. As Mr. Cooke has also said in his article:

“A stable and intelligible set of written laws is what separates free nations such as the United States and the tyrannies it was designed to avoid. That law must be seamless in its scope and application. It cannot be applied to some but not others; it cannot be suspended at will; it cannot be subordinated to the subjective judgment of those who swore an oath to uphold it. It exists, or it does not. It remains intact, or it is torn apart. It is universal, or it is obviated.”

Mr. McCarthy points out that the statute being used to prosecute former President Trump by the Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith in the federal election interference case has broader implications if applied to other government officials. Section 241 of the federal penal code is the civil-rights conspiracy statute states:

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same[,] … [t]hey shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both[.]”

He also states that:

“Obviously, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D., N.M.) and her subordinates have conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Americans in New Mexico in the free exercise and enjoyment of their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, her acknowledgment that she expects to be challenged in court underscores both her criminal intent and the fact that the rights she has decided to “suspend” are well established in constitutional law.”

When an Executive Officer does not faithfully execute the laws as passed by the Legislature, they are violating the rights of the people within their jurisdiction. This is also a violation of our republican form of government, where the elected people’s representatives in the Legislature make the laws, while the Executive officers (both elected and appointed) must faithfully execute the laws as passed by the Legislature. It is also a violation of their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and their State Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws thereof. When the Executive officers disagree with a law, they have the right to request the legislature modify, eliminate, or create laws, but they have no right to ignore or skirt the law. The use of “Prosecutorial Discretion” to justify not faithfully executing the laws does not hold water, as I have discussed in my Chirp on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion".

When any elected or appointed official in any of the three branches of government—Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, does not uphold the law or advocates for the ignoring or skirting of the law, they are engaging in an insurrection against the proper authority of our government, and they should be removed from office either by impeachment or prosecution for violating Section 241 of the federal penal code.

This course of action against these transgressors would require that our leaders have the fortitude to stand up for the principle of the Constitution rather than the expediency of “doing something” and/or pandering for votes. Alas, such fortitude seems to be in short supply in modern America. If our leaders cannot do so, then those of us who believe in our "American Ideals and Ideas" need the fortitude to dispose our leaders who cannot or will not stand up for the principles of our Constitution. In this, we should remember the words of wisdom of the 16th President of the United States:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

09/20/23 Enmities in America

In the book, “A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War” by Thomas Fleming, he illuminates the emotional enmity that arose between the North and the South prior to the start of the Civil War:

“By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper's Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern slavocrats like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South's greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson's cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.”

Such emotional enmities are not uncommon in American history and are with us today. Today, in America, these enmities are often based on falsehoods, as I have written in my article "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". This divide is mainly between the Progressives and the Conservatives in America, and they are exacerbated by the Progressive belief that the ills of America are systemic, while the Conservatives believe the ills are of individuals or small groups of Americans. Much of this belief is rooted in the definition of ‘Systemic’ and the differences between Equity and Equality.

Systemic— affecting an entire system is when a society structures itself in its social, economic, or political practice to achieve a purpose, for either good or ill. In the past, America has had systemic problems, the worst being Slavery, Bigotry, and Discriminations. One of the greatness of America is being able to recognize these problems and correct them. Consequently, these are no longer systemic problems but problems that occur by the words and deeds of individuals or groups or some underlying issues that need correction (e.g., quality public education and economic opportunity).

Too often, Progressives only focus on the outcomes in America and decry the inequities while not examining the causes to determine if there are inequalities. Looking only at the outcomes of these supposed falsehoods can lead you to believe it is a systemic problem, but looking into the causes of these falsehoods can lead you to a different conclusion. Examining the entire process of equalities and equities can assist in correcting the problems of inequalities and inequities. To focus on one or the other to almost the exclusion of the other is a recipe for tragedy, as it will not solve the problems but often create additional problems.

Criticizing society based on inequities presupposed that a utopian society of equalities and equities is possible. While this may be a laudatory goal, it is but a delusion, as it does not account for human nature or economics. While all humans are born with equal Natural Rights, not all humans are born with equal talents or abilities. This is the main cause of inequities, as people of more talent or abilities often rise in American society, while those of lesser talents and abilities remain static, regress, or moderately advance in society. Thus, there will always be inequities in society based on talents and abilities.

Economics also plays a large part in equalities and equities. Some people have better access to capital in the form of cash and loans. Those who can take advantage of this access to economically advance themselves. The question then becomes whether this access is based on systemic or extrinsic forces. America has many laws and regulations to ensure that there are no systemic biases in access to capital. However, laws are imperfect, and when possible systemic inequalities are discovered, the laws and regulations are modified to address these inequalities. To utilize inequities as a basis to adjudge if a problem is systemic does not do justice to economic forces. Thus, all should remember when examining inequalities and inequities that:

"To deny human nature or economics, or to not acknowledge human nature or economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

This focus on Inequalities, along with The Biggest Falsehoods in America, has much to do with the enmities in America. A focus on inequalities and the correction of such would reduce the inequities that occur and ensure the fair treatment of all persons in America. Focusing on inequities leads to "Divisiveness in America" and a lessening of "A Civil Society" in America. This focus also pits groups of Americans against each other and creates a sense of victimhood in America. This protracted enmity can only lead to civil disunion that bodes ill for America, for such a protracted enmity once led to the American Civil War to resolve this enmity.

09/19/23 Lawfare

In an article by Jeff Davidson, “The DOJ's Insidious Practice of Lawfare, Intimidation, and Coercion”, he defines “Lawfare” as:

“Lawfare is impacting society in horrendous ways, many of which ultimately impact your life and your experiences. What is lawfare? Derived from combining the words "law" and "warfare," it is the employment of legal approaches to delegitimize, damage, or destroy an opposing party or to hinder their ability to employ their own legal rights.”

He also goes on to state that:

“Lawfare was employed against individuals whom the DOJ had targeted, to damage or disparage their character, waste their money and time, or triumph over them for public relations purposes. Today the DOJ persecutes, coerces, badgers, and prosecutes Americans, mainly conservatives, time after time.”

Lawfare is the primary means of the weaponization of government, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". The employment of lawfare is an assault on the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans, as it deters Americans from exercising their liberties and freedom for fear of becoming involved in lawfare actions by the government.

The purpose of lawfare is not so much in the conviction of a criminal act in a court of law, and, indeed, many of the convictions are for Process Crimes rather than actual criminal acts. In many cases, lawfare is utilized to coerce a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than face the time, legal expense, and possible greater sentence in the event of a conviction of the alleged larger crime. Lawfare is also utilized to threaten the spouse, children, and other family members of a defendant with possible lawfare actions if the accused does not plead guilty to some crimes.

As such, lawfare is an aspect of despotism by the government. A despotism that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and antithetical to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

09/18/23 What the Left Did

In a new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “What the Left Did to Our Country”, he lays out a litany of actions that the Left did to “fundamentally transform” America, a transformation for the worse. As he has written:

“In the last 20 years, the Left has boasted that it has gained control of most of America institutions of power and influence—the corporate boardroom, media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the administrative state, academia, foundations, social media, entertainment, professional sports, and Hollywood.

With such support, between 2009-17, Barack Obama was empowered to transform the Democratic Party from its middle-class roots and class concerns into the party of the bicoastal rich and subsidized poor—obsessions with big money, race, a new intolerant green religion, and dividing the country into a binary of oppressors and oppressed.”

He then goes on to list the ways that the Left has “fundamentally transformed” America for the worse and how the Biden administration has accelerated this transformation.

The Left, in doing so, is fulfilling Abraham Lincoln’s prophecy about the destruction of America from within. In Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech of January 27, 1838, he spoke of how America could be destroyed:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

The Left’s actions are an attempt to coax America into committing suicide. In this, they are being assisted by well-meaning but credulous Progressives and duplicitous Democrat Party leaders. Professor Hanson closes this article by stating:

“We could variously characterize their efforts as destroying the nation to save it, or burning it down to start over, or fundamentally transforming America into something never envisioned by the Founders.

Will their upheaval succeed? All the levers of the power and money are on the side of the revolutionaries. The people are not. And they are starting to wake to the notion if they do not stop the madness in their midst they very soon won’t have a country.”

09/17/23 The Ever-present Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was a knowledgeable, intelligent, and wise person well beyond his humble beginnings, education, and years. In three of his speeches, before he became President, he demonstrated all these attributes. These speeches are Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech of January 27, 1838, Lincoln's A House Divided speech of June 16, 1858, and Lincoln's Cooper Union Address of February 27, 1860. In these speeches, he demonstrated his command of the troubles of his time and their causes. But these causes go beyond his time to the very nature of the problems of a Republican form of governance. Thus, they ring as true today as they did in Lincoln’s time.

My new Article, “The Ever-present Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln”, reviews these speeches in the context of their applicability to today’s events in America.

09/16/23 Presidential Liars of the 21st Century

In the 21st century, America has suffered a succession of Presidential liars. These are:

Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president. Obama previously served as a U.S. senator representing Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004 and worked as a civil rights lawyer and university lecturer.

Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Joseph Biden (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Many people would include President George W. Bush as one of the biggest Presidential liars in the 21st century for the statements he made against Saddam Hussein of Iraq. However, President Bush was not lying but mistaken, as he was informed by the intelligence community, the military, and the State Department that his statement was factual. It wasn’t until after the Iraq War that they learned that Saddam Hussein had engaged in a massive deception to mislead America as to its capabilities and intentions. Thus, President Bush was mistaken and not a liar, as I have written in my chirps on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”.

While there is not yet a scholarly examination of these lies, there has been much political commentary on the lies. Any objective observer of the American political scene knows of these lies and, untainted from political considerations, knows that these lies have had an impact (sometimes positive and sometimes negative) on American governance, politics, and society.

All these Presidential lies of the 20th century and 21st century have seeped into the American psyche, and lying is now expected of Presidents and politicians. Thus, the character of the American people has been corrupted, and we have become more cynical and accepting of lies by Presidents and politicians. As such, we have become infected in our souls, as explained by Plato:

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."
 – Plato

09/15/23 Presidential Liars of the 20th Century

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."
 – Plato

Lying seems to be a political trait, and the history of America is littered with lies by Presidents and politicians. These lies are of two varieties: personal lies and policy lies. Personal lies are often done to enhance their biographies and make them more appealing to the electorate, while policy lies are to advance a political agenda that they believe is best for America. Personal lies reflect upon their insecurities about themselves or the concealment of unpleasant truths of their lives. Policy lies are a deception to institute an agenda that the American people may not be supportive of or to cloak aspects of a policy that may be disagreeable to the American people. In either case, this lying is often injurious to society and the American people.

In the 20th century, this lying was elevated to a new level to institute fundamental changes to our governance and our domestic and foreign policies. In many cases, the Civil Rights of their opponents were violated to suppress the opposition to these changes and to cover up these lies. The three biggest Presidential liars of the 20th century are:

Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was an American politician and academic who served as the 28th president of the United States from 1913 to 1921. A member of the Democratic Party, Wilson served as the president of Princeton University and as the governor of New Jersey before winning the 1912 presidential election. As president, Wilson changed the nation's economic policies and led the United States into World War I in 1917. He was the leading architect of the League of Nations, and his progressive stance on foreign policy came to be known as Wilsonianism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), commonly known as FDR, was an American statesman and politician who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. Roosevelt directed the federal government during most of the Great Depression, implementing the New Deal in response to the worst economic crisis in American history. He also built the New Deal coalition, realigning American politics into the Fifth Party System and defining American liberalism throughout the middle third of the 20th century. His third and fourth terms were dominated by World War II.

Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to by his initials LBJ, was an American politician who served as the 36th president of the United States from 1963 to 1969. He became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, under whom he had served as vice president from 1961 to 1963. A Democrat from Texas, Johnson also served as a U.S. representative and senator.

The books The Illusion of Victory: America In World War I by Thomas Fleming and The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II again by Thomas Fleming document these lies by Wilson and Roosevelt, while the Pentagon Papers document the lies of Johnson.

While Wilson has been criticized for his lies, and LBJ has been disparaged for his lies, FDR is still held in esteem by many, as the full extent of his lies is not well known. This is regrettable, as the extent of FDR's lies has been detrimental to America. The repercussions of all the Presidential lies on the international stage embroiled America in wars with dreadful consequences, and the repercussions of their lies on the domestic stage changed the character and economics of America. Repercussions that are still being negatively felt in today’s America and the world.

09/14/23 Media Lies and Cover-ups

From the Presidential campaign through the administration of President Trump in 2015 to 2019, we were inundated 24/7 with media lies like "Russian Collusion," "Putin's Puppet," "Election Rigging," and the "Steele Dossier." When all such "evidence" was proven to be a complete fraud fabricated through Hillary Clinton's surreptitious hiring of and collusion with a discredited ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, and a Russian fabulist at the Brookings Institution, Igor "Iggy" Danchenko, and a Clinton toady in Moscow, Olga Galkina, as examined in the NY Post article “Inside the Clinton dossier and the con behind the Russiagate scandal”. Their reporting on the two Impeachments of President Trump and the “Insurrection” of 2021 was so one-sided that a majority of the American people reacted with antipathy to their reporting. They also responded to allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election by denials or cover-ups without any investigative reporting. In any of this, did the media apologize for the disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation that they spread? Were any of the Pulitzer Prizes or other news media awards rescinded for these lies and cover-ups?

In the Presidential campaign of 2020 and throughout his administration, Joe Biden repeatedly lied when he claimed he knew nothing of his son Hunter's influence-peddling businesses. The president further prevaricated that he was not involved in Hunter's various shake-down schemes. Had journalists just been honest and independent and reported the facts, then-candidate Joe Biden might have lost a presidential debate and even the 2020 election. The public would have learned from Hunter's business associates and his laptop contents, which the media claimed was Russian disinformation but was proved to be true, that Joe was deeply involved in his son's illicit businesses. As the NY Post article “Media’s long con to bury Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal”, the media has been an active supporter of the Hunter Biden laptop lies and cover-ups. As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article “From One Unapologetic Media Hoax to the Next”, they continue to lie or cover up the truth of the Biden family corruption to this day.

For the last eight years, the discredited media has never expressed remorse for any of the damage they did to the country. And they will not apologize again when the latest indictments against former President Trump are eventually exposed as duplicity. No one has ever been fired or apologized for perpetuating journalistic fraud on the masses of fake news stories that are believed by the core of liberal America. But given liberals’ penchant for self-righteousness and insufferable condescension, it’s not shocking that we’ll never get an apology. They can’t admit that they’re wrong because they’re too arrogant and dismiss those who were correct about this story because they view them as inferior. And that is why the media is distrusted and will never learn from their mistakes.

Alas, "Modern Journalism" ethics have sunk so low that they have become the propaganda arm of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and they are now a Fifth Column rather than the Fourth Estate in America. This bodes ill for America, as without proper facts and proper reasoning, the American people cannot make proper decisions about the future course of America. And proper facts and proper reasoning to arrive at truths is what proper journalism should be about, for:

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."
  - Mark Dawson

09/13/23 Mistakes, Lies, or Truths?

In the recent indictments of former President Trump, the question of whether he was mistaken or lying, or perhaps telling the truth, has been raised. As I have pointed out in my chirp on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”, if President Trump was mistaken or was telling the truth, then the indictments are without merit on these points and need to be dismissed in a court of law. If he was lying, then the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution that these were knowing lies with the intent to commit criminal acts.

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

In American jurisprudence, the prosecution always bears the burden of proof (i.e., Innocent until proven guilty). Consequently, the prosecution must prove that President Trump knowingly lied for criminal intent purposes. If the prosecution cannot meet this burden of proof, then these trials are nothing but Show Trials to tarnish President Trump and to sway the electorate against President Trump. If it is the latter, then the prosecution is engaging in election interference, and if it is the former, the prosecution is engaging in smear tactics. In either the former or latter, the prosecution is perverting justice by not engaging in "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". There is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, both legal and others, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and Presidential advisors’ communications confidentiality. They are also not considering the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, then these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. We should also keep in mind the following dialog:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

 Thus, the prosecutors in the Trump indictments are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They are, therefore, violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

09/12/23 Doubt and Confusion

Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, progressives seem intent on sowing doubt and confusion in the minds of the American people. Doubt and confusion that is used as a paralysis for the words and deeds of those Americans who may not agree with them, thus allowing them to institute their political goals and policy agendas while uncertainty reigns in the minds of the American public.

They often use inane platitudes and assertions without evidence that, with further examination, turn out to be falsehoods. Many of these platitudes have a feel-good aspect that, upon examination, has no foundation and many times does not lead to doing good, and many of their assertions are based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". They often present these platitudes and assertions as statements of facts that are unchallengeable, as they have been successful at ingraining these falsehoods into the American public’s perceptions. However, perceptions often are not reality, and perceptions without reality often lead to bad decisions with negative repercussions.

They, themselves, often believe that these falsehoods are truths, as they rarely encounter challenges to these falsehoods. When they are challenged, they often require their opponent to prove the correctness of their challenge, while at the same time, they offer no proof of the correctness of their platitudes and assertions. This portrays an attitude of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right”, which is a logical fallacy and which is obviously an untrue statement. In doing so, they are not following the philosophical Burden of proof of the Holder of the Burden, Shifting the Burden of proof, and Proving a negative, as well as utilizing Evidence of absence to prove their assertions. They are also violating the philosophical standards of Hitchens's Razor and the Sagan Standard, as well as making empirical claims not subject to Falsifiability, often through the utilization of Russell's Teapot claims. The most insidious aspect of their platitudes and assertions is that they are often making an Argument from ignorance, as they have not made an effort to verify their facts and not constructing "A Philosophical Approach" to their "Reasoning". Many Progressives will claim that they are interpreting the facts as they see proper, but interpreting the facts by not applying proper facts and proper reasoning leads to falsehood as "There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning" as I have examined in my Chirp on “08/11/23 Proper Reasoning”.

While they may not be technically lying to the American public, as I have examined in my Chirp on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”, their platitudes and assertions are the equivalent of lies, as they have not properly ascertained the truths of their statements. Perpetuating a lie through repeating a lie does not absolve them from the moral and ethical responsibility of lying, as they are maintaining the lies. As an old Proverb states, "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on" it is consequently difficult to counter lies and their impacts. A lie is easy to construct, but the truth is more difficult to ascertain and requires thoughtful consideration to discover the truth. Thus, the Doubt and Confusion they are sowing is based upon lies, and we should pay no heed to liars.

09/11/23 Truth as a Defense

John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German printer and journalist in New York City. Zenger printed The New York Weekly Journal, and he was accused of libel in 1734 by William Cosby, the royal governor of New York. However, the jury acquitted Zenger, who became a symbol of freedom of the press.

In 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal, which voiced opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby. On November 17, 1734, on Cosby's orders, the sheriff arrested Zenger. After a grand jury refused to indict him, the Attorney General Richard Bradley charged him with libel in August 1735. Zenger's lawyers, Andrew Hamilton and William Smith, Sr., successfully argued that truth is a defense against charges of libel.

But truth is a defense against more than libel. When someone speaks the truth, they are immune from all legal proceedings. The only question is if they have spoken the truth. Truth, however, is often difficult to prove, while lies are easier to prove. Truth is based on facts and proper reasoning of the facts, but facts and reasoning may not lead to the truth.

As I have explained in my Chirp on “08/11/23 Proper Reasoning” and my article on "Reasoning", reasoning is fraught with difficulties and complications. Incorrect, incomplete, or omitted facts, even with proper reasoning, will not lead to the truth. In reasoning, "Formal and Informal Logic" may be faulty, Cognitive Biases" and "Logical Fallacies" may occur, and the Burden of Proof may not be present, which leads to an improper conclusion. Thus, truth can be elusive and difficult to ascertain.

When someone speaks to what they believe to be the truth but is in error, they are not lying but mistaken. It is only when someone speaks to what they know are not the facts or truths that they are lying. When someone is mistaken, and the errors are illuminated, then they need to apologize and correct their statement. When someone is lying, they bear the moral responsibility and perhaps the legal ramifications of their lying.

If we prosecute those who speak what they believe to be the truth when they are mistaken, then we have the suppression of the Freedom of Speech and the Press. The proper response to mistakes is the correction of the mistakes by the Freedom of Speech and the Press, and not by prosecution. If individual harm is done by mistakes, then individual legal recourse should be available to those so harmed. Lies, however, should be prosecuted as they are often negligent and malicious in purpose and meant to inflict damage.

When prosecuting these lies, we should always seek justice and ensure that the two kinds of justice, substantive and procedural, are instituted. As Alan Dershowitz has written in his article, “Justice Requires Fair Procedures”, without substantive and procedural justice, there is no justice. No matter what your opinion is of the person who is mistaken or lying, we all need to insist that substantive and procedural justice be accorded to those accused of mistakes or lies. To do otherwise is to institute Kangaroo courts and pervert justice.

09/10/23 A Contributor, a Differentiator, or a Despoiler

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”
 - Henry David Thoreau

“This sentence, which appears in the first chapter, “Economy,” is perhaps the most famous quotation from Walden. It sums up the prophetic side of Thoreau that many people forget about; he was not just an experimenter living in isolation on Walden Pond, but also a deeply social and morally inspired writer with an ardent message for the masses. His use of the word “desperation” instead of a milder reference to discontentment or unhappiness shows the grimness of his vision of the mainstream American lifestyle. He believes that the monomaniacal pursuit of success and wealth has paradoxically cheapened the lives of those engaged in it, making them unable to appreciate the simpler pleasures enumerated in Walden. But the unpleasantness of American life, according to Thoreau, is more than simply financial or economic, despite the title of his first chapter. “Desperation” is also a word with deep religious connotations, the “lack of hope” that, according to Dante (one of Thoreau’s favorite writers), was inscribed on the gates at hell’s entrance. The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan’s Protestant spiritual classic and a bestseller in the New England of Thoreau’s day, features a hero who passes through a bleak lowland called the Slough of Despair on his way to meet God. By asserting that most humans have gotten stuck in despair, Thoreau is implying that they are unable to continue farther on their pilgrimage toward true redemption.”
- from Sparknotes.com

While I do not agree with Thoreau on desperation, I would agree with him if he had used discontentment. Their discontentment is in the longing for something better than their present situation and unhappiness that they have not achieved all that they had hoped to achieve. Such is the lot of most people while some other people are happy and satisfied with what they have achieved, and other people are disappointed, dissatisfied, or despondent with their lives.

I would personally label these groups of people as Contributors, Differentiators, or Despoilers. A Contributor is a person who has a positive influence on their family and friends, their community, and their coworkers and employer, while a Differentiator is one who changes things for the better in these arenas of life. If you are not a Contributor or a Differentiator, then you are a Despoiler of others.

It is unfortunate that in modern America, the ranks of the Differentiators have decreased while the ranks of the Despoilers have increased. Whether it be social, economic, religious, or governance that has driven this change, it is a change for the worse in America. A change that I believe is being driven by "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms" in America. The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in modern America seem to be unhappy people who believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society over which they have no control. But control over others is illusionary, as the only control that you have is over yourself.

As I have entered the end stages of my life, I can look back on my life and say that I was a Differentiator in my career, a Contributor in my personal life, and I could have easily become a Despoiler in my career or personal life if I had not taken control of my life, and proactively made decisions or changes to my life.

To all the Contributors in our society, I would say thank you for your contributions, as the world cannot function without contributors. You should also be comforted that if you could not be a Differentiator, you were at least not a Despoiler. For the Despoilers, I would say that it is not too late to become a Contributor, but you must not view yourself as a victim but take control of your life to become a Contributor.

09/09/23 We Are All Different

One of my pet peeves is when people say things such as “If I can do it, so can you” or “It’s easy or it’s hard”, they are not taking into account that all people are different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, skills and abilities, and physical and mental capacities. We are all born equal in our Natural Rights, but we are all born unequal in our capabilities and capacities. Much of the drama and comedy of life is about these inequalities, and the paths our lives take are often driven by these inequalities. Our life experiences also add to our uniqueness. We should all consider these inequalities and uniqueness in our dealings with others, and we should all not deign nor exalt another person based on these inequalities and uniqueness. Nevertheless, we should recognize these inequalities and uniqueness and adjust our expectations of another person based on their uniqueness. We should also take into account our own uniqueness whenever we undertake any task and not expect that we are capable of doing anything that we desire.

We should all recognize that some of these differences are sexually based, as men and women are different mentally and physiologically. These male/female differences are often subtle but sometimes significant, and the accumulation of these differences in a man or woman makes for unique differences between a male and female. As in all generalities, specific instances of individual men or women may not reveal a significant difference between the two, but as a whole, men and women are, to a degree or extent, somewhat different. Often, these differences are the basis of marital discord and/or the war between the sexes.

With this in mind, it is helpful to examine these differences to understand the basis for the differences. In the article Scientific Facts About Differences Between Men and Women on Factinate.com (created by trivia nerds who have a passion for learning and sharing information), they point out that there are some genuine differences in the biology, chemistry, and mental make-up of men in comparison to women, and vice-versa. They list off 45 of them in the hopes that the next time you're tempted to make an assumption about the opposite sex, you stop and take some time to consider the facts. Do not be misled by the titles of these differences, as the content may not be what you expect. I, therefore, recommend that you read this article as a basis for understanding some of the differences between men and women.

1. Equal Intelligence
2. Goodnight, baby
3. Unfriendly Faces
4. Tunnel Vision
5. Longer Lifespan
6. Thin Skinned
7. Loose Ligaments
8. Bigger Hearts
9. The Big Sniffer
10. Sniffing Out Adultery
11. Both Sides vs. One Side
12. The Incredible Shrinking Brain
13. A Neater Hand
14. Linguistically Inclined
15. Multitaskers
16. Not as Sad as You Think
17. Water in the Blood
18. Cold Feet
19. Physical vs. Verbal
20. No Sleep? No Problem.
21. 1000 Gene Difference
22. Consonants and Vowels
23. Neurological Disorders
24. Processing Emotion
25. Colour Detection
26. Conflict and Competition
27. Finger Length
28. Better Spatial Sense
29. He’s Not Just Ignoring You
30. Chronic Worrywarts
31. Feel More Pain
32. Store Fat Differently
33. Brow Bossing
34. Hears Like a Bat
35. Honey, Have You Seen My Keys?
36. Popped Up Veins
37. A Spare Chromosome
38. Mathematical Mind
39. Faces & Moving Objects
40. 3-Dimensional Thinking
41. Cool as a Cucumber
42. Formed Before Birth
43. Right Minded
44. Seeing Things Differently
45. Acoustic Size Judgement

09/08/23 The Big Three

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem to have an attitude toward black conservatives that they should be consigned to purgatory for eternity. They will not listen to or consider what they have to say and, indeed, use the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" when confronted by their thoughts, ideas, and arguments. They also have this attitude when confronted with female or Latino conservatives’ comments or arguments. This goes along with their belief that anyone that opposes their ideology must be unintelligent, bigoted, or wicked.

This is most troubling for America, as all erudite and sagacious thoughts and opinions should be considered when considering societal issues and concerns. It is also counterfactual, as exhibited in the thoughts and opinions of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and economists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. In my opinion, the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of these big three should always be seriously considered by all people of all political persuasions whenever consideration is given to the topics of which they have written or spoken.

Clarence Thomas is an American lawyer and jurist who is as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since his confirmation in 1991. During his years on the Court, Thomas has pursued an original general meaning approach to constitutional interpretation; he has been unswayed by claims of precedent—by the gradual build-up of interpretations that, to his mind, come to distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question, leading to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions. A close reading of Thomas's hundreds of well-crafted and passionately argued majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions illuminates how Justice Thomas applies this original meaning approach to questions of constitutional structure as they relate to federalism; substantive rights found in the First Amendment's religion and free speech and press clauses, the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, the Fifth Amendment's restrictions on the taking of private property, and the Fourteenth Amendment regarding abortion rights; and various criminal procedural provisions found in the Ex Post Facto Clauses and the Bill of Rights.

He has written an autobiography, “My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir”, revealing his poor southern upbringing and the pieces of his life he holds dear and detailing the suffering and injustices he has overcome.  A few books have also been written about him and his Constitutional opinions.

Dr. Thomas Sowell is an American economist and social theorist who spent the last several decades as a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Dr. Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He writes from a libertarian conservative perspective, and he has written more than thirty books (a number of which have been reprinted in revised editions), and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

Walter Edward Williams, who passed away on December 2, 2020, was an American economist, commentator, and academic. As a black man raised in the ghetto of Philadelphia, PA, he provided keen insights into the political and economic issues confronting minorities in America. He was the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He authored eleven books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary “Good Intentions,” All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People’s Economist Speaks,  More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty vs. the Tyranny of Socialism, Up From The Projects: An Autobiography, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed On Discrimination? and American Contempt for Liberty, and A Cure Worse Than The Disease: Fighting Discrimination Through Government Control.

In my opinion, these are the big three black persons in conservative thought in America, but there are many others, such as Allen West, Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Charles Payne, Condoleeza Rice, Deroy Murdock, Harris Faulkner, Larry Elder, Lawrence Jones, Shelby Steele, and Tim Scott. All of these people have achieved wisdom, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". These wise persons, and all other wise conservatives, deserve thoughtful consideration of their opinions and not the disparaging or disdain that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem to direct to anyone who would disagree with them.

09/07/23 Why I Do Not Go into Politics

Given my great concern about the future of America, many would ask why I do not go into politics to effect a change to what I believe are the issues and concerns impacting the future of America. My response is that I do not believe that I would be an effective politician. Some of the reasons that I do not believe that I would be an effective politician are:

• I have the unfortunate habit of telling people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.
• I do not suffer fools gladly.
• I am also one who does not play well with others.

These are not the traits of a politician but of a philosopher. Also, I believe I am a poor debater, as I lack the ability to quickly recall facts and figures and what I have previously written or said on a topic. As my pronunciation of words is often humorous, it would detract from what I have to say. I also have an aversion to modern political debates, as I have Chirped on “09/07/19 Form Over Substance”. Consequently, I do not believe that I would be an effective politician.

Thus, I have constricted myself to writing my Chirps and Articles in the hopes that I can effect a change in America through my writings.

09/06/23 Keep In Mind

Presented, without comment, are some of my own quotes that I try to keep in mind whenever I write or speak:

Knowledge and Understanding

"I refuse to talk before I have thought."
 - Mark Dawson

"Know whereof you speak or write before you speak or write."
 - Mark Dawson

"Knowing why is often more important than knowing how."
 - Mark Dawson

“Nobody really knows politics, economics, and sociology, as those topics are often tied to human nature and the unpredictable reactions of people to circumstances.”
 - Mark Dawson

"Those that do not know history should not speak of history."
 - Mark Dawson

"Those that do not know science should not speak of science."
 - Mark Dawson

"To understand well you must read; and read well, often, and on subjects on which you are unfamiliar."
 - Mark Dawson

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils."
 - Mark Dawson

Facts and Truths

"Assertions are not facts, as they often contain Presumptions and Assumptions; Improper Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the problems of Unintended Consequences that may be inherent in any assertion."
 - Mark Dawson

"Educated Guesses always have the inherent questions as to the quality of the education and the accuracy of the guess."
 - Mark Dawson

"I would rather be factually correct than politically correct."
 - Mark Dawson

“If an argument is not intellectually rational and reasonable then it cannot reach a sound conclusion, except by accident.”
 - Mark Dawson

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."  - Mark Dawson

"Reasons are often not Reasoning, as reasons are generally emotionally based while reasoning is intellectually based"
 - Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is impossible."
 - Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion."
 - Mark Dawson

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."
 - Mark Dawson

"There is no such thing as 'my truth' or 'their truth', as there is only 'the truth'."
 - Mark Dawson

Finally, I always try to keep in mind:

"You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room."
 - Mark Dawson

09/05/23 Rating Presidents

Many historians and other organizations like to rank the presidents, but rarely are these rankings based upon the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of the President, as I have Chirped on, "04/11/22 A Successful President". This chirp outlines the thoughts of Rob Natelson in his article Using the Constitution to Re-Rank the Presidents. He has written a follow-on article, Is Biden the Worst President Ever? A Historical Assessment, in which he has ranked President Biden using constitutional criteria, in which he states, “Admittedly, it is risky to compare the performance of modern presidents against their predecessors. Because it is hard to place current events in historical context, snap judgments can prove embarrassing later.” He also capsulizes the reasons why these surveys are deeply flawed for two reasons: the questions and the answers:

“First, the questions are largely disconnected from the president’s job description as it appears in the Constitution. Most questions do not address constitutional duties such as general law enforcement and serving as military commander-in-chief. Instead, they reflect liberal obsession with factors like “vision” and “economic management.” And while the framers designed the presidency as a check on Congress, the surveys give presidents better scores if they go along with Congress.

Second, the answers are skewed by liberal bias. For instance, in the 2021 C-SPAN survey, academic historians listed Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) third among presidents for “economic management,” while ranking Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 15th. But history shows that FDR’s conflicting economic policies failed to pull the economy out of the doldrums after years of trying, while Reagan’s policies quickly converted a recession into an economic boom.”

In this article, he rates President Biden on the following factors.

• Scandal
• Enforcing the Law
• “Equal Justice”
• Foreign Policy
• Economic Management
• Abuse of Power
• Moral Leadership v. Demagogy
• Cognitive Impairment
• Military Policy

In his conclusion, he states, “Of course, a full historical assessment of the Biden presidency will have to await completion of his term. At this point, however, he seems headed for a ranking among the very worst of American presidents.”

I would encourage all to read this article, as it puts President Biden and his administration into the perspective of his performance of his Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

09/01/23 American Progressivism Reader

American Progressivism started in the late 19th century and flowered at the beginning of the 20th century. The Presidential Administration of Woodrow Wilson was when it began to be incorporated into American governance. After a brief pause in the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression in the United States brought forth even greater Progressivism under the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). It was under the FDR Administration that Progressivism became entrenched in the American government. After a World War II pause Progressivism came back to the forefront in The Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson. To this day, we have Progressivism baked into American governance.

Yet, the administrations of President Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson had a dismal record on the Civil Rights of dissidents. They also operated on a reinterpretation or ignoring of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and they attempted to indoctrinate Americans into a Progressive ideology of governance and societal culture. This month’s Book It selections are the books that examine the history of the Wilson and Roosevelt Administration regarding Progressivism and the Civil Rights of Americans during their administrations.

08/31/23 The Twists and Turns of Theodore Roosevelt

The history of Theodore Roosevelt, who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909, had many twists and turns as to his political thoughts and principles. At the beginning of his political career, he was somewhat Progressive in his attempts to weed out the graft and corruption of the political bosses and party machines of his day. During his Presidency, he was mildly progressive in extending government involvement in domestic affairs while trying to remain within, but often stretching Constitutional bounds. However, unlike the Progressives of his day, he was internationally imperialistic in his desire to make America a world power. After he left the Presidency, he became very Progressive on domestic affairs while remaining committed to making America into a world power, often at odds with progressives that wanted America to concentrate on domestic affairs.

Consequently, it is difficult to characterize the political thoughts and principles of Theodore Roosevelt. Much of the popular view on Theodore Roosevelt is formed by his words after leaving the Presidency, but this cannot be a full measure of a historical person as they should be adjudged of their entire life. Therefore, when we think of Theodore Roosevelt, we should remember the entirety of his life and not focus on one period of his life.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Please note that the below series of Chips on Progressivism and Progressives
have been combined into my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives",
that are in the proper order in which they should be read.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

08/30/23 Progressivism and A Tale of Two Cities

Along with these collected Chirps on Progressivism and Progressives, I would refer you to my collected Chirps on the "A Tale of Two Cities", as Progressivism has divided America into two cities—Progressives and non-Progressives. Two cities that are in opposition to each other in their basic governing philosophy, as I have examined in my article “A Republic versus a Democracy”. Two cities that have a different interpretations of the Constitution, as I have examined in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". As a result, the two cities have disagreed on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and what constitutes "A Just Government and a Just Society". One city, the Progressive city, has engaged in acrimonious and venomous disputations against the other city that has undermined "A Civil Society" in America.

Until one city prevails in America, this acrimony will continue. The resolution of this conflict will have profound repercussions on "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", as well as our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Thus, it is important that this conflict be resolved, and during this resolution, we should remember the advice of Abraham Lincoln:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

08/29/23 The Failures of Progressivism

While some Progressive ideals and ideas have been beneficial to America and Americans, their record of failure far exceeds their successes. The problem with Progressivism is its ideology. It is an ideology that is based on their belief that they can mold human nature to fit Progressivism, on a lack of understanding of economics, and their presumption of the deference of the individual to society's goals.

In the past, there have been many despots, dictators, monarchs, totalitarians, and tyrants that believed that they could mold human nature. None of these attempts have ever succeeded, and none can ever succeed. As human nature has been molded by over six million years of evolution, a few years or decades of molding cannot undo these millions of years of evolution. Any attempts to do so have resulted in human misery and suffering, as well as the suppression of Natural Rights. Thus, all attempts to mold human nature are doomed to failure.

Progressives also believe that they can direct an economy to progressive ends. Once again, history has shown that any attempts to direct an economy are fruitless and often end with the collapse of an economy. Something as large and interrelated as an economy is impossible to direct, as it requires a knowledge of economics that is unknown and may even be unknowable.

They also have a zeal in their pursuit of Progressive goals to ignore the individual. They believe that the individual needs to be subservient to society, that rights are bestowed by society onto an individual, and that government is for the purpose of the betterment of society. As such, they have little or no respect for Natural Rights, and that “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, and especially of property, is constricted to what they believe are acceptable parameters. In this, they do not recognize that history has demonstrated that people all over the world have chaffed at these restrictions and often rebelled against their rulers when so constricted.

Modern Progressivism has metamorphosized and become intoxicated with Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Herd Mentality, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", in the belief that these goals are Progressive goals. In doing so, they have forgotten the purpose of Progressivism was to improve the social and economic status of ordinary Americans.

In their past and current attempts to implement Progressivism, they often resorted to Despotism against those that would disagree with them. This can be demonstrated in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, they corrupt the meaning of "A Just Government and a Just Society" and infringe upon the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in pursuit of their Progressive goals. This is why modern America is in such dire straits. After more than a century of Progressivism, it has resulted in more divisiveness, more disruptions to our society, and more and bigger government unresponsive to the issues and concerns of ordinary Americans and, indeed, seems contrary to the exigencies of ordinary Americans.

These, then, are the biggest failures of Progressivism and why Progressivism needs to be defeated in America, for to do so or not do so:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
  - Abraham Lincoln

08/28/23 Progressive Celebrations of America

When we celebrate national holidays and important persons in our American history, we would all do well to remember the ideals and ideas of America and the personal thoughts and viewpoints of these historical persons. However, in today’s America, we can see a pattern that Progressives employ when celebrating the key events and figures of America’s political tradition: their celebrations are almost exclusively historical and biographical and carefully avoid any reference to—or commemoration of—their ideas or principles. We also see a pattern of dismissal or disparaging of The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as not important nor relevant to modern America, and a focus on the wrongs that have occurred in American history, without a corresponding noticing on the good within American history.

There is no discussion of the "American Ideals and Ideas" of these documents or key figures in these celebrations, as these ideals and ideas often contradict Progressive ideals and ideas. They also try to pervert The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to comport to Progressive ideals and ideas, as I have written in my Chirp on "07/22/21 The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution". We should also remember that for the vast majority of his life President Wilson, one of the originators of American Progressivism, had grounded his thinking about government in open hostility to the Declaration of Independence. We need only recall his 1911 address, where Wilson proclaimed: “If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.” Do not repeat, in other words, the very part of the Declaration with all the universalistic language about self-government.

However, we should all remember the ideals of The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

We should also remember the ideas of the Constitution as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and the ideas of the Constitution on the best ways to institute our ideals, are the bedrock of American governance and the foundation of our society. It is important not only to understand the words of the Declaration and the Constitution but to understand the ideals and ideas that went into their creation. And the best way to accomplish this is to understand the thoughts and words of our Founding Fathers, as well as other great Americans and other great thinkers’ thoughts and words on these documents. It is just as important to not be led astray of their true meaning as Progressives are in the habit of doing.

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten or do not agree with our American ideals and ideas. The American ideals and ideas of "A Just Government and a Just Society" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are, therefore, in danger of being forgotten or discarded. It is important that we remember our past and the events surrounding our past, as well as the ideals and ideas that shaped our history, for as Edmund Burke has stated, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

08/27/23 Narcissistic Personality Disorder of Progressives

The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also have grandiose fantasies and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

People with NPD often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way, which can enhance their own self-esteem. They tend to seek excessive admiration and attention and have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat. Individuals with NPD can be easily stung by criticism or defeat and may react with disdain or anger. Humble, self-deprecating humor is often lacking in a person with NPD, as they believe that they must always be taken seriously. Politicians and activists often reflexively react to criticism by employing "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those that would criticize them.

This definition sounds applicable to many politicians and "Activists and Activism", and it is often characteristic of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. As I have often said, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America". As such, this attitude can be considered a trait of a person with NPD.

From Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barach Obama, to now Joe Biden, to a host of other politicians and activists with a Progressive disposition, NPD seems to run rampant amongst them. They brook no criticisms of themselves and their policies, and they are often averse to compromise with their opponents.

Most NPD persons are often difficult to work with or for, as they tend to be authoritarian in their approach to interacting with other persons. In politicians, NPD persons are often predisposed to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Thus, we should all recognize the signs of an NPD person and be very wary of them. Their NPD impulses are not in the best interest of others, but they are only interested in themselves despite their pretenses otherwise.

08/26/23 The Manifest Destiny of Progressivism

Manifest Destiny was a cultural belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand across North America. There were three basic tenets to the concept:

• The special virtues of the American people and their institutions.
• The mission of the United States is to redeem and remake the West in the image of the agrarian East.
• An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty.

This Manifest Destiny was accomplished by the end of the 19th century by the hard work and efforts of Americans, but it was not foreordained. After this was achieved, America and Americans began to search for another Manifest Destiny. Americans are often idealistic and need a greater purpose for their lives and destinies. Given the social-economic problems of the late 19th and early 20th century, they began an idealistic search for solutions to these problems. From religion to politics to economics, they began an examination of possible solutions to these problems. One of these proposed solutions was Progressivism.

The originators and supporters of Progressivism attempted to take on the mantel of Manifest Destiny for their ideals and ideas. In doing so, they adopted many attitudes that their ideals and ideas were the only future course of history and that they are on the ‘Right Side of History’. However, the right side of history is an oxymoron; as there is no right or wrong side of history, history is just what has occurred in the past. Progressives believe in historical trends while ignoring that history has often diverged from a trend by circumstances and/or the actions of powerful or influential people or scientific or technological discoveries and innovations. After all, except by hindsight, who could have foreseen a historical trend that led to the Industrial Revolution or the Information Age, or the fall of civilizations that changed history, or leaders that changed history?

The fall of the Roman Empire led to the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, which reversed the historical trends of Europe and the Middle East. The same could be said for the fall of other civilizations that have occurred throughout history. Leaders such as Alexander the Great, Constantine, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and many others have changed history. If Muhammad or Napoleon had never been born, or if Hitler had died in the gas attack he suffered in World War I, then the history of Europe and the Middle East and humanity would have been significantly different.

There is also no historical accounting for great scientists and artists such as Newton and Einstein, Beethoven and Da Vinci, and many others that changed history within their domains. Individual business leaders arose, such as Andrew Carnegie (steel), Andrew Mellon (finance, oil), Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads), J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), Henry Ford (automobiles), and Howard Hughes (multiple industries) that changed American society in the past, and modern Americans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs, and Warren Buffett that changed how society operates today.

Progressives might respond that if these persons had not come about, then other persons would have done so. However, there is no way to ascertain this as a fact, and there is no way to determine when and what the impacts of these other persons would have been. Our history would have been quite different without these persons, which shatters the claims of historical trends. This claim of historical trends also assumes that history is linear with an upward slope of human progress. But history is not linear nor upward in human progress. It ebbs and flows, with ups and downs in human progress, and all that can be said of historical trends is that they are malleable, changeable, and unpredictable.

Therefore, historical trends are more in the backward eye of the beholder than they are foreordained. Consequently, it is safe to ignore and challenge these claims of historical trends and the Manifest Destiny of Progressivism, for if history has taught us anything, it is that history is not foreordained.

08/25/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History

In my Chirp on “08/16/23 American Progressivism”, I note that Progressivism relies on the “facts” and “truths” of science and history to buttress their ideology. However, they pick and choose tidbits of facts and truths and surround them with their ideology rather than elucidating all the facts and truths. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history and creating myths of science and history, which they propagate to an unknowing public.

These scientific mythologies abound in "Activists and Activism", and almost all activism that relies on scientific truths is mostly scientific mythology. Many of these same activists also use their scientific mythology in a grandiloquent manner:

 “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”
 - W.C. Fields

They also propose government actions with far-reaching consequences and have forgotten the aphorism:

 “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
 - Alexander Pope

Thus, their scientific mythology is fraught with danger if it is believed to be scientific truths.

This is most especially true in Environmentalism and Climate Freezing, then Climate Warming to Climate Change activists. These activists have not only selectively used science, but in some cases, they have fabricated science based on their interpretation of the science, not to mention that their predictions have always been wrong. They have also confused Scientific Consensus and Settled Science with scientific truths, which all good scientists know is no substitute for scientific proof. They have also tried to institute an Orthodoxy in Science, which is anathema to the progress of science. They are also basing their scientific myths on computer modeling and/or statistics, without consideration of the problems of computer modeling or statistics, as I have written about in my Article Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. In doing so, they are creating scientific myths that they use as a foundation for their activism.

The Progressive's history of America is also mythology, with the facts, truths, and meaning of American history being selective, reinterpreted, and convoluted to fit their ideology. They have created entire historical bailiwicks dedicated to their mythology. Bailiwicks such as Critical Race Theory, Equity Theory, Intersectionality, and The 1619 Project which are not only factually and historically incorrect, but the holders of these beliefs attempt to justify these beliefs to institute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) (a Progressive ideal) rather than Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All (an American ideal), the comparisons of the two ideologies that I have Chirped on "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". Many Academics and Scholars in America (and in the world) have been gripped by the lofty ideals of Progressivism. Thus, the entire history of Progressivism in the 20th century has been rewritten or ignored by Progressives and many Historians to paper over Progressivism failures and the negative repercussions of their agenda. In doing so, they are creating historical myths that they use to advance their Progressive agendas.

Alas, Progressive Myths of Science and History are doing great harm to American society and governance. If you believe these myths, then you are making ill-informed decisions that can only negatively impact American society and governance. Decisions as to which politician to vote for, which policy issues to support, and which advocacy organizations to financial support are poor decisions if you base them on mythology. Consequently, you must sort out the facts and truths of science and history, ignore the mythology, and use your head rather than your heart when making these decisions. Otherwise, the future of America bodes ill, as a belief in mythology only leads to poor or calamitous decisions.

08/24/23 Progressives and Education

The American people have always believed in the importance of education, and schooling for children is part and parcel of our society. Indeed, America was one of the most literate countries in the world throughout most of its history. Education, until the Progressive era, was often provided privately by communities or by religious groups, which often discriminated against its student body by race and/or religion. Gradually, public education became a Local and State government prerogative as nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. This is because our Founders believed that this was a State, local government, or community issue that was delegated to them by the Tenth Amendment. This is the way it was until the latter part of the 20th century when the Federal government became alarmed about the quality of education across States and local jurisdictions, as well as the inequity of racial discrimination in public schooling resources.

Progressives were concerned about education from their beginnings and supported public education and public funding for all children. John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer. He was one of the most prominent American Progressives in the first half of the twentieth century and a leader for progressive public education. Indeed, much of modern public education was founded upon his ideas about public education.

As much as the progressives were concerned about the quality and universality of public education, they also foresaw that public education was a means to propagate their Progressive ideology and ideas on children and, thus, future voters. In all of this, they began to reform the ways and means of public education and the principles and methods of instruction (pedagogy) of teaching. College curriculums for prospective teachers were instituted, and State licensing of teachers became a legal requirement to teach. Much of these college curriculums incorporated Progressive ideology and ideas in the education of prospective teachers, with the repercussions of many teachers including progressive pedagogies in their teaching of students.

Because of Constitutional issues, these reforms occurred at a State and local government level and remained so until the latter part of the 20th century. In the latter part of the 20th century, the Federal government became concerned about the Civil Rights of public education for black and poor students in America, then began to become more involved in public education to redress the Civil Rights inequalities of public education in America. Thus, the era of Modern Education began in America.

Despite increased federal involvement in the funding and statutes for public education since then, the quality of Public Education has not improved much, and in many cases, it has become worse. My article on "Public Education" discusses many of the issues and concerns regarding public education in today’s America, while my other article, "Indoctrination versus Education", addresses the issues of the manipulation of public education for Progressivism goals.

Many of the problems in modern public education can be traced back to the implementation of progressive ideas in education. As more Federal government involvement in modern education occurred, the focus of Modern Education became more on the indoctrination of Progressive ideas and ideology and less on the dissemination of knowledge, truths, and rational thinking, along with the skills and abilities to function in modern society. Thus, modern public education has deteriorated the quality of the education that a student receives to the detriment of the students.

Thus, modern education fails to provide a good education for its students, it fails to provide a good environment for its students, it fails to prepare its students to become productive and contributing adults, they fail the parents of the students, and they fail the taxpayers who fund these schools. And these failures are the consequences of implementing Progressive ideologies and ideas in public education.

08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization

Since the time of the founding of the modern Democrat Party in Andrew Jackson’s time, they have engaged in "Identity Politics" and disdainful rhetoric in order to win elections to obtain and retain power. Disdainful rhetoric is nothing new in politics and has occurred throughout American history. Identity Politics has also occurred throughout American history, but it was usually based on nationality, religion, or race. Most of the time, the disdainful rhetoric occurred during the election cycle and cooled off (but never went away) between elections. However, with the rise of Progressivism, this changed.

Progressive started to differentiate on the basis of political ideology (with an attitude of Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong, etc.) and turned to fearmongering and demonization rather than disdainful rhetoric. They also extended their attacks into the personal realm; in that they not only attacked the politics of their opponents, but they also attacked the personhood of their opponents. Reputational, financial, and judicial harm to their opponents was not only a goal to drive them from politics but as a warning to others that opposed them that they would personally harm them if they exercised their Freedom of Speech and Assembly in opposing progressives.

In doing so, they often utilized the tentacles of government in these attacks that violated the Civil Rights of their opponents. Indeed, many historians and lawyers have commented that the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was the greatest assault on Civil Rights since the post-Civil War. The administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt also engaged in Civil Rights violations but in a more clandestine manner. President Lyndon Banes Johnson’s administration also engaged in Civil Rights abuses, but often in a ham-handed way that the American people looked down on.

As fearmongering and demonization became effective in advancing Progressivism, they became part and parcel of Progressive tactics. And, as Progressives obtained dominance in the Democrat Party, it became part and parcel of Democrat Party electioneering and governance, as I have examined in my Chirps on "03/27/21 Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself" and "02/06/21 How Does Temporary Becomes Permanent?". We have also seen a dramatic increase in the weaponization of government (a form of Civil Rights abuse) by the Democratic Party to obtain and retain power for the furtherance of Progressivism, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, we have entered into an era of "Divisiveness in America" and a loss of "A Civil Society" in America through the utilization of fearmongering and demonization by Progressives.

Many Progressives proclaim that both sides do it. Of course, both sides do it, as in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention they pay to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism or Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, Left versus Right, etc. What we should be asking is, 'Are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side doing it?’. When you see one side or the other paying more heed to the extreme of their side or engaging in extreme deeds or words of their own, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to not only make a determination of the number of words and misdeed incidents but also the tone of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase 'Both Sides Do It' is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme deeds or words by the one side engaged in these extreme words or deeds.

Rather than convincing the American public as to the rightness of their ideas, Progressives have used fearmongering and demonization of their opponents to stampede the American public into accepting their Progressivism. A stampede that is driven by the forces of Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Wokeness, and Hyper-Partisanship, in an attempt to institute a Herd Mentality in support of Progressivism. Such a stampede impacts our "American Ideals and Ideas" and has negative repercussions on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

08/22/23 Progressives and Systematic Lies

The three great progressive Presidents of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, systematically lied to the American public, especially when it came to war. The extent of their lying is revealed in two books and an official government report. These are:

The Illusion of Victory: America In World War I by Thomas Fleming
The political history of the American experience in World War I is a story of conflict and bungled intentions that begins in an era dedicated to progressive social reform and ends in the Red Scare and Prohibition. Thomas Fleming tells this story through the complex figure of Woodrow Wilson, the contradictory president who wept after declaring war, devastated because he knew it would destroy the tolerance of the American people, but who then suppressed freedom of speech and used propaganda to excite America into a Hun-hating mob.

The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming
Acclaimed historian Thomas Fleming brings to life the flawed and troubled FDR, who struggled to manage WWII. Starting with the leak to the press of Roosevelt's famous Rainbow Plan, then spiraling back to FDR's inept prewar diplomacy with Japan and his various attempts to lure Japan into an attack on the U.S. Fleet in the Pacific, Fleming takes the reader inside the incredibly fractious struggles and debates that went on in Washington, the nation, and the world as the New Dealers, led by FDR, strove to impose their will on the conduct of the War.

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that Lyndon B. Johnson's administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."

These systematic lies were done to maneuver the American public into accepting a war in which there was much public sentiment against these wars. During the course of these lies and the cover-ups of these lies, they often violated the Civil Rights of the Americans who opposed the wars. They also engaged in vituperative rhetoric against their opponents, and many times persecutions and prosecutions against their opponents. In doing so, they whipped up mob passion against their opponents and warmongering against the nations that they wanted to wage war against.

These systematic lies betray an attitude amongst progressives in which they do not trust the American public to make a wise decision. They believe it is acceptable to engage in these systematic lies if it is for the good of America and Americans. As Progressives believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, it is acceptable to them to engage in systematic lies to implement what they believe is best for America and Americans. In this, they have forgotten or did not know:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

In the Progressive mindset, they believe that only they know what is best, and they should be the only persons to decide what is best. As such, systematic lies are acceptable if it is for the best for Americans and America.

Alas, these systematic lies of Progressives are not limited to war, for once you adopt this mindset, it is acceptable to engage in systematic lies in all agendas and policies that you believe are best for Americans and America. Thus, their mindset also applies to domestic and international affairs, and so it is acceptable for them to engage in systematic lies in all arenas to implement their Progressive ideology and ideas upon America.

08/21/23 The Administrative State and Constitutional Issues

The Administrative State is built on three main pillars, each of which clashes with core constitutional principles. As Ronald J. Pestritto has stated in his book America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, these are:

“The first pillar was the congressional delegation of discretionary and regulatory power to the executive—especially to an enlarged national administrative apparatus which, it was contended, would operate under the advantages inherent in expertise and specialization. The second pillar was the combination of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—into single entities within the administrative apparatus, thus benefitting from the efficiency of centralizing all core agency functions in the same set of hands. The third pillar was the insulation of administration from political control.”

Previous too, and during the first term of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Supreme Court resisted such pillars and often declared them, or parts of them, unconstitutional. However, by the appointment of new Supreme Court Justices and intense political pressure on the Supreme Court, President Roosevelt, in his second term, was able to sway the Supreme Court to his view of a Progressive government. Since that time, the Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of the Administrative State and its authorities, duties, and responsibilities. However, in recent times we have seen some pushback by the Supreme Court on the pillars and excesses of the Administrative State.

This pushback is why in today’s America, the appointment of Justices and Judges have become such a contentious affair. The Progressives realize that if the pillars of the Administrative State are constricted or dismantled by Supreme Court decisions, then the governmental concepts of Progressivism will come tumbling down.

But it is not only the Supreme Court decisions that have enabled the rise of the Administrative State but also Congress’s supine acceptance of the Administrative State. In an effort for expediency and to avoid controversial decisions that could impact elections, Congress has often delegated powers to the Administrative State that are Constitutionally delegated to the Legislative Branch of government. Thus, we have seen a breakdown of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that were built into the Constitution to ensure the proper roles of the branches of government. This breakdown has also had a nefarious impact on Americans' "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

There is no doubt that the Constitutional principles of government, as espoused by our Founding Fathers, conflict with the governing principles of Progressivism, especially in the concept of an Administrative State.

The issues and concerns of an Administrative State on the limitations of knowledge, the principles of government, practical difficulties, and constitutional issues are why an Administrative State is not possible nor desirable. Consequently, a means must be found to reign in the Administrative State and have it operate within our Constitutional principles.

08/20/23 The Administrative State and Practical Difficulties

The previous chip on “08/19/23 The Administrative State of Experts – Part I” dealt with issues of the principles of government in an administrative state, but there are also practical difficulties that occur in an administrative state. The practical difficulties in an administrative state are the conduct of the people within the administration. The largest difficulties are Regulatory Capture, Consent Decrees, and Bureaucratic Inertia and Arrogance.

Regulatory Capture explains how governmental regulatory agencies actually operate in the real world, rather than how they were supposed to operate when they were authorized:

“Regulatory Capture is an economic theory that says regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating. The result is that an agency, charged with acting in the public interest, instead acts in ways that benefit incumbent firms in the industry it is supposed to be regulating.”

“Regulated industries devote large budgets to influencing regulators at federal, state, and local levels. By contrast, individual citizens spend only limited resources to advocate for their own rights. This is an extension of the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of regulation, public policy, and collective action in general, described by economist Mancur Olsen.”

“In many cases, the regulators themselves come from the pool of industry experts and employees, in part due to the complex and specialized knowledge needed to regulate an industry, and may also then return to work in the industry after their government service. This is known as the revolving door between government and special interests. In some cases, industry leaders trade the promise of future jobs for regulatory consideration, making revolving doors criminally corrupt.”

“Regulatory agencies that come to be controlled by the industries they are charged with regulating are known as captured agencies, and agency capture occurs when that governmental body operates essentially as an advocate for the industries it regulates. Such cases may not be directly corrupt, as there is no quid pro quo; rather, the regulators simply begin thinking like the industries they regulate, due to heavy lobbying.”

 - From the article Regulatory Capture at Investopedia.com

Consent Decrees are an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refer to such a type of settlement in the United States. The plaintiff and the defendant ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties. It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, or consent judgment. Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation. There are many advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree, as outlined in the Wikipedia section on ‘Effects’ of a Consent Decree.

The core issue is the scope of the consent decree. Does a consent decree require Congressional approval if its scope falls outside of the delegated powers of the Executive or Judicial branches of government? Many consent decrees require actions by the government and the other parties to the consent decree that seem to be the prerogatives of Congress to be legitimate under the Constitution.

As important and as useful as the tool as consent decrees are, they can also be abused in the hands of governmental bureaucrats. They are often utilized to advance a government policy not instituted by Congress, most often when an activist group sues the Federal government. Many times, governmental regulatory agencies utilize a consent decree to advance their own agenda outside the bounds assigned to them by Congress. And many times, Congress takes no action, and the Executive Officers approve of these consent decrees, as they can hide behind the contentious policies of consent decrees rather than directly vote upon or implement these policies. And when this occurs, the result is often more Federal powers over the people of America without their consent. Sometimes these consent decrees fund activists’ groups as part of the financial settlement of the consent decree, which often begets more lawsuits and consent decrees.

Bureaucratic Inertia and Arrogance are a problem in all governments, but in an administrative state, it is a larger problem. A larger problem because in an administrative state, the management and personnel of government agencies are immune to corrective actions, or removal, by forces outside of the agency. When you are an authority unto yourself, you create and enforce your own procedures and conduct yourself as you see fit and at a pace that is of your own choosing. Those outside of your agency that you become involved with must be submissive to your conduct if they require your services. As a result, this is not, as President Lincoln so eloquently put it, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, but “government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats”.

08/19/23 The Administrative State and Principles of Governance

The previous chip on “08/18/23 The Administrative State of Experts – Part I” dealt with issues of a general nature about the administrative state. However, there are issues with the principles of government in an administrative state.

The key principle at work in the development of the administrative state is the destruction of the separation-of-powers constitutionalism and its replacement by the separation of politics and administration. Additionally, Progressives believe that the administrative state should operate quasi-independently, with only nominal oversight by Congress and the Judiciary. Presidential authority should only be for the nominations of the management of the agency, but there is no authority for the President or Congress to remove the management or personnel within an agency.

Progressives also believe that for an agency to operate with maximum efficiency in its regulation of an industry for the purpose of the well-being and general welfare of America, it is necessary for rulemaking, investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers to be combined and at its disposal. Thus, the entire enterprise of the modern administrative state owes its existence to the abandonment of the separation of powers as an operative constitutional principle and its replacement by a system separating politics and administration.

This destruction of the tenant of the separation of powers—the prohibition of combining the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government—has resulted in the modern administrative state. Administrative agencies routinely combine all three governmental functions in the same body and even in the same people within that body. Thus, we have a government within the government. Professor of Law Gary Lawson at Boston University School of Law has given an example of this in the functioning of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):

“The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission, and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission.”

This, of course, makes the Commission an independent authority unto itself, with no appeal outside of the Commission as to its actions. Consequently, they are a government within a government unresponsive to any outside authority.

08/18/23 The Administrative State and Limitations of Knowledge

Many Progressive politicians (since the start of American Progressivism) have called for an administrative state to be administered by experts free from politics. Such an administrative state is an impossibility, as for an administrative state to function properly, it requires that the administrators (i.e., “Experts”) have a thorough and complete understanding of diverse subjects.

The first is that they need to understand the limits of knowledge (i.e., a). That we know what we know, b). That we know what we don't know, and c). That we don't know that we don't know). It is not possible for anyone, or any group of people, to fully know a) as what they know may be incorrect, or b) as what we think we don’t know may be incomplete, and c) is an impossibility because we don’t know of what is not known.

The next is to understand economics, as money makes the world go round. However, nobody thoroughly understands economics, including economists, as economics is not a precise nor fully developed science. Without an understanding of economics, it is impossible to predict the economic impacts of a governmental decision, which leads to the final point.

Finally, how can anyone account for the "The Law of Unintended Consequences", as they are unintended and therefore unknowable beforehand? Unintended consequences always occur from any administrative action, and these consequences can be neutral, positive, or negative and may have serious repercussions of an unexpected benefit, an unexpected drawback, or a perverse result on society.

The lack of understanding of these subjects will always lead to improper decisions by the administrators. Their decisions, at best, are a guestimate of the impacts of their decisions and rarely does the best occur.

As for politics, it cannot be separated from administration, as politics is bound to human nature, and there is no accounting for human nature. They also cannot predict the response of the populace to their administrative actions, which reinforces The Law of Unintended Consequences. These administrators often have an ideology or the ideas of Progressivism, which is political by the very nature of Progressivism. Thus, administrators are always political and make decisions based on their political viewpoints.

The claim that these administrators will act in the best interests of the people begs the question:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

Even the most noble or virtuous administrator does not have the knowledge or wisdom to make such decisions on what is best, and people often disagree on what is best. Also, having someone decide what is best often requires despotism to enforce what they believe is best, or at the very minimum, requires silencing those that would disagree with their decisions. Thus, an administrative state violates the Natural Rights of the people.

This is why an administrative state of experts determining public policy is not possible or desirable.

08/17/23 Grandiloquent Statements of Progressives

Grandiloquent statements, lofty in style and puffed up with vanity, are a staple of politicians, commentators, and activists. The Grandiloquent statements by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are often appeals to fundamentally transform America to what they perceive for the better, while the grandiloquent statements by Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are often appeals to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the preservation of their "American Ideals and Ideas". Thus, there is a dichotomy between these grandiloquent statements.

However, Progressive grandiloquent statements are often an attempt to propagandize and spur their supporters into action, and these statements are often bereft of practical goals or ends that are achievable, as often they require a change of human nature or based on an ignorance of economics. In addition, these grandiloquent statements by Progressives often provoke bitter disputations that divide Americans, and they often have an attitude of intellectual and moral superiority that postures their opponents as intellectually deficient or morally injudicious.

My new Article, “Grandiloquent Statements”, examines grandiloquent statements and their impacts and repercussions on society and government. In the past and present, we have seen Progressive grandiloquent statements in abundance to fundamentally transform American society and governance. Regrettably, what we can all learn from history is that Progressive grandiloquent statements rarely achieve their intent, and often they often wreak havoc on America and the world. Thus, we all should beware of Progressive grandiloquent statements and look for The Devil is in the Details of all grandiloquent statements.

08/16/23 American Progressivism

As I mentioned in my Chirp on “08/14/23 The Ideology is the Same”, Progressivism is an ideology that runs counter to our Founding Father's American Ideals and Ideas, and that is an infringement on our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. An ideology that, as President-elect Barack Obama once stated, desires to “fundamentally transform” America. However, Progressives are often opaque in defining the ideology of Progressivism, and they often cloak their ideology in expressions of high-sounding morals or pithy statements that lack little substance of what their ideology entails. There is also little taking into account the consequences or repercussions to society of instituting their ideology, as they believe that the lofty goal of Progressivism is a sufficient reason to institute their ideology. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what are the basic tenets of Progressivism.

A book by Ronald J. Pestritto, America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, examines the tenets and history of Progressivism and its impacts on American governance and society. As the publisher states about this book:

“The America of the modern administrative state is not the America of the original Constitution. This transformation comes not only from the ordinary course of historical change and development, but also from a radical, new philosophy of government that was imported into the American political tradition by the Progressives of the late nineteenth century. The new thinking about the principles of government-and open hostility to the American Constitution-led to a host of concrete changes in American political institutions. Our government today reflects these original Progressive innovations, even if they are often unrecognized as such because they have become ingrained in American political culture. This book shows the nature of these changes, both in principles and in the nuts and bolts of governing. It also shows how progressivism was often at the root of critical developments subsequent to the Progressive Era in more recent American political history - how it was different than the New Deal, the liberalism of the 1960s, and today’s liberalism, but also how these subsequent developments could not have transpired without the ground laid by the original Progressives.”

Once you have read this book, you will understand the core ideology of Progressivism and the reasons for their support of various political agendas and policy goals.

Progressivism also relies on the facts and truths of science and history to buttress its arguments. Rather than state all the facts and truths, they pick and choose tidbits of “facts” and “truths”, then surround them with their ideology. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history to buttress their ideology and creating Myths of Science and History, which they propagate. It is many of these Myths of Science and History that I have written about in my Chirps and Articles, and is the subject of my Chirp on “08/19/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History”.

08/15/23 The Ideology is the Same

The 20th century in America saw the rise of Progressivism that morphed into modern Liberalism and then once again became Progressivism. However, the core ideology of Progressivism and Liberalism is the same ideology. This ideology was based upon the ideas of President Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century regarding his concept of government. A concept that was antithetical to the Founding Fathers' concept of government (which President Wilson admitted in his many speeches and writings). Unfortunately, much of this ideology is baked into modern governance in America. This has been poignantly pointed out in an article by Ronald Pestritto, “Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism”, which illuminates the Progressive/Liberal ideology of governance.  

This tactic of renaming an ideology when it has become unpopular, without changing the ideology, is often utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. In doing so, they often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to achieve this renaming. A renaming in which they try to cloak the shortcomings or failures of their ideology and also hope to dupe the American public into believing they have changed for the better.

It is not for the better that they do this renaming but for the continuation and furtherance of their ideology. An ideology that runs counter to our Founding Father's American Ideals and Ideas. An ideology that is an infringement on our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. An ideology that would transform our Constitution from a republic to a democratic political theory of governance, as I have written in my Article, A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution. An ideology that often relies on bribery, intimidation, or despotism upon the American people to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is an ideology that needs to be opposed and overturned in our governance to ensure our American Liberties and Freedoms.

08/14/23 What is Progressivism?

In a book by Ronald J. Pestritto, America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, he examines this question at the beginning of Chapter One, ‘A Primer on Progressivism and the Progressive Era’:

“What is progressivism? The chapters in this book will lay out its characteristics in detail, but to begin we can think of it as an argument to move beyond the political principles of the American founding. It is an argument to enlarge vastly the scope of the national government for the purpose of responding to a set of economic and social conditions which, progressives contend, could not have been envisioned at the founding and for which the founder’s limited, constitutional government is inadequate. Whereas the founders posited what they held to be a permanent understanding of just government, based upon a permanent account of human nature, progressives have countered that then ends and scope of government are to be defined anew in each historic epoch. They have coupled this belief in historical contingency with a deep faith in historical progress, suggesting that, due to historical evolution, government was becoming less a danger to the governed and more capable of solving the great array of problems besetting the human race. Historically, these ideas formed a common thread among the most important American thinkers from the 1880s into the 1920s and beyond, manifesting themselves in the writings and speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Robert La Follette, and several others.”

He further states in Chapter One:

“Wilson, in reflecting what it meant to be a progressive, wrote of government as a “living thing” which was to be understood according to” the theory of organic life”. This “living” notion of a constitution, Wilson contended, was far superior to the founders’ model, which had considered government a kind of “machine” which could be constantly limited through checks and balances. As a living entity, the progressives reasoned, government had to evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances. While early conceptions of national government had carefully circumscribed its power to the perceived threat to individual liberties, progressives argued that history had brought an improvement in the human condition, such that the will of the people was no longer in danger of becoming factious. Citing a whole new host of social and economic ills that called out for a government remedy, progressives took this doctrine of progress and translated it into a call for a sharp increase in the scope of government power.”

Thus, Progressives believe that the powers of the national government, and especially those of the president, are plenary (full in all respects), not enumerated (specify individually)—as defined by the Constitution.

Dr. Pestritto also points out that a plenary power requires an administrative state “whereby a large, unelected bureaucracy is empowered with significant governing authority.” Such an administrative state would be run by administrative experts who are appointed and which are drawn from the educated classes. To be effective, such administrative experts would need to share a common ideology and ideas of the Progressive goals of the government. These administrative experts would combine aspects of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial functions of government in the creation and administration of regulations to govern almost all the functioning of society.

This, then, is the core ideology and ideas of Progressivism, which is antithetical to our Founding Fathers' ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the ideas of the Constitution of the United States, which the Founding Fathers regarded as necessary to preserve our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". In our Founding Fathers' ideology and ideas, our rights supersede government, while in the Progressives' ideology and ideas, our rights derive from the government, and these rights can evolve and adapt and be created or discarded as necessary in solving what they believe is the great array of problems besetting the human race.

08/13/23 Repeating History

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

American Progressivism started in the late 19th century and flowered at the beginning of the 20th century. The Presidential Administration of Woodrow Wilson was when it began to be incorporated into American governance. After a brief pause in the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression in the United States brought forth even greater Progressivism under the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). It was under the FDR Administration that Progressivism became entrenched in the American government. To this day, we have Progressivism baked into American governance.

Yet, the administrations of President Wilson and Roosevelt had a dismal record on Civil Rights. Using a Democratic interpretation of the Constitution (as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution"), and sometimes just ignoring or dismissing our American ideals and ideas as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Progressives began a campaign to indoctrinate Americans into a Progressive ideology of governance and societal culture. A history of their efforts during the Wilson Administration is examined in the books:

• Over Here: The First World War and American Society 25th Anniversary Edition by David M. Kennedy
• The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming

Using grandiloquent statements and the Progressive Myths of History while at the same time using economic fears and World War I war-mongering, President Wilson and his Administration trampled upon Americans' Civil Rights to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. Thus, a campaign of fear and intimidation ensued, in which they violated the right to Freedom of Speech and the Press, along with the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Many people were imprisoned for dissenting from the administration's opinions, and many more were intimidated into silence for fear of imprisonment. Those that they could not imprison were smeared and demonized with innuendo and rumors of being unpatriotic and even un-American. They whipped up the American public to support and even assist them with their efforts. Thus, a dark period of Civil Rights abuses descended upon America. It was only after World War I when the American people were war-weary and no longer in economic fear, did the American public repudiate these efforts and elected a series of Republican presidents to bring back “normalcy”.

Alas, we have forgotten this history, and a little over 100 years later, we are repeating it in the fears of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the warmongering of the Ukrainian-Russian war. Much of what President Wilson’s Administration's Civil Rights abuses entailed are being attempted by President Biden’s Administration. It is chilling to read this history of the Wilson Administration and realize that the same tactics they utilized are being utilized by the Biden Administration. It is, therefore, imperative the American public repudiate these Civil Rights abuses of the Biden Administration and return to “normalcy”. A “normalcy” that should also repudiate the Progressive ideology of governance, as the Progressive ideology is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Thus, my next several Chirps will be about Progressivism and Progressives. Hopefully, my readers will have a better understanding of this political movement and can make better judgments about this ideology and its political agendas and policy goals.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Please note that the above series of Chips on Progressivism and Progressives
have been combined into my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives",
that are in the proper order in which they should be read.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

08/12/23 Modern Governance

The history of the modern forms of government has revealed several types of governance based on structure and political principles. The structure of a government can be divided into Unitary States or Federal States, while the political principles of states are of several different types. My new article, “Modern Governance”, examines the structure and political principles of modern forms of government.

08/11/23 Proper Reasoning

People have many reasons for what they think or believe, but they often do not have proper reasoning to arrive at the conclusions of their thinking and beliefs. In many of my Chirps and Articles, I mention proper reasoning as important to reach a proper conclusion. To reason properly requires that you take a "A Philosophical Approach" to your "Reasoning" and apply the Rules of Reasoning as I have Chirped on "06/07/23 Rules of Reason".

Reasoning philosophically is the most effective way of thinking and is the best method to reach a sound conclusion. Thinking philosophically focuses and organizes your thoughts in a manner that helps you properly reason. In using Reasoning, you need to understand the Structure of Reasoning, Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense. These must always be ascertained and incorporated for proper reasoning. You must also be aware of how to utilize "Common Sense" appropriately. In applying the Rules of Reason, you will be better able to adjudge the veracity of your own and others' claims and make a judgment on the truthfulness of a claim. The more you apply these rules of reason to a claim, the more you will realize the nonsense of much reasoning, and the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of the myriad of claims that surrounds us.

In evaluating your or another person’s reasoning, it is often not possible to determine if you or they have properly reasoned. However, whenever you or someone else uses "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” in reasoning, you can be fairly certain that they have not utilized proper reasoning.

Being able to express your proper reasoning clearly, concisely, completely, confidently, and understandably helps others to understand your proper reasoning and convince them of the soundness of your conclusions. In my Chirps and Articles, I consciously try to be clear, concise, complete, confident, and understandable. Also, in my Chirps, I have often expressed my conclusions without fully explaining my proper reasoning, which is why I have written Articles that do explain my proper reasoning. Consequently, whenever I hyperlink to an Article in my Chirp, it is for the purpose of fully explaining my proper reasoning. Thus, I would recommend reading my previously mentioned Articles to understand proper reasoning.

08/10/23 Inanity and Mockery

Vice President Kamala Harris is notorious for her inane word salad statements that talk down to the American public. She recently suffered another inane word salad, this time on banks while speaking to reporters at the Sycamore & Oak retail village in D.C.:

"And so for years, we have worked to expand investment in community banks because, you see, community banks specialize in providing loans and financial assistance to small business owners, in particular those in overlooked and underserved communities, and as the name suggests, community banks are in the community."

To which a Twitter user so aptly rephrased as:

“Water is wet … because it's water! Mkay? When we think about water's wetness, we must think in terms of how that wetness affects us all. Only then can we appreciate just how wet water truly is …”

I am old enough to remember Vice President Dan Quayle being mocked by the mainstream media for some of the things he said. Compared to Vice President Kamala Harris, Vice President Dan Quayle would seem to be an intellectual.

But there will be no mockery from the Mainstream Media of today, as they only mock Conservatives and Republicans and cover up or make excuses for Progressives and Democrats. Alas, this is but another example of the bias in the Mainstream Media that permeates Modern Journalism.

08/09/23 Perception Is Not Reality

Facts and figures don’t lie, except they do if they are misused, as I have written in my article on "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". However, the biggest factual lies are factual misperceptions. We may think that we know the facts, but often we do not really know the facts. My newest article, “Perception Is Not Reality”, examines some of these misperceptions and their repercussions.

These misperceptions are bad for the body politic, as making a decision based on perceptions always leads to a bad decision. Misperceptions that lead to divisiveness in America and bad decisions that have negative repercussions for our society. Consequently, before making any decision, it is important that you determine the facts and disregard the misperceptions.

08/07/23 Notable American Historians

Having read quite a bit of American history, I have been able to develop an informed opinion as to whom I regard as excellent American historians. While many other historians have written quality works, I have found the following historians to be consistently excellent:

• Allen C. Guelzo
• Gordon S. Wood
• W. Brands
• Rufus Fears
• James M. McPherson
• John Ferling
• Joseph J. Ellis
• Paul Johnson
• Thomas Fleming
• Victor Davis Hanson

More information and hyperlinks to these historians and their books can be reviewed in my new article “Notable American Historians”. The books by these historians are well worth a read. But as always, the reader should beware, for while they may be excellent books, that does not imply that they provide a complete or unbiased view of history. That is why I often read at least three books on a historical topic to ensure that I have multiple views on a historical topic.

08/05/23 Cat’s Cradle

Cat's Cradle: A Novel by Kurt Vonnegut was, according to its publisher, “a satirical commentary on modern man and his madness. An apocalyptic tale of this planet’s ultimate fate, it features a midget as the protagonist, a complete, original theology created by a calypso singer, and a vision of the future that is at once blackly fatalistic and hilariously funny. A book that left an indelible mark on an entire generation of readers, Cat’s Cradle is one of the twentieth century’s most important works—and Vonnegut at his very best.” The Wikipedia article on this novel describes Cat's Cradle as “a satirical postmodern novel, with science fiction elements, by American writer Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's fourth novel, it was first published in 1963, exploring and satirizing issues of science, technology, the purpose of religion, and the arms race, often through the use of morbid humor.” While the article is an interesting synopsis of this novel, it is no substitute for reading the novel.

Upon reading this novel, I discovered that little did Vonnegut know that Cat’s Cradle was more than satire but it was a prediction on modern American society. Told with deadpan humor and bitter irony, Kurt Vonnegut's cult tale of global destruction preys on our deepest fears of witnessing Armageddon and, worse still, surviving it ... In Kurt Vonnegut’s time, the fear of global destruction was of atomic war; today, the fear of global destruction is of Global Climate Change.

The semi-humorous religion of Bokononism in the novel is analogous to today’s Wokeism, except Wokeism is not semi-humorous—it is inanity. The absurdities of Bokononism match the absurdities of Wokeism, and the vacuousness of Bokononism locutions are equivalent to the vacuousness of Wokeism locutions. The characters in Cat’s Cradle are as daft as today’s Progressives and are cut from the same cloth.

In Chapter 28 of Cat’s Cradle, ‘Tyranny with a Difference’, he recites a “Calypsos” of the Bokonon religion:

“I wanted all things,
To seem to make some sense,
So we could all be happy, yes,
Instead of tense.
And I made up lies
So that they all fit nice,
And I made this sad world
A par-a-dise.”

And so, it is with Wokeism. They make up lies that all fit nicely so we all can be happy. I also suspect that they would not be unhappy with a tyranny if it were the tyranny of the woke. As, after all, if we were all woke, then the world would be a par-a-dise.

Alas, if we proceed down the path of Wokeness, it will not be Global Climate Change that will end civilization, but it will be Wokeism that leads to the end of our civilization.

08/03/23 Climate Science Denial

Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. As I have written in my articles Climate Change, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Orthodoxy in Science, and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, there is much science that is disputable about Climate Change. In discussing Climate Change, it is important to remember the words of wisdom of Rabbi Elijah Schochet "We can disagree without being disagreeable." However, the advocates of Climate Change have become disagreeable in that anyone who would disagree with their scientific “facts” or “reasoning” is tarnished with the labels of Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers. They have also engaged in "Cancel Culture" for any scientist who would dispute their claims. This is dangerous for the advancement of science, as most advancement of science springs from disputes about scientific facts and reasoning.

Many of the advocates for Climate Change have little scientific background or scientific knowledge, and their scientific knowledge of Climate Change is obtained by examining only the science with which they agree. In this, they have forgotten the adage:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism 

To drink deep in science requires that you examine the scientific reasoning of those scientists that disagree with the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates. To this end, I would suggest the following websites that challenge the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates with other scientific “facts” or “reasoning”:

• Climate Change Dispatch
• Climate Change Reconsidered
• CO2 Coalition
• Copenhagen Consensus Center
• Environmental Progress
• com
• Real Climate Science

Along with these websites, I would recommend the following books that examine the facts, impacts, and repercussions of implementing the policies of Climate Change advocates:

• Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger
• False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg
• Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything by Patrick J. Michaels
• Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin

In reviewing these websites and books, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

And:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Therefore, consider that you may have been wrong, and do not be afraid to change your opinion in consideration of any new information that you have encountered in reviewing these websites and books. You should also never use the terms Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers for those persons who base their denials on sound science and scientific reasoning. To do otherwise is to make you a denier of science and an impediment to the advancement of science.

08/01/23 Good Science

Dr. John F. Clauser, born 1942, is an American theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics. Clauser was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.”

Dr. Clauser spoke in July at the event Quantum Korea 2023. What follows is a transcript of his remarks that prompted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cancel his appearance this week, and began a predictable trajectory of broader cancellation. In this speech he made some astute observations of today’s science, which is probably why he is being canceled:

“Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully.

For inspiration to young scientists, I would suggest that today is an opportune moment for careful observations of nature. Why? The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call “techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes.

Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination. The purpose is to try to inspire you as young scientists to observe nature directly so that you too can determine real truth. Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation, and techno-cons.

Well-educated scientists can help solve the world’s problems by acting as scientific fact-checkers. A fact-checker’s most common problem, unfortunately, is determining what is true and what is not. The world is awash with someone else’s perception of truth as an alternative to real truth.

Perception of truth frequently differs significantly from real truth. Moreover, given sufficient promotion and advertising, perception of truth becomes truth. Its promotion by commercial enterprise Is called marketing, commonly used in the furtherance of political, commercial, or various opportunistic ends by its promoters. When promotion is done by government or political groups, it’s called spin or propaganda.

To such a promoter, perception of truth is truth. If you can sell it, it must be true. If you can’t sell it, it must be false. Perception of truth is also malleable. If you can sell it, if you want to sell it, and you can’t sell it, that’s easy. You change it. You can change truth. You can claim false observations if necessary.”

Some other astute observations from this speech are:

“Real truth is not malleable. It can only be found by making careful observations. Well-tested laws of physics and observational data are important guides to allow you to distinguish truth from perception of truth.”

“Real truth could be found if and only if you learn to recognize and use good science. It’s especially true when real truth is politically incorrect and does not reflect political, business aims, or desires of leaders. Even the scientific community can sometimes become diluted by pseudoscience.”

The entire speech can be reviewed at “The Crisis of Pseudoscience, by John F. Clauser”. These comments are closely aligned with my Chirp on, "08/02/22 The Corruption of Modern Science", and further my belief that modern science has been corrupted by politics.

07/30/23 Honor Thy Father and Mother

The Fifth Commandment that God gave to humankind states:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Many people misconstrue the meaning of this commandment to mean you should obey your parents and adopt their viewpoints on life and living life. However, God gave every person a mind and the intelligence to utilize their mind and the free will to make their own decisions on life and living life. Therefore, the true meaning of this commandment is to be polite and respect your parents and consider their opinions when you make your own decisions. God only expects that you will obey the Ten Commandments; otherwise, you are free to use your own mind and intelligence to make your own decisions.

This includes voting for a candidate and support for or against a governmental policy decision. Too often, a decision on support for a political party candidate or a governmental policy issue is reflexive to the political party affiliation of your parents. Rather than deciding based on their own thoughts and beliefs, many people reflexively support the policies and candidates of their parents.

It should be remembered that political parties often change their character and policies. If your character and policies are not in accordance with the current political party candidate or a governmental policy issue, then you should consider changing your vote or support for a political party. This is often difficult to do, especially if you should discuss your change with your parents or children (and your other family and friends). Such discussions often result in bitter disputes and a parting of ways. During such discussions, we should remember the words of advice of Rabbi Elijah Schochet “We can disagree without being disagreeable.”, and that you should Always Be Polite and Respectful is such discussions. Under no circumstances should this disagreement lead to the fracturing of the love between parents and their children, nor the honoring of a child for a parent. Simply agree to disagree and retain your love and continue to honor your parents.

Alas, in today’s polarized and politically charged hyperpartisan environment, this is often not the case. Parents and their children have often separated and not spoken to each other for years and even decades. Grandchildren are not permitted to have any interaction with their grandparents, and families have split into camps where each camp has little or no interactions with the other camp. This is deleterious to society, as strong family bonding is essential to a strong society. When this occurs between a parent and child, it is also a violation of the Fifth Commandment of God.

07/29/23 I Declare

In today’s political rhetoric, there are too many opinions masquerading as declaratives. A declarative is a grammatically unmarked statement that represents an act or state as an objective fact, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. Thus, there is confusion among the reader or viewer of what are facts versus opinions, a confusion that also often exists in the speaker or writer’s mind. Thus, it is important for all parties to be aware of the difference between opinions and declarations and to distinguish between them when communicating. Otherwise, a false declaration will be assumed to be factual and lead to a false conclusion.

Most politicians and political commentators make declarations without supporting facts, which is, therefore, an opinion, and they do so without stating their declarations as opinions. They consciously, but mostly unconsciously, do this as a means of justifying their opinions as factually based. When this is done consciously, it is an attempt to mislead the public, and when this is done unconsciously, it demonstrates a lack of proper reasoning on their part. In either case, the public should beware of all statements from them, as it can safely be assumed that their conclusions are flawed.

Alas, we cannot expect politicians and political commentators to change their modus operandi, and therefore, the public needs to consciously differentiate between declarations and opinions when reading or listening to their pronouncements.

07/28/23 What the Heck Is This QAnon?

In viewing news and commentary, you may have heard or read the term “QAnon”, which has no formal meaning and seems to have no rhyme or reason in its application. The columnist Jeffrey A. Tucker has written about his examination of the history, meaning, and purpose of this term in his article “What the Heck Is This QAnon?”. His conclusion is the term was fabricated by the New York Times (NYT) and that:

“QAnon for the NYT is just a curse word, a thing they attach to something they are really against and really want their readers to be against too. In the parlance of the NYT, there is a gradient of bad guys. To be a “conservative” is to be clueless, stupid, and easily led. To be “right-wing” is to be malicious, hateful, and probably very dangerous. But to be QAnon, that is beyond the pale, utterly hopeless and grotesque, deluded and insane, and certainly a gravely destructive person who should never be allowed any platform, much less professional success.”

A conclusion with which I agree based on my observations of the usage of this term. A conclusion in which these gradients can be used as pejoratives to classify conservatives as disreputable, right-wingers as deplorable, and QAnon as despicable. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders also have a gradient of ‘MAGA Republicans’ that spans the edges between conservatism and right-wingers for any American that would consider supporting Donald Trump. In doing so, any pejorative gradient is dividing Americans into good and evil Americans and sowing "Divisiveness in America".

Historically, this pejorative gradient of a people has been used by despots, dictators, and tyrants to oppress their people and conduct wars against other peoples, often with tragic consequences to those people who were so perjured. QAnon is also a signal to the "Wokeness" mob to engage in "Virtue Signaling" and "Cancel Culture" against the person or entity they declare to be QAnon, again with tragic consequences to those so labeled, as I have mentioned in my Chirp on “07/22/23 To Tell the Truth”.

As QAnon has no definite meaning, it can be assigned any meaning by anyone that would utilize the term. Thus, we have a situation much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's ‘Through the Looking Glass’:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.'
'the question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'the question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ' that's all.'

And any attempt to respond to the allegation of being a QAnon is analogous to Miguel de Cervantes's Spanish epic novel ‘Don Quixote’, in which Don Quixote attacks some windmills which he believes to be ferocious giants—to no avail.

The only solution to this problem is a return to "A Civil Society". Alas, in the hyper-partisanship and intense fervor of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, this does not seem likely. The normal human inhibitions of shame or benevolence of concern for another person seem to play no part in the words and deeds of those who would utilize pejoratives against those with whom they disagree. Thus, they are tearing apart Americans in order to achieve their political agendas and policy goals.

07/27/23 10 Things Black Students Don’t Need in Schools

Author and pastor John Amanchukwu’s vocal opposition to a proposed California school curriculum at a Temecula Valley Unified School Board meeting he attended on Tuesday, July 18, 2023, included a “10 Things Black Students Don’t Need in Schools” list:

“Number one, we don’t need affirmative action,

Number two, we don’t need equity,

Number three, we don’t need to be pandered to,

Number four, we don’t need you to dumb-down test scores in order for us to thrive,

Number five, we don’t need the school system to be promoting victim mentality,

Number six, we don’t need the soft bigotry of low expectations as we have heard from other people,

Number seven, we don’t need critical race theory or intersectionality,

Number eight, we don’t need reparations or any more welfare state,

Number nine, we don’t need to be propped up as the darlings of the LGBTQ community,

Number ten, we don’t need white liberals telling us that they know what’s best for us.”

The only thing that all students need from their public education is the skills and abilities to become functional adults; the Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom about different areas of knowledge, as I have written in my article, "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom"; and the ability to use "Reasoning" and "Rationality" to make a decision. All other education of a student is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, or those they would entrust to impart this other education.

07/26/23 Bidenomics

President Biden and his Administration are pushing the term “Bidenomics” to obfuscate the reality of the current American economy. In a new article by Miranda Devine, “The real scoop on Bidenomics: Corruption, tax evasion and Hunter”, she examines what Bidenomics means to the Biden family:

“Joe Biden has been trying in vain to mainstream a concept he calls “Bidenomics.”

The mystifying slogan appears to be an effort to turn around negative public perceptions of his economic agenda, since polls show only one in three Americans approves of his handling of the economy.

The problem is that nobody seems to have a clue what Bidenomics means.

But the definition has become much clearer over the past week, after the first son’s sweetheart plea deal fell apart in Delaware, two IRS whistleblowers testified to Congress about the DOJ’s obstruction of the criminal investigation into Hunter and Sen. Chuck Grassley released an explosive FBI document alleging that Joe and Hunter received $10 million in bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch.

So here is a handy reckoner for Americans to decipher the president’s new catchphrase.”

I would urge everyone to read this article as it is very revealing of the corruption of the Biden family.

07/25/23 A Weapon of Mass Corruption

It remains true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the guardrails of due process and impartiality are discarded, the power wielded by the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies becomes a weapon of mass corruption. Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas are corrupting the United States Constitution. This should come as no surprise as President Joe Biden is also corrupting the Constitution.

They are corrupting the Constitution by their undertaking "The Weaponization of Government" and engagement in "Despotism in America", as well as obstructing Congressional Oversight (see also Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute Overview of Investigation and Oversight Power of Congress) and their involvement in Judicial intimidation and/or attempts to circumvent Supreme Court rulings as I have Chirped on "07/24/23 The Circumvention of Supreme Court Rulings". In this, they are becoming a thug government, as Andrew C. McCarthy has written in a National Review article.

In this corruption are being assisted by Democrat Party Leaders, as I have written in my article "J'accuse!". They are corrupting our "American Ideals and Ideas" through the allegations and usage of Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, and Equity and Equality. In this, they are attempting to destroy America so that they can fundamentally transform America to their ideology, as I have Chirped on “07/06/23 Destroyed From Within”.

They often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their words and deeds as what is best for America, and consentaneous with the Soul of America. But make no mistake, their assaults on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" is not the best nor consentaneous with our American Ideals and Ideas.

Consequently, the Biden Administration is corrupting the Constitution in order to obtain its political agenda or policy goals. If they are successful in these efforts, then future administrations will also engage in this corruption. A corruption that, if allowed to continue, bodes ill for the future of America and the Liberties and Freedoms of its people.

07/24/23 The Circumvention of Supreme Court Rulings

The circumvention of Supreme Court rulings has become modus operandi in the Biden Administration. Whenever a court ruling overturns an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulations, they look for ways to circumvent the court ruling. This is most pernicious when regarding Supreme Court Rulings, of which many of the Supreme Court rulings on Executive Orders or bureaucratic regulations rescinded these orders or regulations of the Biden Administration. They look to the letter of the ruling to determine how to circumvent the ruling and pay no heed to the spirit of the ruling. They then create another Executive Order or bureaucratic regulations to achieve their desires. They do this by using "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their new Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation.

This is not to mention that many of their Executive Orders or bureaucratic regulations go beyond the scope of Legislation. They, therefore, are a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers of the branches of government and, thus, an encroachment on Congressional or Judicial powers, duties, and responsibilities.

It is quick and easy to write an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation, while it is slow and laborious to legally challenge an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation. The Constitution was not created for quick and easy and, indeed, was created to slow down the process. Our Founding Fathers were well aware that the passions of the people could lead to governmental actions that infringed upon the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. They, therefore, created the Constitution with a separation of powers, duties, responsibilities, and checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government that slowed down the process of ameliorating passions to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of the people.

Thus, the Biden Administration is corrupting the Constitution in order to obtain its political agenda or policy goals. A corruption that gnaws at our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/23/23 Historical Context

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
 - Hamlet.

Academics and scholars have often debated what Shakespeare meant when he used philosophy in this dialog. Throughout the millennia, the word Philosophy meant the obtainment of knowledge inclusive of many subfields such as morality and ethics, religion and theology, law, science, engineering, etc... The term Natural Philosophy was utilized for what we now term science, but there was no set convention that discriminated between the usage of Philosophy and Natural Philosophy, and people often were inclusive of Natural Philosophy when they used the term Philosophy. It was not until the mid-19th century that the term Science was utilized to discriminate between Philosophy and Natural Philosophy. Thus, we cannot know if Shakespeare was using Philosophy in its all-inclusive meaning or if he was excluding Natural Philosophy.

I prefer the all-inclusive meaning in this quote, as it illuminates a truth in the search for knowledge—"that which we know that we know, that which we know that we don't know, and that which we don't know what we don't know” and makes this quote more meaningful. The debate about the meaning of Philosophy in this quote highlights the importance of knowing the historical context of what a word or term meant to the person who spoke or wrote the word or term. Too often today, we assign the modern meaning of a word with a historical statement that is not appropriate to what was originally meant in its historical context. In doing so, we are doing a disservice to the author of the original meaning that was intended.

07/22/23 Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, and Science

Throughout history, the terms Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, and Science were indefinite in their meaning and usage. This led to confusion whenever a person used these words and often misunderstandings of what a person meant when they used these words. Today, they have a more definitive meaning and less misunderstanding in their usage. Today’s meanings of these words are as follows:

Philosophy is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge, and ethics, which throughout the millennia meant the obtainment of knowledge inclusive of many subfields, including Natural Philosophy.

Philosophy (from the Greek: love of wisdom) is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those concerning existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality; epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief; ethics, which is concerned with moral value; and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from true premises. The history of philosophy is itself a philosophical undertaking. Other notable subfields include philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind.

Natural Philosophy was the science of matter and energy and their interactions, which began to branch off from Philosophy to have its own meaning and was eventually superseded by the word Science.

Natural Philosophy or philosophy of nature is the philosophical study of physics, that is, nature and the physical universe. It was dominant before the development of modern science. From the ancient world (at least since Aristotle) until the 19th century, natural philosophy was the common term for the study of physics (nature), a broad term that included botany, zoology, anthropology, and chemistry, as well as what we now call physics. It was in the mid-19th century that the concept of science received its modern shape, with different subjects within science emerging.

The term natural philosophy preceded the current usage of natural science (i.e., empirical science). Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural history, in that natural philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and, after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas natural history was essentially qualitative and descriptive.

Science, the study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation, supplemented the term Natural Philosophy in the mid-19th century to distinguish it from the other branches of Philosophy.

Science is a neutral, rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules. There is disagreement about whether the formal sciences are science disciplines because they do not rely on empirical evidence. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies, and companies. The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and Climate Change.

07/21/23 Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom

What is Knowledge and a Knowledgeable Person? Is knowledge everything that is known, the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning, the factual information that a person knows, or the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something? Is a knowledgeable person one who is highly educated, has extensive information or understanding, an alert and fully informed mind, or a person who is thoroughly acquainted with knowledge through study or experience? It is my belief that Knowledge is everything that is known, while a knowledgeable person is one who has accumulated much Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom about different areas of knowledge.

With this in mind I have done an extensive update to my article on “Knowledgeable � From Information to Wisdom” to include the topics of Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom. Thus, the new title for this updated article is “"Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

07/20/23 To Tell the Truth

Telling the truth is not easy—it is difficult and has consequences and repercussions. But the immediate consequences and repercussions of telling the truth are far less than the long-term consequences and repercussions of remaining silent, acquiescing or telling a lie. Therefore, you need to tell yourself and others the truth rather than what you think you or others want to hear.

I have had a lifelong habit of not telling people what they wanted to hear but rather telling them what they needed to hear. This habit often had negative repercussions for my career, as I was not very diplomatic in telling the truth, but after I learned how to diplomatically tell the truth, it had positive consequences for my career.

When I undiplomatically told the truth, I was often not paid attention to or shunted aside and sometimes scorned. I was also not promoted, and I often had to find other employment to advance my career. Once I learned how to diplomatically tell the truth, my career blossomed, as my coworkers and management learned that I could be trusted to provide all the unvarnished information they needed to make a good decision. My computer consulting clients were also appreciative of my honesty, as they knew that they would have all the information that they needed to make an informed decision.

In my article “Stories from an Examined Professional Life”, I relate the story of The Retail Furniture Store, where I told a potential client what he needed to hear and not what he wanted to hear. As a result, he did not hire me but instead hired another computer consultant who told him what he wanted to hear. I later discovered, from a mutual friend, that he had regrets about hiring the other computer consultant, as it turned out that what he needed to hear was the truth about his computer needs. As a result, he spent more money and time correcting what he wanted to hear than if he had listened to what I told him what he needed to hear.

In today’s America, the biggest obstacle to telling the truth is "Wokeness" and "Cancel Culture". Wokeness is an attempt to get someone not to speak or to lie about what they really believe to be the truth, while Cancel Culture is an injustice at the hands of a vengeful mob. Wokeness and Cancel Culture are brutal to those that it is directed against, with terrible repercussions to both the persons and the society which tolerates them. It is also true that much "Virtue Signaling" is a reinforcement of Wokeness. Wokeness and Cancel Culture is also a means to impose despotism upon a people. Thus, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Virtue Signaling must be opposed by those that value Truth and Justice, as well as Liberty and Freedom.

The accumulation of remaining silent, acquiescing, or telling a lie takes a toll on a person’s life, as it often demeans the meaning of their life. It also has the consequence of:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right.
A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice.
A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.”
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

A YouTube video by Jordan B Peterson, “You Must Stand Up Against Woke Ideologies”, explains how Wokeness and Cancel Culture arise, how it is implemented, and its dire consequences, as well as the necessity of standing up against Wokeness and Cancel Culture.

07/19/23 How to Fix Climate Change

In Bjorn Lomborg's book “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” Section 4 is given over to “How to Fix Climate Change”, in which he discusses the best means to alleviate Climate Change. While I have only a few problems with the chapters on Innovation, Adaptation, and Prosperity, I do have serious problems with the chapters on Carbon Tax and Geoengineering.

Bjorn Lomborg is a big believer in Carbon Taxes to reduce carbon emissions that impact Climate Change. While he acknowledges the problem with a Carbon Tax, he believes that it can still be helpful even if not properly and comprehensively implemented. I have no such belief. With Carbon Taxes, we are talking about much money and political power. Whenever large amounts of taxes are in play, the political lobbying for different tax rates and/or tax exemptions would be extensive, and the results are often inequitable and would blunt the positive impacts of Carbon Taxes on Climate Change. The political power to control the economy and impact the lives of the population increases, often to the benefit or detriment of various groups of people. Carbon Taxes are also a very Regressive Tax that imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. He also makes no mention of how the tax revenues would be expended. With such large revenues as Carbon Taxes generate, there would be much factiousness engendered. Many politicians would suggest that we provide subsidies to the poor to ameliorate the regressive nature of the Carbon Tax. However, this is just an elaborate means of Redistribution of Income And Wealth, a redistribution that would unduly burden the middle class and have minimal impact on the upper class. There would also be the tendency for politicians and carbon emitters to implement Emissions trading (i.e., Cap and Trade), which I believe is one of the worst ideas ever proposed to combat Climate Change, and that would enrich the traders at the expense of the consumers.

Geoengineering, the deliberate modification of the climate to suit human needs, is a science and technology that Bjorn Lomborg believes should be allocated more funds for Research and Development (R&D). While he does acknowledge the possible negative impacts of applying this science and technology, I believe he woefully underestimates the possible perverse unintended consequences of applying this science and technology. For the reasons I have written about in my Science Article, “Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing”, I believe that we should never attempt to implement this science and technology. I do believe, however, that research on Geoengineering should be increased, as this will contribute to our scientific knowledge and understanding of climate. I also believe that all the nations of the world should ban any attempt by any nation, entities, or individuals to perform any large-scale testing or implementation of this science and technology.

After all, in regard to any Climate Change policies that we pursue, we should remember that “Fools rush in where Angles fear to tread”, and most Climate Change alarmists tend to be fools, as I have Chirped on “07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change”.

07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change

At the end of the movie “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, the almost true story of the attempt by British Commandos to destroy a train bridge being built by British Prisoners of War during World War II, the doctor who treated the POWs sits on a hillside to view the first train to cross the bridge. Instead, he witnesses the commando raid and the deaths of all but one commando and the death of the British and Japanese commander who built the bridge, as well as many Japanese soldiers. After he witnesses the destruction of the bridge (the untrue part of this story), he exclaims, in the last dialog of the movie, “Madness, Madness, Madness”.

Whenever I read or view the claims of Climate Change alarmists, I get the urge to exclaim, “Madness, Madness, Madness”. This madness of Climate Change alarmists is best explained in the book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” by Bjorn Lomborg. Throughout my reading of this book, I chuckled or shook my head and sometimes exclaimed madness. This book is the most understandable explanation of the madness of Global Climate Change alarmists.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education. This book uncovers the truths that Climate Change alarmists don’t want you to know.

In another reasoned book, “Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything” by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato scholars Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot―it's lukewarm. While that may not sound massive, it does, as the book's subtitle notes, change everything. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated―with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.

These two books constitute my upcoming Book It of “08/01/23 The Mythologies of Climate Change”, and I hope that you will read them to better understand Climate Change. The introduction to both books is a must-read for those interested in the truths of Climate Change, while the conclusion of False Alarm is a warning of the repercussions of trying to “fix” Climate Change based on the myths. Myths and Science are diametric, and to believe in myths will doom any policies based upon the myths and result in much wasteful expenditures of time and monies, as well as bringing untold misery upon the world and its people.

For more information on truthful Climate Change science and untruthful Climate Change alarmism, I would direct you to my Book Its’ of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never” and “ 08/01/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change”, which review the books  "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" by Michael Shellenberger and  Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin. For more of my thoughts on Climate Change I would direct to my Science Articles Climate Change and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing.

07/17/23 Environmentalism and Climate Change

Before there was Climate Change, there was Environmentalism. Over the decades, Environmentalism has been subsumed by Climate Change, in that If you believe in Environmentalism, then you must believe in Climate Change, and if you believe in Climate Change, then you must believe in Environmentalism. But Environmentalism and Climate Change are distinct, and entangling Environmentalism and Climate Change diminishes Environmentalism.

Environmentalism is important, as it is important that we have clean air and water, as well as a rubbish-free environment. It is also important that we have natural lands, streams, rivers, lakes, and ocean preserves. But there has always been a conflict between the environment and the human utilization of the environment. Human progress has always been dependent on the usage of natural resources, and all human endeavors impact the environment. The question of what acceptable impacts on the environment are allowable to sustain human progress and what restrictions are necessary to preserve the environment.

Modern Environmentalism has gone to the extreme of not allowing any impacts on the environment for human progress. While almost no Americans would agree to unrestricted utilization of the environment for human progress, it is the balance between environmentalism and human progress that needs to be considered before implementing any decision on restrictions to human development that impacts the environment. This is analogous to limiting the deaths that occur from automobile accidents. Each year about 45,000 people in America die from traffic accidents. If you ask the experts to determine how to reduce this number to several hundred at maximum, the only answer is to reduce the speed limit to no more than 5 miles per hour. Nobody in their right mind would accept this solution, as the negative repercussions would be far greater than the positive benefits. We, therefore, must strike a balance for society and human progress to flourish. So, it should be for environmental policies.

I am all in favor of striking a balance in environmental policies and protecting the environment as much as the balance warrants. However, I could not say the same for Climate Change policies. As I have written in many Articles and Chirps, the current Climate Change science is very suspect, as I have pointed out in my Science Article, Climate Change, and my new Science Article, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. I believe in climate change. I believe the climate has changed in the past, the climate is currently changing, and the climate will change in the future. This is a meteorological and geological scientific fact. The question is whether human activity is causing the current climate change. This may be true or may not be true, depending upon your interpretation of scientific facts and beliefs. If you have read my Science Article "On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry", you know that I have a scientific orientation to my thinking, and in this article, I apply that scientific thinking to many of the issues and concerns of climate change. Without good science, it is not possible to determine a good balance between Climate Change and Human Progress.

As such, when Environmentalism and Climate Change merge, and Environmentalism becomes entangled in the political discord on Climate Change, it negatively impacts Environmental actions. In addition, the extremism of modern Environmentalists makes people wary of their claims and solutions. Consequently, environmental protection that is beneficial and necessary is questioned and stalled to the detriment of the environment.

07/16/23 Divorce – American Style

In my article “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, I discuss the topic of what marriage is, but I make no mention of a divorce in a marriage. In the book, What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Gergis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, they identify and defend the reasons for this historical consensus and show why redefining civil marriage as something other than the conjugal union of husband and wife is a mistake. In this book, they point out the two views of the meaning of marriage:

“The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law—along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice—of our civilization. It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual view bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing our into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage so understood, the world rests its hopes and finds ultimate renewal.” and “A second, revisionists view has informed the marriage policy reforms of the last several decades. It is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remains as long as they find it.”

In all views of marriage, divorce should be available in cases of abandonment, physical or mental cruelty, infidelity, or bigamy. The question is, what the other grounds for divorce in a marriage are? In a conjugal view of marriage, it is only when one spouse has broken or ceased in their conjugal vows that divorce is warranted. In a revisionist's view of marriage, when one of the spouses ceases to feel emotional or sexual fulfillment, then divorce is permissible.

As we have seen the rise of the revisionist's view of marriage, we have also seen the rise in divorce rates. Some would argue that this divorce rise is not a causality but a correlation in divorce rates (as my article  Correlation vs. Causality explains) and that other factors are involved in the rise in the divorce rate. While other factors are indeed involved in the increase in the divorce rate, Common Sense would indicate that causation plays a large part in the rise of divorce rates in a revisionist view of marriage. When marriage is easier to enter and easier to exit, as it is in a revisionist's view of marriage, then divorce becomes more common. Such easier divorce has many different societal impacts, most of them detrimental impacts, as the Wikipedia article discusses. The Heritage Foundation report on The Effects of Divorce on America on children reports, as well as the Forbes report on The Financial Impact Of Divorce, discuss other negative repercussions of divorce.

Thus, we need to include the societal impacts of divorce when discussing marriage; otherwise, we will continue to see an increase in divorce in America to the detriment of America. Along with divorce, America suffers from the problems of Single Parent families that the Hello Motherhood website discusses. As the rise of divorce and single parenthood are very complex problems, and one that I am not qualified to discuss nor recommend solutions, I will keep in mind one of my Pearls of Wisdom, “If You Don’t Have Anything to Say, Say Nothing”, and say no more on these topics.

07/15/23 Destroying an Embryo

I have made my views on abortion well known in my articles "The Abortion Question" and "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery". In the book, “Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalization” by Kevin Yuill, in Section 5—For Abortion, Against Assisted Suicide, the author fails to sufficiently address the humanity of the unborn child. Instead, he asserts without sufficient evidence that “Destroying an embryo is clearly not murdering a person.” This is a loaded, biased statement that has hidden presumptions and assumptions. A more neutral statement would be— “The destruction of an embryo in the womb is not the unjustified taking of a human life.” In making this assertion without sufficient evidence, he has forgotten Hitchens's Philosophical Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

He also defines a viewpoint of life from a sacred perspective rather than a humanistic perspective. A Humanistic perspective rewrite of his Sacred viewpoint would be:

1. Human life begins at conception and ends at death.
2. Every human life has value to itself, to others, and to society.
3. If every human life has value, every human life has a right to life.
4. We may not violate the right to life simply because someone’s existence is a nuisance, either to themselves or to others.
5. Therefore, both abortion and assisted suicide are morally wrong.

The only debatable point would be number 1, which is addressed in Chapter One of the book “Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing“ by Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, and that I utilized for my discussion on Abortion Rights. If you believe that from the conception of a one-cell zygote, a multi-cell embryo, a fetus, to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, an adult, a senior, and then death, they are all various stages of a single human life’s growth and development, it is a human life throughout all the various stages of growth and development. If you utilize the above rewrite, the arguments against institutionalizing assisted suicide would be applicable to be utilized against institutionalizing abortion. Unfortunately, the arguments in Kevin Yuill’s chapter are founded on this assertion without sufficient evidence, and as such, they can be dismissed if you disagree with the assertion without sufficient evidence.

He also posits several scenarios to justify this assertion, but he does not posit other scenarios that contravene his assertion. Thus, he does not sufficiently discuss the dichotomy of the choices (presented and unpresented) in the various choices in the scenarios. A dichotomy that I have Chirped about on “06/23/23 Under the Mantle of Civil Rights”.

He also justifies abortion based on “Women’s Equality”, but he does so without discussing the “Equality” of an embryo. He makes no mention of the human rights of an unborn child, and he has, in effect, ignored the question of the humanity of an unborn child by presuming it to not be human. He does this by attempting to separate the definition of human into the categories of “Biological” v. “Biographical” life.

In presuming an unborn child to not be human, he does not address the science of the humanity of an unborn child, but he attempts to redefine humanity away from its scientific basis. If you gave a cell of an unborn child and a cell of its mother to a geneticist, you could ask the geneticist what species these cells are. They would respond that they are homo sapiens. The geneticist can do this because the genome structure of a cell determines the species of the cell, and having a genome structure of a homo sapiens makes you a Human being. If you asked that same geneticist if they were the same human, they would respond that they are not, as each genome structure is unique to each human. The geneticist could also tell you which cell is from the mother and which cell was the child of the mother. Consequently, having a genome structure that is different from another human makes you a unique human. By trying to redefine human away from their scientific basis, you are venturing into metaphysical, philosophical, theological, moral, and ethical questions that cannot resolve the question of the humanity of an unborn child.

The other sections of his book are very good discussions on the topic of Assisted Suicide. I have written this Chirp not to dissuade you from reading this book but only to inform you of the shortcomings of this section of the book.

For a Humanist to not properly address the humanity of an unborn child is not in keeping with their Humanism values, as I have Chirped on “06/24/23 A Humanist”. This is another example of the passion that people feel about the issue of abortion. Humanists and philosophers need to put aside this passion and examine a topic dispassionately and from all viewpoints. It is this dispassion that I try to maintain whenever I Chirp or write an Article, especially on the issues of “Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide Rights”.

07/14/23 Under the Mantle of Civil Rights

In today’s America, many groups of racial, ethnic, sexual, social, or cultural identity persons are claiming “Rights” under the mantle of civil rights. Most of these groups fall within the definition of Identity Politics as practiced by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

However, rights often are at a dichotomy with and between each other’s personal rights. And a dichotomy between individuals’ interests and between social policies. The main question is “What is the practical good versus the possible harm to the individuals involved?” and “What are the societal benefits versus the societal detriments of instituting a policy?”. It is difficult, and often contentious, to resolve these problems of the dichotomy of rights. These issues need to be looked at dispassionately, intelligently, and scientifically. But this is not often the case because people have strong emotional and religious reactions to these topics. Whenever we have a discussion on Civil Rights, we should remember that you have no right to harm yourself, nor to harm another, nor to harm society. It is only within that baseline that we can legitimately discuss Civil Rights.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, it seems that granting a civil right to one group often comes at the cost of the infringement on the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" of other Americans. And once a civil right has been granted to correct a problem within America, it is not revoked when the problem has been corrected. Thus, all Americans continue to have their "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" violated after a problem has been solved. This continued violation is often justified on the basis that the problem or its repercussions have not been completely resolved, but what human problems are ever completely resolved? We live in an imperfect world, and we must learn to deal with these imperfections as they occur. To continue to violate the Natural, Human, and Civil Rights of a person until all the problems have been resolved is to wait for a Utopian world—which can never happen.

This dichotomy has played itself out in the Civil Rights of black Americans. While racism still exists in America (and the rest of the world), we now have laws that make racist actions illegal, and those that engage in them are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No systemic abuses of the Civil Rights of black Americans are condoned nor tolerated in America, and those racist acts that do occur are harshly criticized and condemned by all but a few Americans.

Recently, we have seen the utilization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to justify infringement on the equal treatment of Americans under the mantle of Civil Rights, as I have Chirped on, "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". We have also seen the utilization of the legal concept of Disparate Impact, as I have chirped on “06/19/23 Disparate Impact”, to justify the retention of outdated Civil Rights laws. Today, this dichotomy of rights has come into sharp focus when considering the rights of abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and assisted suicide. My new article, “Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide Rights”, examines these rights and their dichotomy between individual and societal rights.

07/13/23 Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing

"All models are wrong, some are useful."
  - George E. P. Box, one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century

These words of wisdom must be kept in mind whenever you utilize a Computer Model or Statistical Process in decision-making or in its implementation in the real world. The difficulty is determining which Computer Models or Statistical Processes are useful and which are useless. In addition, the above quote is why Computer Models and Statistical Processes cannot be a proof of science. No science is ever confirmed by a computer model, as science is proved by observations and experiments conducted in the real world.

Another problem with Computer Models and Statistical Processes is their utilization by non-scientists to advocate for public policies. Too often, the public believes in a computer model, especially when it confirms their beliefs about the real world, and they accept Computer Models and Statistical Processes as “proof” of their beliefs. And unfortunately, most Activists and Activism and politicians for causes that rely on a scientific foundation (e.g., Climate Change, Environmentalism, COVID-19 Pandemic, etc.) accept these Computer Models and Statistical Processes as proof of the correctness of their claims.

We should all remember that “Figures can lie, and liars can figure” as a warning to beware of all who use Computer Models and Statistical Processes to advance their agenda. This was not an indictment of modelers or statisticians; rather, it is a call to use reason and logic and to ask questions and seek understanding when presented with a conclusion based on Computer Models and Statistical Processes. Knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing Computer Models and Statistical Processes is crucial to discovering the truth.

My new science article, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, is an examination of the general problems associated with Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing and why you need to be careful when utilizing Computer Models and Statistical Processes when making decisions.

07/12/23 Economist Agree

Economists are some of the most disagreeable people on the Earth. They disagree with each other, and they disagree on the science of economics. This is not a comment on their character but an indictment of economic science. Economic science is an unsettled science, mainly because it is an extremely complex science, with many interrelationships and feedback loops within economic processes that are not well known. It is also dependent on human, societal, and government actions and reactions, which are unknowable and unpredictable. In addition, it is not possible to experiment on economic science, as any such experiments will not and should not be accepted by the public, and any such experiments will have major repercussions on people, society, and government. These experiments would also be highly susceptible to "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and subject to many unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks, and perverse results.

This is best expressed by the phrase, “That which we know that we know, that which we know that we don't know, and that which we don't know what we don't know”. In economics, that which we know is small compared to that which we know that we do not know, and that which we don't know what we don't know is probably very large.

Consequently, when some says that economist agree, or a variation of this term, we can know that the person who utters this term does not understand economic science, and we should not give heed to anything they may say about economics.

07/11/23 Rules for Conservatives

In an article by Rob Natelson, “Here’s Why It Seems Trump is Always in Trouble”, he reflects on the ‘Rules for Conservatives’ he has learned in his public career. He prefaces these rules by stating:

“For several decades, America has had a definable ruling class—essentially a large oligarchy. It consists of federal bureaucracies, a few career federal politicians from “safe” districts, the managers of certain large businesses, major universities and foundations, and the dominant media. Its members enjoy privileged access to the levers of federal power. So they campaign unceasingly, and often at taxpayer expense, to increase federal power.

The natural adversaries of the ruling class are those who want to seek to revive the Constitution’s limits on federal authority and re-empower individuals, families, religious congregations, local and state governments, small businesses, and private associations.”

Here are some of the rules he has learned:

#1: If you are pro-freedom and pro-Constitution, the standards you must meet are far higher than those applied to others. Just because Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden can get away with something, doesn’t mean you can. If you cannot accept this, then politics is not for you.

#2: In the typical media environment, media bias is worth about 10 percent of the vote for ruling-class candidates. You must factor this bias into your plans, just as you consider other aspects of the local political climate.

#3: Most people do not understand how the media manipulates their attitudes. People often have vague negative feelings toward certain candidates without really knowing why. You must find ways to communicate directly with voters, and do so in a disarming manner. (Ronald Reagan was a master of this skill.)

#4: A conservative candidate must give people specific reasons to vote for him and not for his opponent. This includes criticizing an opponent, but doing so in a way the media cannot portray as “mean-spirited.”

#5: Never trust a journalist. The political graveyards are littered with the bones of politicians who said inadvisable things to a reporter they thought they could trust. Even if the reporter wishes you well, his editors or other superiors may not.

#6: Don’t talk too much; know when to shut up. Prioritize what you want to say and—no matter what you are asked—focus on only your top two or three points.

#7: When you do speak, tell the truth. It’s not only ethical, it helps you keep your story straight. Privileged candidates often can get away with lies, but pro-freedom candidates usually cannot.

#8: Assume that any email or witnessed conversation may end up on the front page of the newspaper. Nixon taped private conversations, and the tapes were used to destroy him.

#9: Avoid impulsive decisions, and build a defensive foundation supporting each major decision. I was very good at this. The media would take statements by my opponents on faith, but they always wanted proof from me. I always had that proof available. (DeSantis is very good at this, too.)

#10: Enlist the best talent you can. Mediocrities may mean well, but they can sink you by making mistakes at the very worst time.

#11: Review your principles often.

#12: Once you are in office, concentrate on changes that are both (1) effective and (2) not easily reversed. The only permanent way to weaken the forces of centralization is to defund them.

The entire article is a worthwhile read as he explains how he has learned these rules.

07/10/23 SPLC Despicable and Divisive Slander and Libel

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) often makes slanderous or libelous statements against persons or organizations, and sometimes government agencies and politicians, that disagree with their viewpoints. In this, they have become a despicable and divisive organization rather than an agency for social betterment. Many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists rely on the SPLC to justify their remarks, and many in the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media report their statements as factual. This is yet another example of destroying ourselves, as I have Chirped on “07/05/23 Destroyed From Within”.

Any criticism of the SPLC is met with charges of "Racism" against those that would criticize the SPLC. This is done in an attempt to silence the critics and to shield the SPLC against any lawsuits of slander and libel. This has the consequence of allowing them to continue their slanderous or libelous statements. As a result, they are ruining the reputations of respectable persons and organizations and increasing the "Divisiveness in America".

These slanderous or libelous statements by the SPLC must end to bring about civil and honest discussions about the issues and concerns of the SPLC. And unfortunately, this can only be accomplished by those so defamed by the SPLC to institute lawsuits of slander and libel, as the SPLC has shown no interest in changing its tactics.

Too often, in today’s America, the counter charges of Racism against those that would criticize the orthodoxy of Progressives are utilized in an attempt to silence the critics. Almost all such counter-charges of Racism are without foundation and therefore are despicable and divisive, and need to end for us to have an honest discussion when actual racism rears its head.

07/09/23 The Perversion of the English Language

In my "Dialog & Debate" article, I discuss The Perversion of the English Language, which I have updated to state:

The perversion of the English language is one of the ways in which to confuse an issue. This English language perversion is accomplished by inventing new words and terms, assigning new meanings to current words and terms, and conflating the meanings of two words and terms. Language is the way we communicate our thoughts and feelings, and perverting language leads to less understanding and more misinterpretation.

Protologism (freshly coined) and neologism (new word) are important parts of the development of the English language. However, protologism words need time to develop a firm meaning and acceptance before they become a neologism. In political dialog and debate, most often, a protologism is a pejorative that has been created to defame a person involved in a discussion, dialog, or debate.

The adding of a new meaning to a word is often done to take an innocuous or positive connotative word or term to insert a contentious meaning to the word or term so that the contentious meaning is more acceptable. Consequently, anyone who would dispute the more contentious meaning of the word or term appears to be disputing the innocuous or positive connotative of the word or term, which puts them at a perceived disadvantage in any discussion, dialog, or debate.

The conflation of words and terms is often done to ameliorate a disputable word or term with an unequivocal word or term. Often these words or terms are antithetic to each other. By conflating these words or terms, they have taken the positive emotional appeal of a word or term to attribute this positive emotional appeal to the contentiousness of the other word or term.

When this abuse of language is being deliberately done, it is often being done for the purpose of obtaining power through sophistry (a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone). A sophistry that has been utilized throughout history and first examined by Plato. A great philosopher of the 20th century, Josef Pieper, reflects in his book, Abuse Of Language Abuse Of Power, on the way language has been abused so that, instead of being a means of communicating the truth and entering more deeply into it, and of the acquisition of wisdom, it is being used to control people and manipulate them to achieve political and practical ends.

In today's America, this perversion of the English language is a technique utilized by Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media to manipulate the American public into accepting their policy goals and political agendas. Policy goals and political agendas that, if they were clearly stated, the American public would not be acceptable of these policies and agendas.

Much of this abuse of language is done in the name of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering, and to institute a Herd Mentality as I have written in my "Terminology" webpage.

Reality becomes intelligible through words. Man speaks so that through naming things, what is real may become intelligible. This mediating character of language, however, is being increasingly corrupted. Despotism, propaganda, and mass media destroy and distort words. They offer us apparent realities whose fictive character threatens to become opaque.

Much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's ‘Through the Looking Glass’, those that pervert the English language have adopted an attitude of:

“'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ' that's all.'”

And people who pervert the English language to advance their policy goals and political agendas are simply trying to be your masters.

07/08/23 Courage of Our Convictions

We all applaud physical courage such as that exhibited by our armed forces, police, firefighters, and ordinary citizens coming to the aid of others at risk to their own lives and safety. However, there is another type of courage that needs applauding—Moral courage. When you stand up for the courage of your convictions in the face of personal disparagement, economic repercussions, and possible danger to your person or property, you deserve to be applauded.

The only caveat is that your convictions need to be founded on sound morals and have an ethical basis. A private moral and ethical basis that treats everyone with politeness, respect, and dignity, and a public moral and ethical basis based upon "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", that institutes "A Civil Society". Moral courage is when you stand up and speak out whenever you encounter anyone or any situation that is contrary to your moral and ethical basis. The practice of Virtue, the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong, requires that you have the courage of your convictions in the face of personal disparagement, economic repercussions, and possible danger to your person or property.

Virtue requires that you report any wrongdoing or possible unlawful actions to the proper authorities for investigation, and it requires that you make known any wrongdoing or possible unlawful actions by the proper authorities. And virtue is not restricted to lawful actions as "The Law is Not All". Virtue requires that when you encounter possible wrongdoing in your business or professional life, you report this wrongdoing to your superiors for corrective action, and if no such corrective action is undertaken, then you must report these possible wrongdoings to lawful authorities (a.k.a. Whistleblowing). The virtue of government employees requires that any possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions of government be reported to superiors, and if no corrective actions are undertaken to your satisfaction, then you must report these possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions to Congress for investigations (a.k.a. Whistleblowing). The virtue of elected officials requires that they investigate these possible wrongdoings to determine their veracity and when so, determine to be truthful that corrective actions are undertaken regardless of political affiliation or political considerations.

The only caveat is that a whistleblower must be sincere in their convictions that possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions have occurred; otherwise, they are acting in a petulant or vindictive manner. When a whistleblower does blow the whistle for the proper reasons, they are acting in a virtuous manner, and they should be applauded and not vilified. All precautions to protect the virtuous whistleblowers’ reputation, economic impacts, and possible dangers to their person or property must be undertaken. When negative repercussions are encountered by a virtuous whistleblower, then we need to find a way to compensate the virtuous whistleblower for the negative repercussions.

Many people would object that they are but a single person that can have no positive impact on possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions, and therefore it is not worth the risk of whistleblowing. However, like a pebble thrown into a pond, the ripples spread throughout the pond and disturb the pond. If enough pebbles are thrown into the pond, it will change the nature of the pond. When you consider whistleblowing, you must also consider injustice and its impacts. And, as Martin Luther King Jr. so eloquently wrote in his “Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’“:

“Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Not acting virtuously exacts a penalty on those that choose to be unvirtuous, as:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right.
A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice.
A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.”
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Consequently, we must all be virtuous and act on the courage of our convictions to institute a better society.

07/07/23 Scared Leftward

Scared Straight! was a 1978 American documentary narrated by Peter Falk that presented a group of juvenile delinquents during their three-hour session with actual convicts. Filmed at Rahway State Prison, a group of inmates known as the “lifers” berate, scream at, and terrify the young offenders in an attempt to “scare them straight” so that they will avoid prison.

Today, we see this scare tactic being utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders against the American people. Through the utilization of Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Wokeness, and assertions of Sexism, Intolerantism, Xenophobism, Homophobism, Islamophobism, Racism, Bigotism. etc., they are attempting to scare the American people into silence and acquiesce to their political goals and policy agendas.

This is the politics of fear to scare the American people straight, where straight is progressivism. Fear is a despicable tactic in politics, as it often leads to divisiveness and irrational policies, as well as the possibility of despotism. As Bible verses teach us to Be Not Afraid so, therefore, we should not be scared leftward. Instead, we should have the courage of our convictions and oppose those who would scare us leftward. In doing so, we must remember the following:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right.
A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice.
A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.”
 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

07/06/23 Destroyed From Within

On Jan. 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions." During that address, he said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

We are now witnessing our destruction from within. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" are being destroyed by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and not being replaced by any better ideas or ideals. As I have discussed in my Chirp on “06/07/23 The Great Silence”, we have many problems in America today that are not being addressed but are being foisted upon us by the actions or inactions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. To reiterate, these are the problems of:

• the corruption of the Biden family and other politicians;
• the corruption of the FBI, Justice Department, Intelligence, and other government agencies;
• the devolution of our major cities into cesspools of homelessness, rubbish, garbage, defecation, drug usage, and the associated public health and safety risks;
• the economic, social, health care, and Natural Rights impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic;
• the educational failures of our public schools;
• the energy production (oil, natural gases, and coal) limitations;
• the fentanyl epidemic;
• the impacts of crime on the streets;
• the impacts of illegal immigration;
• the opposing Climate Change viewpoints;
• the reformation of government departments and agencies based on "Political Correctness", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Hyper-Partisanship".
• The rise of Despotism in America and The Decline of Free Speech in America;
• the sluggish economy and its impacts on employment;
• the Voting in America problems;
• and the Weaponization of Government.

These problems are the result of either accident, stupidity, or malice. I do not believe they are accidental, as they are being thrust upon us. I am a great believer in Hanlon's Philosophic Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”. However, these problems cannot be the result of stupidity, as many voices have warned us about the impacts of these problems. Therefore, it can only be concluded that these problems can only be attributed to malice—the malice of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They do not love America for its ideals and ideas but only for what they believe they can form and shape it into. But this form and shape cannot be accomplished if they define it beforehand, as most Americans would reject this form and shape. Instead, they attempt to destroy America's current form and shape so that they may reform and reshape America from the ruins they have caused to happen.

Consequently, to preserve our American Ideals and Ideas, it is important that we oppose the actions and inactions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Otherwise, we will be its author and finisher of America by suicide, and we will have nothing left but the ruins of American Ideals and Ideas.

07/05/23 Colorblind at Last

The Supreme Court, in a recent decision, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., v. University Of North Carolina, Et Al., determined that race-based admittance criteria for colleges and universities were unconstitutional. The vote counts were 6-3 against UNC and 6-2 against Harvard (because of the recusal of Justice Jackson).

A hue and cry arose amongst  Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against this decision, with many outrageous claims and historically inaccurate comments permeating their protestations. They are fully aware that the reasoning for this decision is contrary to their "Social Engineering" and "Identity Politics" political agenda, which poses a threat to their electioneering tactics and control of Congress and the Presidency.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on Amendment XIV, Section 1. of the Constitution:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This Amendment was passed shortly after the American Civil War in response to the racist and discriminatory practices that the defeated southern states were instituting. The many discussions and debates prior to the passage of this amendment made it clear that the purpose of this amendment was to establish a colorblind society in government and the law. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings limited the scope of this amendment, and sometimes were contrary to this amendment, but could not change the meaning and purpose of this amendment. The meaning and purpose of this amendment were made clear in the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the notorious “Separate but Equal” doctrine:

“[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
 - Justice John Marshall Harlan (dissenting)

This recent Supreme Court decision is more in line with the 14th Amendment's original meaning and purpose of the amendment, and the decision should be applauded for its constitutionalism and affirmation that all Americans should be treated equally. In a concurring opinion to this decision, Justice Thomas Concurring Opinion on Affirmative Action lays out a fine history of legal racism and discrimination in American history that should be read and understood by all. In their final statement of the majority opinion in this ruling, they state:

“A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

For over fifty years, we have had Affirmative action in the United States, which was not colorblind, and we have started down the road of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", which discriminates against groups of Americans. These policies are also contrary to the original meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment. In doing so, we have forgotten that America was founded on the basis of “Equality” and not “Equity”, as in my definition of "Equity and Equality".

The societal impacts of using racial criteria for any selection process has a pernicious effect on all members of society. Any criteria for selection must be based on individual meritocracy and life experiences, for:

"Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything, good or bad, that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism."
 - Justice Thomas

Therefore, our Constitution must be colorblind, for:

“We cannot be guided by those who would desire less in our Constitution, or by those who would desire more. The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”
 - Justice Thomas

Thus, it is time to put an end to Affirmative Action and put a stop to and reverse Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion based on the 14th Amendment. It is time that we had de facto equality rather than de jure equality. In doing so, the long road to racial equality under the law will be affirmed by America becoming Colorblind at Last.

07/04/23 The Relevance of The Declaration of Independence

Almost 100 years ago, on July 5th, 1926, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, President Calvin Coolidge gave a speech on the 150th anniversary of the American Revolution. In this speech, he reflected on the importance of The Declaration of Independence to history and its applicability to his modern times. This speech still rings true for the applicability of The Declaration of Independence to our modern times.

“It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event.”

Of the Declaration, Coolidge stated:

“It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.”

On the endurant principles of the Declaration, he declared:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

Of his trust in our Founding documents, he said:

“It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.”

On this day, the normally “Silent Cal” Coolidge spoke volumes on the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States to Liberty and Freedom. We would do well to remember his words of wisdom and to keep the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution intact in our governance.

* * * * *

For more about the importance of Independence Day, I would direct you to the Hillsdale College web page “15 Great Speeches to Remind America what Independence Day is About”. I would also direct you to my webpage on “Documents, Letters, and Speeches” which, in my opinion” are the most important letters, documents, and speeches from American history that I have found to be very wise and inspiring. I believe all Americans should read and ponder these letters and speeches and take them to heart.

07/03/23 Forms of Governance

Throughout my Chirps and Articles, I refer to the different forms of governance that I utilize. Therefore, I have compiled a shortlist of the different types of governance, and I have added this list to my "Terminology" webpage.

• Absolutism - The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
• Aristocratic & Aristocracy - Government by an aristocratic class; a state with such a government.
• Authoritarian & Authoritarianism - A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition, etc.).
• Autocracy & Autarchy - A political system governed by a group or a single individual.
• Democratic & Democracy - A political system ruled by the people through majority rule.
• Despotic & Despotism - Dominance through the threat of punishment and violence.
• Dictatorial & Dictatorialness - Expecting unquestioning obedience.
• Majoritarianism & Majoritarian - Governed by the majority; believing in majority rule.
• Meritocracy - The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
• Minoritarianism & Minoritarian - A political structure or process in which a minority segment of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that entity's decision-making.
• Monarch & Monarchy - An autocracy governed by a monarch (usually a King or Emperor) who usually inherits the authority.
• Ochlocracy - A political system in which a mob is the source of control; government by the masses.
• Oligarchy & Oligarchic - A political system governed by a few people.
• Serfdom - The state of a serf in which a person is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord.
• Totalitarian & Totalitarianism - Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life. The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
• Tyranny & Tyrannic & Tyrannical - Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty.
• Republic & Republicanism - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

07/02/23 The American Cultural Revolution

The Cultural Revolution in China was a sociopolitical movement in the People's Republic of China (PRC) launched by Mao Zedong in 1966 and lasting until his death in 1976. Its stated goal was to preserve Chinese communism by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society. The Cultural Revolution brought forth one of the bloodiest eras in Chinese history, along with social, economic, and political disruptions, disturbances, and dislocations in Chinese society.

The Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (DEI), and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and More (LGBTQIA+) agendas are unfathomable acronyms to Middle America and thus mostly ignored. The Abortion, Marriage, and Transgendered Rights movement has also not been fully understood by the American people but has swept across America. Added to this mix is the discord of Critical Race Theory, The 1619 Project, ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police. The above issues, along with the American Inquisition, as I have written in my Chirp on “07/01/23 The American Inquisition”, are an American Cultural Revolution. This American Cultural Revolution is bringing forth social, economic, and political disruptions and disturbances in American society. This American Cultural Revolution is also antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and afterward does not portend well for our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

An American Cultural Revolution based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify its actions. An American Cultural Revolution with the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against its opponents that begets "Divisiveness in America". An American Cultural Revolution fomented by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and supported by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education", to advance their social, economic, and political policies and political agendas.

This American Cultural Revolution is being implemented not by persuading the American people as to its rightness or desirability, but it is being imposed without the informed consent of the American people. This American Cultural Revolution has often been instituted by Executive Orders or Regulations, or Judicial Rulings, while Congress has been made mute by contending factions. As such, this American Cultural Revolution is not by the will of the American people as expressed through Congressional legislation. Thus, it is not occurring through Constitutional processes. Indeed, it is being imposed by despotic actions by its supporters. Consequently, this American Cultural Revolution needs to be opposed by all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/01/23 The American Inquisition

The Inquisition was a former tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church (1232-1820) created to discover and suppress heresy— any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position. For the last several decades in America, we have seen an informal Inquisition based upon "Political Correctness" and "Wokeness" that is now becoming formal based on the government actions against dissidents by the Biden Administration.

While nobody is being physically tortured in this American Inquisition, they are being psychologically tortured by fear and loathing. This psychological torture is of the fear of government persecution or prosecution by "The Weaponization of Government", the fear of losing your business or employment through "Cancel Culture" and "Doxing", and the fear of being labeled with personal pejoratives as I have written in my article "Divisiveness in America". This fear and loathing is an assault on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all Americans. This American Inquisition is not only being instituted by the government, but is being supported by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education".

This fear and loathing were the tactics of NAZI Germany to obtain and retain power and to justify the elimination of the Jews and other groups in Germany that opposed the Nazis. While it is hard to imagine the horrors of NAZI Germany occurring in America, most pre-NAZI Germans did not imagine the horrors of NAZI Germany until it was too late to stop them, and many Germans supported the Nazis without knowing the horrors they instituted.

The history of the world has shown that authoritarian governments eventually resort to despotism to obtain and retain more power and impose their will upon their people, to the detriment of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of their people. It is a slippery slope that starts with minor infractions that are justified for the good of the people but eventually slides down the slope for the good of those who are in power. Thus, to avoid this slippery slope, you must oppose these minor infractions before they become major violations of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Too often, the history of the world has shown that the end result of authoritarian governments is a civil war or the collapse of civilization by warfare with its neighbors or internal strife. Consequently, the best course for a society veering down the slippery slope is the right the course of the ship of state before it sinks. To right the course of the ship of state in America is to turn out of power those forces that are stoking fear and loathing. Those forces stoking fear and loathing in America are the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and in the 2024 elections, the American people must turn them out of power to right the course of the ship of state of America before it sinks.

06/30/23 Shouting Us Down

In reading an article by Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Should a Real Expert Debate or Not?”, I was struck by the following statement:

“I’ve become suspicious of people who believe that their best strategy for winning an argument is to interrupt, shout, spit, fling clever rhetoric at ever higher decimal levels, and hurl insults. These people are also good at yelling out technical details in great rapidity so that they cannot be checked in real time.”

“A person with a real command of facts, theories, and real experience can patiently listen to contrary views and answer them with calm reason. There is no grounds to interrupt. On the contrary, all such a person needs is a bit of quiet and some willingness to listen. That person will win the debate against the most belligerent opponent.”

 - Jeffrey A. Tucker

Alas, it is an unfortunate fact that most Progressives/Leftists believe that the free speech of their opponents needs to be silenced or shouted down. I also find it insidious that they often resort to platitudes and unsupported “facts” to counter their opponents’ points. Their platitudes and facts are often only beliefs, not supported by "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and are unaccompanied by the Burden of Proof that is incumbent upon them. When they do this, they believe that their assertions should be accepted as axioms that cannot be challenged. When this occurs, I am also reminded of Hitchens's Philosophical razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thus, whenever I observe this type of behavior, I can conclude that the disrupter's viewpoints are without substance and can be ignored and dismissed.

06/29/23 Thoughts of Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton was an American author and filmmaker with extensive scientific education and background who, before he died in 2008, gave some speeches which examined Consensus Science, Environmentalism, and Global Warming (before it became Climate Change). I have posted his thoughts on these topics in my new Science article, Thoughts of Michael Crichton, that I believe is well worth your time and effort to read and consider.

06/28/23 Orthodoxy in Science

Dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. When such dissents and disputations occur, it is acceptable to critique the science, but it is unacceptable to criticize the scientists, as I have explained in my article “Criticism vs. Critique”. This is an attitude of tolerance for dissenting and disputing scientific claims and the scientists who assert the claims. This tolerance for dissent and disputations, when based upon the scientific evidence or scientific methodology employed (or that lack thereof), is healthy for the advancement of science and for the betterment of humankind.

However, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation in modern Science. There has been much criticism and condemnation of scientists who speak out against Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, which bespeak of an Orthodoxy in Science resembling Religious Orthodoxy. My new Science article, Orthodoxy in Science, examines this issue.

06/27/23 Consensus and Settled Science

I have updated my Science Article “Consensus and Settled Science” to include a quote that I recently came across that succinctly points out the oxymoron of consensus science:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
 - Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton was an American author and filmmaker. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and over a dozen have been adapted into films. His literary works heavily feature technology and are usually within the science fiction, techno-thriller, and medical fiction genres. His novels often explore technology and failures of human interaction with it, especially resulting in catastrophes with biotechnology. Many of his novels have medical or scientific underpinnings, reflecting his medical training and scientific background.

06/26/23 When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts

It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, we too often rely on fact-checkers to help determine the truth. But fact-checking is subjective rather than objective and susceptible to the Cognitive Biases of the fact-checkers and the predilections of the fact-checking organization. This results in improper labeling of asserted “facts” as true or false. Thus, determining facts is vulnerable to human interpretation of the facts as I have Chirped on, "10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts". The four biggest problems in the process of fact-checking are Narratives, Statistics, Science, and Economics, which I examine in my new article “When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts”.

06/25/23 A Lesson in Facts and Truths

With the recent testimony of Special Counsel John Durham on the Russian collusion investigation and the personal attacks that he faced from the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, the Democratic members showed their disdain for facts and truths. Without challenging a single fact in the report as untrue, members heaped personal attacks on one of the most respected prosecutors at the Justice Department.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have shown this disdain for anyone who would challenge their beliefs and narratives, regardless of the facts and truths. In this, they are like inquisitors of the Medieval Catholic Church Inquisition. Inquisitors who would not listen to facts and truths but who would impose torture, cruel and unusual punishments, and even death for those that would not conform to their beliefs. The finest example of this was in the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei.

In 1633, after facing the Inquisition, Galileo was forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than the converse. He abjured, sworn, promised, and obliged himself to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it, to abandon completely the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing. It was reported (although unconfirmed) that Galileo mumbled, "And yet it moves.” as he was leaving the Inquisition.

As Durham responded to these attacks upon his reputation, “My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, my family, and my Lord, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir.” he has taught us all a lesson. A lesson in reputation and a lesson in courage to stand by your facts and truths in the face of harsh criticism. For facts and truths will win out in the end, as they are undeniable but can be obscured or hidden in the near term. As to John Durham’s inquisitors and their supporters, I think that the best response to them should be, “And yet it moves.”

06/24/23 A Humanist

Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. It is independent of the moral dimension, which is called moral agency.

In the book, “Humanism: A Very Short Introduction” by Stephen Law, he defines Humanists as:

• First, humanists believe science, and reason more generally, are invaluable tools we can and should apply to all aspects of life.
• Second, humanists are either atheists or at least agnostic.
• Third, humanists believe that this life is the only life we have.
• Fourth, humanism involves a commitment to the existence and importance of moral value.
• Fifth, humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy.
• Sixth, humanists believe our lives can have meaning without it being bestowed from above by God.
• Seventh, humanists are secularists, in the sense that they favor an open, democratic society in which the state takes a neutral position with respect to religion, protecting the freedom of individuals to follow and espouse, or reject and criticized, both religions and atheists’ beliefs.

There are several other views that sometimes are associated with humanists, but a humanist need not be utopian, believe that only human’s matter, be utilitarian, embrace those brands of naturalism that say that the physical universe is the only reality there is, and embrace scientism that believes that every genuine question can in principle be answered by science.

In the following chapters of his book, he explores these concepts in detail:

1. The humanist tradition
2. The case for God
3. The case against God
4. Humanism and morality
5. The value and meaning of life
6. Humanist education and upbringing
7. Humanist ceremonies
8. The secular society

In this, Humanists are very similar to the 17th and 18th centuries Age of Enlightenment viewpoints. As the Enlightenment was ending, Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment because it disregarded the bonds of history, myth, faith, and tradition that were necessary to hold society together. These Romantic philosophers’ concerns are also applicable to the Humanists.

In social theory and philosophy, antihumanism or anti-humanism is a theory that is critical of traditional humanism, traditional ideas about humanity, and the human condition. Central to antihumanism is the view that philosophical anthropology and its concepts of "human nature", "man", or "humanity" should be rejected as historically relative, ideological, or metaphysical.

Humanism has the appearance of being beneficial and wholesome, but like all philosophical approaches to life, it can be applied in a manner contrarywise to its intentions. Therefore, like all philosophical discussions on the nature of humankind, be wary of the assumptions and presumptions, the construct of "Structure", "Formal and Informal Logic", "Logical Fallacies", and "Cognitive Biases" of the Reasoning, and the conclusions of Humanists, but do consider their arguments as they are often intelligent and rational.

06/23/23 Should We Do It?

“Technology creates an imperative: ‘If we can do it, we will do it.’ Ethics asks: ‘We can do it, but should we do it?’”.
 - Peter Singer - Australian Moral Philosopher

The philosophical field of Bioethics was formed to address this issue in the field of medicine. We are now at a stage where computer technology advances need to address this issue in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

At the dawn of the computer age, there was an acronym that was frequently used— ‘GIGO’: Garbage In -> Garbage Out. It referred to the situation that if your inputs were incorrect, your outputs would be incorrect. It left unspoken that if your processing instructions (computer program) were incorrect, anything it would produce would result in incorrect outputs. The correct acronym should have been GIGPGO (Garbage In -> Garbage Processing -> Garbage Out), not pronounceable, and an admittance that computer programs contained mistakes. As computer programs became more complex, GIGPGO became more pronounced.

AI programs are the most complex programs we have created in computer technology, and GIGPGO is a very important concern in utilizing AI. We must also remember that AI programs were developed by humans, and humans can and do make mistakes. A human mistake in AI processing will produce garbage out. In addition, AI programs require information in to produce information out, and if the quality of the information in is not excellent or unbiased, then the information out will be highly suspect. And the more that we rely on AI for decision making, the more susceptible to GIGPGO we become, resulting in erroneous AI results and incorrect decision making.

There is also the possibility that the more we rely on AI, the more we will not fully utilize our own thinking. We see the start of this when students utilize AI to produce papers and reports for their assignments. We are also seeing this in our utilization of AI to find and digest information on the Internet. Too often, this digestion is not accompanied by thoughtful consideration of the AI results and often a blind acceptance of the AI results.

Attempts to make AI creative in the Arts and Sciences have met with limited and unsatisfactory results, as they often simply meld human artistic efforts in a new manner. Thus, new and unique artistic creations seem to be beyond the reach of AI. As AI is not emotional but intellectual, such a world would be entirely intellectual-based. The emotions of love and hate, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, ambition and apathy, and curiosity and indifference, would play no part in an AI world, making the AI world uninspired, as I have Chirped on "05/31/23 A Sterile World".

AI cannot be utilized to answer all questions. In the field of Physics, the Theory of Special Relativity is irreconcilable with the Theory of Quantum Entanglement, as I have examined in my science article on The Big Questions. If we ask AI to resolve this irreconcilability, it cannot do so, for it requires a human mind to conceive of a new theory to resolve this irreconcilability. Such conception is beyond the capability of AI, as this reconciliation will require inspiration, new ideas, new information, and new thinking to be resolved.

The rhetorical question is, then, could AI ever produce anything such as the works of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Picasso, or Einstein? And if it could do so, would it no longer be “Artificial” but have become “Sentient” Intelligence?

These problems are exacerbated by the unwillingness of the AI program developers to open their AI programs to scrutiny. Under the guise of intellectual property rights, they have placed a curtain of secrecy around their AI efforts. In normal circumstances, intellectual property rights need to be respected, but when AI results are being utilized for important decision-making, this curtain of secrecy can have dire consequences for society.

It now appears that we can do AI, but the question remains should we do it? This answer needs to be explored with another philosophical field to address this issue, and intellectual property rights need to be examined so that we can determine the quality of the AI technology. Otherwise, the utilization of AI for decision-making may result in calamitous consequences.

06/22/23 Actions and Reactions

In Physics, Isaac Newton's classical mechanics basic laws of motion describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. The third law can be stated as “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. In human behavior, it can be stated that every action provokes a reaction, and the actions and reactions could be good, bad, or indifferent.

Many Progressives/Leftists believe that if their intentions are good, the consequences of their actions will be good. What they don’t consider is that. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” and my pithy saying:

“There are things that we know, things that we know we don't know, and things that we don't know that we don't know. It is the things that we don't know that we don't know that often cause the most problems.”
 - Mark Dawson

They also do not consider the items that I have written in my article “Good Intentions”. To them, they consider a positive emotional response to being more important than an intelligent consideration based on "Rationality" and "Reasoning". They also rely on the positive nature of human nature while taking little account of the negative side of human nature. To them, if they feel good about their intentions, it is sufficient for them to institute "Change and/or New". In this, they have forgotten the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

For my own part, I do not give a wit for good intentions, but I care very deeply for good results. Good intentions without knowledge, intelligence, experience, and wisdom are often nothing but folly, and I am not interested in paying heed to fools. Much of their foolishness is a result of denying or misunderstanding the true nature of human nature or their attempts to mold human nature to what they desire it to be. They believe people to be as they want them to be rather than as they are. To the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who act upon this false belief of human nature, I would respond:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

06/21/23 A Standard of Normalcy

A Standard of Normalcy is required to function in our world, with Normalcy being defined as being within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning or expectedness as a consequence of being usual, regular or common. It is when things become abnormal that we become confused, disoriented, or disturbed. Thus, a Standard of Normalcy is needed for us to function properly and maintain optimal mental health.

As Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D., a pediatrician and Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), as well as a Past President of ACPeds, explains how a standard of normalcy applies to mental health:

“One of the chief functions of the brain is to perceive physical reality. Thoughts that are in accordance with physical reality are normal. Thought that deviate from physical reality is abnormal—as well as potentially harmful to the individual or to others. This is true whether or not the individual possesses the abnormal thoughts feels distress. A person's belief that he is something or someone he is not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking, at worst, it is a delusion. Just because a person thinks or feels something does not make it so.”

As Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., a political philosopher and President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, puts it:

“Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us to the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts that disguise or distort reality are misguided. When thought and feelings are utterly disconnected from reality, persistently false or unfounded, and idiosyncratic (i.e., not socially or culturally promoted), they can take us from confused to delusional.”

Perhaps this explains the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, LGBTQIA+ militants (especially Transgendered militants), Climate Change Activism and Activists, proponents of Adjective Justice, and the believers of The Biggest Falsehoods in America say and do—they have no connection to reality and thus lack A Standard of Normalcy. This may also be why it is almost impossible to have intellectual Reasoning with these people—their perception of reality is distorted to the point that they cannot perceive the outside world as it is but only as how they want it to be.

06/20/23 Identity Theft

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
 - Shakespeare’s  Othello

In today’s modern world, identity theft not only steals your purse but can lead to financial and reputational harm and ruin. Identity theft also leads to emotional distress and mental health problems for the victims of identity theft. It also consumes much time and effort of multiple parties to correct the impacts of identity theft.

This is why identity theft should be investigated, prosecuted, and face stiff fines and long imprisonment if found guilty. We need to send a message to those that engage in identity theft that it will not be tolerated, and if they are found guilty of identity theft, then they will face financial ruin and long-term imprisonment. Only by doing so can we reduce the incidents of identity theft.

In the age of the Internet, identity theft crosses national boundaries. Therefore, identity theft in all nations needs to be investigated, prosecuted, and face stiff fines and imprisonment if found guilty. Those nations that do not cooperate in doing so need to be considered piranha in the modern world, and the other nations need to take actions that will force them into doing so. Otherwise, it will not be possible to reduce the incidents of identity theft nor the damage that they inflict.

06/19/23 Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact (also “adverse impact”) commonly refers to an unintentional discriminatory practice, whereas disparate treatment (also “adverse treatment”) refers to intentional discriminatory practice. A Disparate Impact policy or rule is one that seems neutral but often has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.

As Professor Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. B.A., Northwestern University, 1978; J.D., University of Chicago, 1981. has stated in her article Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal in the New York University Journal of Law and Liberty:

“In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Supreme Court, against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, interpreted Title VII to prohibit not just conscious and unconscious discrimination but also Disparate Impact, subject to an affirmative defense of business necessity. One problem is that, if Disparate Impact based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin is not universal, it is nearly so. It is difficult to come up with a job qualification that has been actually used to select one job applicant over another that does not have a Disparate Impact on some group.”

Unfortunately, the concept of Disparate Impact, which was originally limited to employment practices, has spread to nearly all aspects of the law that deal with decisions by private entities or government activities that impact groups of persons. This intrusion into the decision-making of entities skewers the selection process that often infringes upon the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of an individual.

The question is, how do you legally define Disparate Impact, then determine if a Disparate Impact has occurred? This brings up the same issues of how you legally define Pornography, then determine if something is pornographic. The answer to these questions is that it is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ to determine if something is Disparate Impact or Pornographic.

Many have asserted that Disparate Impact can be determined by the use of statistical methods. But statistical methods have many inherent problems, as I have discussed in my article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". We should also remember that ‘Figures can lie, and liars can figure’ when claims of Disparate Impact are made. Even King Solomon would have much difficulty in determining the motherhood of the baby if he utilized statistical methods to determine the motherhood of the baby. Consequently, when someone makes an assertion of Disparate Impact, we all should be wary of the assertion and carefully review the means that they arrived at the assertion. Often these means are arrived at by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, which make the assertion of Disparate Impact less credible if not an outright fabrication for the purposes of a political agenda or policy decision.

Judicial rulings on Disparate Impact are also highly susceptible to "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and have serious repercussions on the functioning of society. Such repercussions are better examined and resolved by Congress, where they can craft legislation to resolve specific Disparate Impacts with a specific legal definition that requires legal actions.

The infringements upon an individual person’s "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" by the utilization of Disparate Impact is no justification for such infringements. The harm done by such infringements far outweighs the benefits to be gained, and other means should be utilized to determine if and when possible disparate impacts occur and what corrective actions should be undertaken to correct these disparate impacts.

06/18/23 Transgenderism

Facts and Truths must be based on reality; otherwise, we will live in a fantasy land that can change according to anyone’s discretion. Ignoring scientific facts leads you astray and to untruths. Science informs us that male and female bodies differ in their sex chromosomes of XX and XY and their psychological organization for reproduction, but also, on average, in size, shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the brain. These secondary sex differences are not what define us as male or female; organization for reproduction is what does that. If you are bodily structured to inseminate, then you are male, and if you are bodily structured to gestate, then you are female. After the reproductive organs, the brain is possibly the most “sexed” organ in a human being. This is not to say that there are male brains and female brains, but that, on average, there are differences in the brains of males and females that tend to make a difference in how men and women experience emotion and pain, how they see and hear, and how they remember and navigate. When we step back from contentious political debates, we can see scientists acknowledging what might be otherwise an unpopular truth: that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential.

The Institute of Medicine at the Nation Academy of Sciences published a report in 2001 titled Exploring the Biological Contributions to Hum Health: Does Sex Matter?, in which the chapter titles of the report sum up basic truths of our bodily nature: “Every Cell has a Sex”, “Sex Begins in the Womb”, “Sex Affects Behavior and Perception”, and “Sex Affects Health”. These are the scientific facts and truths that the Transgendered Rights activists would have you ignore, or they obfuscate with terms such as “Gender Identity”, “Gender Fluidity”, ”Gender Affirmation”, “Gender Confirmation”, “Sex Assigned at Birth”, and other terms to lead you astray.

The Transgendered Rights activists would also have you believe, as Shakespeare put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question” on a transgendered sex transition. But this is the wrong question. Claiming that a question is wrong may sound odd. Surely, answers can be wrong. Likewise, suppositions, views, claims, and assertions can be wrong. But can the questions be wrong? The answer to this question is given in the Psychology Today article, “To Be or Not to Be": Is That Really the Question? Hamlet's famous question is limited and misleading” by Iddo Landau, Ph.D...

The question is not to be one sex or another, but what is the best method of dealing with transgender dysphoria? Is it to be by sex transition, or is it to be by mental health therapy? The Transgendered Rights activists would have you believe that the only means of dealing with transgender is to physically transition to the other sex. The scientific facts and truths say otherwise. No one can fully transition to another sex, and many transitioned transgender persons experience physical and mental problems during and after the transition. Many transgender dysphoria persons can be helped by mental health therapy rather than transitioning, but most do not receive the proper mental health therapy for their dysphoria. In today’s America, there is too much rush to transition a transgender person and insufficient consideration of mental health therapy.

This viewpoint does not constitute hate for the transgender, but it does constitute a concern for the physical and mental well-being of persons suffering from transgender dysphoria. They need assistance in dealing with their transgender dysphoria, but this assistance should consider all options for treatment. To do otherwise is to potentially harm a transgendered person rather than help them with their dysphoria. When thinking about Transgendered Rights, we must always remember the scientific facts and truths; otherwise, we will make ill-informed or uninformed decisions on how to treat a transgendered person.

06/17/23 Hate Speech and Racist

Hate Speech is a term utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to suppress our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech, the Free Exercise of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, and the Freedom of the Press against any person, group, or organization that oppose their political, social, and economic policies and political agendas.

They often used this term under the rhubarb of Hate Speech incites violence. Direct incitement to violence is not protected speech, but Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are often speaking of indirect incitement to violence, which is very difficult to define and legally prosecute. As such, they are demagoguing rather than explaining.

Racist has a very specific derogatory meaning. However, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have convoluted the meaning of this word to apply it to any person, group, or organization that opposes their political, social, and economic policies and political agendas. They utilize the word Racist in an attempt to silence any opposition to their viewpoints, which is a violation of our First Amendment Rights. As such, they are demagoguing rather than explaining.

Alas, when utilizing “Hate Speech” and “Racist” Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" to try to silence those that do not agree with them. I have, therefore, decided to add Hate Speech and Racist to my "Terminology" webpage to better explain what they and I mean by “Hate Speech” and “Racist”.

06/16/23 Quotes on the Majority

“I have no interest in being in the majority. I am only interested in speaking the truth. The truth that is determined by the evidence and the facts. A truth driven by Rationality and Reasoning.”
 - Mark Dawson

The majority’s opinions or beliefs hold no weight for me, as it is often formed by ignorance or biases. As a result, I often find myself in the minority of opinion or belief. So be it! When I find myself in the minority, I often comfort myself by remembering the Quotes on the Majority on my new webpage. And when I find myself in the majority, I remember the words of wisdom of Samuel Clemens:

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
 - Mark Twain

06/15/23 The Greatest Challenge

In a world filled with many challenges, we often ask ourselves what are the greatest challenges that need to be addressed. Is it Bigotry, Racism, Sexism, Intolerance, Poverty, Health, Addiction, Climate Change, Environment, Energy Production, Gun Control, etc., etc., etc.? The answer is none of these, as the following quote illuminates.

“I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”
 - Michael Crichton

If we cannot face and overcome this challenge, then we will not be able to face and overcome any other challenge. It is only by coming to grips with reality and truth we can overcome all the other challenges of humankind. This is one of the main reasons that I have written my Articles and Chirps—to assist others in overcoming this challenge by unveiling reality and truth.

06/14/23 To Obtain and Retain Power

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to obtain and retain power. Any other concerns are secondary or tertiary. Our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are to be circumvented, circumscribed, or ignored to obtain their policy goals and political agendas. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints.

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them rather than what is best for all Americans. All of this starts with their attempts to win elections, as I have examined in my articles "Voting in America" and “Voting Responsibilities".

In a new article by Ben Weingarten, “The million-dollar question for 2024 contenders is: How will you win the general election under the present voting system?” he examines this problem and provides some solutions. He concludes that “Only by competing and winning under a rotten system rewarding the kind of organizing and action historically anathema to conservatives will there ever be an opportunity to dismantle that system.”

As I concluded in my article on Voting in America, Election fraud is still with us and will always be with us, as elections are important. Partisan people desire their candidates to be elected, and politicians desire to be elected and reelected, and sometimes both parties satisfy this desire by engaging in election fraud.

Many of these voting problems occur in urban areas of the country rather than the suburban and rural areas. As urban areas have a denser population, it is easier and more effective to engage in election fraud in urban areas. It is also more probable that urban election fraud can swing an election not only for local candidates but also for statewide candidates. As most urban areas are controlled by Democrat Party election officials, the benefits of election fraud are often Democrat Party candidates.

Many cries that this is not a significant problem or there is no ‘proof” of irregularities or illegalities ring hollow. Without knowing the extent of the problem, it is not possible to determine its significance. As to ‘proof’, if you do not investigate the allegations that have veracity, you can never find proof of irregularities or illegalities. And just because you have not heard nor seen these problems in the past does not mean that these problems did not exist or were minor in the past, nor is it currently existent or will not arise in the future. If it becomes easier to commit election fraud, the cheaters amongst us will take advantage of this situation. An advantage that could decide an election, and we do not want our elections to be decided by election fraud.

06/13/23 The Great Silence

Today, in America, we are experiencing a great silence filled with massive babble. The silence of "Rationality" and "Reasoning" in dialog and discussions, and the babble of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media". Such a babble keeps us uninformed, and when it occasionally rises to information, it is ill-informed information. Such babble increases the likes and clicks of Social Media and the ratings for Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media but does nothing for the betterment of society.

The guiltiest party to this silence and babble is the Mainstream Media. The primary responsibility of the Mainstream Media is to provide us with pertinent news and factual information for Americans to make an informed decision as to the future direction of our country. In this responsibility, they have miserably failed in the last several decades, as I have written in my article, "Modern Journalism". If the news and facts do not fit their predilections, they simply do not report the news or facts. Any news or facts that support their predilections is hyped and distorted to fit their predilections. Thus, Americans cannot obtain pertinent news and factual information to make informed decisions.

Predilection in the media exists - but it has always existed and will continue to exist in the future. In America's past, there have been British vs. Colonialist, Constitution vs. Anti-Constitution, Federalism vs. State's Rights, Agrarian vs. Industrialist, Abolitionist vs. Anti-Abolitionist, North vs. South, Eastern Interests vs. Western Interests, Republican vs. Democrat, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Pro-War vs. Anti-War, etc., etc., etc. reporting in journalism. You could always find groups of journalism in support of one thing and other groups of journalism in support of the opposite thing. Both sides have had an equal opportunity to espouse their views in journalism. This is how it should be for the American people to hear both sides of an issue and make up their minds about where they stand on an issue. Journalism of this type also helps with the checks and balances of our political system, and it provides an outlet for all sides to express their views on an issue so that a consensus can be reached.

But something began to happen in the late 20th century and continues today. The balance of journalism shifted in that most of the media began to be predisposed in one direction on many of the issues. There were fewer and fewer media outlets that were reporting the conservative positions, while a majority of media outlets were reporting the progressive positions. The conservative positions began to get less representation in the journalist ranks and fewer media attention and coverage of their positions. Indeed, the conservative positions began to be covered in a negative light by the predisposed media. Today we have nothing but silence or disdain for the conservative positions on:

• the corruption of the Biden family and other politicians;
• the corruption of the FBI, Justice Department, Intelligence, and other government agencies;
• the devolution of our major cities into cesspools of homelessness, rubbish, garbage, defecation, drug usage, and the associated public health and safety risks;
• the economic, social, health care, and Natural Rights impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic;
• the educational failures of our public schools;
• the energy production (oil, natural gases, and coal) limitations;
• the fentanyl epidemic;
• the impacts of crime on the streets;
• the impacts of illegal immigration;
• the opposing Climate Change viewpoints;
• the reformation of government departments and agencies based on "Political Correctness", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Hyper-Partisanship".
• The rise of Despotism in America and The Decline of Free Speech in America;
• the sluggish economy and its impacts on employment;
• the Voting in America problems;
• and the Weaponization of Government.

These predilections of the Mainstream Media are to perpetuate "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and to support the political agendas of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. As such, the American people are uninformed or ill-informed about the alternatives to their political agenda, and most especially to the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders political agenda. Such uninformed or ill-informed news reporting is a disservice to America and to the journalism profession. They have forgotten that:

“It is our professional duty as journalists to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable—by exposing the faults of the rich and powerful while acting as the voice of the impoverished and disenfranchised.”
 - Humorist Finley Peter Dunne as the fictional character "Mr. Dooley."

Today it seems the professional duty as journalists are to support and proclaim the Progressives and Democrats while remaining silent or besmirching the Conservatives and Republicans. As such, they have become a fifth column in America rather than a bulwark for Freedom and Liberty. A fifth column not in attune with our "American Ideals and Ideas" nor interested in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A fifth column that imposes a great silence on those that disagree with it and a massive babble to mask their predilections.

06/12/23 A Standard of Normalcy

A Standard of Normalcy is required to function in our world, with Normalcy being defined as being within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning or expectedness as a consequence of being usual, regular or common. It is when things become abnormal that we become confused, disoriented, or disturbed. Thus, a Standard of Normalcy is needed for us to function properly and maintain optimal mental health.

As Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D., a pediatrician and Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), as well as a Past President of ACPeds, explains how a standard of normalcy applies to mental health:

“One of the chief functions of the brain is to perceive physical reality. Thoughts that are in accordance with physical reality are normal. Thought that deviate from physical reality is abnormal—as well as potentially harmful to the individual or to others. This is true whether or not the individual possesses the abnormal thoughts feels distress. A person's belief that he is something or someone he is not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking, at worst, it is a delusion. Just because a person thinks or feels something does not make it so.”

As Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., a political philosopher and President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, puts it:

“Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us to the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts that disguise or distort reality are misguided. When thought and feelings are utterly disconnected from reality, persistently false or unfounded, and idiosyncratic (i.e., not socially or culturally promoted), they can take us from confused to delusional.”

Perhaps this explains the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, LGBTQIA+ militants (especially Transgendered militants), Climate Change Activism and Activists, proponents of Adjective Justice, and the believers of The Biggest Falsehoods in America say and do—they have no connection to reality and thus lack A Standard of Normalcy. This may also be why it is almost impossible to have intellectual Reasoning with these people—their perception of reality is distorted to the point that they cannot perceive the outside world as it is but only as how they want it to be.

06/11/23 Forest Fires Happen

Forest fires happen, as it is the nature of forests fires will occur. They have occurred throughout the past, they are presently occurring, and they will occur in the future. They are known scientifically as “Wildfires”, and they are studied scientifically as “Pyrogeography”. A wildfire, forest fire, bushfire, wildland fire, or rural fire is an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable fire in an area of combustible vegetation. Depending on the type of vegetation present, a wildfire may be more specifically identified as a bushfire (in Australia), brush fire, desert fire, grass fire, hill fire, peat fire, prairie fire, vegetation fire, or veld fire. Some natural forest ecosystems depend on wildfire. Wildfires are distinct from beneficial human usage of wildland fire, called controlled or prescribed burning, although controlled burns can turn into wildfires. Pyrogeography is the study of the past, present, and projected distribution of wildfire. Wildland fire occurs under certain conditions of climate, vegetation, topography, and sources of ignition, such that it has its own biogeography, or pattern in space and time. They have been recorded in the last two hundred years, which can be reviewed in the “List of Wildfires”.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is responsible for “Forest management” in America. Forest management is a branch of forestry concerned with overall administrative, legal, economic, and social aspects, as well as scientific and technical aspects, such as silviculture, protection, and forest regulation. This includes management for timber, aesthetics, recreation, urban values, water, wildlife, inland and nearshore fisheries, wood products, plant genetic resources, and other forest resource values. Management objectives can be for conservation, utilization, or a mixture of the two. Techniques include timber extraction, planting and replanting of different species, building and maintenance of roads and pathways through forests, and preventing fire.

Federal forest management dates to 1876, when Congress created the office of Special Agent in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assess the quality and conditions of forests in the United States. In 1881 the Department expanded the office into the Division of Forestry. A decade later, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, authorizing the President to designate public lands in the West into what was then called “forest reserves.” Responsibility for these reserves fell under the Department of the Interior until 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt transferred their care to the Department of Agriculture’s new U.S. Forest Service.

Many Global Climate Change Activists have claimed that Climate Change is responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires (a claim that is disputable). However, before such a claim can be made, the question should be how much of current wildfires are due to inadequate or improper forest management policies. Environmental Activists have for several decades opposed many forest management policies as being harmful to nature, and the Forest Service has curtailed or eliminated some of these forest management policies. Therefore, you must determine if current forest management policies are responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires before you can attribute this increase or severity to Climate Change.

Consequently, those who make the claim that Climate Change is responsible for an increase or severity of wildfires are being unscientific. The science of Pyrogeography must be utilized on individual wildfires to determine the causes of the wildfire before any claims about the cause can be made. Such Pyrogeography studies often take many months, if not years, to determine the actual cause of a wildfire.

06/09/23 Evidence

Evidence is the only way to determine facts and truths. Without evidence, you cannot determine the facts that lead you to the truth. Yet evidence can be deceiving—deceiving in of itself and deceiving in your understanding of the evidence. One of the common deceptions is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but sometimes an absence of evidence does mean absence. For example, we have no evidence of glaciers in the Sarah Desert, but we should not assume that glaciers could exist in the Sarah Desert. Another common deception is how to adjudge the evidence or the presenter of the evidence, as I have examined in my article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Evidence can generally be categorized into three types in order of importance:

1. Evidence (also known as Direct Evidence) for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.
2. Circumstantial Evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without the need for any additional evidence or inference.
3. Anecdotal Evidence is evidence-based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.

Direct Evidence is difficult (but possible) to refute, circumstantial Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, while Anecdotal Evidence often leads you astray as it often has "Cognitive Biases" and "Logical Fallacies". In all categories of evidence, "Formal and Informal Logic" must be utilized, and the Burden of Proof" for the evidence must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If the Burden of Proof is shifted away from those making an assertion then you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to Prove a Negative, which is almost impossible to do. We should also remember the words of Christopher Hitchens who had often said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Evidence is most sorely lacking, contradictory, or deceptive when examining the political, social, or economic issues in today’s America. Truths are impossible to determine if the evidence is presented with "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”. Much of this evidence is presented by “Experts”, but what we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong, as I examined in my Chirp on "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top". There is also confusion about “Experts” and “Evidence”. An expert opinion is not evidence, it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not a proof of the evidence, as consensus often changes as new or changed evidence comes to light, or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty.

Thus, beware of the evidence, facts, and truths provided by experts, commentators, or news presenters, as they often base their words on false or faulty evidence.

06/07/23 Rules of Reason

I have just finished reading the book, Rules of Reason: Making and Evaluating Claims by Bo Bennett, Ph.D., which succinctly summarizes how to apply reason to claims made by yourself and others. Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims or "strong" claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

While I have some issues with this book, the rules he outlines are important to analyze both your and others' claims. These rules of reason are:

1. Acknowledge the Limits of Your Knowledge Regarding the Claim.
   Understand that there is much you likely don’t know on the topic and realize that even sources that are frequently wrong are sometimes right.
2. Explore Your Biases Related to the Claim.
   Explore Your biases and realize that they might be affecting your judgement.
3. Isolate the Actual Claim
   Isolate the claim by finding out what is exactly meant by the claim. This will often uncover an implicit claim.
4. Clearly and Precisely Define Each Relevant Term.
   Words have multiple meanings, and people use them differently. Don’t guess the meaning if you have any opportunity to get clarification. Clearly and precisely define each relevant term in the claim.
5. Use Terms That Reflect the Scope of the Claim Accuracy.
   To avoid ambiguity, specify the scope of the claim. Use words like “all”, “none”, “a few”, “some”, and “many”. When possible, be even more specific by providing numbers or percentages.
6. Operationalize Terms When Possible.
   For terms that can be measured, ask how they can be measured so the claim can be investigated using one or more reasonable standards.
7. Make the Claim Falsifiable When Possible.
   Do your best to modify the claim so that it is possible to be demonstrated to be false. Otherwise, it will likely be a weak claim.
8. Express an Accurate and Meaningful Level of Confidence.
   Make sure claims reflect an accurate, clear, and meaningful level of confidence.
9. Covert Causes to Contributing Factors When Appropriate.
   Causality is a complex area that is virtually always better expressed in terms of causal factors than “the cause”, “the reason”, “the key” or other terms that indicate a binary distinction.
10. Make Strong Analogies and Call Out Weak Ones.
    Analogies are claims that fall into the continuum from strong to weak. Stronger analogies are specific about how what is being compared is similar, and weaker analogies make claims of similarity where the differences are far greater.
11. Filter All Relevant Assumptions Through These Same Rules.
    Realize that claims often contain several other implied claims, many of which should also be run through the rules of reason.

In applying these rules of reason, you will be better able to adjudge the veracity of your own and others' claims and make a judgment on the truthfulness of a claim. The more you apply these rules of reason to a claim, the more you will realize the nonsense of many claims, and the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of the myriad of claims that surrounds us.

06/05/23 My Out-of-Body Experience

In my Chirp on “06/04/23 Is There Life After Death?” I note that the first common element of Near-Death-Experience (NDE) is an Out-of-Body Experience (OBE). I believe in Out-of-Body Experiences, as I once had an Out-of-Body Experience of my own.

As a young lad of about thirteen years old, I went to my Boy Scout troop meeting after school. As it was a cool sunny spring day, the troop decided to play dodgeball in the yard outside of the church where the meeting was held. After forty minutes of strenuous dodgeball, the troop was dismissed, and I walked a quarter mile to my house. Upon arriving home, I immediately went upstairs to my bedroom and took off my glasses, then laid down flat on my back with my arms crossed over my chest. After about a minute, I felt a lightness, and I could not feel my heart beating nor my lungs breathing. Indeed, I could not feel anything except lightness. I opened my eyes and looked down at my motionless body from the ceiling of my bedroom. I looked around my bed area, and everything was crystal clear and in its place. This was extraordinary, given my extreme nearsightedness and other vision problems. I then looked out of my bedroom window and clearly saw what was happening in the yard and street below my bedroom window. I did not hear anything, as there was no sound to hear even before I lay down. After looking back at my body, I felt extremely anxious that if I did not return to my body, I would never return. I remember clawing back to my body, and when I touched it, I was back in my body. I opened my eyes, felt my heartbeat and breathing, then sat up on the edge of my bed, feeling normal. After about five minutes, I then went back to normal sleep. I knew this OBE was no dream due to the reality of my observations when I was out of body, and I have never had a dream before or since that was this starkly real.

Five years later, I discovered that I had been born with a heart murmur, which my doctor informed me meant that I had marked limitations of physical activity. I would be comfortable at rest, but more than ordinary activity causes fatigue, palpitations, or shortness of breath. I had always wondered why after about twenty minutes of arduous physical activity, I could not keep up with the rest of the guys—and this was the answer. After I had learned about my heart murmur, I began to wonder if the arduous dodgeball and walking home physical activities had any bearing on my OBE. Perhaps I experienced some form of a cardiac problem that was the start of an NDE. I will never know, but I do know for sure that I had an OBE.

This leads me to believe that NDEs have a basis in reality, which also leads me to believe in an afterlife.

06/04/23 Is There Life After Death?

For time immemorial humans have asked the question, “Is there life after death?”. No one knows the answer to this question, nor can anyone know the answer to this question. All we have is our faith and the experiences of those that were near or clinically dead but revived from their near or clinical death. No science can definitively determine if there is life after death. However, there is some science that can lead to the conclusion that life after death is a strong possibility. This science is explored in the book, “Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences” by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry as they stated:

“There is currently more scientific evidence to the reality of near death experience (NDE) than there is for how to effectively treat certain forms of cancer,” states radiation oncologist Dr. Jeffrey Long is his groundbreaking new book Evidence of the Afterlife. In 1998 Dr. Long and his wife, Jody, began the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NEDRF) with the goal of creating a forum for near death “experiencers” to share their stories. Grounded in first-hand evidence culled from over 1,600 verified NDE accounts, Evidence of the Afterlife presents the strongest argument yet for the underlying truth of those who have died and returned to share their tales.”

Dr. Jeffrey Long, M.D. is one of the few medical or scientific persons who have examined the evidence from the personal stories of people who have experienced a near death experience. As he has stated in his book:

“I am a man of science, and as a result I have examined the data from the NDERF study in a scientific way. At NDERF we explored all of the elements in the NDEs of more than one thousand people, examining consistency among the accounts. In reaching conclusions about the accounts, we followed a basic scientific principle: What is real is consistently seen among many different observations.”

His scientific way is to carefully prepare questionnaires to be answered by people who claim that they have had NDEs, then reject those questionnaires that are inconsistent or contradictory in their responses to the questions. He is then left with testimonies of NDEs that cannot be explained medically, and to those testimonies, he looks for the commonality of NDE experience and applies statistical methods to their testimony. While this is not rigorous science, as it is impossible to do scientific experiments on NDEs without endangering the life of the person being experimented upon. Therefore, his scientific methodology is the best that can be utilized in researching NDEs. From these testimonies, he has culled twelve common elements of NDEs:

1. Out-of-Body Experience
2. Heighten Senses
3. Intense and Generally Positive Emotions or Feelings
4. Passing Into or Through a Tunnel
5. Encountering a Mystical or Brilliant Light
6. Encountering Other Beings, Either Mystical Beings or Deceased Relatives or Friends
7. A Sense of Alteration of Time or Space
8. Life Review
9. Encountering Unworldly (“Heavenly”) Realms
10. Encountering or Learning Special Knowledge
11. Encountering a Boundary or Barrier
12. A Return to the Body, Either Voluntary or Involuntary

From this research, he has concluded that NDEs are real and prove that there is life after death. His nine proofs that support his conclusion are:

1. Lucid Death
2. Out of Body
3. Blind Sight
4. Impossibly Conscious
5. Perfect Playback
6. Family Reunion
7. From the Mouth of Babes
8. Worldwide Consistency
9. Changed Lives

In his conclusion of this book, Dr. Long states:

“This book has important implications for religion. The great religions have always spoken to the belief in God and an afterlife. The evidence of near-death-experiences points to an afterlife and a universe governed by a vastly loving intelligence. Near-death-experiences consistently reveal that death is not an end but rather a transition to an afterlife. This is a profoundly inspiring thought us all and our loved ones.”

His efforts were the first NDE research to be based on a large-scale database of testimonies, but other researchers have also compiled testimonies of NDEs. All this research on NDEs should give pause to everyone to consider the very real possibility that there is life after death. It should also give comfort to those that are contemplating or approaching their death or those contemplating or experiencing the death of a loved one, that death is not the end of life but the beginning of a new, better, loving, joyful, and beautiful existence.

06/02/23 A Tweet of Importance

While I am a Chirper rather than a Tweeter, a recent tweet has caught some national attention. Trevor Williams is a 31-year-old pitcher for the Washington Nationals who happens to be Catholic. He decided to use his platform to speak out about the Dodgers and Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence controversy in a statement on Twitter:

This sentiment should be adopted by all sports and entertainment events as they are public events meant for the enjoyment of all the spectators and audience. To offend the spectators and audience is not only disrespectful to them but also a bad business decision, as you risk losing the patronage of the spectators and audience.

Alas, this is but another example of the arrogance of "Wokeness" and "Political Correctness" and an example of  "Virtue Signaling" without being virtuous. It is also an example of the religious intolerance that permeates today’s America in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". To be woken and politically correct appears to be intolerant of other viewpoints and to thrust your wokeness and political correctness upon all, thus disturbing "A Civil Society".

We would all do well, including businesses and commercial activities, to remember one of my Pearls of Wisdom to Always Be Polite and Respectful, as that is the only proper way to conduct yourself both publicly and privately.

05/31/23 A Sterile World

The possible harm to society caused by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a recent topic of discussion. Having a computer technology background, I can attest to the concerns being expressed about the improper utilization of AI. But like all technologies of the modern technological era (1775-present), it cannot be turned back, but it can be channeled if we should decide to do so. This channeling will not be easy and is fraught with difficult decisions. Decisions that need to be discussed, deliberated, and implemented in the light of day. Much AI technology is proprietary to the companies that are developing it, but such proprietariness should not be a cover for secrecy. Secrecy often begets improper utilization of science and technology with harmful consequences to society. AI is no different, but AI can have more extensive negative consequences than other past technologies if utilized improperly.

Rather than discuss these negative consequences (which I am not fully knowledgeable nor cognizant of), I would utilize this Chirp to discuss a world with only AI present. AI is not emotional but intellectual, so such a world would be entirely intellectual-based. The emotions of love and hate, goodness and evil, beauty and ugliness, ambition and apathy, and curiosity and indifference would play no part in an AI world. This raises the question of what the purpose of an AI world would be. Would an AI world be interested in the creation of fine arts (such as painting, sculpture, or music), literature, filmmaking, or architecture? Would an AI world be interested in philosophical musings? Would an AI world be interested in the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Would an AI world be creative and motivated to improve itself, or have a sense of aesthetics concerned with the study of AI in relation to the sense of beauty? Could AI ask itself questions that have not been thought of and find unique ways to answer the questions? Could AI see its world and the universe in a different light without unique inspiration and/or creativity? Such capabilities may be mimicked by AI, but they would be constrained by the lack of new and unique inspiration and/or creativity.

Could an AI world have an Annus mirabilis that would change its world? In 1905, a second-class patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland, who had a doctorate in physics but could not find employment in the physics field due to his peculiar nature, published five papers (with a sixth being published at the beginning of 1906) in a physics journal that were ignored. Two years later, they could not be ignored, as they dealt with the existence of atoms, the relationship between space and time, and the photoelectric effect that answered many perplexing questions of Classical Physics. So much so that 1905 is considered the demarcation year between Classical and Modern Physics. This patent clerk, Albert Einstein, thought of the universe in a completely different manner and went on to redefine the nature of the universe with his theory of General Relativity. Could an AI world be capable of the original thoughts that Albert Einstein provided?

The scientific field of Quantum mechanics also provides an example of the capabilities of AI. In 1926 Werner Heisenberg created his matrix formulation of quantum mechanics. In 1926 Erwin Schrödinger developed fundamental results in quantum theory: the Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. In 1930, Paul Dirac incorporated the previous work of Werner Heisenberg on matrix mechanics and of Erwin Schrödinger on wave mechanics into a single mathematical formalism known as The Dirac equation. Could an AI world be capable of coming up with matrix formulation or wave functions? Could an AI world be capable of examining matrix formulation and wave functions to derive The Dirac equation?

The genius of Isaac Newton is another example of the possible limits to AI in that his brilliance may not be possible for AI to create. There are many other examples in different scientific fields that also illuminate this AI issue. This issue of AI creative capabilities is not limited to just the scientific fields. The history of music demonstrates that the genius of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Stravinsky may not be possible for AI to create. Could an AI world create great works of literature such as Austen, Brontë, Cervantes, Chaucer, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Homer, Joyce, Milton, Proust, Shakespeare, or Tolstoy? Can the beautiful art of Cézanne, Degas, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Picasso, Raphael, Rembrandt, Renoir, Van Gogh, or Vermeer be created in an AI world? The other fine arts, mathematics, and the musings of philosophers also have many examples of the brilliance of individuals that an AI world may not be able to create.

An AI world would be a world devoid of meaning and purpose. It would be a sterile world. It is the human experience that provides meaning and purpose to the world. This human experience cannot be supplied by an AI world, and it is this human experience that must be considered in our discussions, deliberations, and implementations of AI in our world. AI should never be allowed to dominate the world nor replace the human element in the functioning of our world. AI should only be a tool to enhance human experience and not displace human experience. If we do not channel AI for this purpose, then we shall become a sterile world.

05/30/23 The Interest of The Government

In the course of the 20th century Supreme Court justices enormously increased the authority of Congress. For example, they transformed Congress’s power to regulate Commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) into an authority to oversee the entire national economy. They changed Congress’s power to tax (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) into a license to spend for almost any purpose. These and other changes rendered the federal government supreme in American life. Not only did the Supreme Court permit Congress to exercise almost unlimited power, but it also permitted Congress to delegate it to unelected Executive administrative agencies. Congress may (and frequently does) pass a statute creating or extending an Executive agency and telling it to regulate some broad swathe of activities, and—voilá!—Americans are saddled with a new or extended set of bureaucratic masters.

One of their rulings, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue in question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

The effect of the Chevron Doctrine was that Executive Agencies could create rules and regulations that impacted the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans and that the American people who legally challenged these rules and regulations would find a very high hurdle to overcome to institute a legal challenge. Criticisms of the Chevron Doctrine include:

• The doctrine makes an agency a judge in its own cause, thereby violating the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law;
• it encourages agencies to expand their power;
• administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, so allowing them to make legislative or judicial decisions violates the separation of powers; and
• the Chevron decision was not well considered, and over time the Supreme Court has had to carve out exceptions.

In effect, the Chevron Doctrine put the interest of the government above the rights of the individual to challenge government intrusion into their lives, resulting in the denudation of the American people's Freedoms and Liberties. In an article by Rob Natelson, “The Supreme Court Might Curb the ‘Deep State’ by Overruling the Chevron Case”, he explains the background of the Chevron case and the effort to overturn the Chevron ruling.

Let us hope that the Chevron Doctrine is overturned, or at least severely constricted so that the American people have more opportunity to challenge the overreaching of government rules and regulations.

05/29/23 Emergency Edicts Follow-On

In my Chirp on “05/28/23 Emergency Edicts”, I quoted a recent legal opinion by Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch about the dubious constitutionality of emergency edits by the Presidents, Governors, and local officials. While I agree with Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, I would ask him, and the other Supreme Court Justices, what they are going to do about this problem. All three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) and all levels of government (Federal, State, and Local) have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. This requires them not to engage in any unconstitutional actions and to oppose unconstitutional actions by any other branch or level of government.

The final line of defense of the Constitution is the Judicial Branch, with the Federal and State Supreme Courts the last bastion of defense of the Constitution. Rather than be a bastion, the Federal and State Supreme Courts have been supine regarding government edicts. Although they occasionally overturn government edicts, they often ignore the core issue of the constitutionality of edicts and overturn the edicts on the particulars of the edict. It is also true that they utilize normal court processes of trials, appeals, then Supreme Court decisions in the legal review of these edicts. This process often takes many months, if not years, to reach a legal conclusion. Sometimes the edict expires, and the issue becomes legally mute, and no legal conclusion is reached about the constitutionality of the edicts. In the meantime, the edict (or parts thereof) is often allowed to be effective. This effectivity often infringes upon the Freedoms and Liberties of the American people and causes social and economic disruptions to America. By operating in this manner, they are not addressing the core issue, and it can be said that all they are doing is rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of government edicts and to place constraints on government edicts that infringe on the Freedoms and Liberties of the American people. The normal judicial process has been shown to not be conducive to this legal review, and the Supreme Court must find a means to quickly resolve this constitutionality review of edicts. It is time for the Supreme Court to take a firm stance on the constitutionality of executive edicts and reign in these edicts. Otherwise, they are in dereliction of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and the American people are defenseless against the encroachment on their Freedoms and Liberties by these edicts.

05/28/23 Emergency Edicts

On May 18, 2023, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES reached a decision in ARIZONA, ET AL. v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. This decision dealt with Title 42 restrictions on immigration. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch issued a separate statement that laid out the history of “Title 42 orders” in the first seven paragraphs of his statement, and then in the last seven paragraphs of his statement he stated:

“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking by-litigation.

Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.

But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process. Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.

In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed. At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.

Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level. At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

Justice Gorsuch’s statement is the civil liberty concerns that I have expressed in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps. All Americans should read this statement, and consider the negative impacts of emergency edicts on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", then take corrective actions as needed.

05/27/23 Whistleblowers Redefined

In the hearings in the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on government weaponization, what was evident to everyone watching is that for today's Progressives/Leftists, whistleblowers are only those who parrot and advance their ideological agenda. It was appalling to see the line of questions (i.e., “attacks”) levied by Democrat Party Leaders against these honorable FBI agents who presented facts and personal experiences.

A whistleblower is an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it, regardless of the whistleblower’s personal reasons or political agendas. The Democrat Party Leaders' attacks on the whistleblowers are an attempt to bully into silence anyone who would expose wrongdoing by Democrats. As such, these attacks are an assault on government accountability and another example of despotism by the Democrats.

The FBI has lost its way and is not honoring the rule of law but enabling despotism through coercion, intimidation, threats, and acts of retribution against their agents who would be whistleblowers. It is an agency that utterly needs restructuring and reform. Yet, it is not the only one. The same is true for the IRS, DOJ, DOD, Homeland Security, ATF, and the State Department.

Allen West has written an article, “When a Whistleblower Ain't a Whistleblower”, that examines these attacks and lets the facts speak for themselves. He had also written a previous article, “The American Stasi State”, examining how we got to where we are. Both articles are well worth the read and consideration.

05/26/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Cinq

In my previous Chirps on A Tale of Two Cities, I have pointed out that America has become two cities—a City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats, where London represents the City of Conservatives and Republicans and Paris represents the city of Progressives and Democrats. And, as in the book, the City of Paris is doomed to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror due to the disregard for the Natural Rights of the people of France by the revolutionaries. Without a commitment to the Natural Rights of the people, all civil revolutions are doomed to anarchy and the rise of some form of totalitarian government. The only civil revolution in history that has had long-term success in assuring the Freedoms and Liberties of its people and establishing a stable government was the American Revolution.

Because America was and is not perfect and does not meet the utopian ideal of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, they wish to “Fundamentally Transform” America to achieve their Ideals and Ideas. To transform America, they are attempting to demolish America as the first step to achieve this transformation. In this, they are being aided and abetted by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education".

All voices of dissent are to be suppressed or not permitted, and they have corrupted the government to establish a Two-Tiered System of Justice and the Weaponization of Government to enforce this suppression. They have also corrupted the civil service to establish a government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats to enforce their political agenda upon Americans. If we do not correct this situation, then we cannot have “A Just Government and a Just Society” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", and we will become a nation ruled by men rather than the rule of law.

Such a demolishment can only lead to the end of a "A Civil Society" and the disintegration of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A demolishment that can only lead to "Despotism in America" and to the imposition of a subservient or subjugated people subject to the proclivities of the government and those in power.

But this need not be if the American people can awaken from their slumber and recognize the danger of continuing upon this path of demolishment. If the American people can right the course of America, then the closing lines of A Tale of Two Cities are also prophetic:

“I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance, the Juryman, the Judge, long ranks of the new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long long to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.

I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man, so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward.

I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both.

I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, foremost of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place- then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement- and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”

05/25/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Quatre

In my previous Chirps on A Tale of Two Cities, I have pointed out that America has become two cities—a City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats. Both cities claim to be based upon "American Ideals and Ideas", but each city has different beliefs about our ideals and ideas. The City of Conservatives and Republicans believes in traditional American Ideals and Ideas, while the City of Progressives and Democrats have redefined these American Ideals and Ideas to suit their political agenda and to obtain and retain political power. In my article "J'accuse!" I point out that the Modern Democrat Party has become:

• The Party of A Living Constitution
• The Party of the Rich and Powerful
• The Party of Double Standards
• The Party of Divisiveness
• The Party of Racism
• The Party of Anti-Americanism
• The Party of Anti-Economics
• The Party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic
• The Party of Power
• The Party of The Decline of Free Speech in America
• The Party of The Weaponization of Government
• The Party of Problems with Voting in America
• The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
• The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights

As such, they no longer represent the traditional American Ideals and Ideas that America was founded upon, but upon ideals and ideas that suit their political agenda and their desire to obtain and retain political power.

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists like to claim that their American Ideals and Ideas are the true American Ideals and Ideas while at the same time claiming that the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives do not represent true American Ideals and Ideas. They also claim that those who would disagree with them are Un-American in their Ideals and Ideas. It is only by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” that the Progressives and Democrats can make this claim and represent themselves as true Americans.

Therefore, Progressives and Democrats who make this claim are only paying lip service to traditional American Ideals and Ideas while they attempt to redefine in the American mind what it means to be an American. In this, they are again pitting one group of Americans against another group of Americans to institute their political agenda and to obtain and retain political power. A pitting accomplished by sowing "Divisiveness in America" through the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate".

05/24/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Trois

In my previous Chirps on “05/22/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Un” and “05/23/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Deux”, I point out how America has morphed into Two Cities. A City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats. This morphing is a result of the loss of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the consequent redefinition of the Constitution into a Democracy rather than a Republic, as I have examined in my Article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

Our American Ideals and Ideas is that The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals. To not understand and live these American Ideals and Ideas is to have a society without foundation and constant political discord without hope of consensus-based upon a foundation that all sides can agree upon. Without this foundation, we will be talking past each other rather than trying to reach an agreement on how to best achieve our American Ideals and Ideas.

A Republican Constitution entails that Legislators may not create “Irrational and Arbitrary Laws” based on who has political powers. Executives must ensure that all Laws are “Equally Enforced” regardless of political affiliation and that the Judicial Review of the Constitutionality of a Law starts with “A Presumption of Freedom and Liberty” for the individual. A Democratic Constitution entails that Legislators may create laws that they determine are proper for the good of the majority, Executives may decide which laws are to be or not to be enforced based on the perceived good or bad of the law's effects, and that Judicial Reviews of Laws starts with a presumption that the Legislators or Executives are acting properly within the bounds of their authorities.

Until this issue of a Republic or a Democracy is resolved, we will continue to be a Tale of Two Cities, for we cannot be a Republic and a Democracy, but we can be a Democratic republic which is what our Founding Fathers envisioned. The Democrat part is the election of the Republic members of Congress, and the Republic part is in the passage of laws and regulations regarding the governance of America based upon a Republican Constitution. Until this issue of our American Ideals and Ideas is resolved, we run the risk of a societal collapse and:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
 - Abraham Lincoln

05/23/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Deux

In my previous Chirp on “05/22/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Un”, I point out the difference between the handling of President Trump's allegations and the Biden Family corruption. This tale of two cities is further illuminated by the recent release of Special Counsel John Durham's highly anticipated report surrounding the investigation into Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. This report reveals that there was no basis for the Russia Collusion allegations and no predicate for any government involvement in these allegations. No Justice Department, FBI, or Intelligence Agencies, and most certainly no Congressional investigations were warranted based on these unsubstantiated and indeed fabricated allegations. Yet, for over two and a half years government was tied up, President Trump’s Administration was hobbled, and the American people were bamboozled by these false and malicious allegations, and much government monies were expended on investigations of these untrue accusations.

The worse impact of the Durham investigation is that there will be no repercussions for those that knowingly engaged in these investigations. The Durham report states that no criminal laws were violated (a point that I would dispute, as lying to a Court or Congress is a violation of the law), and consequently, no criminal prosecutions will be forthcoming. Therefore, no changes to personnel or procedures within government will be instituted unless instituted by Congress (and the Democrats in Congress have little incentive to do so). Thus, there will be no inhibitions nor deterrence for future misdeeds by government personnel or agencies.

This report gives truth to the points that I have made in my Article, “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, and the lack thereof in today’s American government and society. Politics and power seem to be the only motivations in today’s government and society, and whatever means are necessary to institute a political agenda and/or to obtain and retain power is acceptable. Such a basis cannot be a foundation for "A Civil Society" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". It can only lead to "Despotism in America" and a subservient or subjugated people subject to the proclivities of the government and those in power.

Thus, we again have a tale of two cities—the city of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats, and the opening lines of this book are an apt description of the current situation in America.

05/22/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Un

A Tale of Two Cities is a historical novel published in 1859 by Charles Dickens, set in London and Paris before and during the French Revolution. The novel tells the story of the French Doctor Manette, his 18-year-long imprisonment in the Bastille in Paris, and his release to live in London with his daughter Lucie whom he had never met. The story is set against the conditions that led up to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. In the Introduction to the Encyclopedia of Adventure Fiction, critic Don D'Ammassa argues that it is an adventure novel because the protagonists are in constant danger of being imprisoned or killed. The opening lines of this book are prophetic:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

They are prophetic in that they are a description of the times we currently live in. This is exemplified by the prosecution of President Trump for nebulous allegations that can be juxtaposed by the lack of prosecution of the Biden Family corruption, which is another example of a Two-Tiered System of Justice and the Weaponization of Government as I have Chirped on “07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System” and "08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government".

As I have written in my Chirp on “04/06/23 The Real Insurrection”, “Our system of justice has been turned into a system of laws that can be twisted and turned to persecute and prosecute political opponents. It also allows a district attorney to investigate and prosecute individuals rather than crimes, and such actions by district attorneys are only worthy of Tyrannies and Banana Republics. The excuse that no one is above the law in allowing this type of action by a District Attorney is at odds with equal justice under the law, and he has placed himself above the law by twisting the law to suit a political agenda and is placing President Trump below the law to achieve his political purposes.”

It has also become obvious, for those that value facts and truths, that the Biden Family (led by Joe Biden) is a corrupt institution that sells access to Joe Biden and that the government has no inclination nor desire to prosecute the corrupt actions of the Biden Family. Indeed, they seem to be more concerned with covering up and withholding information about this corruption than they are with prosecuting it.

Thus, we have a tale of two cities—the city of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats, and the opening lines of this book are an apt description of the current situation in America.

05/20/23 The Un-American Activities of Our Government

The FBI, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Agencies have been so thoroughly corrupted for political purposes since the Obama Administration that they are now actively engaged in Un-American activities. Three articles by Andrew C. McCarthy examine this corruption regarding the Russian Collusion Delusion:

• No, IG Horowitz Did Not Endorse the FBI’s Predication for the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
• The FBI Didn’t Ignore Russian Intel on Hillary’s Plan to Smear Trump — It Abetted the Plan
• The Durham Report Exposes How Thin the Collusion Case Really Was

Another article by Andrew C. McCarthy, Blinken’s Motive to Dismiss Hunter Laptop as Russian Disinformation: His Own Emails, examines the Intelligence Communities involvement in covering up The Biden Family Business, while another article by Ari Blaff, Biden Campaign Played Active Role in Suppressing Hunter Biden Laptop Story, Congressional Testimony Reveals, reveals the extent of the Biden Presidential campaign in orchestrating the Intelligence Agencies covering up the truth of the Hunter Biden Laptop.

The FBI, the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Agencies have also extended their Un-American activities beyond targeting political leadership into targeting ordinary Americans, as examined in another article by Jeff Zymeri, FBI Improperly Surveilled BLM Protesters, J6 Suspects, Thousands of Political Donors.

Such Un-American activities are an assault on our Freedoms and Liberties, and they bespeak of the despotic measures to control the American people and corrupt the political process to obtain and retain power for those who engage in these in Un-American activities. As those who have engaged in these in Un-American activities are now in control of the levers of the Executive Branch of government or are favored persons by those now in control of the levers of the Executive Branch of government, we can expect no justice for their Un-American activities. Consequently, we can expect a continuation of these Un-American activities in the future, as they have no fear of being called to justice for these Un-American activities.

The "Mainstream Media" are also complicit in these Un-American activities, as they have failed by their own political proclivities to investigate or report on these Un-American activities to the American people. Without the American people being informed of these Un-American activities, it is not possible to rectify these abuses, as public opinion is all that can be leveraged to end these Un-American activities. For it is as true today as when President Lincoln stated:

“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

Public sentiment must be aroused to end these Un-American activities, or as President Lincoln has also stated:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
  - Abraham Lincoln

05/17/23 Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other

Once again, I have not been posting my Chirps on a regular basis. This time, however, it is because I have contracted the COVID-19 Coronavirus. While the first two days of my contraction were spent with a mild fever, chills and sweats, shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing, and a lack of restful sleeping, the next several days, I only had coughing and wheezing. I have therefore decided not to post any Chirps until I am mostly recovered.

I have, however, reviewed my previous Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps to determine if my perspective has changed as a result of my contracting the COVID-19 Coronavirus. My perspective has not changed, and I am even further convinced, due to recent revelations, that the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic is the largest scandal perpetrated on the American public in the last hundred years. These recently confirmed revelations are:

• Masking does not prevent nor slow down the spread of the COVID-19 Coronavirus. I knew this to be true when the size and the airborne transmission of the COVID-19 Coronavirus were determined at the beginning of the Pandemic. I knew this immediately because my scientific knowledge of the motion of Gases and Fluid Dynamics, as well as the internal structure of masks, made it impossible for masks to block the flow of the COVID-19 Coronavirus to and from the nasal and oral cavities.
• Social distancing was useless, as the airborne transmission of the COVID-19 Coronavirus occurs within tens of seconds over dozens of yards. Again, my scientific knowledge of the motion of Gases and Fluid Dynamics leads to this conclusion.
• Isolation is of limited value, as no person can be truly isolated from others except in a controlled biohazard environment. Even then it can fail, as can be seen from the accidental release of the COVID-19 Coronavirus from the Wuhan China biohazard laboratory.
• As the COVID-19 Coronavirus was propagated by airborne transmission, the constant anti-biotic washing of hands had no impact on the transmission or contraction of the COVID-19 Coronavirus.
• The COVID-19 Coronavirus was man-made and not naturally occurring. Indeed, it was impossible for it to be naturally occurring due to the structure of the COVID-19 Coronavirus, as such a structure could only occur with human intervention by Gain of Function research.
• The COVID-19 Coronavirus vaccines did not make a significant impact on preventing the contraction or spreading of the COVID-19 Coronavirus.
• The efficacy of the COVID-19 Coronavirus vaccines is of dubious value and sometimes harmful, with the long-term negative impacts of the vaccine only now becoming apparent.
• Many people, organizations, and companies enriched themselves by the fear and panic of the public without providing tangible benefits to the solutions to the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic.
• The fear and panic caused by the COVID-19 Coronavirus have led to a significant altering of the relationship between the individual and the government, with much more government intrusion into the lives of the individual. It also led to much more power of the government to the detriment of the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans.

In many of these points, I am reminded of the phrase that was often said by Chief Engineer of the U.S.S. Enterprise Montgomery Scott in the original Star Trek television series, “You cannot violate the Laws of Physics”. Much of what was recommended for the COVID-19 Coronavirus protections violated or ignored the Laws of Physics, which can never work as physics laws are inviolate nor ignorable.

To those who would object to the points I have made above, I would remind them of what Martin Luther said in defending his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences", which came to be known as The Ninety-Five Theses, in opposition to the Catholic Church position:

“I cannot and will not recant anything,
for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.
Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”
 - Martin Luther

05/15/23 Stories from an Examined Professional Life

You may have noticed that in the last two months that there have been fewer Chirps than normal. The reason for this is not that I have less to say but that I have finished an effort that I started shortly after my retirement. Upon my retirement from the computer field at the end of 2019, I started to reminisce on my career, and I must say it has been a long and varied career lasting almost a half-century. My career has been centered in the Philadelphia, PA, metropolitan area, where I was born and raised. While I have done most of my work around Philadelphia, and I have, in the middle part of my career, taken many national and European business trips. These stories of my professional life and business trips are often humorous, but sometimes pathetic, but always illuminative of the human side of life in the computer field. I hope that these stories will be informative, instructive, and enlightening and I can impart some of the wisdom I have gained throughout my professional life.

You might expect these stories from my examined professional life in computers to be dry and sometimes dull stories about computers and computer technology. This autobiography is not that type of autobiography, except for some parts at the beginning of this book where computers and computer technology are described to set the stage for the stories from my examined life. Instead, this book is a human story, not only about myself but of the people that I worked with and the human events of my professional life. By telling these human stories, I hope to impart some of the wisdom I have gained in my professional life. If not for the impartation of wisdom, there are enough interesting and humorous stories to entertain the reader.

My professional life path has led me to do many different and sometimes unique things in my career. Many things that I have done have had a positive impact on me, my professional associates, and the businesses for which I was employed or was a consultant. I know that I have taken much gratification in the accomplishments of my career. The good that I did, I believe, has far outweighed the harm that I may have occasionally inflicted. Consequently, I can say that I am satisfied with my professional life path and that it was a worthwhile path.

Throughout my professional computer career, I have had many good and bad things happen to me. Sometimes these things have happened because of my own actions, sometimes because of the actions of others, and many times they just happened. This led me to compose the following ditty:

"Shit happens. Sometimes you shit on yourself, sometimes others shit on you,
and other times shit just happens.
It doesn't matter how shit happens, it only matters how you deal with the shit.
You can either clean yourself up and smell the roses,
Or you can wallow in the shit and everything stinks.
And remember, It's just as important to learn from the shit,
as it is to clean yourself up from the shit!"
 - Mark Dawson

I have therefore spent my professional life examining the shit that happened to me and learning from this shit. This examination needs to be done in an honest and brutal fashion that examines your own faults and good points, as well as the faults and good points of others. This examination has made me become a better computer professional, helped mold my character, and made me a better person.

The “Stories from an Examined Professional Life, Reminiscences on a Life in Computers, along with Humorous and Poignant Stories (but not a history of computer technology)” have been posted on my website here. I hope that you will enjoy these stories and perhaps learn something from them.

05/12/23 The Abandonment of Hard Science to be Replaced with Political Science

As I have examined in my Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”, the practice of hard science is unforgiving in that hard facts and proper reasoning lead to truths and the rejection of falsehoods. Science can often be wrong, but only because new or additional facts come to light to reveal better or different truths. This is why you should always be wary when someone makes a claim of settled science or a scientific consensus, as I have examined in my Article “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”. Modern science also has numerous problems that call into question the accuracy of the science, as I have written in my Article “The Problems with Modern Science”. However, to deny the hard facts and proper reasoning is to be unscientific, as well as foolish.

In today’s America, Climate Change, Coronavirus Medical Science, and Transgenderism are the three biggest replacements of hard science with political science. A hard look into the hard science of these issues reveals that political science bears little relationship to hard science. I have examined the hard science of climate change in my Article on Climate Change. I have also looked at the hard science and political science of the COVID-19 pandemic in my collected Chirps of “Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps”, and I would especially point out the Chirp on “07/09/21 COVID-19 Lessons Learned” as to the societal impacts of political science trumping hard science.

The political science versus the hard science of Transgenderism is examined in three articles by Ryan T. Anderson, currently president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. These articles are:

• Sex Change: Physically Impossible, Psychosocially Unhelpful, and Philosophically Misguided
• The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview
• When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment

My own view is that humans are only different from other living specials in their brains. All animal species have a brain and neurological system, a heart and cardiovascular system, a muscular-skeleton system, a digestive system, and various other organisms to regulate their biological systems, but humans are distinct in that their brains are wired for intelligence. All animal species also have a reproductive system that is either male or female, which is encoded into their genetic makeup, and which a male inseminates a female, and the female incubates the offspring from their mating, and the offspring are either male or female. This is a hard biological scientific fact, and the offspring are of one binary sex—Male or Female.

Transgenderism is a psychological issue and not a physiological issue, and a form of Psychogenic Illness, as I have explained in my Chirp on “04/18/23 Mass Psychogenic Illness”. As such, we should be considerate of their sexual identity confusion and provide them with counseling to help them out. However, I am opposed to any psychological counseling, medical treatment, or surgery for children under eighteen years old without parental or guardian consent or a court order. Parental or guardian rights to children under eighteen years of age is essential to the family stability of society and should not be interfered with except under court order.

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as well as the Biden Administration, have abandoned hard science and replaced it with political science to achieve their political goals. This is foolish and destructive to our society, a destructiveness that may cause economic and/or sociological problems and may be uncorrectable. After all, it is not wise to fool with mother nature and foolish to ignore hard science.

05/10/23 Dezinformatsia

Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy (and a later edition published as Dezinformatsia: The Strategy of Soviet Disinformation) is a non-fiction book about disinformation and information warfare used by the KGB during the Soviet Union period, as part of their active measures tactics. The book was co-authored by Richard H. Shultz, professor of international politics at Tufts University, and Roy Godson, professor emeritus of government at Georgetown University.

Shultz and Godson discuss Soviet disinformation tactics including injection of Communist propaganda through covert groups within the U.S.S.R. tasked with disrupting activities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U.S. The book explains disinformation methods, including forgery as a covert operation, agents of influence, and using social influence to turn targets into useful idiots. They focus on disinformation activities of Soviet intelligence from 1960 to 1980. Shultz and Godson discuss case studies as examples of Soviet disinformation, including a French journalist covertly financed by Russian agents in order to publish biased material against Western interests, and the front organization activities of the World Peace Council. They back up their analyses with two Soviet intelligence defectors.

Foreign Affairs called the book a "useful survey" of how Soviet intelligence used disinformation "to further its strategic aims such as discrediting America and weakening NATO". The Journal of Conflict Studies described it as "a useful introduction to a field of knowledge" of importance to security experts, the United States Intelligence Community, and diplomats. Society called Dezinformatsia "a highly readable and insightful book". Political Science Quarterly gave the work a negative review, criticizing the book's writing style and methodological rigor.

It is an unfortunate fact that Dezinformatsia has become the tactic of the Democrat Party in the last few election cycles. The Steele dossier fabrications in the 2016 Presidential election, and the covering up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the 2020 Presidential election, are perfect examples of Dezinformatsia. In both cases, not only was the Democrat Party responsible for this Dezinformatsia, but they enlisted the Intelligence and Law enforcement agencies of the government in this Dezinformatsia, as well as the cooperation of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "Big Tech" in the dissemination of this Dezinformatsia.

One shutters to think what may be forthcoming in the 2024 Presidential election, especially as the Biden Administration has shown a propensity for covering up, distorting, or lying about their actions by the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, as well as the weaponization of government as I have Chirped on, "08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government". The fabricating of false allegations and charges of Hate Speech against their political opponents is another form of Dezinformatsia that they employ.

Dezinformatsia, coupled with election fraud (as I have written two articles on American voting, "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", and in my Chirps on "02/17/21 Election Integrity", "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux"), completely skewers elections to favor the Democrat Party. Dezinformatsia and election fraud is an existential threat to democracy, as it is done to ensure that their oligarchy is maintained, as I have examined in my chirp on "07/13/22 The Progressive Road to Serfdom".

If this situation of Dezinformatsia and election fraud is not eliminated and its perpetrators removed from elected and appointed office, then we can expect its continuance and the end of Democracy in America.

05/08/23 Hate Speech

If your definition of hate speech is that if anyone disagrees with your opinions, then they must be uttering Hate Speech, then most all speech is Hate Speech as people often disagree with each other. There have also been calls for censorship of hate speech in all forms of media; "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media", as well as in "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". Anything that does not comport with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' ideology is to be considered hate speech and should be constricted if not outright banned. It is also an unfortunate fact that many assertions of hate speech are often based on policy disagreements rather than ‘hate’, and they are often lodged in an attempt to silence the opposition. However, the question is, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is hate speech, but who shall decide what is hate speech?"

Such censorship is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and an affront to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all persons. But for a heretic-hunting Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, none of that matters. It’s not about how you say it, how rigorously you argue it, or how charitably you present it; it’s about whether you affirm or dissent from their new orthodoxy. To dissent is to be subject to allegations of hate speech and the imposition of censorship, and dissent will be determined by themselves and themselves alone. Most Americans have also forgotten, or did not know, that Free Speech is indispensable to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, as I have written in my Chirp on 02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential. Or, as George Washington has said, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

Most Americans are offended by hate speech, and they are inclined to support censorship of hate speech because they are appalled by its content. No rational person likes hate speech, but a rational person also understands that preserving free speech entails the toleration of hate speech. The best means to counter hate speech is more free speech in opposition to hate speech. However, there is a category of hate speech that is often not acknowledged in modern America, as it is a subtle hate speech, but it has far-reaching consequences. This is a hate speech that attempts to demonize America or individuals or groups of Americans based upon their political opinions, as I have written in my Chirp on 04/21/22 The Real Hate Speech.

This is the form of hate speech that the Biden Administration seems especially committed to—labeling as hate speech and censoring the free speech of individuals or groups of people that disagree with the policy positions of the Biden Administration. And, as usual, this censorship is mostly targeted at the right wing of "The Political Spectrum" while only rarely being targeted against the left wing. This censorship is not only in the words of the Biden Administration demonizing the opposition but in the actions of government agencies to intimidate, if not outright criminalize, any opposition to their policy positions.

When the hand of government is utilized to crush opposition, then we do not live in a democracy, but we live under despotism, i.e., dominance through the threat of punishment. Despotism is always the end result of censorship, and the use of allegations of hate speech is only a means to accelerate the imposition of this despotism.

05/06/23 A Ship of Fools

The Ship of Fools is an allegory, originating from Book VI of Plato's Republic, about a ship with a dysfunctional crew. The allegory is intended to represent the problems of governance prevailing in a political system not based on expert knowledge. This allegory was used in the movie Ship of Fools (based on the book of Katherine Anne Porter) about a varied group of passengers boarding a ship bound for pre-WWII Germany and represented a microcosm of early 1930s society. The passengers of this ship are either so self-absorbed with their own lives and/or just don't care to notice what is happening in Germany.

Such is today’s state of America. The foolish dysfunctional crew, and the passengers aboard the ship, are sinking the ship of America. Instead, we have taken to arguing about the rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic while the Titanic is sinking. The major issues and concerns besetting America are being ignored, while the trivial has been emphasized. This has been done to distract the people of America from recognizing and solving these problems because if they did recognize these problems, they would realize the dismal failures of our leadership in solving the problems that are sinking America.

So, who are the fools on the ship, and why are they being foolish? In 2018, before the Coronavirus Pandemic swept the world, Tucker Carlson authored a book, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution, in which he examined the fools who were crewing the ship of America. Since the Coronavirus swept the world, these fools have used the pandemic to become even more foolish and more powerful. As a result, the ship of America is sinking even faster, and the passengers don’t seem to notice or care, and they appear to be quite content in going down with the ship.

The steps needed to resolve this foolishness are to recognize the fools for what they are. Such recognition is possible by knowing "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and the fools that propagate these falsehoods, as well as the “Terminology and Phrases” they utilize to try to fool Americans. With this knowledge, it is possible to vote the fools out of office and hopefully not elect a different set of fools. Alas, this may not be sufficient to stop the foolishness, and more drastic measures may be necessary to halt the sinking of the ship of America.

The first drastic measure would be to insist that the Constitution of the United States be faithfully upheld, for as President Lincoln has said:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

Other drastic measures may be necessary, and such drastic measures may convulse American society but may be required to preserve our Constitution. In such convulsions, it should always be remembered some other words of President Lincoln:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

05/04/23 Diversity is Our Strength

Diversity is our strength is a load of crap. Diversity can be utilized to strengthen a society, but diversity can also weaken a society. It all depends on how you utilize diversity. The use of diversity to incorporate improvements into our society can strengthen our society, but to utilize diversity to divide society into groups will weaken our society. To utilize diversity to exclude or favor one group or another is even more pernicious to our society. Equality of Opportunity has always been the strength of America, coupled with Equality Under the Law. Without Equality of Opportunity and Equality Under the Law, America has no special strength to differentiate itself from other countries, and it shall falter and collapse. We should all remember that the Soviet Union was the most diverse society in the 20th century, and as it had no Equality of Opportunity nor Equality Under the Law, it collapsed.

It is the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in our society that most often claim that “Diversity is our strength”, but we should remember the perception of Thomas Sowell, who once said, “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” It is also these same Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who utilize diversity to divide America for election purposes and to exclude or favor one group over another in America.

05/02/23 Natural Law and Natural Rights vs. The Law of the Jungle

“Natural Law and Natural Right” tradition is a complex and many-sided body of moral and political thought. It is unified, however, by an agreement as to the natural (as distinguished from conventional or man-made) character of principles of right and wrong and of justice and injustice. Conversely, "The Law of the Jungle" (also called jungle law) is an expression that has come to describe a scenario where "anything goes". The Oxford English Dictionary defines the Law of the Jungle as "the code of survival in jungle life, now usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival". The phrase was introduced in Rudyard Kipling's 1894 work The Jungle Book, where it described the behavior of wolves in a pack.

Anyone who has read my Chirps and Articles knows that I am committed to Natural Law and Natural Rights as a basis for our society. So committed that I have written an Article, “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", on this topic. I believe that without this commitment, it is possible for a society to glide down the slippery slope to “The Law of the Jungle, with intermediate steps of authoritarianism, autarchy, despotism, dictatorialness, monarchy, oligarchy, ochlocracy, totalitarianism, or tyranny. Natural Law and Natural Rights would never allow for these intermediate steps, as all these steps are contrary to Natural Law and Natural Rights. However, Natural Law and Natural Rights are not definitive and subject to philosophical, theological, and legal interpretation and debate.

The question is, then, what is Natural Law and Natural Right? The Witherspoon Institute’s online center for Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism contains many of the answers to this question. This resource is conceived as an archive for and a commentary and study guide to the seminal documents of the natural law and natural rights tradition, especially as that tradition relates to American constitutionalism and political thought.

I would, therefore, recommend this site to anyone interested in learning about Natural Law and Natural Rights.

04/30/23 Words of Wisdom

Immediately before Tucker Carlson and Fox News parted ways, he gave a speech before the Heritage Foundation, Tucker Carlson Keynote Address at the Heritage 50th Anniversary Celebration, that I believe is worthy of all Americans to take the time to see and ponder. The words of wisdom that he elucidates in this speech are well worth the twenty-six minutes he spends talking about the importance of truth over falsehoods, good versus evil, and the moral courage and fortitude to stand up for truth and goodness. He also notes that much of our news reporting and public discussions are about issues that are not of significance to the future of America, and when these discussions occur, they are between like-minded people, even if their politics differ. Consequently, Americans are ill-informed about the facts but are inundated with propaganda. This speech illuminates that Tucker is a thoughtful and moral person and not the hateful and bigoted person his detractors portray him to be.

04/28/23 Statement on Joe Biden’s 2024 Announcement

I have never posted a full statement from a living politician on my website. Most of these statements are self-serving and often misleading. They are all to be taken with a grain of salt and often should be discounted. However, a recent statement from President Trump, who often makes somewhat incohesive and bombastic statements, does not fit this mold. It is a very good commentary about President Biden and his Administration that encapsulates the ills that have beset America because of his policies and maladministration. We should all read and think about President Trump’s statement and weep for America from the ruination that President Biden and his Administration have wrought upon America.

Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Joe Biden’s 2024 Announcement:

“You could take the five worst presidents in American history, and put them together, and they would not have done the damage Joe Biden has done to our Nation in just a few short years. Not even close.

Thanks to Joe Biden’s socialist spending calamity, American families are being decimated by the worst inflation in half a century. Banks are failing. Our currency is crashing and the dollar will soon no longer be the world standard, which will be our greatest defeat in over 200 years. Real wages have been falling 24 months in a row—in other words, under Biden, workers have gotten a PAY CUT each and every month for two straight years. We have surrendered our energy independence, just like we surrendered in Afghanistan, which we had just a short time ago—and the price of gasoline just hit a 5-month high, and it’s going much higher than that.

Under my leadership, we had the most secure border in U.S. history, by far. Never had a border like this. Under Biden, the Southern Border has been abolished—and millions of illegal aliens have been released into our communities. What’s happening now is beyond belief. They’re coming in from mental institutions and prisons. They are all being emptied. They are being dumped into the United States of America. Many of these people are very dangerous, they are being dumped. We are like a dumping ground. Our cities have been overrun with homelessness, drug addicts, and violent criminals, who are being released from jail in mass with no retribution whatsoever, while law enforcement is weaponized against law-abiding conservatives or Republicans, or people they just don’t like. Our children are being indoctrinated and mutilated by left-wing freaks and zealots. The senior ranks of our military have gone completely woke, and our military is suffering greatly.

Biden has totally humiliated our Nation on the world stage—starting with the Afghanistan disaster, perhaps the most embarrassing event in the history of our country. It meant so much to our enemies when they watched that horrible retreat. Russia is teaming up with China. Iran is days away from a nuclear bomb—not even thinkable. Ukraine has been devastated by an invasion that would never, ever have happened if I was president—and Joe Biden has led us to the very brink of World War III. They say Trump was right about everything. Well, I’m not predicting World War III, but I will say this: we’re very close and they’re only talking about nuclear weapons.

On top of it all, Biden is the most corrupt president in American history—and that’s not even close. Nobody can believe what’s going on, with again no retribution whatsoever.

With such a calamitous and failed presidency, it is almost inconceivable that Biden would even think of running for reelection. You know what happened in the last election: they cheated, and they rigged the election. But I promise you this: when I stand on that debate stage and compare our records, it will be Radical Democrats’ worst nightmare because there’s never been a record as bad as they have, and our country has never been through so much. There has never been a greater contrast between two successive administrations in all of American history. Ours being greatness, and theirs being failure.

With your support in the election, we will defeat Joe Biden in 2024. We will rescue our economy. We will crush inflation. We will stop the invasion on our southern border. We will restore our Nation’s dignity. And we will prevent World War III from happening. Together, we will all Make America Great Again! Thank you.”

04/25/23 Election Interference

Election interference comes in many forms, as I have discussed in my articles Voting in America and Voting Responsibilities. Two recent insidious election interferences have been the 2016 Steele Dossier fabrications and the 2020 Hunter Biden Laptop coverup. These were insidious because of the involvement of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in this election interference, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "Big Tech" cooperation in this election interference (hereinafter referred to as “The Mainstream Information Conglomerate”).

The 2016 Steele Dossier fabrications was a case of the political opposition funding and disseminating known lies to harm a candidate, which law enforcement used to investigate and leak to The Mainstream Information Conglomerate to help a candidate (who lost), then harass a duly elected President (who won). The 2020 Hunter Biden Laptop coverup was a case of the truth being suppressed by The Mainstream Information Conglomerate, with intelligence agencies' support, by the political supporters of a candidate (who won). In both of these cases, law enforcement and intelligence agencies were corrupted for the political purposes of helping a Democrat candidate to win an election, and The Mainstream Information Conglomerate was coopted to implement this suppression of truth.

Such actions corrupt the democratic process by skewering an election to favor one candidate over another candidate and are, indeed, election interference. It also exposed the truth that the Democrat Party will do whatever is necessary to obtain or retain power, that the supposedly non-partisan bureaucracy is indeed partisan, and that The Mainstream Information Conglomerate is in collusion with the Democrat Party.

If such election interference continues in the future, we will no longer be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but will become a government for the Democrat Party, of the Bureaucracy, and supported by The Mainstream Information Conglomerate.

04/21/23 The Truth of Slavery in America

In an article by Dennis Prager, “Slavery, the Left, and Truth” he starts this article by explaining that:

“A generation of Americans is being raised on half-truths and lies about the history of slavery in America. They are given the impression that America was uniquely bad and that American slavery was uniquely bad. They learn nothing about slavery elsewhere. Among the many lies they are told are that "black slaves built America" and that America is systemically racist.”

He then examines some facts about slavery that puts the truths to these falsehoods.

This article is complementary to my articles on “Slavery and Discrimination rooted in Party Politics”, “The Debt of Slavery and Discriminations”, and the section Racism is Prevalent in my “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” article.

All of these articles are worth reviewing and considering whenever the history of slavery in America is being contemplated. As without understanding the factual history of slavery in America you cannot understand the truths of America.

04/18/23 Mass Psychogenic Illness

Mass psychogenic illness (MPI), also called mass sociogenic illness, mass psychogenic disorder, epidemic hysteria, or mass hysteria, involves the spread of illness symptoms through a population where there is no infectious agent responsible for contagion. It is the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involving excitation, loss, or alteration of function, whereby physical complaints that are exhibited unconsciously have no corresponding organic causes.

In a fascinating YouTube interview of Jordan Peterson on, Psychological Epidemics & Gender Dysphoria and Here’s the Truth About Gender Dysphoria he discusses mass psychogenic illness in current American history, and how it relates to the current Gender Dysphoria disputations in America. Some of the current American history of Psychological Epidemics are:

• Cutting Self-harm
• Anorexia nervosa
• Bulimia nervosa
• Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
• MeTooism
• Gender Neutrality Pronouns
• Transgenderism

The belief of Americans in these Psychological Epidemics bespeaks of an affluent and narcissistic society that has lost its Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society, and its commitment to our "American Ideals and Ideas". It also gives truth to the quote of Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to G. K. Chesterton), “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

It is also easy for politicians and Social Justice Warriors to manipulate the American public for the purposes of obtaining power or to achieve their political goals based upon these Psychological Epidemics, as in my Article on, "Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists". This has been especially true of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they have adopted this strategy and tactics of exploiting Psychological Epidemics to achieve political goals that they cannot convince the American public to embrace through reasoned argumentation.

Therefore, until Americans recognize Psychological Epidemics and their exploitations, they will fall prey to being manipulated by unscrupulous persons and make poor decisions as to the future course of America.

04/14/23 Global Chaos

Many of my Chirps have been about the missteps of the Biden Administration and a few about the international mess that has been engendered by the Biden Administration. As Robert Gates, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, once put it, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” and as President Obama has stated, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.”  And wrong and f**k things up has been the story of Joe Biden’s Presidency. His foreign policy decisions have now led the world to the precipice of disaster, and a few more bad decisions will result in chaos for the world.

In another fine article by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Biden 10-Step Plan for Global Chaos”, he asks why the world is in chaos and answers by listing ten ways by which America lost all deterrence to chaos. He concludes this article by stating:

“But the examples explain well enough why our emboldened enemies do not fear us, our triangulating allies judge us unreliable, and calculating neutrals assume America is in descent and too dangerous to join.

Yet without America, the result is a new Chinese order in which, to quote the historian Thucydides, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

We should all read this article and weep for America and the World as we descend into chaos.

04/10/23 Colonial Tories in Modern America

During the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States commented about our divisions. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it.

To paraphrase the historian Carl Becker, the American Revolution was both a war ultimately for Independence but also about the nature of the American nation which would emerge after the war. There were, in fact, at least three distinct phases relating to what we can, in general, call the American Revolution. The first of these was in the debate over American liberties prior to the war itself. The second involved the issue of Independence and the war to win our Independence. Finally, there was the question of establishing an American nation afterward, which really was not decided ultimately until the later Civil War.

Colonial Tories were colonists in the Thirteen Colonies who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War. They were often referred to as Loyalists, Royalists, or King's Men at the time, and they were opposed by the Patriots who supported the revolution, and they were often called "persons inimical to the liberties of America." While there were many motives for their loyalism, I believe that their psychological makeup was one of the beliefs in the divine right of a King and the mostly righteousness of government, the importance of an enlightened aristocracy to rule over the general populace, deference to authority by the general populace for an orderly society, and the necessity for the preservation of wealth and property for the benefit of all (but mostly for the few). Many Loyalists were expelled or fled to Canada and England after the war was won by the Patriots but enough remained afterward to influence the establishment of the American nation.

Today, we see this Tory psychology in Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. The importance of the individual and their "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" has been sublimated to the means necessary to achieve their ideas of an ideal society, which are to be determined by, instituted, and ruled by themselves and their bureaucrats in an Oligarchy to preserve “Our Democracy”[i]. Our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" are to be constrained within their ideas of an ideal society. Thus, we have seen the erosion of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the rise of "Despotism in America".

Through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, they have tried to confuse Americans into believing that their ideas of an ideal society are the American way. They also believe that their ideas of an ideal society should be accepted by and complied with by all Americans and that any dissent should be considered as Unamerican and should not be permitted.

Consequently, we must resist this Tory psychology, or as in the words of President Abraham Lincoln at another time in American history when we faced an existential question, "We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth." We must also remember in the words of President Abraham Lincoln that in this resistance, "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." and to preserve the Constitution and our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights in this resistance.

_________________________

[i] In an article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, he explains “But you shouldn’t confuse Our Democracy with real democracy. The initial modifier serves to debase the noun—much as “sub-human” means less than human or “social justice” rationalizes acts of individual injustice.” This article clarifies the true meaning of ‘Our Democracy’ and how it is, in reality, undemocratic. He closes this article with, “Our Democracy” really looks like “Their Oligarchy.” Or like some of those other “democracies” the left has erected over the years: The Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea comes readily to mind, as does the former (East) German Democratic Republic.

04/06/23 The Real Insurrection

I have delayed Chirping about the indictment of President Trump for two reasons. The first reason was that I wished to see the particulars of the indictment before commenting on the inanity of the indictment. The second reason was I was so outraged by this indictment and the consequences for our society; it has taken me several days to calm down and rationally think of these consequences.

As to the inanity of the indictment, I will leave it to better legal minds that I highly respect to point out the vacuousness of this indictment:

“Bragg’s ‘Indictment’ Even Fails as an Indictment” by Andrew C. McCarthy

“My legal analysis of the indictment” podcast by Alan Dershowitz

“After Donald Trump's indictment wave goodbye to our justice system, say hello to this:
The unsealed indictment of former President Trump is legally deficient and factually anemic” By Gregg Jarrett

“Yielding to Temptation: Why The Trump Case is a Test Not Just for the President but the Legal System” by Jonathan Turley

This indictment is an insurrection against our "American Ideals and Ideas", as Constitutional Lawyer and Political Commentator Mark R. Levin so succinctly put it:

1. “Mark it on your calendar; today is the day of the real insurrection, April 4, 2023.
2. When the Democrat Party, for the first time in our history, used a radical Marxist DA in a Democrat city with a Democrat grand jury and a Democrat judge manufactured a criminal case against the leading GOP candidate for the presidency.
3. That is, the Democrat Party is trying to imprison the possible if not probable Republican opponent to the current Democrat president. This is unprecedented in our country. And the Democrat Party has finally succeeded in dragging the nation into tyranny.
4. And the Democrat attorney general in New York, another Marxist, has brought a civil case; the Democrat DA in Atlanta is poised to bring criminal charges in Georgia,
5. and the so-called special counsel in Washington, DC, appointed by Biden's attorney general, is running two grand juries with the intent of bringing a slew of federal charges.”

This indictment opens a can of worms in our legal system and our political society.

Our system of justice has been turned into a system of laws that can be twisted and turned to persecute and prosecute political opponents. It also allows a district attorney to investigate and prosecute individuals rather than crimes, and such actions by district attorneys are only worthy of Tyrannies and Banana Republics. The excuse that no one is above the law in allowing this type of action by a District Attorney is at odds with equal justice under the law, and he has placed himself above the law by twisting the law to suit a political agenda and is placing President Trump below the law to achieve his political purposes.

He has also assaulted our political society in that his actions are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and by degrading "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" and the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". He has also advanced "Despotism in America" and sowed much more "Divisiveness in America". We should all keep in mind that if they can do this to a former president actively campaigning to take back the White House, they can do this to all, and they can come for you if you exercise your Liberties and Freedoms in opposition to them.

In the Criminal Investigation, Grand Jury proceedings, and the issuing of this indictment, the District Attorney has Crossed the Rubicon in which the legal system can be convoluted and utilized to silence or punish political opponents. He has also furthered an Anarcho-tyranny in America, which is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety. It is also characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent.

It is an unfortunate fact that this Anarcho-tyranny in America has become more pronounced in the last few years by the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Governors, and Mayors, many District Attorneys, and the Biden Administration. This is most amply illuminated in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", but it has gone beyond free speech into a toxic ideology in America, as I have Chirped on "01/20/23 Toxic Ideology".

This, therefore, is The Real Insurrection in America, and if it is not opposed, then we shall no longer be a beacon of hope and a shining city on a hill for the world, and that as President Abraham Lincoln said, "We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."

04/04/23 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Our Founding Fathers were very concerned about the Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, as the American Colonists had often been prosecuted and tried for their political beliefs and actions with the presumption of guilt and the necessity for the Defendant to prove their innocence. Indeed, this was one of the many important reasons for the American Revolution, and this concept of the Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt was incorporated into our Constitution.

The legal standard in the United States of America has always been innocent until proven guilty, as the following standard juror instruction illuminates: 

“Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.

The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The Defendant before you, [insert Defendant Name], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [Defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [Defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to [Defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of [Defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict [him/her].”

You should always remember this when a person has been indicted and prosecuted for a crime, for without keeping this in mind, you are trampling on their Liberties and Freedoms and Liberties and the Freedoms of all Americans. If a person is found not guilty, that does not necessarily mean that they are innocent, but that the government has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have indeed committed the crime, but they may not have committed the crime, but all must assume that they were not guilty of a crime if that is the jury’s verdict.

With the impending indictment of former President Trump, this is especially important, for such an indictment of the former President and leading candidate for the next Presidential election has far-reaching political and social consequences, which I shall examine in another Chirp.

If you take the stance that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tweeted:

“The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law.
No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

If you believe this, you are demonstrating your ignorance, beyond a reasonable doubt, of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the Constitutional protections against government tyranny and for the primacy of the government over the individual. It could even be said that you were more likely to be a Tory than a Patriot during the American Revolution.

03/30/23 Their Peculiar Nature

I have often written that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons.

Because of this, they have a peculiar nature that whatever they say is factual and is to be believed by all and that their version of events is always accurate. They believe that all that they say must be accepted as truth unless you can prove them wrong, which they believe is unprovable as they are always correct. Their nature also leads them to believe that emotionally based reasons trump intellectual reasoning. They also believe that any absence of contrary facts to their assertions proves that their assertions are correct or that any contrary facts are to be disparaged and disbelieved by all.

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes an assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." This burden of proof must also be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. As to accepting that their assertions are always correct, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot prove that something is wrong, then it must be right”, which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The difference between feelings and thinking is that feelings are emotionally based, while thinking is reason base, and emotions are easy while thinking is hard, as I have written in the section "Think vs. Feel - or - Emotions are Easy, Thinking is Hard" of my "Dialog & Debate" article.

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that their peculiar nature is the way of the world. But such a way leads to chaos and the regression of human progress that was brought about by rejecting their way of the world and by the acceptance of "Rationality" and "Reasoning" as the way of the world. To accept their peculiar nature as the way of the world is to slide back into a world of ignorance and fear in human interactions and to the violation of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of those who would not accept their peculiar nature.

Consequently, it is important that all recognize this way of the world thinking of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, reject their emotional reasoning and unsupported assertions, and pay more heed to others who would disagree with them. To not do so will conflict with our "American Ideals and Ideas", which are based on rationality and reasoning for the preservation of our Natural Rights, and Freedoms and Liberties to advance human progress.

03/28/23 No More Representative Government?

In a new article by Rob Natelson, “The end of representative government?”, he points out that mega-donors funded political hit squads to defeat Republican state legislative candidates. None of these mega-donors had any personal connections to most of the legislative districts they targeted. They didn’t live there, didn’t own property there, and in most cases, probably had never seen the district.

He points out that these mega-donors skewer the election results since the flood of outside money supporting one candidate—coupled with campaign finance restrictions on their rival—ensure that voters never hear both sides of the story. This mega-donor campaign spending was made possible by new state and federal campaign finance laws. These laws largely blocked donations from traditional bases of conservative support. But they allowed liberal multi-millionaires to finance political machines employing labor unions, canvassers, media monitors, and other non-profits, the latest campaign technology, and negative ad campaigns. The flood of money was so overwhelming that targeted candidates couldn’t respond effectively.

In the three sections of this article, ‘Representative Government: The Basics’, ‘But the Voters Make the Decisions, Don’t They?’, and ‘Other Ways the System Is Breaking Down’, he elaborates on the problems and impacts of mega-donors to representative government. This article is well worth the read for those concerned about democracy in America.

03/24/23 The Willing Suspension of Disbelief

Suspension of disbelief, sometimes called willing suspension of disbelief, is the avoidance of critical thinking or logic in examining something unreal or impossible in reality, such as a work of speculative fiction, in order to believe it for the sake of enjoyment. Aristotle first explored the idea of the concept in relation to the principles of theater; the audience ignores the unreality of fiction in order to experience catharsis.

This suspension of disbelief has increasingly become more conspicuous in American politics in the last three decades, most prominently when then Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) utilized this phrase when questioning two high-level Bush Administration officials about the progress of the Iraq war. This suspension of disbelief has also been utilized by politicians in the explanations of their personal conduct.

Hillary Clinton herself relied on the suspension of disbelief when during the 2016 Presidential candidate she defended herself and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, when they had, in just a 16-month period, made over $25 million in speaking fees, largely from corporations with Wall Street ties. Hillary alone pulled in $675,000 from Wall Street firms. When pressed about such exorbitant fees, Mrs. Clinton shrugged, “That’s what they offered.” As Victor Davis Hanson explained in his article “Hillary and the Suspension of Disbelief”:

“Mrs. Clinton would have us suspend disbelief that she is anti-Wall Street despite: 1) raising hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street for the Clinton Foundation, 2) raking in enormous speaking fees from Wall Street banks and investors, 3) her husband consulting for a Wall Street firm that offshored millions of profits in the Cayman Islands, 4) her son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky running a Wall Street hedge fund, 5) her daughter Chelsea becoming a multimillionaire after working a few months for a Wall Street hedge fund, and 6) Clinton herself raising $21 million in her 2008 primary campaign from Wall Street-related firms.”

This was not the only time she relied on the suspension of disbelief, as when she explained how she made millions in futures trading when her husband Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, and in the explanation of her personal email server while she was the Secretary of State and the erasure of the emails in the server when the server was publicly discovered. This suspension of disbelief has also been utilized by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she tried to explain how her husband made over one hundred million dollars in stock trading while she was the Democrat Leader of the House or the Speaker of the House.

We are now being asked to invoke this suspension of disbelief in the explanations of how the Biden family accrued tens of millions of dollars while Joe Biden was Vice President and thereafter, and in the actions of his son Hunter and brother James and other family members to enrich themselves. It is amazing to watch how all the Democrats in Congress, the Biden Administration, Progressives/Leftists commentators, and the Mainstream Media are suspending their disbelief and ignoring, being accepting of, or defending the actions of the Biden family in their explanation of how this wealth was acquired, and what was being expected in return from the Biden family.

This suspension of disbelief is also expected of the American people, but only for the politicians and political parties that the individual American supports. For all others, you are to disbelieve what they say or do and reprimand or hold them in contempt for their words and deeds. This has further pitted one group of Americans against another group of Americans and increased the partisanship in America and the “Divisiveness in America”. Until the American people stop their suspension of disbelief and start examining the words and deeds of politicians in an unbiased manner, we can expect more misbehavior of politicians, with explanations from the politicians that require a suspension of disbelief to be believed.

03/21/23 The Byzantines

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

In the latest article by the noted historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson, someone who knows history, he asks, “Are we the Byzantines?”. The historical parallels between the fall of ancient Rome and America are common in American political commentary, but it may be the fall of the Byzantines that more closely resembles the decline of America. This article is very perceptive and a lively read, which is common to all the writings of Victor Davis Hanson. I would recommend that all read this article and think about the premise that he raises.

03/19/23 What is Best?

I often have, in my Chirps and Articles, quoted the great economist and commentator Thomas Sowell in response to claims from politicians, activists, and others that justify their proposals and actions as being what is best for America and Americans:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?”
 - Thomas Sowell

Whenever anyone justifies their proposals as doing what is best for America and Americans, I will agree with them, but only on the condition that I get to decide what is best. No one will agree to let me decide what is best, as they believe that only themselves or liked minded people can decide what is best for America and Americans. At that point, I retort:

"What is best for all Americans is to allow the individual American to decide what is best for them, as long as they do not harm others nor infringe on the Liberty and Freedoms of others."
 - Mark Dawson

They often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their proposals and actions as protecting America and Americans from harm. They never balance this protection from harm with the harm done by their proposals and actions, and they often ignore the impacts on Liberty and Freedom of their proposals and actions, or they claim that this is the price to be paid for safety and security. In this, they have forgotten the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

In every decision that the government makes for you, they are constricting your Liberties and Freedoms and expanding its power over you. The laws and regulations that government passes and enforce often constrict the choices that Americans may make. These constrictions are often vagarious and too often infringe upon the personal choices of Americans. They rarely consider the impacts of laws and regulations on our Liberties and Freedoms, and they often look for ways to circumvent the Constitution, the great guarantor of American Liberty and Freedom, to pass these laws and regulations. In this, they are making the government the master over individuals and reducing the individual to serfdom.

This approach should also be utilized in your personal life. We all have had difficult decisions to make in our personal lives, and we often consult with family, friends, and co-workers about these decisions. We should always make the decision on what is best for us, as long as we do no harm to others by our decision. However, when we finally make the decision, we should always remember the following:

“What is best for you should be decided by you. If you let others decide what is best for you, it will often not be best for you, but it will often be best for them.”
 - Mark Dawson

03/16/23 Lack of Consequences - II

In my Chirp on “03/16/23 Lack of Consequences – I”, I lament the absence of consequences and meritocracy in our government, especially in the Biden Administration. This lack of consequences, however, is not limited to the government but seems to have permeated all of our society.

The most visible of this lack of consequences is the rise of crime on our streets. Criminals no longer fear being arrested, and if they are arrested, they know that they will be released shortly after their arrest. They also do not expect to be prosecuted except for the most serious crimes, and if a conviction is obtained for their serious crimes, they can expect light sentencing. This lack of consequences has led to more crime and more fear amongst law-abiding persons that they will become victims of criminal actions. It has also led retail businesspersons to expect theft and robbery of their business and possible assaults upon themselves and their employees.

This lack of consequences is also recognizable in the Illegal Immigration that is occurring on our southern border. Those who are illegally crossing our southern border have no fear of consequence except the dangers of making the trip to our southern border, and if they successfully make the trip, they can look forward to the benefits of their illegal actions. Not only do they get to stay in America, but they also receive governmental services. Some Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are also interested in a pathway to citizenship for these illegal immigrants (and their corresponding Democrat Party votes). This lack of consequences for illegal immigrants and the corresponding benefits of their illegal immigration has led to more illegal immigration on our southern border.

We have also seen this lack of consequences in modern Big Business. When a small, medium, or large-sized business becomes nonresponsive to its customer's needs or they make bad management decisions that impact its profitability, the consequence is that they go out of business (which is inevitable in a capitalist economy). When a very large business becomes nonresponsive or makes bad decisions, the consequences seem to be that Big Government will step in to financially rescue the Big Business. These bailouts cost the American taxpayers considerable sums of money and turns capitalism on its head, which further drifts America into a socialist economy.

Politicians and "Activists and Activism" are also people that seem to have little regard for the consequences of their words and deeds. They seem to be only interested in what is best for them and their causes, and they also expect a lack of consequences when their words and deeds have negative or unintended consequences. Excuses and blame shifting are their responses for the negative or unintended consequences rather than repercussions for their disregard of the consequences of their words and deeds.

These and other lack of consequences are doing great harm to our society. People and Big businesspeople feel free to do whatever they please without regard to the consequences of their actions. Consequences are a great ameliorating factor that makes people pause to consider the repercussions of their actions or decisions, then try to make their actions or decisions with minimal repercussions to themselves, others, and our society. A lack of consequences attitude leads to bad actions and bad decisions, which will eventually lead to the dissolution of our society. We need to bring back consequences for our words and deeds and ensure that the consequences are born by the people who made defective decisions or bad actions based upon an expectation of a lack of consequences.

03/15/23 Lack of Consequences - I

It is unfortunate that in 21st-century America that there are few consequences for our misdeeds, and the only consequences for our words are those that are politically incorrect or go against the tenets of wokeness. Meritocracy has also been replaced by Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Political Affiliation, and other non-meritorious considerations.

This is best exemplified by the Executive Officers of the Biden Administration. Biden likes to crow about the diversity of his administration, but he has nothing to say about the incompetency of his administration. As long as his Executive Officers are diverse, say the right things, and support his policies, he is satisfied with their leadership, regardless of the botches they preside over.

America has seen many botches in the last two years. On the International stage; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, and the threatening actions of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many botches of the Biden Administration.

In all of these botches, the Biden Administration Executive Officers have faced no consequences for their failures. Indeed, some have been lauded and rewarded for their failures as long as they say the right things about their failures. Excuses for failure are widespread, and blame has been shifted to others (mostly the Trump Administration, MAGA supporters, and Republicans) for these failures.

Consequently, the words they say have become more important than their deeds. In this, they have forgotten, or did not know, the aphorism of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

This lack of consequence for failure does not bode well for America. If we accept good words and bad deeds, then America’s future is somber as we stumble from failure to failure. Until we reinstitute meritocracy for our Executive Officers, we cannot expect success. It is, therefore, exceedingly important that we, the American people, hold the Biden Administration accountable for their failures and insist that they appoint meritorious Executive Officers. The best way to hold them accountable for their failures is through the ballot box, as I have examined in my Article “The Four Boxes of Liberty”. Until we do so, we can expect more failure, more excuses, and more blame-shifting from the Biden Administration.

03/14/23 Democracy and Freedoms at Risk

“Americans are increasingly threatened by state-sponsored censorship that puts our democracy and freedoms at risk”, begins a new commentary by Michael Shellenberger, “Democrats ignore my Twitter Files testimony at their peril and ours”. This commentary is based upon his testimony, along with the testimony of journalist Matt Taibbi, before the House Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee. His rational and reasonable commentary illuminates the dangers of "Big Tech" censorship to Free Speech and our "American Ideals and Ideas".

It also mirrors some of what I have written in my Article "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression", especially the conclusion of my article:

“In the past, we were rightly concerned about the suppression of free speech and a free press by the government and the associated impacts on our Freedoms and Liberties of this suppression. This was the reason for the adoption of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. However, today this suppression of free speech and a free press is not coming from the government but this suppression of free speech and a free press is coming from Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech. A suppression that is equally as dangerous as governmental suppression. In the past, we depended upon the diversity of opinion by newspapers and journalism to spread diverse opinions and allow the American public to make informed decisions. Today, however, with the rise of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech, there is little diversity of opinion in and between these organizations. We need to recognize the free speech implications of Conglomerate Newspapers, Mainstream Media, and Big Tech suppression and rectify this suppression. Otherwise, the Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans are endangered.”

In his testimony, Michael Shellenberger dealt with the government’s involvement in the indirect censoring of free speech on "Social Media". Censorship that would be unconstitutional if it were directly done by the government. As noted by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, “If government officials are directing or facilitating such censorship, it raises serious First Amendment questions. It is axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.” Michael Shellenberger’s and Matt Taibbi’s testimony laid out the means and methods that social media and the government cooperated with each other to censor free speech. It also laid out the consequences if this cooperation is allowed to continue.

Their testimony, along with their questioning by the Democrat Congresspersons, also illuminated the hostility of the Democrats to the concept of Free Speech. The Democrat Congresspersons' questions and comments exposed their hostility to Free Speech for anyone that disagrees with their points of view, and their blasé attitude toward government interference in the free speech rights of anyone who would so disagree with them.

Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property). Misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and falsehoods are no excuse for restricting free speech, as it is disputable and unworkable to determine the truthfulness or falsehoods of free speech. The response to misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and falsehoods is more free speech to counter what you may disagree with.

Thus, we are at a critical juncture in America. Our First and Second Constitution Amendment rights are under assault by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, and Government institutions. An assault that bodes ill for our American Ideals and Ideas. All Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans need to these assaults and reclaim our heritage of a freedom-loving people. Otherwise, we will become serfs to the government, and our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" will be determined and dispensed by the government rather than inherent in our humanity and citizenship.

03/12/23 The Capitol Insurrection Videos

This week Tucker Carlson started showing the January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrection’ videos that were released to him by Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy. He presented these videos unedited, in context, and in a full timeline for specific events that occurred in the ‘Insurrection’. He also interviewed several of the Capitol Police management that revealed what was happening behind the scenes of the Capitol Police actions and inactions. This presentation brought truths to the lies that the politicians, political commentators, and the Mainstream Media were telling about the ‘Insurrection’ and the ‘Insurrectionists’. It brought forth evidence that the January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrection’ House Committee was outright lying to the American public and that they manipulated and distorted the facts to support their lies. The cacophonous harangues and vicious screeds directed at Tucker Carlson by those that are now caught in their lies are indicative of the nefariousness of their lies.

There is no doubt that some persons in this mob were violent and destructive, and they should be prosecuted for their violence and destructiveness, but the vast majority of the mob were simply trespassers that behaved like tourists, taking selfies and gawking, although wandering into areas of the Capitol Building that were restricted from the general public.   

In juxtaposition with the George Floyd riots, this was a ‘mostly peaceful’ mob, unlike the mostly destructive George Floyd mob. The George Floyd mob, however, had the support of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, and the Mainstream Media, and they were treated with kid's gloves and rarely prosecuted. The January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrectionists’, however, have been mischaracterized, vilified, and faced prosecutions for mostly harmless acts of disruption. Some of the ‘Insurrectionists’ mob have faced the full force of Federal Law Enforcement, as should be for those of them that were destructive, but almost none of the George Floyd rioters that were destructive have faced any justice for their misdeeds. It should also be noted that in any large mob of people, some of them are there for nefarious purposes, but most of them are not. It is unfair and wrong to taint the vast majority of the mob that was not there for nefarious purposes with the deeds of those that were there for nefarious purposes. It is also vile and wicked to paint with a wide brush the many Americans who had concerns with the 2020 elections as Unamerican and Insurrectionists for their concerns.

Many of The January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrectionists’ should have been treated as trespassers and fined and let go. However, some of them have also been incarcerated for long periods of time without a speedy trial, and some have been tried and sentenced to long prison terms that were unwarranted, as revealed by Tucker Carlson’s video review. This disparity between the treatment of the George Floyd mob and the January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrectionists’ is a further example of a two-tiered justice system that has taken place in our society, as I have Chirped on “07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System”.

In viewing these videos that Tucker Carlson presented it raises the question of who are you going to believe, the politicians, political commentators, and the Mainstream Media, or your lying eyes? As for me, I am going to believe my lying eyes and disregard the lying words of the lying politicians, lying progressive commentators, and the lying Mainstream Media. While both sides do this lying on many different issues and concerns, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have made lying a tactic as a means to obtain and retain power. This was amply demonstrated in their lies about the January 6th, 2001, Capitol ‘Insurrection’.

This ‘Insurrection’ governmental lying, along with the governmental Coronavirus Pandemic lying, the governmental lying on the Southern Border problems, and a host of other governmental lying, has further demonstrated that our government has become corrupt, as I have Chirped on “ 02/27/23 America Is Becoming a Corrupt Country”. This corruption is leading to a dissolution of our society, as each side lies in order to obtain or retain power, which just as often pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans.

03/10/23 Big Bad Science

Prior to World War II, scientific research was a modest effort, supported by Universities and Independent Research Institutions and funded by non-governmental sources. With the need for advanced weapon systems to defeat the evils of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, governments funded scientific research to obtain these weapons. Indeed, the largest scientific expenditure, the creation of the atomic bomb, dwarfed all previous scientific research funding. The Cold War accelerated this process, and scientific research became Big Science supported financially by Big Government at Big Universities and Big Independent Research Institutions.

The nature of scientific research also changed after WWII, as scientific research required expensive instrumentation, teams of scientists, large facilities to house the equipment and teams, and the corresponding overhead expenses for these costs of doing modern Big Science. These costs became so great that the Universities and Independent Research Institutions could no longer bear the funding for these costs, and they increasingly became dependent on government grants and subsidies to fund this scientific research.

With governmental spending comes governmental approval, governmental oversight, and governmental laws, rules, and regulations on the Universities and Independent Research Institutions that accept governmental funding. It also begets a dependency on the government by the Universities and Independent Research Institutions that receive governmental funding. This dependency influences what and how much scientific research will be conducted, at the discretion of not only the Universities and Independent Research Institutions but upon the politicians that allocated monies for this scientific research.

Thus, Universities and Independent Research Institutions are often willing to shape and direct their research to government priorities and/or predilections and to avoid scientific research that would go against governmental predilections. These scientific establishments often direct their science to consensus science rather than expanding the boundaries of science beyond the scientific consensus. In some cases, they have even shaped the scientific results to fit governmental predilections. These scientific institutions also practice a form of cancel culture for those scientists who would dispute the scientific results and governmental predilections. As such, they are not practicing science but scientific deception. Therefore, Big Science has morphed into Big Bad Science in that they no longer pursue science for science’s sake but science for the government’s sake and governmental funding.

This Big Bad Science corrupts science and government, as the public who finance this scientific research through their taxpayer dollars can no longer be assured that the scientific research results are unbiased and that government policy decisions are based on suspect scientific results. No modern society can function without Big Science, as it has become integral to the advancement of society, and no society can function in the long term when Big Bad Science is a foundation for their governance.

There is no easy solution to the problems of Big Bad Science. However, the public exposure of Big Bad Science biases and abuses would go a long way to alleviating bad governmental decisions based on Big Bad Science. This, however, requires that scientists have free speech, and the courage to exercise this free speech, in exposing Big Bad Science. Given our current political environment that suppresses free speech for those that do not support governmental predilections, and the economic pressure on scientists to conform to governmental predilections to receive government funding, this free speech of scientists has been severely limited. Until this free speech problem is rectified, it may not be possible to correct the problems of Big Bad Science.

03/08/23 The Biggest Scandal

“We are living through the largest, deadliest scandal in American history, but the elite media refuses to connect the dots and analyze it.”

So begins a new article by Newt Gingrich, “The biggest scandal in American history”, in which he explains why the COVID-19 Pandemic and our responses to it have turned into the biggest scandal in American history. His explanation, with which I concur, is that the COVID-19 Pandemic scandal has so negatively touched so many areas of American society that it is breathtaking.

• It touched "Big Bad Science" in that so many scientists were willing to lie or misinform the American public or remained silent. These lies and silence by scientists will engender the American people to be skeptical of what any scientists say in the future.
• It touched the "Mainstream Media", who advanced the government narrative and slandered or refused to report credible persons who disagreed with the government narrative. Thus, once again vividly demonstrating their political proclivities and that they could not be a trusted source of honest information to the American public.
• It touched "Big Tech" in their willingness to censor anyone who would disagree with the government narrative on the Pandemic. Thus, they violated the Free Speech Rights of all and not allowing Americans to make an informed decision on the proper Coronavirus Pandemic responses.
• It touched the "Mainstream Cultural Media", who so blindly parroted the government narrative that they became untrustworthy voices, which will impact the American public’s faith in them so that when they make appeals for a good cause, we can no longer be assured that it is a good cause.
• It touched "Modern Big Business", that profited at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses. It isolated Big Pharma from liability for the side effect of the vaccines that they developed, which resulted in improper testing of those vaccines and medical harm to many Americans. It also enriched Big Pharma through the government's wholesale purchasing of the Coronavirus vaccines.
• It touched "Modern Education", which demonstrated that they were more concerned with teacher's unions rather than what is best for the students. It harmed the educational and social development of the students, the consequences of which will be felt for many decades by the students and our society.
• It touched our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" in the constrictions and mandates that were enforced by despotic actions that forced us to violate our consciences and liberties, as I have written in my collected Chirps on the "Coronavirus Pandemic".

In doing so, with all the lies, misinformation, and disinformation that were propagated by all levels of government and our institutions, they destroyed the faith of many of the American people in the American government and our institutions.

Mr. Gingrich closed his article by stating:

“This scandal is so large, and covers so many areas, it will be a major factor in politics and government for the next decade. It will go down in history as a turning point in our lives and the life of our country.

We just need to decide what direction we turn: toward clarity and accountability, or toward lies and chaos.”

Given the current lies and deeds of the Democrat Party Leaders and the Biden Administration on so many other issues and concerns facing Americans, I fear that we are drifting “toward lies and chaos” rather than “toward clarity and accountability”.

02/27/23 America Is Becoming a Corrupt Country

“America has been drifting toward a level of corruption incompatible with a free society and a free-market economy. Political and economic freedom depend on the presence of a level of honesty that makes it possible for people to interact with one another with a sense of trust.”

So begins a new article by Newt Gingrich, “America Is Becoming a Corrupt Country”. He then provides examples of the increasing corruption in America in the last few decades and ends his article by stating:

“There may be no more important fight in the next decade than the reassertion of basic honesty and lawfulness.

The alternative is a steadily decaying, corrupted, and criminal America.

Surrounded by dishonesty, a free society and a free market cannot survive.

This is how important the fight for honesty is.”

To which I say, Amen.

I believe that much of this can be attributed to the decline of Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue in America, which I have written about in my Article “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”. As the great Founding Father, John Adams has said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
 - John Adams

I am afraid that in today’s America, we are proving this cautionary warning of John Adams to be true. We should also remember another cautionary warning from John Adams:

“When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled the republic is lost in essence, though it may still exist in form.”
 - John Adams

02/26/23 Whangdoodles

Jonathan Turley has written the best commentary on the Ronald Dahl book editing controversy—“The Rise of the Woke Whangdoodles: English Company Rewrites Dahl Classics to Remove Offensive Words”.

This column starts with:

“Where are the Oompa Loompas when you need them. Willy Wonka’s helpers asked “who do you blame when your kid is a brat? Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?” The same question could be asked about publishers after Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to “update” portions of Roald Dahl’s classic books. The changes include dropping references to Augustus Gloop being “fat.”  Yet, unlike the Oompa Loompas, who found sanctuary “from hornswogglers and snozzwangers and those terrible wicked whangdoodles,” there is no safe place from woke whangdoodles today.”

Then ends with:

“Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I’ve got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompa dah dee
If you are wise you’ll listen to me

… Why don’t you try simply reading a book?
Or could you just not bear to look?”

We should all bear to look at the author's original work and obtain as much wisdom as possible from their own words.

02/25/23 Education Vouchers for All K-12 Education

K-12 Public Education is failing to meet its duties and responsibilities to educate children to become contributing members of society when they reach adulthood. The systemic problems of "Public Education" begs the question if the current Public School system needs to be dissolved and replaced with another foundation, as I have Chirped on, "03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?". These problems, along with the issues discussed in my new Article, “Free Speech and Parental Rights”, along with the issue that I have examined in my Article on "Indoctrination versus Education", exacerbate the problems of K-12 Public Education.

My new Article, “Education Vouchers for all K-12 Students”, examines the issues and concerns of providing Educational Vouchers for all K-12 students in America.

02/24/23 Free Speech and Parental Rights

While I am a free speech absolutist, I do believe that there are some exceptions to free speech absolutism. These exceptions are speech that directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses direct harm to the listeners (i.e., shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater), and speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding.

I would never accept restrictions on free speech, but I am troubled when it comes to Free Speech when it conflicts with the Parental Right to raise their children in shaping their morals, ethics, and character. Parents should have the right to determine what speech is acceptable in the rearing of their children and which speech is unacceptable to them if they believe that the speech is deleterious to their child's upbringing. This Parental Right can, and often have been abused by parents. However, this Parental Right has also been abused by those that are not the parents of children. Too often, parents narrowly constrict what their children can read, hear, and view, and too often, others widen what children can read, hear, and view beyond what is acceptable to parents.

My new Article, “Free Speech and Parental Rights”, examines this topic and the dilemmas in resolving the conflicts between free speech and parental rights.

02/23/23 Free Speech and Public Service

How much free speech does a (government) public servant have in the performance of their public service? Public servants are ubiquitous in today’s society, and while most of them serve behind the scenes, some of them interact with the public. In their interactions with the public, we have certain expectations and standards for their conduct with the public. As such, they have no unrestricted free speech rights when dealing with the public, and if they violate these expectations and standards, then they can be disciplined and even fired for excessive violations. This is a limitation of their free speech rights as a condition of their government employment. Any public servant that interacts with the public must meet these expectations and standards or face the consequences. An appeal to their free speech rights has no basis for violating these expectations and standards in their conduct with the public.

My new article, “Free Speech and Public Service”, is an examination of the restrictions on Free Speech while a government public servant is performing their duties and responsibilities.

02/22/23 The Spirit of Liberty

As I have written in my Article, "J'accuse!", the modern Democrat Party has become hostile to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They have neem largely successful as the American people have been somnolent in defense of our Liberties and Freedoms. Much of this somnolence is because of a lack of proper education on our Liberties and Freedoms, and much of this lack is because of the sorrowfulness of our "Public Education" and the perversion of education into indoctrination, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education". It has also not been helped by politicians, our leaders, academicians, and political and social commentators that utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their transgressions on our Liberties and Freedoms.

It is, therefore, up to Americans to become more informed and to regain The Spirit of Liberty:

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias."
 - Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty

This spirit of liberty is more than obedience to the law, as "The Law is Not All", for as the noted jurist Learned Hand has also said:

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
 - Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty

Without regaining the spirit of liberty in our hearts, we will lose our "American Ideals and Ideas". It is, therefore, vitally important that we regain this spirit as:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
 - Abraham Lincoln

02/21/23 J'accuse!

In my Article, "J'accuse!", I Accuse the Democrat Party of being:

• The Party of ‘A Living Constitution’
• The Party of the Rich and Powerful
• The Party of Double Standards
• The Party of Divisiveness
• The Party of Racism
• The Party of Anti-Americanism
• The Party of Anti-Economics
• The Party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic
• The Party of Power
• The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
• The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights

The Modern Democrat Party has spent several decades morphing into these stances, which have become ever more apparent in the first two years of the Biden Administration. They have also become the party of "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and the instigator of the problems of "Voting in America". I have, therefore, updated my J'accuse! article to include these three additional accusations, as well as updating my Voting in America article to include the shenanigans that occurred in the 2022 elections.

02/20/23 Intolerance

Many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders claim that they will not tolerate the intolerant. However, when you define disagreement with their political agendas and social policies as intolerance, then they, themselves, become intolerant of a large percentage of (if not most) Americans. Many of these same persons will not even permit the expression of an opinion other than their own, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. In this silencing of opinion, they are committing the fallacy of infallibility as:

“[For people] to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”
 - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

As such, when they are silencing opinion, they are being antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This silencing also leads to "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and to "The Weaponization of Government".

In their silencing, they utilize the following tactics to achieve the silencing of their critics:

• Denunciations of isms—Racism, Sexism, Intolerantism, Xenophobism, Homophobism, Islamophobism, Bigotism, etc.
• Inculpation of Emotional Harm Infliction
• Insistence on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) correctness
• Invocation of Wokeness
• Requiring Adjective Justice
• Requiring Political Correctness from opponents
• Restricting discussion and limiting discourse to be constrained within Identity Politics by opponents
• The rightness of Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG) policies
• Threats of Cancel Culture
• Threats of Doxing Opponents

These tactics also increase the "Divisiveness in America" by pitting one group of Americans against another group of Americans.

Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project are not only factually and historically incorrect, but the holders of these beliefs are intolerant of anyone who would disagree with these beliefs.

The radicalism of many in LGBTQIA+, ANTIFA, and Black Lives Matter does not tolerate anyone who would disagree with them.

The believers in Global Climate Change and COVID inoculations are intolerant of those that would disagree with them.

Anti-Semitism, Anti-Islamism, Anti-Christian, and the limiting of a person’s religious practices in the public arena are other examples of intolerance.

When those who are intolerant of people with whom they disagree, they often Cross the Rubicon into despotism to enforce their beliefs when persuasion cannot change the minds of those who would oppose them. In Crossing the Rubicon, they are endangering the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans. As a great philosopher has written:

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
 ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Today, in America, those who claim that they will not tolerate the intolerant have forgotten that their own intolerance infringes upon the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans. They should be reminded of this when they engage in this intolerance, and under no circumstances should they be allowed to utilize despotism to achieve their political agendas and social policy goals.

02/19/23 What are Judeo-Christian Values

The term “Judeo-Christian values” is frequently used. I and many others use it, and I believe in them. But exactly what is meant by Judeo-Christian values? A new article by Dennis Prager, “What Are Judeo-Christian Values?” explains what the core Judeo-Christian values are:

No. 1: There is only one God.

No. 2: The Hebrew Bible introduced the most revolutionary moral idea in history: that there are objective moral truths.

No. 3: Because there are moral truths, good and evil are the same for all people.

No. 4: God is the source of our rights.

No. 5: The human being is “created in the image of God.”

No. 6: The world is based on a divine order.

No. 7: Man is not basically good.

No. 8: Therefore, we must not follow our hearts.

No. 9: God gave us the Ten Commandments to keep in our hearts and mind.

No. 10: Human beings have free will.

I would encourage all to read this article to understand the core Judeo-Christian values and their meaning in life. You must practice these core values in your daily life, for if you cannot practice these core values in your daily life, then you do not believe in Judeo-Christian values.

02/18/23 Mysteries of Modern Physics

In my new article, “Mysteries of Modern Physics”, I examine some of the conundrums of modern physics that need resolution for physics to be coherent. Most of these conundrums are of a small scale, but a few of these conundrums are large and strike at the heart of physics. The resolution of these large-scale conundrums will significantly impact modern physics and our understanding of the workings of the Universe. This article examines what I believe are the most important large-scale conundrums that need resolution to better understand the workings of the Universe.

Modern science has walked hand-in-hand with the progress of humankind, and it has often led in this progression of humankind. Advances in modern science have advanced all other endeavors of human progress, from political science, social science, medicine, psychology and psychiatry, economics, technology, and the arts, to religion, morality, and ethics, and the other arenas of human progress. I expect the answers to the Mysteries of Modern Physics will also contribute to the advancement of humankind.

Science does not have all the answers to the workings of the Universe, but it is the best means to obtain the answers of the workings of the Universe, as I have examined in my article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”. Science must continue to probe the mysteries of the Universe, and science must always question the current answers to determine the facts and truths of the Universe. To not do so is to wallow in ignorance and to stymie the progress of humankind.

02/17/23 The Electrical Bulk Power Grid

The ability to reliability transmit bulk electrical power across North America is critical to our economy and society. Reliable electricity service is essential to the nation’s health, welfare, and security. Powering America’s homes, factories, and gadgets, reliable electricity is a staple for modern comfort and the production of valuable goods and services. Yet as interwoven as the electric grid is into our daily lives, few understand how electricity is delivered to the consumer and the policies that influence this process. My new Article, “The Electrical Bulk Power Grid” examines this system, and some issues and concerns about this system.

02/16/23 Statements of Opinions Rather Than Facts

Too many Americans believe that their statements are facts rather than their opinion. They also believe that their opinions are factually based without knowing all the facts and nothing but the facts. Uncovering all the facts requires much time-consuming research, and most Americans do not have the time nor ability, or skill to determine or analyze the facts. They often rely on others to do this, and the others they rely upon are those people who have the same opinion as themselves. Rarely do they consider the facts of those persons whose opinions they disagree with. They also rely too much on ‘Expert Opinion’, and we all should be wary of expert opinion, as I have written in my compilation Article on “Expert Opinions” Chirps. You should also always be wary of statistics and studies, as my Article “Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave” explains.

It is, therefore, important when we are listening or reading anything that we discern the difference between facts and opinions. You should challenge any opinion that is not buttressed by facts, and you should challenge the facts as to their accuracy and completeness. To do otherwise is to reach an improper conclusion that will often lead you to make a bad decision.

In my Chirps and Articles, I have attempted to obtain the facts, and I listen and read opinions other than that with which I agree. I also have some time, ability, and skill to analyze the facts and discern facts from opinions. It also helps that my science and technology inclinations and readings, along with my extensive readings on history, politics, economics, and sociology, have given me a wealth of facts and a diversity of opinions. It is for these reasons that I am confident in my facts and opinions. But I am also willing to admit that I may be wrong and change my opinions, for as one of our wisest Founding Fathers has said:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

and

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

02/15/23 The Road to Serfdom

The road to serfdom is paved with good intentions. Government intervention in the lives of its people is often justified as being beneficial to the people. Thus, we have seen a precipitous rise in laws, rules, and regulations regarding the conduct of people. This raises the question of the proper role of government in society. The answer to this question has been succinctly given by a beacon of liberty:

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
 ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Or, as a great defender of Liberty and Freedom in American history has said:

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights.”
 - Abraham Lincoln on Liberty

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, with the support of the Bureaucratic Swamp, want to limit our choices, and therefore our Liberties and Freedoms, to what they approve. Through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", they justify their actions as preventing harm to others while they harm the Natural Rights of the individual. They constitutionally justify their actions by interpreting the Constitution as a ‘Democratic Constitution’ rather than a ‘Republican Constitution’, as I have examined in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". In doing so, we are, therefore, becoming more serfs to the government rather than the government being servants to the people.

Serfdom always involves oppression and despotism upon its people and just as often curtails economic growth and the progress of humankind. Alas, if we continue down this road to serfdom, we will lose the last best hope of mankind to the beacon of Liberty and Freedom.

02/14/23 House Committee Hearings on The Weaponization of Government - II

In distinguished Professor Jonathan Turley’s testimony to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, he points out that the only known facts about government intervention in social media are a result of the release of the ‘Twitter Files’ by new owner Elon Musk. He also notes that Twitter has 450 million active users but it is still only ranked 15th in the number of users, after companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest. I would also point out that, in addition, we have the possibility and suspicion of government involvement with Google Search, Apple Siri, and other search engines that rank or exclude search results based on unknown criteria.

Professor Turley also points out that the “marketplace of ideas” is now largely digital, and these companies, not the government, now control access to the “marketplace of ideas.” The ability to find these ideas is as important as the ability to read these ideas, and it is, therefore, as important that this committee discover if any censorship in the search for ideas, as well as the ability to read these ideas, is taking place in these companies. Consequently, it is important for the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to examine any government intervention in both search engines and social media to determine if any censorship is occurring.

Therefore, it is necessary for this committee to subpoena any records from both the government and these companies to determine if there is any government involvement in the operations of these companies. If evidence of government involvement is uncovered, then it is necessary for this committee to elicit testimony from both the government and company persons taking part in this involvement.

We can expect that the government and the companies will resist these subpoenas, as it may be embarrassing and potentially open the company to the possibility of lawsuits. Search engine companies also claim that their search algorithms are proprietary and should not be disclosed outside of their company. Such resistance and excuses, however, should not deter the committee, as the suppression of the marketplace of ideas is too important to our Liberties and Freedoms to be undisclosed.

The committee needs to fully uncover the extent of government involvement in these companies, for as a beacon of liberty has stated:

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
 ― John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/186

02/13/23 House Committee Hearings on The Weaponization of Government - I

Distinguished Professor Jonathan Turley of the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University has testified at the first hearing of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, as he announced in his blog on “Turley Testifies on Censorship Before House Select Subcommittee”. He also posted his testimony for all to read, which can be downloaded here as a pdf document. I, myself, am very interested in this topic, as my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government" demonstrates. I found Professor Tutley’s testimony to be the most cogent comment on this topic.

As he has said in his blog post:

“The Twitter Files raise serious questions of whether the United States government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in our history. The involvement cuts across the Executive Branch, with confirmed coordination with agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA. Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of this censorship system is breathtaking, and we only know of a fraction of its operations through the Twitter Files. Twitter has 450 million active users but it is still only ranked 15th in the number of users, after companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest. The assumption is that the government censorship program dovetailed with these other companies, which continue to refuse to share past communications or work with the government. Assuming that these efforts extended to these larger platforms, it is a government-supported censorship system that is unparalleled in history.

Regardless of how one comes out on the constitutional ramifications of the government’s role in the censorship system, there should not be debate over the dangers that it presents to our democracy. The United States government may be outsourcing censorship, but the impact is still inimical to free speech values that define our country.”

In his testimony, he also points out that many supporters of censorship in social media of quote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“. . . the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

While not pointing out a further statement by Justice Holmes:

“. . . we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loath and believe to be frought (sic) with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that at an immediate check is required to save the country.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

They also do not point out Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis's quote:

“If there be time to discover through discussion the falsehood and the fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech not enforced silence.”
 - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

There is also a Supreme Court ruling that is directly applicable to this topic:

“The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas . . . is . . . one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes . . . [A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. . . . Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . [F]reedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship.”
 - Supreme Court ruling on Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)

Let us all remember these quotes when thinking about freedom of speech, and we should all read Professor Turley’s testimony to understand the scope of the problem. We Americans should also forthwith demand an end to The Weaponization of Government to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms.

02/12/23 What If?

I am not very high on playing the ‘What If’ game regarding history, as there is no way to ascertain the possibilities and probabilities of the what if. However, I do occasionally play this game for amusement purposes and to stretch my cause-and-effect cognition.

My favorite what if is what if the Imperial Japanese Empire had not bombed Pearl Harbor but instead invaded and occupied Midway Island? Would America have entered into war with Japan over a tiny island located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and only inhabited by a few hundred American servicemen? I suspect that the American people would have shrugged and conceded Midway Island to Japan, as it would not have been worth going to war over.

This possible delay in entering World War II against the Japanese Empire could have allowed Japan to consolidate and strengthen its grip in the Pacific Ocean, as well as Southeast Asia. I would also have delayed our entrance into WWII against Nazi Germany, which would have strengthened their grip in Europe. It is also possible that the strengthening of the grip of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in the Pacific, Asia, and Europe theaters of WWII it would have made victory more difficult and taken much longer to accomplish, as well as increased the costs of war in casualties and treasury. Given this lengthening of the war and the increased costs, there is also the possibility that we may have negotiated a peace treaty with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany rather than a victory to stamp out the evils of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. A negotiated peace that would have had deleterious consequences on post-WWII history.

Another ‘What If’ is what if Nazi Germany had not invaded or postponed the invasion of Communist Russia during WWII. Could Nazi Germany have negotiated a treaty with Communist Russia that carved Europe into Nazi Germany and Russian Communist territories? Or, could Nazi Germany have potentially won this Communist Russia invasion, especially if America was not engaged in WWII in Europe at the time of their invasion of Communist Russia and, therefore, not provided the material resources that Communist Russia needed to defeat Nazi Germany.

The other ‘What If’ possibility of Imperial Japan and Communist Russia (or Nazi Germany if they defeated Communist Russia) negotiating a treaty to carve Asia into Imperial Japan and Communist Russia or Nazi Germany territories. This, too, would have had deleterious consequences on post-WWII history and allowed the solidification and perpetuation of the evils of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia.

Some of this actual history I have discussed in my Article, “The Wars You Don’t Fight”, as well as my observations within this article that “In War There is No Substitute for Victory”, “ Give Peace A Chance”, and “A Diplomatic Solution”. We should always remember that when confronting evil that there is no substitute for victory to abolish evil and that peace is not the absence of conflict, but as a great philosopher has stated:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

02/11/23 Homophobic, Transphobic, or Other Sexual Phobic

There is no doubt that in America’s past, heterosexuality was the only acceptable form of sexuality, and other forms of sexuality were derided, persecuted, and prosecuted. Today in America, thanks to the courageous efforts of the homosexual community, other forms of sexuality are accepted and not reviled. The "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all persons are respected regardless of their sexuality, and they are protected under the law from harassment, discrimination, and other injustices they endured in the past. Today the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more) community is free to practice their sexuality in private.

Americans will tolerate moderate forms of public sexual affection (i.e., hugging and kissing) for both heterosexual and non-heterosexual affections, but they object to excessive forms of all sexual affection in public. Public displays of excessive sexuality are not acceptable for all forms of sexuality, and what most Americans strenuously object to is the intrusion of sexuality into the development and education of our children. Americans believe that the sexual development and education of their children is the responsibility of the parents and object to the public intrusion of any excessive sexual affection or the sexual development and education into the lives of their children. This intrusion of sexuality into a child’s life is a Parental Rights issue and not a homophobic, transphobic, or another sexually phobic issue.

Therefore, America is not Homophobic, Transphobic, or other Sexual Phobic; they only wish for the parents to be responsible for the sexual development and education of their children.

02/10/23 Advocates of American Socialism

The popularity of Socialism amongst the young has not abated and seems to be on the rise. Much of this is because of their woeful education in history, economics, and sociology, especially of the events in the 20th century. Another part is their zealousness to change and improve the world, and Socialism paints a splendorous picture of a socialistic society. The wretchedness of a socialistic society is almost never examined or excused by the rationalization that it was not being implemented properly. As in my Chirp on “01/27/23 Childish Naivety and Zealousness”, the young who support socialism are exhibiting a childish naivety and zealousness about how the world operates economically, politically, and technologically.

In a March 4, 2019, short article by Rob Natelson, “Advocates of American socialism need to learn some lessons”, he briefly examines the history, economics, and sociology of 20th-century socialism and states:

“It would be hard to name a political ideology so thoroughly debunked as socialism. It would be difficult to find an idea whose implementation has proved so horrific.

Socialism comes in two economic forms. In the first, the state owns all, or at least the most valuable, economic enterprises. Factories, medical clinics, schools, travel agencies, newspapers—the government owns them all. The prototype was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Surviving examples are Cuba and North Korea.

In the other economic form of socialism, the state does not own as much—but it controls almost everything. It controls by parceling out benefits to favored groups. It controls by central regulation, by state monopolies (where the government is the sole provider of a product or service), and by government monopsony (where government is the sole buyer). A prototype for this form was Adolph Hitler’s National Socialism. Communist China was originally in the first category and now is in the second.

The second form is the one now promoted by American “progressives.” Central to their platform is massive redistribution, detailed regulation of private economic decisions, some government ownership, expansion of the role of government schools, and a health care monopsony (“single payer”).”

He then buttresses these statements by reviewing the historical facts of Socialism and concludes:

“Repeated experiments in many countries over the past century prove one fact beyond doubt: As an economic system, socialism doesn’t work.”

Not only does Socialism not work as an economic system, but it is, or becomes, politically oppressive and violates the Natural Rights of all persons living under Socialism. For those supporters of Socialism that often claim that it has not worked because it was not done rightly, I would quote myself:

“It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.”
 - Mark Dawson

As the mid-19th century French academic, lawyer, and politician Anselme Polycarpe Batbie has stated:

“He who is not a republican at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”
 - Anselme Polycarpe Batbie

In his time, ‘not a republican’ would be considered ‘not a leftist or socialist’ of our time. Therefore, one can only hope that the young leftist or socialist will mature into a more thoughtful person as they age. Until then, we would all do better to educate the young leftist or socialist and ignore or oppose the older leftist or socialist as irredeemable. Of course, if the young had a proper education in history, economics, and sociology to begin with, this leftism or socialism of the young would not be as widespread in America as it is today.

02/09/23 The Coup and the Anarchy

In two articles by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Coup We Never Knew” and “Anarchy, American-Style”, he outlines the current social and governmental revolution that is occurring in today’s America. In the Coup article, he asks, “Did someone or something seize control of the United States?” and then proceeds to delineate the social and governmental revolution that has occurred in today’s America. He concludes this article by stating, “We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.”

In the Anarchy article, he postulates that the current social revolution in American society is different from our previous social revolutions:

“The 1960s revolution was both anarchic and nihilist. But it was waged against—not from—the establishment. Hippies and the Left either attacked institutions or, in Timothy Leary fashion, chose to “turn on, tune in, drop out” from them.

The current revolution is much different—and far more dangerous—for at least three reasons.

1. The Establishment Is the Revolution
2. Macintosh Becomes MacBeth
3. Big Money, Big Woke”

He notes that the Left of the 1960s has now become the establishment as:

“It now controls the very institutions of America that it once mocked and attacked—corporate boardrooms, Wall Street, state and local prosecuting attorneys, most big-city governments, the media, the Pentagon, network and most of cable news, professional sports, Hollywood, music, television, K-12 education, and academia.

In other words, the greatest levers of influence and power—money, education, entertainment, government, the news, and popular culture—are in the hands of the Left.”

He concludes this article by stating:

“The common denominator to the anarchy? The hardcore Left is your FBI, CIA, and Justice Department all in one. It is Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is our era’s J. P. Morgan.

No wonder we are confused by the establishment anarchists and the anarchy they produce.”

My own Article, “1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook”, examines the dystopian novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell, which was meant to be a precautionary tale against modern tyranny. Instead, the establishment and the Democrat Party seem to want to make it into a handbook for the social order and governance of America, and they are succeeding!

The only way that they can fully succeed is if we let them succeed or they establish a despotism in America. Therefore, all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans need to wake up and resist their efforts by not accepting the leftist’s cultural norms and opposing their despotic actions.

A good start to changing the leftist’s cultural norms is for all Americans to challenge "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" whenever they are uttered by anyone, and you should always remember that when doing so ‘The truth will set you free.’ It will also (eventually) set the other person free when you tell them the truth. Opposing their despotic actions will require the courage to stand up against these forces, as they are determined to destroy anyone who is opposed to their beliefs. Therefore, as the Bible has often declared, ‘Be not afraid’, and remember that ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’. Courage to do the right thing may be dangerous to your person, but cowardice in the face of intimidation will be dangerous to your psyche.

02/08/23 The Tangential Causes of Tyre Nichols Murder

Another reason for the murder of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the Memphis, TN, police is that most police officers feel beleaguered, besieged, and unappreciated by hostile police forces that make their jobs much more difficult. The actions of the hostile police forces, as I have Chirped on "06/09/20 Defund the Police Movement" and “01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion,” is a main factor in their beliefs. A Siege mentality has thus developed amongst many police officers because of these hostile police forces.

This siege mentality of a shared feeling of victimization and defensiveness is a collective state of mind in which a group of people believes themselves to be constantly attacked, oppressed, or isolated in the face of the negative intentions of the rest of the world. Although a group phenomenon, the term describes both the emotions and thoughts of the group and of individuals. The result is a state of being overly fearful of surrounding people and an intractable defensive attitude. In such a siege mentality, any actions by themselves to protect themselves seem justified.

This siege mentality needs to be broken not only by disciplinary actions against improper police actions but by an outpouring of understanding and support by the public for reasonable police actions when they confront a suspect with hostile or violent intentions or actions. A condemnation of the hostile or violent actions or verbal abuses by suspects needs to be articulated by our leaders to the public, while a reproach and proper disciplinary actions for improper police actions should be forthcoming when appropriate. Of course, any policeman who egregiously violates the Constitutional and Civil Rights of any person in America needs to be prosecuted when warranted, especially when it results in injury or death to someone in America.

Alas, much of these hostile police forces are a result of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders using improper police actions to galvanize their supporters for electoral advantage. The political rhetoric by these persons not only galvanizes their supporters but, in some cases, provokes some people to engage in violent actions to protest these improper police actions. The reporting by the "Mainstream Media" is also not helpful, as they often focus on the sensational aspects of the story before the facts are revealed, as I have Chirped on “01/23/23 Report the Narrative”. This only reinforces the siege mentality of police officers and makes the consequences of improper police actions much worse.

Until this political rhetoric and these hostile police force’s words and deeds cease, it will be very difficult to surcease this siege mentality amongst police officers. Let us coolly and calmly address improper police actions to correct the problems of policing and to put an end to both the siege mentality of police officers and the hostile police force's words and deeds.

02/07/23 The Repercussions of Tyre Nichols Murder

In my Chirp on “02/06/23 The Facts of Tyre Nichols Murder”, I stated my opinion that the death of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the Memphis, TN police was a murder. There will be, and should be, repercussions from this murder by police officers. However, we should be careful to ensure that the repercussion is appropriate and address the actual problems this murder exhibited.

Many would claim that we need better police procedure training of police officers to prevent these kinds of actions. But police procedure training is not the issue, as no police department trains their officers to commit these acts. Indeed, most, if not all, police departments train their officers on how to restrain themselves in confrontations with the public and especially with suspects of criminal actions. The answer is not better police procedure training but a better quality of character of police recruits. Psychological profiling of police recruits, and periodic psychological profiling of police officers, to determine potential aberrant behavioral tendencies of police officers should be mandatory. The rejection of a police recruit who has potential aberrant behavioral tendencies should occur, and the counseling or dismissal of active police officers who have potential aberrant behavioral tendencies should be mandatory. Instruction on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all persons should be part and parcel of police officers' training and periodically reinforced by regular workplace instructional sessions throughout a police officer’s career.

Police officers themselves should monitor other police officers’ words and deeds and provide personal guidance to their fellow police officers that they believe may be exhibiting potential aberrant behavioral tendencies. They should not rationalize nor excuse fellow police officers' words and deeds that exhibit potential aberrant behavioral tendencies. They should, if such words and deeds continue, report to their sergeants any police officer that they believe is exhibiting potential aberrant behavior. The sergeants would then be responsible for taking corrective actions as appropriate to the behavior. There should also be a procedure to ensure that the police sergeants themselves do not engage in potential aberrant behavior and that they are enforcing proper police procedures and monitoring police officers' conduct to correct potential aberrant behavior. They should do this not only to help their fellow officer but to preserve the integrity of their police department, which they rely upon in the performance of their duties and responsibilities.

The above suggestions may be very difficult and expensive to accomplish, and often such instruction does not take into account the realities of street policing. This is why it would be better for current or former police officers to conduct this instruction and counseling. Such police officers that provide this instruction and counseling should be educated and certified to provide this instruction and counseling. Indeed, it may be wise for police sergeants and police recruit trainers to obtain this certification to apply this knowledge in their duties.

As I have stated in my Chirp on "04/21/21 Compliance to Police Officers Instructions", the most effective and best way to reduce improper police actions is also the easiest way. Americans, when they are confronted by the police, should be compliant with the police officers' instructions. If you have a beef with the police officer, then you calmly and rationally talk to the police officer after you are compliant with their instructions. If such calm and rational discussions do not resolve your dispute, then you should take it to court, but do not try to resolve it on the street. If you are not compliant with the police officer's instructions, then you will come out second best in the argument. You may not always get what you want from the police officer by being compliant, but you will not be injured or killed by the police officer if you are compliant.

02/06/23 The Facts of Tyre Nichols Murder

I have delayed writing about Tyre Nichols death at the hands of the Memphis, TN, police. I did so as I wanted to obtain more complete information that was fact-based rather than sensational-based. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the case of Tyre Nichols, we have been told the middle and most of the end of the story, but little has been revealed of the beginning of the story.

The unrevealed beginning of the story is what were the circumstances of Tyre Nichols's initial encounter with the police, and what were the initial actions and reactions of both Tyre Nichols and the police officers? No dashcam or bodycam footage was released (and some have claimed that they do not exist), nor has any official statement been made detailing the initial encounter. The unknown end of the story is that Tyre Nichols’s official autopsy and toxicology report have not been released, but an independent autopsy commissioned by the family has been released. Without knowing these details, it is difficult to make a judgment on the full story.

However, much is known of the middle of the story due to the release of the dashcam and bodycam footage. After reviewing the known facts, I can confidently state that this was a totally unwarranted and unneeded action by police officers in the middle of the story, and thus it was a horrendous and unjustified killing of Tyre Nichols by the policemen involved in his killing, and, indeed, it was a murder. The facts are that the actions of these police officers were cruel, barbarous, savage, and appalling. The total inhumanity exhibited by these policemen is unconscionable and unfathomable to any person with a shred of decency.

The particulars of what these police officers did wrong are lengthy, and it appears that almost all their actions were improper police procedures. Not being knowledgeable about police procedures, I shall leave it to others more knowledgeable about proper police procedures to explain their wrongful actions. However, one of the many dismaying things about this killing is that not one of the policemen involved in this murder took action to prevent this murder. Surely, at least one of these police officers should have known better and acted against the other policemen to prevent this murder. Not only did they take the life of Tyre Nichols, but they also violated the Constitutional and Civil Rights of Tyre Nichols. In doing so, they were assaulting the Constitutional and Civil Rights of all persons in America. Such assaults on Constitutional and Civil Rights by all police persons against any person need to be vigorously opposed and fully prosecuted. Otherwise, no one is safe from criminal police actions.

Consequently, those policemen involved in this murder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and if convicted, they should serve extended prison sentences, if not life imprisonment. So, it should be for any policeman who egregiously violates the Constitutional and Civil Rights of any person in America, especially when it results in injury or death to someone in America.

02/05/23 Truth

Truth is objective (not based on personal opinion), truth is timeless (not subject to the changing tides of culture), and the truth is unifying (as people will rally around truths), and as it has been said, ‘The Truth Will Set You Free’.

It is an unfortunate fact that many people speak of ‘My Truth’ of ‘Their Truth”, but as I have Chirped on "05/10/20 My Truth", this is a fallacious catch phrase as:

"There is no such thing as 'my truth' or 'their truth', as there is only 'the truth'."
  - Mark Dawson

Truth must be buttressed by the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, for truth cannot be obtained by anything other than the facts. To be a seeker of the truth is one of the noblest pursuits that a person can undertake.

In my Chirps and Articles, I always attempt to ascertain the truth buttressed by facts. I may not always be right, but I try to pursue the truth. So, it should be with your own life. Always gather the facts and pursue the truth, for ‘The Truth Will Set You Free’.

02/04/23 Prevarications

Prevarications: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth; intentionally vague or ambiguous; the deliberate act of deviating from the truth, have become de facto in today’s society, especially in the political arena and in the Mainstream Media and the Mainstream Cultural Media.

Alas, Integrity (Moral soundness) and Virtue (The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong), along with good Character (The inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions), play little part in our political intercourse. Yet, integrity, virtue, and good character are personal attributes that will not allow for prevarication. Consequently, those that prevaricate are displaying their lack of integrity, virtue, and good character.

This is amply demonstrated in the last three Presidents and their Administrations. Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden and their Administrations often prevaricated during their terms of office. Some prevarications are to be expected in politics, but a steady stream of prevarications is deceptions foisted upon the American public. These prevarications make it very difficult for the American people to discern the facts and truths to determine the best course for America. Bad decisions are made based on these prevarications, and the problems that beset America are not resolved because of these prevarications.

In the past, such prevarications by politicians were illuminated by the press, and the American public was better able to discern the prevarications. Today, however, the Mainstream Media had no compunction in attacking President Trump and his administration for their prevarications but has shown no such predilection in attacking President Obama and Biden and their administrations for their prevarications. Indeed, they have often supported President Obama and Biden’s prevarications through their supine acceptance of these prevarications and their reporting on the narrative rather than the facts, as I have Chirped on “01/23/23 Report the Narrative”. This is driven by the Mainstream Media's predilections for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders social policies and political agendas. In addition, the Mainstream Media have departed from objective reporting into advocacy reporting, as Jonathan Turley has written in his article “Objectivity Has Got To Go: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”, along with other issues of journalism that I have examined in my Article, "Modern Journalism".

These political prevarications and advocacy journalism divide the American people and exacerbate the bitter partisanship that exists in America today. Until such political prevarications and advocacy journalism is dispensed with, it will be difficult for the American people to make wise decisions to fix the problems besetting America. The best way to resolve these problems is for integrity, virtue, and good character to be elevated in importance in American society and for politicians and reporters to put into practice integrity and virtue and to conduct themselves with good character. The American people can facilitate this change by not supporting and electing politicians who lack integrity, virtue, and good character and not consuming the news reporting of advocacy journalism.

02/03/23 Removal of Justices and Judges

In my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", I address the problem of Justices and Judges who rule beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law. It is an unfortunate fact that in today's judicial system, judges often go beyond the scope of their responsibilities. When a judge issues a ruling utilizing convoluted reasoning or stretching the law in which it was never intended to do, they are corrupting the Constitutional and the democratic process. A judge is responsible for making sure that the law is equally applied to all who come before them. Their holdings, rulings, and decisions should be based primarily on the law as it is written or the intentions of the lawgivers as expressed during the legislative process. Laws are created to ensure a civil society. If a law, or judicial rulings and decisions, is convoluted or distorted, it cannot be followed by the members of the society.

As in my Chirp on "02/02/23 Removal of Executive Officers", the only way to remove a Justice or Judge is by the impeachment process, and the impeachment process does not allow for the removal of a Justice or Judge who rules beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law.

Under the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice must take the following Oath of Office:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

In addition to this oath, under Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

It is also true that all other Judges in the Judicial Branch must also take these two Oaths of Office before becoming a Judge.

Therefore, I would like to see Congress pass a law that would allow for the removal of a Justice or Judge who rules beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law and thus violates their Oath of Office. The removal of a judge is fraught with potential Constitutional, legal, political, and partisan ramifications. It should, therefore, be very difficult to remove a judge. On balance, I believe that we need this law to reign in the problems of Justices or Judges who rule beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law. This change can also be viewed as a check and balance against the powers of the Judicial Branch. This law, or a Constitutional Amendment if necessary, should be structured as follows:

No Supreme Court Justice, Appellate Court Judge, or District Court Judge may be removed from their office while serving during Good Behavior or Constitutional Jurisprudence. Good Behavior shall be defined as not committing any Treason, Bribery, or any High Crimes or Misdemeanors. Constitutional Jurisprudence shall be defined as not issuing any court rulings that fall outside the scope of their vested Judicial Constitutional duties and responsibilities. A Supreme Court Justice, Appellate Court Judge, or District Court Judge may be removed during their term of office for not exercising Good Behavior or Constitutional Jurisprudence. Such removal shall be on a recommendation for the removal of a Justice or Judge by the President or a three-fifths vote of no confidence by the House of Representatives of Congress to the United States Senate. Such removal by the Senate shall be by a two-thirds vote for a Supreme Court Justice, a three-fifths vote for an Appellate Court Judge, and a majority vote for a District Court Judge by the full Senate for the removal of said Justice or Judge.

This removal process, along with Term Limits for Justices and Judges that I have proposed in my ‘Judges, Not Lords’ article, would go a long way in reigning in Justices or Judges who rule beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law. It would also temper their rulings to ensure that they are Judges and not Lords.

02/02/23 Removal of Executive Officers

Executive Officers are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve at the pleasure of the President. This statement has been true throughout our history; the question I have is whether it should remain true. I firmly believe that the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm the nominations, but I am less convinced that they should serve only at the pleasure of the President. In the past, the only way to remove an Executive Officer was by impeachment and conviction by Congress. The Constitution, in Article II, Section. 4. States, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Consequently, impeachment of Executive Officers is usually done for criminal actions by an Executive Officer, as there are no other Constitutional means for removing Executive Officers other than for criminal actions. Therefore, their remaining in office has been left to the discretion of the President.

The incompetence of the Executive Officers in the Biden Administration is astounding. Through their words and deeds, they have demonstrated their incompetence. Almost every major decision that they have made has had negative repercussions for America and Americans. On the International stage, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Ukrainian War, the threatening actions of Russia and China, and their policies on Central and South America have all been incompetent. On the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, their economic recovery plans, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the increase in crime in our streets, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain and transportation problems, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues we have seen negative repercussions on America and Americans by the incompetence of the Executive Officers of the Biden Administration.

There is also the failure of Executive Officers to faithfully execute the laws. Their Oath of Office requires them to discharge the duties of the office for which they enter, which includes faithfully executing the laws:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Executive Officers have systematically ignored, circumvented, or contravened the law, which is an assault on the Constitution and The Rule of Law. They have systemically weaponized the Justice Department and the FBI to persecute and prosecute their opponents. They have attempted and sometimes succeeded in extending the law via Executive Orders and Directives for the purpose of creating social policy that was not intended by the passage of these laws. All these actions are a violation of their Oath of Office and are Unconstitutional actions.

In addition, many Executive Officers of the Biden Administration have lied to or deceived Congress when Congress has exercised their Constitutional duties and responsibilities of Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch of government. Such false testimony is punishable under the law, but it would require that the Biden Justice Department investigate, charge, and prosecute such false testimony of Biden Executive Officers. This can not be expected to happen, as the Biden Administration is the beneficiary of this false testimony and has no desire to end this false testimony.

Given the number of Executive Officers that President Biden has confirmed that are sheerly incompetent, have not faithfully executed the laws, and have given false testimony, and by the unwillingness of President Biden to remove them from office, we need a better way than impeachment to remove these Executive Officers from office. Their incompetence, not faithfully executing the laws, and giving false testimony have done great harm to America, and we need to remove them from office and replace them with competent persons that have the capabilities, honesty, integrity, and virtue to be Executive Officers.

In the past, we have relied on virtuous Executive Officers that will conduct themselves properly in the performance of their duties, and when they did not do so, they resigned in disgrace. Alas, virtue seems to have been replaced with political expediency in modern America. Therefore, I would like to see Congress pass a law that would allow the House of Representatives to have a majority vote of no confidence for Executive Officers that have engaged in these aforementioned actions, followed by a majority vote of the Senate to remove an Executive Officer for engaging in these aforementioned actions.

Such a law would cause some consternation in our governance, as a partisan Congress may become more partisan, and a Congress of the opposite party from the President may utilize this law to harass the President. However, the damage of the aforementioned actions by Executive Officers is greater than the problems that may be caused by this law. On balance, therefore, I believe that we need this law to reign in the problems of the aforementioned actions by Executive Officers. I also view this law as a check and balance against the powers of the Executive Branch. As to the Constitutionality of this law, it is uncertain, and if ruled unconstitutional, then we may need to consider a Constitutional Amendment to resolve this problem. To which I say—so be it.

02/01/23 Congressional Oversight

Congressional oversight is the scrutiny by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigations, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. On several occasions, in 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit". As such, the Executive Branch cannot withhold information from Congress except in a narrow and limited fashion, and the Executive Branch is not the sole arbiter of what information can be withheld. Much of this withholding of information is to slow down the process of Congressional investigations by tying up information requests in litigation to determine the appropriateness of the requests, with such litigation being time-consuming to resolve legally.

The current Republican-led House of Representatives is starting to utilize this Congressional Oversight power to examine the misdeeds of President Biden’s Administration, and President Biden’s Administration is attempting to resist this oversight. Such resistance is often done under the pretense that Federal judicial investigations are underway and that the information is protected under the safeguards for civil liberties for the person being investigated, and the possibility for the interference of the investigation that could negatively impact a potential criminal or civil prosecution. They are also utilizing the pretense that there are classified national security concerns in releasing this information. In their other resistance to Congressional Oversight, they are using "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify the withholding of information.

This is nothing new in Congressional investigations of the Executive Branch. What is new is the extent to which the Biden Administration is utilizing these techniques of resistance. Prior to the Republican control of the House of Representatives, most requests from the minority Republicans were rejected under the guise that such requests had to come from the majority-led Democrat Congressional committees for them to be valid requests. Alas, the majority-led Democrat Congressional committees would never issue these requests for the political purposes of assisting the Biden Administration in the withholding of information that would negatively reflect on the Biden Administration and the Democrats. Now that the Republicans are in control of the House of Representatives, we are starting to see more utilization of the rationalization of protecting potential criminal or civil prosecutions or of classified national security concerns in releasing this information.

Much of the information that is being requested by the majority-led Republican Congressional committees is of the nature of covering up the misdeeds of President Biden’s past and present, and their impacts on current policy decisions in the Biden Administration, as well as their endeavors in regards to "The Weaponization of Government". Such non-disclosure of this information is done for cover-up and electioneering purposes. This is also a self-interest and deceptive attempt by the Biden Administration to influence the American public to achieve the policy goals and political agendas of the Biden Administration. This withholding of information should not stand, as this is information that Congress and the American people need to know, as it directly impacts Congresses Constitutional duties and responsibilities, and the American people’s lives and votes, as well as their Liberties and Freedoms.

01/31/23 The PELOSI Act

On January 4, 2023, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced the PELOSI Act for Senate consideration. Officially known as the ‘Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act’, it requires Congresspersons and their spouses to divest any holdings or put them in a blind trust within six months of entering office. Hawley’s bill excludes mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and Treasury bonds purchases, as these funds and bonds are not susceptible to insider knowledge that could lead to an unfair advantage for Congresspersons. As Sen. Hawley stated in a Tweet, “Members of Congress and their spouses shouldn’t be using their position to get rich on the stock market”. It also specifically amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which prohibits using nonpublic information for private profit, commonly known as insider trading — which is already illegal for business leaders and everyday Americans.

The longstanding problem of members of Congress becoming wealthy from their insider knowledge of legislation is that it gives them a competitive advantage in stock trading that is unavailable to the general public. There is also the problem of companies giving Congresspersons or their spouses preferred stock options in the hopes of influencing legislation. Preferred stock options have a higher claim to dividends or asset distribution than common stockholders and are financially lucrative to the holders of the preferred stock. It has also been the case that legislation has been passed, blocked, or modified in a manner that is financially beneficial to a Congressperson(s) stock portfolio.

The PELOSI Act addresses these problems and is a good act to reign in these problems. Therefore, all Congresspersons should support this Act, and we should be wary of those that do not support this act as they may be the beneficiaries of these longstanding problems. For those that claim that a spouse of a Congressperson should not be encumbered by their marriage, I would respond that this is part of the sacrifice that you make as a spouse of a Congressperson. If you do not like this sacrifice, then you should not be married to a Congressperson, or your spouse should not run for Congress.

01/30/23 Money and Power

In my Chirp on “01/27/23 Childish Naivety and Zealousness”, I remark on how the world operates on an economic, political, and technological basis. Technological workings are the subject of many of my other Chirps and Articles, while economic and political workings are the subject of most of my Chirps and Articles. These economic and political workings are driven by Money and Power, and it can be said that those who have the money, and those that have the power, are largely responsible for what is happening in our world. Those that have control of the money may also have power, and those that have power often control the money. It can also be said that there are many persons that have the money, but those that have the power are far fewer in number. Both can be swayed by other forces, but ultimately, they make the final decisions that affect the workings of the world. Until you understand the workings of Money and Power and their interrelationships, you cannot understand the workings of the world.

As cynical as it may seem, Money and Power are the determining factors in how the world works. Therefore, always follow the money and always determine who the person(s) are that hold the levers of power. This is why a good knowledge of economics and politics is necessary to understand the working of the world. When you discover who has the Money and Power and examine how they utilize the Money and Power, you will understand the why and how of the world as it is.

01/29/23 In With The New, Out With The Old

Many people believe that if something is old, it is not relevant or worthwhile. Nothing can be further from the truth than this belief. This attitude is especially prevalent among the younger generation (as has often been the case throughout history). They refuse to read, hear, or view anything created before they were born. There is much that is old that is not relevant or worthwhile, but there is much that is old that is relevant and worthwhile. The issue is how to determine what is old that is relevant and worthwhile.

There is no easy answer to this question. History often is the best guide to the relevant and worthwhile. Not only the history of humankind but the history of the works and endeavors of humankind. If the works and endeavors of humankind are remembered by history, then this is often because they are relevant and worthwhile.

The Arts and Sciences, the Political and Sociological, the Economics and Commerce, the Architectural and Constructions, and many other works and endeavors of humankind that are remembered by history are all relevant and worthwhile. If you study the history of any topic, you will discover what is relevant and worthwhile.

Therefore, do not be dismissive of the old, for it is the old that has brought forth the new. And the old can continue to bring forth the new when it is studied. It can also be thought-provoking and a guide to what may or may not work when bringing forth the new.

The lessons of history can also prevent you from making errors of judgment that have negative repercussions for yourself and society. History can also enrich your life and provide knowledge and wisdom to your life. Therefore, you should embrace the old as much as you embrace the new, for without appreciating the old, you cannot fully appreciate the new.

01/28/23 Expert Opinions

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

I have written several Chirps about expert opinions, which I have collected into my new article, Expert Opinions. I believe that it is important for the American people and politicians, when they listen or read expert opinions, that they keep in mind the above quote before they rush to judgment and implement a policy based on expert opinion. We should also remember that for every expert, there is another expert with a contrary opinion. Consequently, whenever a politician states that ‘experts agree’ or they make a general statement about expert opinion to justify their policies, you can be assured that they are only listening to the experts that they agree with and ignoring the experts that they disagree with. Therefore, always be wary of expert opinion and politicians that generalize expert opinion. You must always carefully weigh expert opinions, listen to the contrary expert opinions, and apply some common sense to their opinions before reaching a judgment and instituting a public policy.

01/27/23 Childish Naivety and Zealousness

Greta Thunberg (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish Climate Change activist who is known for challenging world leaders to take immediate action for climate change mitigation. Until now, I have not written about her activism, as I did not wish to engage in child abuse. Now that she is twenty years old, I think it is appropriate to comment on her and her activism. When she was not an adult, her activism could be attributed to a zeal for what she believed in and naivety about how the world operates (economically, politically, and technologically), as well as her inability to reason properly, as I have written in my article "Reasoning" and "Rationality".

This childish naivety and inability to reason properly is all too common amongst many zealous Climate Change activists and other zealous activists. Much of this childish naivety and zealousness can be attributed to our glorification of the young, as I have written in my Article on the “Cult of Youth”. Some of this zealous Global Climate Change activism is because of a lack of understanding of the science behind Global Climate Change, as I have Chirped on "07/21/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change" and written in my Article on “Climate Change”.

Her activism, while addressing a (perceived) global issue, always seems to be targeted at Western Europe and North American nations. These nations are not a major influence on Global Climate Change, and changing their policies would not have a major impact on Global Climate Change. China and India, along with a host of other second and third-world nations, are the nations where most of the impacts of Global Climate Change occur. While she is proud of her bravery in confronting Western Europe and North American nations that she disagrees with their Climate Change policies, this bravery would be more apropos if she confronted China and India, in China and India, about their impacts on Climate Change. While these nations may allow her verbal activism for show purposes, they will not allow any meaningful physical confrontations to occur in their nations. Indeed, they will ignore her activism, except to pontificate and chastise other nations, and they will not change their policies due to economic and political concerns.

As a result of her actions and inactions, Greta Thunberg is not a poster child for Climate Change Activism but a poster child for Childish Naivety and Zealousness.

01/26/23 Allegations of Detestation

The allegations by many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that a person is a Right-wing Extremist, Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted, or Hater, along with other words and terms as I have written in my article,  "Divisiveness in America", are only truthful allegations depending on the definition of these terms and words by the accuser. Many of those persons that cast aspersions upon others, through the utilization of these terms and words, are not utilizing the dictionary definition of these terms and words. As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, they, therefore, believe that anyone who would disagree with their policies must harbor the attitudes of these dictionary definitions of these terms or words. Therefore, when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders utilize these terms and words, they only mean someone who disagrees with their policy positions regarding these terms and words, and not that the person so accused has the attitudes of the dictionary definition of these terms and words.

This is part and parcel of their strategy and tactics to sow Divisiveness in America for electoral advantage purposes by sowing detestation, fear, and loathing against anyone who would disagree with the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' policies. This divisiveness, along with "Political Correctness" and "Wokeness", is also an intimidation tactic for the purpose of silencing their opponents through shaming or fear of retaliation. This strategy and tactics are despicable, as they attempt to infringe on the free speech rights of their opponents, and they are lying to the American public to garner votes or suppress the votes of their opponents. Any politician or government official who engages in this strategy and tactics is not to be trusted as a leader in America and should not be elected or appointed official. Any commentator that engages in this strategy and tactics should be chastised and ignored, as they are dissimulators of falsehoods upon the American public.

If someone utilizes these terms or words against me for my opposition to the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' policies, then I proudly wear these terms and words. If, however, they mean the dictionary definitions of these words; then I soundly reject this characterization of myself. Those that know me, and those that have read my Articles and Chirps, know that I am firmly opposed to anyone who meets the dictionary definition of these terms and words by my commitment to the Natural Rights of all individuals. All those that have unjustly suffered these allegations of detestation should adopt this attitude and vigorously respond to these allegations of detestation in a like manner as I have responded.

Until we can end this strategy and tactics of divisiveness, we will continue the bitter partisanship that has gripped America, and we will be unable to solve the problems and issues that beset America and Americans. America and Americans would be much better off if we remembered that we should be able to disagree without being divisive or disagreeable. The ceasing of Allegations of Detestation is an important first step in achieving "A Civil Society", which should be the norm in American society.

01/25/23 Food for Thought, Consideration, and Concern

In a recent monolog by Tucker Carlson on his Tucker Carlson Tonight show, he brought up that the bureaucracy is in charge of running America. Using examples from President Richard Nixon through President Trump, he makes an interesting case for this premise. He noted that we “… deserve a better system, an actual democracy. When people who you did not vote for are running everything you are not living in a free country”.

These bureaucrats are now attempting to control America through influencing candidate selection and manipulating elections in America. This is being done through selective leaks against the candidates that they do not support and covering-up or suppressing information that would be harmful to the candidates that they do support. They have also successfully changed how elections are held and conducted, and most of these election changes have benefited the candidates that they support.

The candidates that they do support are almost always Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that wish to expand government and increase government control and regulation over the American people and economy. This, of course, also adds to the number of bureaucratic personnel on the payroll, thus increasing their ability to control and regulate the American people and economy.

If this premise is true, then we are no longer a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” but are becoming a “government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats”. This premise is difficult to prove conclusively, but the circumstantial evidence makes for an interesting case for this premise. If true, however, it bodes ill for the future of America as a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom. Consequently, all liberty and freedom-loving Americans should view this monolog and make it Food for Thought, Consideration, and Concern.

01/24/23 Reform and Reconstitution

As I pointed out in my collected Chirps on “The Weaponization of Government”, the FBI and the Justice Department have gone rogue in that they are not uniformly applying the Rule of Law by their targeting of opponents to  Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, while allowing violations of the laws by their supporters.

Not only are their actions despicable, but the words they utilize to justify their actions are contemptible. In a new article by Jonathan Turley, “When the FBI Attacks Critics as “Conspiracy Theorists,” It’s Time to Reform the Bureau”, he highlights the reasons that the FBI needs to be reformed. I believe that this is not only a problem of the FBI but also the Justice Department, and more than reform is needed. The FBI and the Justice Department should not only be reformed but also reconstituted. These FBI and Justice Department weaponization has not been limited to the last several years but has occurred in the last decade. A decade of malfeasance needs more than reform; it needs to be reconstituted to ensure that this malfeasance does not occur in the future.

The current leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department needs to retire, resign, or be removed from office. The FBI and the Justice Department needs a new organizational structure with different laws, regulations, rules, and procedures to prevent this malfeasance. Civil and Criminal laws need to be passed that will hold individuals in the FBI and the Justice Department accountable for their malfeasance, and an Independent Inspector General needs to be appointed to root out malfeasance. An Independent Prosecutor should be appointed when the Independent Inspector General uncovers possible malfeasance, for the Justice Department should not be responsible for the prosecution of its own Justice Department employees (i.e., Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) (which, in Latin, literally means "no-one is judge in his own cause") is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest).

Alas, the current Democrat Party Leaders like the way the current FBI and the Justice Department operate, as they have been the beneficiaries of this malfeasance. This is yet another example of how the Democrat Party puts its interests above the American people’s interests. It is also another reason why the American people should elect Republicans to Congress and the Presidency who are committed to reforming the FBI and the Justice Department.

01/23/23 Report the Narrative

In the movie, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, near the end of the movie, after the truth of the person who shot Liberty Valance is revealed by Ransom Stoddard, the newspaper editor Maxwell Scott tosses the interview notes into a stove, which are incinerated with the following dialog:

“Ransom Stoddard: You're not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

Today, the "Mainstream Media" seem to have adopted the same approach as Maxwell Scott, i.e., “This is modern America, when the narrative becomes fact, report the narrative”. It is also unfortunately true that the Mainstream Media is creating the narrative regardless of the facts. A good story appears to be more important than an accurate story, and often a good story is what they believe will advance their political predilections. The Mainstream Media will also pick and choose what stories to report, and in their rush to report these stories, they often get the facts wrong. They also will not report on a story that does not support or contravenes their narrative. Even when the story facts come to light, they will disregard the facts and continue to print the narrative, and they will never admit that they got the facts wrong.

Thus, we have an ill-informed public that believes the narrative rather than the facts. Is it any wonder that Americans vote for politicians that push the narrative rather than deal with the facts? We should all remember that narratives make for bad policy, and these narrative policies are doomed to failure as they do not deal with facts.

01/22/23 Jesus Was a Refugee

In an advertisement by He Gets Us, they point out that Jesus was a refugee. This is most certainly true, as a refugee is an exile who flees for safety. When learning of the birth of a new King of the Jews, King Herod became enraged and threatened by a new potential ruler and ordered all males two years old or younger to be killed. With Herod’s henchmen bearing down on Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary fled with their young child to Egypt. Imagine the circumstances. Two young parents grab their toddler and whatever they can carry on their backs and flee the country. There was no safety for them in their homeland, so the only option was to seek foreign soil.

Yet, the subtle message of this advertisement through the imagery they present is that the people migrating across our southern border are refugees. This is most certainly not true, as most of them are not migrating for safety reasons but for economic reasons. America has always had a proud history of admitting refugees, and refugee status is still a valid reason for immigrating to America. We have also had a history of allowing immigration for economic reasons, especially when land was plentiful and opportunity abounded in America. It is only in the last century that we have restricted immigration for economic reasons, and only because land and opportunity became scarcer in America. Yet we still do allow immigration for economic reasons, but only through an orderly process of approval.

The illegal immigration that is occurring on our southern border is not an orderly process, nor is it approved. Most of these illegal immigrants are not refugees but are immigrating for other reasons. As such, they are illegal immigrants and should be treated as such.

Let us continue to admit refugees and lets us continue to admit economic immigrants through an orderly process of approval. Let us not continue to admit illegal immigrants, as they have no right to immigration under our laws. Illegal immigrants also have no moral right to immigrate as they please, as this is the seed of the destruction of a nation. As President Ronald Reagan has said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” Therefore, do not confuse the status of these illegal immigrants as refugees. They are not refugees, and they should not be thought of or treated as refugees.

He Gets Us should not be proud of this advertisement, as it twists the story and meaning of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ migration for a political agenda purpose. No Christian or Jew should ever twist the Bible for political agenda purposes, for that denigrates the meaning of the Bible stories in directing us in how to live a moral and ethical life.

01/21/23 Wokeness Has Gone Too Far

In an amazing speech by Konstantin Kisin, speaking at the Oxford Union debate on the motion “This House Believes Wokeness Has Gone Too Far”, he has taken dead aim on “Wokeness”. After making a couple of salient points using Global Climate Change as an example of wokeness not being useful in solving this problem, he concludes by saying:

“The only thing that wokeness has offer in exchange Is to brainwash bright young minds like you to believe that you are victims. To believe that you have no agency. To believe what you must do to improve the world is to complain, is to protest, is to throw soup on paintings. And we on this side of the house are not on this side of the house because we do not wish to improve the world. We sit on this side of the house because we know the way to improve the world is to work, is to create, it is to build. And the problem with woke culture is that it has trained too many young minds like yours to forget about that.”

This nearly nine-minute speech is worth every second of your time. I would encourage all to review and think about what he said.

01/20/23 Toxic Ideology

Western Europe has discovered a new excuse to encroach upon the Natural Rights of its populace. This excuse has the surface appearance of being beneficial to its populace, but its consequences are destructive to a free society. This excuse is for the elimination of ‘Toxic Ideology’ by the suppression and prosecution of ‘hate speech’. Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences laws are being passed in Western Europe, and people are being prosecuted and convicted for violations of these laws.

These laws have the effect of prohibiting the free speech of individuals that disagree with the official policy positions of the government. And, as usual, these laws are mostly targeted at the right wing of "The Political Spectrum" while only rarely being enforced against the left wing.

Europe’s ‘anti-hate’ laws and arrests are a warning for free speech in America, as House Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced a bill that is a prime example of anti-hate speech and Toxic Ideology legislation. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “House Bill Would Criminalize Social Media Postings Supporting “White Supremacy” or “Replacement Theory”:

“The anti-free speech movement in the United States continues to grow with alarming speed among writers, journalists, academics, and most importantly Democratic members of Congress. Members now openly call for censorship and the manipulation of what citizens see and read. Yet, even in this environment, a recent proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Tx.) is a menacing standout. Jackson has introduced a bill that is an almost impenetrable word salad of convoluted provisions. However, what is clear (perhaps the only clear thing) is that the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023” would gut the First Amendment and create effective thought crimes. The bill is not going to pass. However, the anti-free speech elements of the bill are deeply disturbing because they reflect successful efforts at speech criminalization in other countries.”

While this legislation will not be considered nor passed by the House of Representatives, we know that the Democrats are relentless in the pursuit of their goals. They, therefore, can be expected to try to slip in much of these anti-hate speech goals in other legislation. Consequently, all freedom-loving people should be alert and oppose these anti-hate speech goals, for as Edmund Burke has said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

As with all such matters of determining what is or isn’t covered in discriminatory legislation, I would paraphrase the great American economist and commentator Thomas Sowell:

"The most basic question is not what is Toxic Ideology or hate speech, but who shall decide what is Toxic Ideology or hate speech?"

As Alan Dershowitz has often remarked about the “Shoe on the other foot”, what would the supporters of this legislation think about this legislation if Conservatives and Republicans decided what was Toxic Ideology or hate speech? I suspect that they would be howling about the decisions that they made and claiming that their free speech rights were being violated. Consequently, nobody’s free speech rights should be circumvented nor violated, for:

“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
 - Jordan Peterson

01/19/23 The Dirty Bakers Dozen

In America today, we have a baker’s dozen of problems that strike at the fabric and soul of American society. The continuation and non-resolution of these problems are tearing us apart and leading to the disintegration of our society. These problems are of our own making, as our actions and inactions to resolve these problems have led us to this point in American history. Much of these problems are ideologically based, as we have lost our understanding of our founding "American Ideals and Ideas", and we are groping for a new understanding of what constitutes American society. In this groping, we are transforming America, and we have forgotten that change and/or new does not necessarily mean better, as I have examined in my Article "Change and/or New".

These baker’s dozen of problems, in alphabetical order, are:

• Abortion
• Alcohol and Drug Addiction
• Family and Faith Destruction
• Non-Judgmentalism
• Open Borders
• Political Correctness, Wokism, and DEI
• Politicization of Everything
• Public Education
• Public Safety
• Sexuality
• Tribalism
• Victimhood
• Weaponization of Government

My new Article, “The Dirty Bakers Dozen”, examine these baker’s dozen of problems and their impact on America. Under our current bitter partisanship, we can expect little resolution to these problems as each side has different motivations and approaches for the solution to these problems. It is, therefore, up to the American people to become cognizant of the problems and elect leaders that will solve these problems. Otherwise, we can expect that these problems will continue to tear us apart and lead to the disintegration of our society.

01/18/23 It is Not Possible

Many Progressives/Leftists advocate for changes or new approaches to our governance, economy, or societial affairs. As I have written in my Article, “Change and/or New”, such changes and/or new do not necessarily mean good and/or better. Oftentimes, when they achieve changes and/or new, it does not meet their expectations or is fraught with failure. They then often respond that the change and/or new was not done rightly nor fully and that if it had been done rightly or fully, it would have been successful.

These failures mostly occur when the change and/or new is a big-ticket item, such as a change of governance, economic systems, or societal attitudes. History has shown that big-ticket changes and/or new are doomed to failure unless the hearts and minds of the populace have changed to support the changes and/or new. History has also shown that any change and/or new that runs contrary to human nature or has economic fallacies will result in the failure of the changes and/or new. Communism, Socialism (in any of its various forms), Dictatorships, Monarchies, Aristocracies, and Oligarchies have all ignored human nature or have had economic fallacies as their basis—and they have all failed.

Failure is inevitable whenever human nature or economic fallacies are ignored or disregarded. Therefore, whenever anyone makes an excuse for the failure of the change and/or new that it was because it was not done rightly or fully, you can truthfully assert that:

“It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.”
 - Mark Dawson

01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial Discretion is when a prosecutor has the power to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime and which criminal charges to file. This is a rather broad power that also gives prosecutors the authority to enter into plea bargains with a defendant, which can result in the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge or receiving a lesser sentence for pleading guilty to the original charge.

Prosecutorial Discretion was meant to deal with individual offenders based on the circumstances of their offenses. It was never meant to be applied to classes of people or the selective disregard of laws that the prosecutor disagrees with. This is not how the Rule of Law functions in society. Indeed, it is the Rule of Man rather than the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Man is the antithesis to our "American Ideals and Ideas". If this continues, it portents a collapse of our society into lawlessness. As a result, this misuse of Prosecutorial Discretion has had a deleteriously impacted on American society and has detrimentally impacted our Liberties and Freedoms.

This Rule of Man extends up to the President of the United States, as he often issues Executive Orders to apply Prosecutorial Discretion to whole classes of people or to ignore or circumvent the laws that he disagrees with. He has also issued Executive Orders that institute rules and/or regulations that go beyond what the law allows. In this, he is instituting an assault on our Constitution by ignoring the Separation of Powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of our government.

As such, all such persons that utilize Prosecutorial Discretion for other than what it was intended are in dereliction of their duties and responsibilities to enforce the law, and they are also in violation of their Oath of Office to uphold the law. They, therefore, need to be removed from office and replaced by persons that will enforce and uphold the law. How this removal may be accomplished varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction by Federal, State, and Local laws. Sometimes these laws (or lack thereof) are insufficient to remove from office those persons who improperly apply Prosecutorial Discretion. In such cases, the legislatures need to create or modify the laws for their removal to ensure the Rule of Law is upheld. I do know, however, that if this is not done, then our society will deteriorate into lawlessness as it has been doing so for the last several years.

01/16/23 The Elimination of Harmful Language

Stanford University has instituted a policy for the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” that has the stated goal:

“The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.

The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code. The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways.

This website focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology.** Our “suggested alternatives” are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community.”

Such an initiative is a clear violation of the Natural Free Speech rights of students and employees of Stanford University. It is also antithetical to the goals of all centers of higher learning for the free and unfettered discovery and exchange of knowledge by all involved in higher education. We should also remember that:

“Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of Western civilization.”
 - Jordan Peterson

It is also true that the enforcement of this policy can only be achieved through threats of punishment, which bespeaks of despotism.

Harmful Language is part and parcel of human nature and cannot be eliminated by any actions except self-control by the offender. It is also true that one person’s definition of harmful language can, and is, different from another person’s definition of harmful language, which brings upon the conundrum, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is harmful language, but who shall decide what is harmful language?”

Often, the deciders of harmful language have a social or political agenda for their decisions, which further violates the Natural Rights of those they target. A much better approach is to remind all that polite and respectful speech is the most acceptable form of speech. As I have written in my article on Pearls of Wisdom, we should all Always Be Polite and Respectful and Be the Better Person in all our conduct with other persons. The proper sanction for harmful speech is the admonishment by those around the speaker for their words, and if they continue to engage in harmful speech, then they should be ostracized by all respectable persons.

One of the purposes of higher education is to mold the character of the students, which can be accomplished by the Professors admonishing harmful language and asking a student to leave class until they can regain control of their language, as well as reminding them that their conduct can influence the grades they receive. This, of course, presumes that the Professors themselves engage in polite and respectful speech, and if they should not do so, they should be admonished or ostracized by the other professors and the administrators of the centers of higher learning.

If we keep these Pearls of Wisdom in mind, then there would be no need for an “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” by any group, organization, or business and, consequently, no violations of the Natural Rights of any person.

01/15/23 My Varied Personal Avocations

I have updated my main web page to add more information about how I became more knowledgeable on the various topics that I have written about. This section, “My Varied Personal Avocations”, examines my personal interests over the years that allow me to intelligently write about these topics. As a result of My Varied Personal Avocations, I have obtained a breath of knowledge uncommon for most persons. My depth of knowledge was limited to my vocational field of computers, but I did obtain a depth of knowledge on my avocations that allows me to intelligently comment on these topics. My hope in writing my Chirps and Articles on these topics is that my readers will have a better understanding of these topics and perhaps will become interested in one or more of these topics and will discover more about these topics on their own.

01/14/23 Think Thoroughly

The "THINK" slogan was first used by Thomas J. Watson in December 1911 while managing the sales and advertising departments at the National Cash Register Company. At an uninspiring sales meeting, Watson interrupted, saying, "The trouble with every one of us is that we don't think enough. We don't get paid for working with our feet — we get paid for working with our heads". Watson then wrote THINK on the easel.

Asked later what he meant by the slogan, Watson replied, "By THINK, I mean take everything into consideration. I refuse to make the sign more specific. If a man just sees THINK, he'll find out what I mean. We're not interested in a logic course."

In 1914, Watson brought the slogan with him to the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) and its subsidiaries, all of which later became IBM. International Time Recording, one of the subsidiaries, published a magazine for employees and customers, named Time, which, in 1935, IBM would rename to THINK. IBM continues to use the slogan. THINK is also an IBM trademark; IBM named its laptop computers ThinkPads and named a line of business-oriented desktop computers ThinkCentre.

Today, many Americans do not think but feel about the issues that confront us or for the politicians that we cast our votes. Many (if not most) of today's political debates and election campaigns are about feelings. But feelings do not make for good policy. Facts, intelligence, "Reasoning", and "Rationality" should be utilized to create policy and elect candidates, with feelings being used as a supplement to thinking. The difference is that feelings are emotionally based, while thinking is reason base, and emotions are easy, while thinking is hard.

Many times, in thinking about something, we often only consider the issue at hand and often do not consider the wider or deeper issues that result from our concluding thoughts on an issue. We also often do not rethink an issue but resort to our previous thoughts about an issue, which were not wider or deeper thoughts to begin with. Consequently, it is important that we think through an issue and consider the wider and deeper impacts of our concluding thoughts on an issue.

In all of this, I am reminded of a scene from the movie Inherit the Wind (1960), in which the defense attorney, Drummond, is questioning the witness Brady about his thoughts on a topic:

DRUMMOND What do you think?
BRADY (Floundering) I do not think about things that . . . I do not think about!
DRUMMOND Do you ever think about things that you do think about?

We, therefore, need to think thoroughly about things that we think about before we reach our concluding thoughts, and these concluding thoughts need to be reasoned based for them to be rational and prudent.

Always remember that the only good way to create public policy is through an open and honest discussion of the issues based on facts, intelligence, and reasoning, and such discussions should be conducted with proper "Dialog & Debate". All sides of an issue should be heard and debated to ensure that the best public policy is implemented. To do so otherwise often creates more problems than it solves. Doing so also reduces the “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, as discussed in another article of mine.

Therefore, when you think, you should always think thoroughly. Otherwise, your thoughts will lead you astray, and you will reach an improper conclusion.

01/13/23 How's that "Build Back Better" Fiscal Policy Agenda Working?

Spencer Brown’s new article, “Build Back Broker: Wall Street Loses $18T in Worst Year for Stocks Since 2008”, reveals how truly dreadful the economy of 2022 was:

“From the beginning of 2022 until now, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than eight percent. The S&P 500 lost nearly 20 percent over the year. Since January, the Nasdaq ended things down more than 33 percent. That puts all three indices at their worst year-end since 2008.”

All Americans should read this article and weep about how destructive the Biden Administration's fiscal policies were for our economy. They should also be ashamed of their voting in the last election for the Democrat candidates that supported the Biden Administrations' fiscal policies. The question then becomes, as Mr. Brown put it:

“Say, how's that "build back better" policy agenda working?”

I think that all intelligent, rational, and reasonable persons can agree it is not working out well for the American economy and, thus, not working out well for the American people. Much of this is because the Biden Administration is staffed by unmeritorious leadership, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/01/23 Absolutist, Despotic, and Unmeritorious Leadership. Their absolutist and despotic approach to government, as I have examined in the aforementioned Chirp, does not allow them to recognize nor correct their destructive fiscal policies that have so negatively impacted our economy.

So, I would warn the American people to ‘buckle up’ and be prepared for a bumpy economy, as we can expect more negative impacts on our economy for the next few years. Only by a sweeping out of power the Democrats in Congress and the White House can we right our economic course and install sanity to our fiscal policies.

01/12/23 The Right Stuff

Governor Ron DeSantis delivered his second inaugural address on January 3, 2023, from the steps of the Florida Historic Capitol in Tallahassee. In his address to Floridians, Governor DeSantis highlighted the progress that Florida has made to improve the lives of its residents as a result of his administration priorities, including guaranteeing access to high-quality education, creating a robust economy that continues to grow faster than the nation’s, providing access to resources for those recovering from hurricanes, and investing record funding into the Everglades and Florida’s critical water resources. In concluding his speech, Governor DeSantis reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring his state remains the Free State of Florida and set priorities for his second term in office. The full transcript of his second inaugural address is at the webpage “Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Second Inaugural Address”.

Many of you know that I enjoy and appreciate a great speech that espouses our "American Ideals and Ideas". This is such a speech! It is a speech that demonstrates that Ron DeSantis has the right stuff to be President of the United States. I, therefore, even at this early stage, support the candidacy of Ron DeSantis for President of the United States in 2024.

01/11/23 Biden’s Classified Information SNAFU

With the recent revelation that Joe Biden had classified information in his personal possession at the end and after he was Vice-President, the comparisons to Donald Trump having classified information in his personal possession at the end and after he was President are inevitable. It is also inevitable that the defenses, excuses, and rationalizations for Joe Biden’s actions by the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, along with the Mainstream Media, were almost immediate. And, as usual, these defenses, excuses, and rationalizations are based on the ignorance of the law regarding the handling of classified information.

Whenever you hear someone speaking about classified information or the handling of classified information, you should always keep in mind that those who know what they are talking about rarely talk, and those who talk rarely know what they are talking about. This is because until you have worked in a classified environment, it is impossible to understand the intricacies of the handling of classified information. I know this for a fact, as I am one of those people who rarely talk, as I spent almost ten years in a classified job and handled thousands of pieces of classified information.

In my article on “Classified Information”, I provided an explanation of the handling of classified information. I did so for the purpose of providing a foundation for understanding the handling of classified information to those not initiated into the world of classified information. This article should provide you with sufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of what others are saying when discussing possible breaches in the handling of classified information.

In the case of President Trump's possible mishandling of classified information, there is sufficient reasoning to believe that there was no breach in the handling of classified information for, as the President and only the President, has unlimited authority to classify and declassify information and retain Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan states, "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States'" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court's majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant." Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will." In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president's authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

As Joe Biden was Vice-President at the time of his alleged mishandling of classified information, he had no power nor authority to "classify and declassify at will." A President may not delegate this authority to classify and declassify at will to any other person, as this power and authority only exist in the President himself as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Consequently, Joe Biden, as Vice-President, had no power or authority to declassify any classified information in his possession.

Therefore, Joe Biden, when he was Vice-President and until he became President, breached the handling of classified information when he removed it from a secure location, transported it to another location through unsecured means, and stored it in an unsecured location. In this, he committed a criminal action under the laws of the United States regarding the handling of classified information.

Whether he can be prosecuted for these criminal actions while he is President is an unresolved constitutional question. He can, however, be charged with criminal actions while President, with these charges being held in abeyance until after he leaves the Presidency. He also has the power to pardon these offenses by himself while he is President. Such a pardon would provoke a constitutional crisis, as it would allow a President to commit crimes and abuse their powers with no recourse under the law. We could then have a runaway presidency, in which a President would be free to undertake any actions without fear of future legal repercussions to themselves.

If no action is taken against Joe Biden’s breach in the handling of classified information, and continued action is taken against Donald Trump for his alleged breach in the handling of classified information, it raises the question of Equal Justice under the Law and bespeaks of The Weaponization of Government under the Biden Administration.

This is another good example of the mess that President Biden has made for himself and America. But then again, as President Obama has stated, “don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up”. This is another in a long list of things that President Biden has “f**k things up” in America, and we can only hope that we will sufficiently survive his administration until a worthy Republican is elected President to straighten things out.

01/10/23 Biden’s Personal Lies

GOP Representative-Elect George Santos' life just got even more interesting on Wednesday, December 28, 2022, when prosecutors on Long Island announced that they were investigating the Republican after he confirmed allegations that he lied about his credentials and past employment. One wonders if these same prosecutors will be investigating Joe Biden for his lies about his credentials and past employment. To wit, some of Joe Biden’s personal lies are:

• Arrested in civil rights march
• Arrested meeting Mandela
• Attended Delaware State University (a Historically Black College or University)
• Attended Temple services on a Sunday
• Called Milosevic a “war criminal” to his face
• Comes from a family of coal miners
• Criticized George W. Bush to his face
• Dead Amtrak worker awarded him for riding 1.8 million miles
• Drunk driver killed his wife & daughter
• Graduated with 3 degrees
• Had a job at a timber company
• Hiked the Himalayas with President Xi of China
• His dad was an early gay marriage advocate
• His helicopter in Afghanistan was “forced down”
• His uncle won a Purple Heart
• Hit a 368’ homer in a baseball game
• Met Parkland families as Vice President
• No knowledge of Hunter's foreign business dealings
• Not “the big guy”
• The oil industry somehow gave him cancer
• Once a truck driver
• Overheard mass shooting
• Participated in sit-ins during the civil rights movement
• Pinned medal on a Navy captain who was just a kid
• Raised in a Puerto Rican community
• Received full-ride scholarship
• Son killed in Iraq
• Spoke to the inventor of insulin (despite his not being born yet)
• Star football player
• Survived a fire
• Top of his class in college
• Turned down an offer from the Naval Academy
• Was once a coal miner
• Was shot at in Iraq
• Won a fight against a drug dealer named Cornpop
• Worked as a college professor
• Worked as a lifeguard

The retractions, corrections, and clarifications that his supporters make for these lies are of little consequence, as the only thing that matters is the actual words he spoke, for they reveal the true character of Joe Biden. He also has a tendency to repeat these lies even after the truth has been revealed, which is an even greater revelation of his true character and the character of the people who would support his lies.

The personal aggrandization lies by George Santos and Joe Biden are not exaggerations nor embellishments, but outright lies that bespeak of character flaws that make a person unfit for leadership of a Liberty and Freedom-loving people. Facts and truths are necessary for the American people to make a judgment about the leadership characteristics and moral character of a candidate for whom they should vote in elections. Indeed, anyone who propagates personal lies about themselves does not wish to be a leader but to be a ruler, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

As writer Jonah Goldberg tweeted, "I think Santos is a total embarrassment and has no place in public life. But a lot of folks on this site dinging him seem to have forgotten how much both the current president and his predecessor ‘embellished’ about their accomplishments”, a sentiment with which I agree. The question is, what can we do about those persons who lied to get elected? Removing them from office is to negate the will of the electorate who voted for them, and deciding what lies are worthy of removal is a task that is beyond the wisdom of most people. The best we can hope for is that a sense of shame will lead them to resign from their office. Alas, a sense of shame does not seem to be present in many Americans, especially politicians. Therefore, as U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated, “Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant”, and the revelations of these lies will lead voters to not elect these shameful politicians in the next election. Unfortunately, today’s "Mainstream Media" has little interest in reporting the character flows of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, but much interest in reporting the character flaws of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. This bias in reporting skewers the elections to their preferred (Democrat and Progressive) candidates, which makes it difficult for the electorate to determine the character flaws of all candidates.

The hypocrisy of politicians who point out the beam in the eyes of their opponents without recognizing the mote in the eyes of their supporters is also shameful. The bitter partisanship that exists in America today will not allow them to do the right thing as it could cause a diminishment of their power, which bespeaks of power being the prime factor in their motivations. An attitude that is indicative of their belief that what is best for their party is best for America rather than an attitude of what is best for America is best for their party.

Therefore, as I have spoken in my Chirp on “12/18/22 Legislating Virtue”, Character, Morality, Virtue, and Religion are essential for Americans to retain and practice our "American Ideals and Ideas" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" to persevere. Consequently, there should be more public discussion and education on the meaning and importance of Character, Morality, Virtue, and Religion in governmental affairs and the insistence that all elected and public officials be of good character and practice Virtue in the conduct of their public duties. This also requires that the American electorate should insist on these traits for whomever they would cast their ballots for.

01/09/23 Disqualify Them All

The recent revelations that the FBI, the Justice Department, and possibly the members of the Intelligence Service were involved in the censuring of Twitter users require drastic actions to remedy this assault on our Constitutional Right to free speech. There are also allegations, with some veracity, that the government was also involved with other Social Media companies in the censuring of their users. Congress must thoroughly investigate the facts of this matter, and if they are true, then these governmental actions are a violation of our Constitutional Rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not solicit nor be involved in any private party’s actions in the exercise of any Constitutional Rights of a person (i.e., the legal doctrine that private entities cannot do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself). As such, the recent revelations that the government and Twitter cooperated with each other in restricting Twitter users' Free Speech rights is an assault on our Constitutional Rights by these government actors. All government actors have an affirmative duty to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of a person are protected and that any infringement of these rights is subject to criminal and civil prosecutions of the offenders for the violations of these rights.

It is also necessary that those governmental persons involved in this censorship be removed from office, as they have violated their Oath of Office to “… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” by their violations of our Constitutional Rights. Not only should they be removed from office, but they must incur the “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” and have their pensions and benefits revoked as a warning to other government employees to not engage in unconstitutional actions.

The defense that they were merely “following orders” of their superiors is no defense, as no order to violate our Constitution Rights has any legal merit. They should have refused to obey these orders and resigned if necessary, or at the very minimum, they should have reported these orders to the proper Congressional oversight committees. Unfortunately, these violations of our Constitutional Rights were ordained by some of the highest Executive Officers who would be responsible for prosecuting or removing these governmental employees who violated our Constitutional Rights. The principle of natural justice, “Nemo judex in causa sua” (or “Nemo judex in sua causa”) (which, in Latin, literally means "no one is judge in his own cause"), is that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In many jurisdictions, the rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there was no bias (i.e., "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done"). Therefore, the highest Executive Officers involved in this censoring cannot be allowed to adjudge their own involvement. Consequently, they, themselves, should not be involved in the determination of the possible violations of our Constitutional Rights, and they must also be removed and disqualified from future office for any participation they had in these offenses to our Constitutional Rights.

Alas, the only means to accomplish this removal and disqualification is for the House of Representatives to impeach these persons and for the Senate to convict and remove and disqualify them from office. Given the bitter partisanship of Congress and the partisanship of their violations of our Constitutional Rights, I do not expect this to happen. Consequently, we have an Executive Branch that thinks it can violate our Constitutional Rights with impunity.

It is a sad state of affairs in America when our leadership in the Legislative and the Executive Branches cannot fulfill their duties and obligations of office to “… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. We, therefore, as Americans, must remember the wisdom of the Declaration of Independence, which states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If the Legislative and the Executive Branches of our government cannot preserve our rights, then we, as Americans, have the moral duty to alter or abolish the government to reinstitute our Constitutional Rights. Let us hope that it does not come to this, but let us also prepare ourselves for this to happen if our Constitutional Rights continue to be violated by our government.

01/08/23 The Coup

In a new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Coup We Never Knew”, he bemoans that many of the recent changes that we have seen in America have occurred without the proper democratic authorizations. He asks a very important question; “Did someone or something seize control of the United States?” He then goes on to list the significant changes that have occurred in the last several years in America that have occurred without any discussions, debates, or democratic authorizations. As Mr. Hanson finished his inventory of wrongs, he stated that “We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare of a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup, we never knew.”

The quantity and rapidity of these changes have overwhelmed the ability for Judicial review of the constitutionality of these changes. Much of these changes have been accomplished by the Executive branches at all levels of government, as well as by lower levels of executive authorities. It has also become all too common for those that are responsible for enforcing the laws to ignore, disregard, or convolute those laws they do not agree with or dislike. Much of this has occurred because of supine Legislative branches unable or unwilling to challenge these changes or that they are in agreement with these changes but do not wish to institute these changes through the normal legislative processes, as they are uncertain if the electorate would agree with these changes. These changes that occur without democratic authorizations are much more of an insurrection than the January 06, 2020 “Insurrection” was, and they are coming from within the government and by elected officials. They are most certainly in violation of their Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, as change without the normal legislative process is an assault on our Constitution.

Much of this change comes from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and it is the ultimate example of them believing that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and that their policies are what is best for all Americans. As such, they believe that they can implement these policies without undergoing the normal legislative process of change as it is for the best for all Americans. In this, they are guilty of hubris, as they assume that the changes they institute are always for the good without examining the possible problems of the change, as I have written in my Article, "Change and/or New".

They are also (rightfully) concerned that if these changes undergo the scrutiny of the normal legislative process, they may not be able to achieve their goals, as the American people may not accept these changes after they are scrutinized. Their attitude also bespeaks of a disposition to rule rather than lead, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". A rulership that often requires the imposition of despotism to achieve its agenda and goals. It also bespeaks of their lack of faith in the democratic process, as they wish to avoid the democratic process to achieve their political agendas and policy goals.

As a result, all these changes and attitudes have deleteriously impacted American society and detrimentally impacted our Liberties and Freedoms. This is not the way that a Democratic-Republic functions, nor is it the implementation of the Rule of Law in society. Indeed, it is the Rule of Man rather than the Rule of Law. Such Rule of Man is the antithesis to our "American Ideals and Ideas", and if it continues, it portends the end of our American experiment of self-governance and “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

01/07/23 The Beginning of the End of the Oligarchy

With the election of Rep. Kevin McCarthy as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the beginning of the end to the Congressional Oligarchy has started. But it is only the beginning of the end, and more work remains to be done to ensure that the Congressional Oligarchy does not regain control. The changes wrought by the Republican dissidents need to be expanded and propagated throughout the functioning of the House of Representatives to ensure that Democracy, rather than Oligarchy, is the normal process within the House.

Those that bemoaned the ‘fractiousness’, the ‘unruliness’, the ‘discord’, the ‘disunity’, the ‘debacle’, and the other adjectives that were utilized to describe this dissidence and rebelliousness were the supporters of the Oligarchy and, as such, they were bemoaning Democracy. They are those that wish to be rulers rather than leaders in the House of Representatives, as I have explained in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". We should all be wary of these Congresspersons, as they may not have fully accepted the end of the Congressional Oligarchy, and they may seek to reinstitute it. Such reinstitution should not be allowed to happen, even in the smallest part, as in Congress, the small often grows into the large, especially when power is involved.

Therefore, let us continue down this path to more Democracy in the House of Representatives, and let us next elect a Senate that will also end their Oligarchy, which would then reinstitute the Democratic process throughout Congress. Such a reinstitution of the Democratic process throughout Congress is necessary if we are to retain our "American Ideals and Ideas", which are essential to the preservation of our Liberties and Freedoms.

01/06/23 A Bitter Partisanship

During the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, commented about our divisions. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly, not a majority in support of the American Revolution. These same divisions could be said for the American people's sympathizes about slavery and the Civil War and their sentiments prior to our entrance into World War II. This could also be said of the beginnings of the Civil Rights movement, as it was a minority effort that finally convinced most Americans as to the rightness of their cause.

Should we not have fought the American Revolution, the Civil War, entered World War II, or brought about Civil Rights as they did not have majority support? Absolutely not – as revolutions, wars, and human rights movements are often initiated by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority.

Today, in America, we are involved in a struggle for the soul of our nation. The forces of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are committed to fundamentally transforming America into their vision of a utopian nation, while the Conservatives and (some) Republican Party Leaders are committed to our founding American Ideals and Ideas, as I have examined in my article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". This struggle cannot engender compromises as each vision have diametric foundations. We can be one or the other, but it is not possible to be both or a mixture, as these foundations conflict with each other.

Therefore, until this dichotomy is resolved, we can expect more bitter partisanship in America. A bitter partisanship that has contributed to the path of destruction that we are on, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “01/02/23 Tyranny and A Little Rebellion”.

01/05/23 The Messiness of Democracy

Democracy can be messy at times, and it should be messy at times! Democracy allows for the Natural Rights of freedom of thought and speech, religious freedoms, press freedoms, for people to peaceably assemble, and for the people to petition their government, which are all messy. Without Democracy, we become a people that are ruled rather than led. A rule that is instituted by either authoritarianism, autarchy, despotism, dictatorialness, monarchy, oligarchy, totalitarianism, or tyranny.

The finest example of this messiness is in the current election for the Speaker of the House of Representatives. While the Republicans have nominal control of the House (222 to 212, with 1 vacant seat), they are not in control of their own caucus. A group of dissentient House Republicans, unsatisfied with the proposed leadership, have blocked the election of Rep. Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker of the House. Their dissent is that in these troubled times, the American people require strong, effective leadership to counter the Democrat Party Leaders, the Biden Administration, and Progressives/Leftists from advancing their agenda.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy has long been an accommodator and broker of deals with the Democrats to marginally advance the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders agenda. He has also been skilled in playing the game of political jockeying to obtain power and control over the Republican caucus. The dissentient House Republicans believe that it is time to vigorously fight back against Democrat Party Leaders and the Biden Administration to right the course of America. These dissentient House Republicans do not believe that Kevin McCarthy is the proper person to lead this fight, as he is the ultimate representation of the oligarchic structure of Congress, as I have written in my Chirps that I coalesced into my article “Congressional Oligarchy”.

The arguments in favor of Kevin McCarthy are all about process and power in the House of Representatives. If someone has the power to control the process, then they have control over the activities of the House. They get to decide what and what not, when if whenever, who and who not, and other decisions as to the processes in the House. These decisions are rarely democratic (as could be seen by Speaker Pelosi’s autocratic rule), and they often are parochial and self-centered, and sometimes egocentric. We elect our Congresspersons to lead and not to follow, and all our Congresspersons should be leaders in Congress and not followers. As such, they should all be involved in the process and decision-making of what occurs in the House. This is not currently how the House works, as the Congressional Oligarchy controls the functioning of the House processes.

The dissentient House Republicans’ fight, therefore, is a fight against the Congressional Oligarchy. This is a fight that needs to be won if we are to replace this Oligarchy with Democracy. This is and will be a messy fight. Do not let the messiness distract you nor sap your will to engage in this fight, as the goal is to reinstitute democracy in the House of Representatives. A goal that is worthy of a messy fight! They are fighting for the will of the electorate to be democratically represented in the functioning of Congress rather than the will of the oligarchy to rule in Congress.

01/04/23 Tyranny of the Majority or the Minority

Many of the objections to what I have Chipped and written about in my articles on governmental actions is that these actions are what most Americans support. However, our Constitution was not only for the purposes of a majoritarian rule but even more so for the purpose of the protection of minority rights, and especially for the preservation of our “American Ideals and Ideas” and the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Consequently, majoritarian nor minoritarian rule is never acceptable if it contravenes the “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” of majorities or minorities under our Constitution.

This is an essential principle that many of us have forgotten or never knew that is a foundation for “A Just Government and a Just Society” and “A Civil Society”. The violation of this principle is especially harmful when politicians and activists have forgotten or never knew this essential principle. Many times, they know this principle, but in their quest to achieve a social policy or to accrue more power unto themselves, they ignore or discard this principle of minority rights. Sometimes, these politicians and activists are in the minority but utilize their political clout to impose their minority views upon the majority. These two concepts are known as the Tyranny of the Minority and the Tyranny of the Majority. Neither tyranny is acceptable under our Constitution, as it is tyranny, no matter if it comes from the majority or the minority.

In our rush to solve (perceived) problems, we often institute change or new for what we believe is for the better, and often this is accomplished through the utilization of the Tyranny of the Minority or the Tyranny of the Majority. In my recently updated Article, “Change and/or New”, I point out that calls for change or new rings throughout the land, but we must be cautious about change and new as it often can have negative impacts and consequences to our Liberties and Freedoms and our Natural Rights.

The tyranny of the Majority or of the Minority often leads to ill-fated consequences and is often accompanied by an assault on our Liberties and Freedoms, or our Natural Rights. Consequently, we run the risk of gliding down the slippery slope to the diminution of our Natural Rights and/or the subsequent loss of our Liberties and Freedoms whenever either of these tyrannies prevails.

01/03/23 Elections and Other Government Corruption Instituted

As Rob Natelson writes in his article, “Congress’s new attack on democracy & the Constitution”, the latest Omnibus spending bill of 2022 is an assault upon our Constitution:

“Lying deep within Congress’s inflated and inflationary 4,155-page spending package is an attack on both democracy and the Constitution. Congress calls this nasty piece of work the “Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022.”

The mainstream media would have you believe this measure merely updates an archaic law and forestalls another Jan. 6-style Capitol riot. They are misleading you.

In fact, this measure cripples state lawmakers’ ability to address defective presidential elections. It also tries to re-write the Constitution. The “Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act” will foster confusion, injustice, lawsuits, and corruption—or all four.”

This is not the only assault upon our Constitution contained within this bill. This bill contains numerous measures that infringe upon the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans, most especially on our Bill of Rights amendments. It also allocates spending on pork barrel programs, as well as earmark spending on financial grants that are not within the federal government's enumerated powers under the Constitution. As such, this is an accrual of federal powers and spending not granted by the Constitution.

So, it has been for all the Omnibus Spending Bills that have passed Congress in the last several decades. This procedure is a means for the Federal Government to accomplish spending and policy initiatives that would not pass under the light of the day of normal Congressional legislative procedures. As U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated, “Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant” this procedure gives no opportunity for critics to challenge and disinfect these items, as they are packed into a very large bill that is then rushed to a passage and cannot be disinfected by opponents due to volume and time constraints. This is all done under the threat of a government shutdown if the Omnibus Spending Bills are not passed. This is another example of politicians stoking fear to accomplish what they could not achieve under the light of day. To this, I would say if Congress cannot operate under normal legislative procedures to meet its duties and responsibilities, then a government shutdown may be for the best to force them to do their job properly.

These assaults on our Constitution under the Omnibus Spending Bills are a threat to our Liberties and Freedoms, and so it is necessary to end Omnibus spending bills to retain our Constitutional Rights and restrict Congress to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. This, along with the Oligarchy the Congress has instituted, as I have Article on “Congressional Oligarchy”, is another reason that Congress must be reformed or replaced, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/02/23 Tyranny and A Little Rebellion”.

As I have written in my aforementioned Article on the Congressional Oligarchy, in Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament of April 20, 1653, he had some choice words about the current state of Parliament:

“Ye are a factious crew, and enemies of all good government…Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there not one vice you do not possess?...Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God…Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You [who] were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed are yourselves become the greatest grievance…Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves, be gone!...In the name of God, go!”

If Cromwell were here today to speak the same words to our Congress, which has become everything he said about the rump Parliament and worse, as every word he spoke also rings true about the Congress of the United States. I, therefore, say to Congress that if they do not end their Oligarchy and the Omnibus Spending Bills, then “In the name of God, go!” and end your plague upon America.

01/02/23 Tyranny and A Little Rebellion

As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?’
Franklin - ‘A Republic, if you can keep it.’

Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, remarked:

“Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
  - Thomas Jefferson

On Jan. 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” During that address, he said:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
- Abraham Lincoln

The events of the last two years in America under the Biden Administration have given truth to these statements. For we have not kept our republic, we are being perverted into tyranny, and it is by suicide that we are accomplishing our end. It is by a long list of abuses, corruptions, incompetencies, dissemblings, mendaciousness, and despotism by our leaders that we have quickly advanced down the road to our destruction. Our economy is faltering, wanton crime is commonplace, our social fabric is being ripped apart, licentiousness is de rigueur, and our belief in ourselves as a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom, Natural Rights, and the Rule of Law has dissipated. All of this has been exacerbated by the diminishment of faith, family, and community in our society.

All is not lost, but it can easily be lost if we do not recognize the path of destruction that we are on and take corrective actions. Another great awakening of the American people to our founding principles is required to avert this destruction. Who will be the Thomas Paine to raise the Common Sense amongst us that will shake us up from our slumber and force a great awakening? I fear that no one person can do this, but that a new group of founding fathers will be needed to raise the trumpet call of action to a rebirth of Liberty and Freedom, Natural Rights, and the Rule of Law in America.

I am deeply concerned that given the pervasiveness and entrenchment of these forces of destruction in our society, it may not be possible to dislodge them through normal political processes. Too much of our self-interest is bounded into government largess and governmental actions to easily break these chains of government. But, like Marley’s ghost in Dicken’s Christmas Carol, we wear the chains we forged in life, we made them link by link and yard by yard; and we girded them on of our own free will, and of our own free will we wore them. We must, therefore, of our own free will, break free from these chains of government, and regain our founding principles.

The lack of a proper civics education of most Americans makes this task of dislodgement more difficult. We are also in a race with time, as by the time the American people awake from their slumber, it may be too late to take normal corrective actions. Consequently, it may be necessary for those Americans that are cognizant of the seriousness of these problems to take corrective actions outside the scope of the normal political processes. We should all be wary of doing so, as these abnormal political processes could endanger our Liberties and Freedoms, but our Liberties and Freedoms are already endangered by our current path of destruction.

However, if it becomes necessary to take these abnormal corrective actions, I can take comfort in the words of wisdom of the author of The Declaration of Independence:

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
  - Thomas Jefferson

01/01/23 Absolutist, Despotic, and Unmeritorious Leadership

America was founded on the principles of detestation of absolutism—the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government, abhorrence to despotism—dominance through threat of punishment and violence, and of the advantages of meritocracy—the belief that leaders should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth, birth, or identity. Today, however, these principles seem to no longer apply, especially in the Biden Administration.

Executive orders that contravene or negate laws passed by Congress, regulations that intrude on the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans, Consent Decrees as a means to implement policies not authorized by Congress, and the involvement of government in actions that contradict our Constitutional Rights of Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, a Free Press, Religious Freedoms, and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms are commonplace in the Biden Administration. These actions bespeak of an attitude of absolutism in the Biden Administration, and the attempts of the Biden Administration to demonize their opponents or to intimidate or coerce their opponents to restrict their words and deeds bespeak of despotism. Their intolerance to any and all opinions and actions that they do not concur with, along with their condonation of the words and deeds of their supporters, is another form of absolutism.

Their appointment of Executive Officers based on Identity Politics (most especially race and sexual orientation), Political Correctness, Wokeness, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), without their having the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their duties, is a slap on the face of meritocracy. Meritocracy in government is more than knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their duties; it is also a knowledge and commitment to our American Ideals and Ideas. Especially harmful are those Executive Officers that do not have this understanding nor a commitment to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. This lack of meritocracy is another way to institute absolutism and despotism, as without meritocracy, the people in positions of power will accede to the impulses and capriciousness of absolutism and despotism.

Therefore, the Biden Administration is in sharp contrast to the character and purpose of the founding of America and is an assault on our Constitution. The actions of the Biden Administration start at the top, as President Biden has exhibited an absolutist and despotic nature, as well as his lack of meritoriousness leadership. If their actions continue unabated, then our Constitution is nothing but a semblance of a Democratic-Republic, but a cover for Absolutist, Despotic, and Unmeritorious Leadership.

12/31/22 In the Name of God, Go!

In Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament of April 20, 1653, he had some choice words about the current state of Parliament:

“Ye are a factious crew, and enemies of all good government…Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there not one vice you do not possess?...Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God…Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You [who] were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed are yourselves become the greatest grievance…Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves, be gone!...In the name of God, go!”

If Cromwell were here today to speak the same words to our Congress, which has become everything he said about the rump Parliament and worse, as every word he spoke also rings true about the Congress of the United States.

In the past several Chirps have dealt with the oligarchy that now exists within Congress and the negative impacts upon our society by the institution of this oligarchy. Not only is this oligarchy antithetical to what our Founding Fathers envisioned for the role of Congress—as a voice for all the American people that can be heard and acted upon—but it has been detrimental to our society. It is, therefore, time to put an end this oligarchy.

However, ending this oligarchy is easier said than done. This oligarchy is an entrenched power that will not easily relinquish power. This oligarchy has not only corrupted the role of Congress, but it has corrupted the members of Congress. A corruption that permeates not only the upper levels of the oligarchy but also the lower levels of the oligarchy who support the upper levels of this oligarchy.

The easiest means to end this oligarchy is for the lower levels of the oligarchy to no longer elect the upper levels of the oligarchy. This is unlikely to happen as the lower levels of the oligarchy are often jockeying to become the upper levels of the oligarchy. Another means is for the voters of the upper levels of the oligarchy to not reelect these upper-level oligarchs to Congress. This is also unlikely to happen, as the upper-level oligarchs deliver the pork to their electorate in exchange for their votes. The best means to end this oligarchy is for the American electorate to become aware of the importance of Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue in electing our leaders, as I have Chirped on “12/18/22 Legislating Virtue”, and vote for virtuous candidates who will end this oligarchy. Alas, the state of civic education in America is so poor that most Americans do not understand the importance of Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue, which are essential for our “American Ideals and Ideas” and our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” to persevere.

History has shown that when an oligarchy becomes entrenched, it is almost impossible to dislodge. Usually, this dislodging is a result of the collapse of a society or a dislodging by a dictatorial or tyrannical leadership. This is best exemplified by the collapse of the Greek City-States and the Roman Republic, although it has happened to many other societies throughout history.

Let us hope that the American people become aware of this Congressional Oligarchy and understand the dangers of a Congressional Oligarchy. Let us also hope that they will be resilient enough to insist on the end of this oligarchy without a societal collapse or a replacement of the oligarchy by dictatorial or tyrannical leadership. I would also say to the oligarchy in Congress, ‘In the Name of God, Go!’ before ye do more harm to America.

12/30/22 Tasks, Processes, and Systems

Many Americans focus on the task of doing their jobs, which is part of a process within their place of employment, while the many processes within the business are part of the system that a company operates to achieve its goals. It is, therefore, proper to generalize that a multiple of individual coordinated tasks is a process, while multiple coordinated processes make up a system. So, it is within all systems in our universe—both natural systems and manmade systems. Therefore, a change, failure, or destruction of a task impacts the function of the process, which then impacts the viability of the system.

We have all heard the statement ‘ignoring the forest by focusing on the trees’, while giving little thought to its deeper meaning of not considering the Tasks, Processes, and Systems impacts of proposed changes or eliminations. Whenever someone proposes any change or elimination of a task or process, it will impact the system, and any changes or eliminations of tasks or processes often have negative and unintended consequences (as per my article "The Law of Unintended Consequences") on the system if you do not consider all the impacts of the changes or eliminations.

This lack of consideration of the impacts of changes to the Tasks and Processes on the impacts to the System is prevalent in Activists and Activism, Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders for the changes that they often propose. In their zeal to improve the world as they see necessary, they have not considered the negative and unintended consequences of their proposals on the Tasks, Processes, and Systems.

This lack of consideration of the impacts often occurs by not understanding our modern technological world, as I have written in my Article, "The Basis of Our Modern Technological World". It is also a lack of understanding of The Four E’s that are essential to understanding the total costs and impacts of any engineered system developed by humanity, as I have written in my Article, "The Four E’s (Energy, Economic, End-To-End, and Environmental)".

Activists and Activism, Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders often believe that they can change tasks and processes in America and that the impacts will be absorbed with only minor repercussions to the American system. This is a fatal flaw in their reasoning, as societal changes reverberate throughout society and often have negative repercussions on individuals, groups, and all Americans. These negative repercussions not only impact our society but often redounded to our economy in a negative manner.

One of the built-in features of our Constitution was to slow things down and provide for deliberative actions by the government, as our Founding Fathers understood that mob passions often led to bad laws and infringements on our Liberties and Freedoms.

Consequently, it is important for a deliberative examination of the impacts of changes and eliminations to the tasks and processes in America on the entire American system. We should, therefore, insist that our government deliberatively examine the impacts on the tasks, processes, and system for any actions that they propose. A rush to change without deliberative examination of these impacts gives truth to the saying, ‘Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.’ Those that wish to institute change without deliberative examination of the Tasks, Processes, and System impacts are indeed fools, and we should pay no heed to fools as they endanger America and Americans.

12/29/22 They Like the Oligarchy

In my previous two Chirps, I lamented the rise of an oligarchy in Congress and the utilization of this oligarchy to ram important legislation through Congress. The question that many ask is why they perpetuate this oligarchy? The answer is—They Like It! It allows them to do things that many of the American people would object to by hiding these things within massive legislation that the lower-level members of the oligarchy and the American people cannot easily ferret out. By the time these things are discovered, the legislation has already passed, and it is very difficult for Congress to undo what they have done.

The things that they do often accrue power to themselves and the government at the expense of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. After all, as it has been truthfully said, “The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen”. This oligarchy always passes legislation that increases the size and/or powers of government at the expense of the citizen. A size and power of the government that our Founding Fathers wished to rein in by limiting the government to enumerated powers. Enumerated powers that, over the last century, we have expanded by “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning”, “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”,  “Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness”, and “The Perversion of the English Language”. This has been done with the tacit cooperation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government to expand their powers.

Little thought by this oligarchy has been given to the consequences of increased governmental powers and the impacts on our society of a big government. It is assumed that big government will operate for the benefit of Americans without examining the negative impacts on society of a big government. Almost never does this oligarchy consider the full range of impacts of any changes and additions of governmental powers. This lack of consideration can be classified into the tasks, processes, and systems within the governance of society. My next Chirp, “12/30/22 Tasks, Processes, and Systems”, examines what Congress and the American people should consider in all proposed legislation. Without this consideration, it is not possible to determine the consequences (both intended and unintended) of proposed legislation and its impacts on society.

12/28/22 The Oligarchy Strikes Back

In my previous Chirp, I lamented the rise of an oligarchy in Congress. A perfect example of the operation of this Oligarchy is the last-minute passage of the 4,155-page, $1.7 trillion dollar 2022 omnibus spending bill. This bill, without Congressional crafting other than by the Oligarchy, is a monstrosity of spending that does not reflect the priorities of the American public, but it does illuminate the priorities of the Oligarchy. The impacts of this spending, both the intended and unintended consequences, were of little concern and no debate in Congress. It was a shameful act by the Oligarchy to impose their will upon the lower-level ranks of this Oligarchy and the American public in the passage of this bill.

This is not the way that our Founding Fathers meant Congress to operate—as a voice for all the American people that can be heard and acted upon. In addition to the massive spending in this bill, there was little concern for the taxpayers who would have to pay for this spending. Taxes will go up, deficits will increase, and debts will be incurred, and we can expect that increased inflation and a possible recession will be the result of this spending. What is not mentioned is the moral depravity of burdening future generations with paying off these debts (after all, how many of us borrow money to raise our families and then expect our children to pay off these debts when they grow up?). To claim that we will outgrow these debts by the future expansion of the economy is a baseless claim, given how over the last several decades, we have not paid off these debts but increased them.

This oligarchical management of Congress needs to end, and power returned to all the Congressional representatives of the people. A power that should be utilized to rein in spending and taxing, as well as to pay off our debts by the people who have incurred them. If this Oligarchy is not ended, then we can expect important future legislation to be rammed through Congress by this Oligarchy and future massive spending, taxes, and debts to occur that could result in economic calamity for America.

12/27/22 Congress as an Oligarchy

Oligarchy—a political system governed by a few people—has become the norm in Congress for both political parties. The Senate and the House leaders have established a reward system of powerful committee chairpersons or ranking members being allocated to those who support their leadership. This upper level of the oligarchy controls all that occurs in Congress. The upper levels of this oligarchy craft all legislation with minimal input from the lower levels, and strict conformity on voting by the lower level ranks of this oligarchy is required. Much Congressional legislation is crafted by this upper level, and much of this crafting is done in secret. The only bipartisanship that occurs within Congress is the bipartisanship of the upper levels of each party’s oligarchy cooperating with each other to ram legislation through Congress. It is rare for important legislation to have amendments introduced and debated on the Senate or House floor, and even rarer for this important legislation to be crafted in open committee hearings. There appear to be no middle levels to this oligarchy, as a middle level could pose a challenge to the power of the upper level. It is reminiscent of the Backbenchers of a Parliament who are expected to remain silent and vote for whatever the political leadership proposes, and in this Congress is operating as the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union operated.

All of this is antithetical to a Democrat-Republic form of government where the voice of the people through their elective Representatives and Senators is given equal weight. In doing this, they are muting the voices of the American people who elected Representatives and Senators to challenge the status quo and chart a different course for America. They have also accrued power unto themselves to do as they see fit, regardless of the voice of the American people. This is one of the reasons that Congress is held in such low esteem by the American public, as the American people do not feel that their voices are being heard in Congress. It also has the repercussion of the American people being uninformed about the legislation so passed and the alternative solutions and possible unintended consequences of the legislation so passed. An ill-informed electorate is thus unable to make intelligent choices as to whom they should vote for in an election, and it is easier to create a Herd Mentality in the electorate for the election or reelection of members of Congress that support this oligarchy.

Congress needs a management structure to operate, but this structure should not be an oligarchy. Power needs to be shared amongst all the representatives of the American people to ensure that all the voices of the American people are heard. Until this occurs, we have constricted our Democrat-Republic form of government to the few and most powerful leaders of Congress. It is time to get back to what our Founding Fathers envisioned for the role of Congress—as a voice for all the American people that can be heard and acted upon.

12/26/22 The Core Problems with Charities

Charitable giving and receiving is part of our Judeo-Christian heritage and is to be commended when it is truly charitable. In the Judeo-Christian heritage, charity was forthcoming from an individual or small groups of individuals to help their less fortunate neighbors that needed subsistence for their life’s necessities. Over the last century, charities have expanded to become a ‘big business’ to tackle the big problems of the needs and necessities of large groups of persons. As such, it is still charity if it focuses on the needs and necessities of the individuals in the group. Unfortunately, some big charities have focused more on their own needs and wants rather than their recipient's needs and wants or on societal issues rather than a person’s interests. As such, they have become more scams or "Activists and Activism" entities rather than charities. Charities that expend a significant portion of their donated monies on internal expenditures rather than their recipient's needs fall into this scam category, and these charities need to be publicly audited and prosecuted if they engage in these excessive internal expenditures. Fortunately, most charities in America are not engaged in these excessive internal expenditures and are truly charitable. Charities that focus on societal interests should not be considered Charitable Organizations as such but as Other Not-For-Profit Entities. You should, therefore, consider this distinction between a Charitable Organization and Other Not-For-Profit Entities before contributing to these organizations. True charities should focus on individual recipients, while other entities should be considered as activism, as true charities are person-to-person focused.

A bigger and not fully recognized problem with charities is those charities that offer a short-term solution to a problem that often stymie the long-term resolution of the problem. There is no malice involved within these charities, but only a lack of foresight on the negative repercussions of their charitable actions or of deep empathy for the suffering of those they wish to help. Many charities allow for the problems they address to continue, as many charities often foster a sense of dependency upon the charity to supply the subsistence needs of the recipients rather than making the recipients self-sufficient (i.e., “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime”). Many of the problems that these charities address are the result of governments failing to correct the systemic problems within their societies. Sometimes this is deliberately done by an oppressive government that wishes to control its populations, other times, it is the corrupt actions of governments or leaders in these nations; and other times, it is done by a government that cannot recognize its own public policy failures that negatively impact their populations, and it is often a combination of these factors.

An excellent example of this is the poverty, hunger, and lack of medical resources in Africa. Africa is one of the most agriculturally fertile and natural resources rich continent on Earth. Yet it remains the most underdeveloped and impoverished continent on Earth. This is because the governments of the nations of Africa are either repressive, corrupt, or unwilling to make the necessary socioeconomic changes necessary to correct this situation. The charities that try to alleviate these problems in Africa are therefore perpetuating these problems by allowing the governments to ignore these socioeconomic problems and then rely on charities to ameliorate these problems within their nations.

Another example is charities that target impoverished groups of individuals within a nation for assistance. These impoverished groups of individuals are often the result of neglect or discrimination by a nation's government or their society. In providing charitable aid to these groups, it allows for the government or their society to continue this neglect or discrimination of these groups.

This raises the conundrum of whether we should continue this charitable aid for the persons of these nations or should we withhold charitable aid to force a change in governance or societal attitudes. Withholding charitable aid would result in much suffering by the persons so affected, but continuing charitable aid allows for the continuation of these problems by allowing governments and societies to ignore their systemic problems.

The ultimate solution to these systemic problems, as proven by history, is to establish a Democratic-Republic form of government, institute the Rule of Law, and foster a Capitalist economy that allows for these systemic problems to be corrected. Until this occurs within a nation, there is no hope, even with massive charitable aid, that the suffering of its people can ever be alleviated. It is also a Sisyphean effort by charitable organizations to alleviate this suffering in those nations that will not address their systemic problems.

12/25/22 Submission to Power

In an article by Mark Lewis, “Why Do Liberals Hate Trump So Much?”, he makes the point that the visceral hatred of Trump has a common basis with other visceral hatreds for other persons throughout history:

“Perhaps the best known (though certainly not the only) example of the same kind of bitter loathing is the rabbinical clique’s attitude toward Jesus. The scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests were the “elitists” in Palestine in Jesus’ day. They were the local “rulers” of the people, they controlled, they intimidated, they spoke for God, and the common people were expected to submit. They loved their power and the positions it gave them—the “Jerusalem Establishment.” Jesus, the outsider, represented a danger to all that. “The common people heard him gladly.” Abomination! Jesus constantly exposed the “establishment’s” failures and hypocrisies, and that drove them insane with venomous odium.

Thus, those religious leaders continually and viciously attacked him. They couldn’t answer his arguments, so they resorted to ad hominem assaults and name-calling, incessantly strove to destroy his reputation and belittle him and lower his esteem in the eyes of the people. He had to be removed. But being unsuccessful in their attempts, they sought help. They took him to the Romans (illegally in the middle of the night) and got him executed. For one reason, and one reason only.

Power.”

While in no way, shape, or form can you equate Trump to Jesus, the underlying emotional reason for the bitter loathing for both Trump and Jesus is the challenge they posed to the elitist’s powers. Just as Jesus challenged the power of the Jewish elitists, so has Trump challenged the power of Progressives/Leftists. This is also the same reason that Progressives/Leftists have a bitter loathing of religious Christians and Jews. To be a religious Christian or Jew is not to submit to the will of Progressives/Leftists, as the only form of submission by religious Christians and Jews is to submit to the will of God as their own conscious determines the Will of God.

This is another reason to celebrate the birth of Jesus, as his life demonstrated that submission to God’s Will leads to the eventual triumph over any submission to secular power. As most Progressives/Leftists are secular, they have forgotten, or do not know, that the Gospel of Luke 6:31 records Jesus as saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, and in Luke 10:27 Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Doing unto others, and the love of God and the love of neighbor, does not allow for submission to any secular power, as power only recognizes its own will. Just as the Kings of history often claimed that they were doing God’s Will, as they were anointed by God, they often perverted the true meaning of God’s Will to achieve their secular goals.

Therefore, we should all celebrate the birth of Jesus as the triumph of God’s Will over secular power and sing “Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! For the lord God omnipotent reigneth.” And we should all remember that submission to God’s Will is greater than submission to any secular power.

12/24/22 In-group Conformity

In a new article by Jeffrey A. Tucker, “The Lesson of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Is Terrifying and True”, he examines an underlying truth to this fictional tale. The truths of the social dynamics of a "Herd Mentality" that enforces in-group conformity. An enforcement of in-group conformity that is arbitrary and ephemeral, as well as antithetical to Liberty and Freedom.

Many people and organizations often claim that “Diversity is our greatest strength” in America. In doing so, they are often only speaking of a diversity of groups based upon external factors such as race, nationality, creed, sexuality, and other external factors that the members of the group have no control over. However, America’s greatest strength is the diversity of thought across and within all groups and individuals, for the diversity of thought provides for the facts and truths to be uncovered to make for better social policy and governmental laws and actions. Diversity of thought is also essential to retain our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and to preserve our "American Ideals and Ideas". To nurture this diversity of thought also requires that we maintain "A Civil Society" where all thought can be expressed without fear of recriminations. Mr. Tucker concludes his article by stating:

“We do not want to live in societies in which groups systematically disparage and exclude others based on accidents of birth, or by choices we make that harm no one, but neither do we want systems in which leaders can confer privileges and rights based on arbitrary and purely technocratic considerations (vaccinated versus unvaccinated, for example). Until we can get a firm commitment to freedom and rights for all, we will never escape the hellish pendulum swings over who gets to lead and thus pick who can enjoy dignity however temporarily.”

12/23/22 The Skill of Smil

My Book It of “12/01/22 Our Modern Technological World” recommends three books by Vaclav Smil; How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going, Numbers Don't Lie: 71 Stories to Help Us Understand the Modern World, and Creating the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of 1867-1914 and Their Lasting Impact. His mathematical, scientific, and technological knowledge is impeccable, and these three books provide a different perspective of our world than what is generally recognized by the public and many learned persons.

Vaclav Smil (born 9 December 1943) is a Czech-Canadian scientist and policy analyst. He is the Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. His interdisciplinary research interests encompass a broad area of energy, environmental, food, population, economic, historical, and public policy studies. He has also applied these approaches to the energy, food, and environmental affairs of China.

These books highlight the complexity and interdependencies of our modern world and the possibilities, difficulties, and consequences of significant changes to our world. In his doing so, you will better understand that the calls for change that ring throughout our world have both unintended and negative consequences, and the intended consequences can make the world worse due to those advocating the change not fully understanding the complexity and interdependencies of the changes they advocate.

These books are not only informative but a warning that a person who does not plan ahead and think matters through becomes involved in risky or unfavorable situations, which prudent people would avoid. Activists and politicians that advocate for change to garner support or votes are often behaving foolishly, as they do not fully understand the intended or unintended consequences of the change they advocate.

Therefore, we should all remember the proverb, ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’, and try to be more angelic rather than foolish when we are considering changes to our modern world.

However, there is one criterion that Professor Smil has not examined in his quest to understand the why and how of humankind progressing. This criterion is that where individual Liberty and Freedom have thrived the advancement of humankind has progressed, while where individual Liberty and Freedom had been constricted or depreciated the advancement of humankind has not arisen or declined.

Upon examining the progression of humankind in history we can in general chart the major epochs of humankind progression from the Ancient Athenian Greeks to the Roman Republic, then to the Arab states, and eventually to the Renaissance in Italy which then flowed northward to France and then to Holland and parts of Germany. From there it crossed the channel to England and throughout Great Britain, and finally across the ocean to America. At each of these stops individual Liberty and Freedom was flourishing, and when it became constricted the advancement atrophied and moved to new locales where individual Liberty and Freedom was growing. We can also say that as religious oppression grew in these locales it restricted individual Liberties and Freedoms, and the progression of humankind moved to locales where religious tolerance and freedom from religious oppression was instituted.

These individual Liberties and Freedoms must be in all aspects of society (i.e., governmental, political, economic, scientific and technological, and artistic endeavors) for any advancement to occur. Consequently, the best means to solve the problems he examines is to allow and expand individual Liberty and Freedom where the creativity and resourcefulness of the individual can be applied to the solutions to the problems he examines.

12/22/22 Big Pharma

Large pharmaceutical companies have often been a great benefit to humankind, providing prevention and cures to many diseases and illnesses. But they also have become a problem in the functioning of society in that they are operating as a Government-Pharmaceutical Complex similar to the Military-Industrialization Complex as I have chirped on, “11/18/22 The Military-Industrialization Complex”.

This has become apparent in the development of vaccines to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic. The government funded the research and development for these vaccines, then purchased these vaccines for the inoculation of all Americans. In doing so, the government bypassed the normal procedures to ensure the safety and efficiency of a drug, restricted the legal liability for any harm of these drugs, and increased the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies who were involved in the development of these vaccines. It is also unfortunately true that many government officials increased their own coffers by investing in the companies that developed these vaccines. The government also paid third parties to administer these vaccines, and as such, these third parties became part of the Government-Pharmaceutical Complex. The government and pharmaceutical companies also covered up or lied about the safety and efficiency of these vaccines, as well as attempted to suppress any free speech that questioned the safety and efficiency of these vaccines or alternative preventions and treatments.

These are the actions of a large-scale Government-Pharmaceutical Complex, and like any governmental complex, they lobbied and donated monies to politicians to support these actions. I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies making a profit, as this is the capitalistic way of life in America. My problem is that the Congressional and Executive Branch are making health policy not based upon the needs of our society but upon the needs of the pharmaceutical companies making profits and on their own election and reelection coffers and vote garnering.

Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies are not the problem; it is a problem of proper decision-making by the Congressional and Executive Branches on health policy. The only solution to this problem is for the American electorate to vote for politicians that will put our healthy well-being needs above their own insular needs. However, determining what is politically insular versus what is needed for our healthy well-being is very difficult to accomplish for the electorate. The only wise method to accomplish this is to look for virtuous candidates that you believe will do what is best for America rather than what is best for themselves and the pharmaceutical company’s interests.

12/21/22 Ethical Principles of Public Health

The fiasco that occurred in our response to the COVID-19 Pandemic has led many (perhaps most) Americans to be wary and distrustful of public health officials and practitioners. This situation needs to be rectified, as public health and practice are crucial for a functioning society. However, trust must be earned, and once trust is lost, it is difficult to regain. An important first step to regaining this trust is for every medical society to establish and enforce a set of “Ethical Principles of Public Health”. An article by David Bell, “10 Principles of Public Health That Could Save Society”, suggests what these principles should be. These Ethical Principles of Public Health are:

1. All public health advice should consider the impact on overall health, rather than solely be concerned with a single disease. It should always consider both benefits and harms from public health measures and weigh short-term gains against long-term harms.
2. Public health is about everyone. Any public health policy must first and foremost protect society’s most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.
3. Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.
4. Public health is about comparative risk evaluations, risk reduction, and reducing uncertainties using the best available evidence, since risk usually cannot be entirely eliminated.
5. Public health requires public trust. Public health recommendations should present facts as the basis for guidance, and never employ fear or shame to sway or manipulate the public.
6. Medical interventions should not be forced or coerced upon a population, but rather should be voluntary and based on informed consent. Public health officials are advisors, not rule setters, and provide information and resources for individuals to make informed decisions.
7. Public health authorities must be honest and transparent, both with what is known and what is not known. Advice should be evidence-based and explained by data, and authorities must acknowledge errors or changes in evidence as soon as they are made aware of them.
8. Public health scientists and practitioners should avoid conflicts of interest, and any unavoidable conflicts of interest must be clearly stated.
9. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly important. It is unacceptable for public health professionals to censor, silence, or intimidate members of the public or other public health scientists or practitioners.
10. It is critical for public health scientists and practitioners to always listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences of public health decisions, and to adapt appropriately.

The failure of medical societies to promulgate these ethical principles will prolong the distrust that many Americans have for Public Health officials and practitioners. Another important step to regain this trust is for Congress to investigate and illuminate the words and deeds of Public Health officials and practitioners during the COVID-19 Pandemic, then enact legislation based upon these Ethical Principles of Public Health. The failure of medical societies and Congress to do so will only prolong the distrust of the American people. A distrust that will have negative reverberations for our society for many years and perhaps decades to come.

12/20/22 A Child’s Sexuality Development

LGBTQIA+ is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more. These terms are used to describe a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This is a lifestyle choice that all adult Americans are free to pursue without discrimination or ridicule. The LGBTQIA+ community has been successful in convincing most Americans that a person’s private life should be of no concern to others if it remains private. Therefore, the LGBTQIA+ community should be abstentious in public displays of their sexual affection, just as the heterosexual community should be abstentious in public displays of their sexual affection. Consequently, all public displays of sexual affection should be reserved and delegated to private arenas.

However, the LGBTQIA+ community is not free to foist this lifestyle on minor children, as the sexual development of a minor child is the purview of the parents or legal guardians of the minor child. We, in America, give a wide latitude for a person to do their own thing, be true to themselves, and march to the beat of a different drummer while making little moral judgments upon another’s unconventionality. However, this wide latitude does have boundaries, and one of these boundaries is the intervention of a person, other than parents or guardians of a minor child, into a child’s sexuality development. Any intrusion by the government, organizations, or individuals into this sexuality development is a violation of the Natural Rights of the parents or guardians, and it could do mental or physical harm to the minor child.

This is especially true in public schools, as any sexuality education is reserved for a parent or guardian. Sexual instruction in public education should be restricted to the biological aspects of human physiology. It is important for a child to understand how the human body functions, the care and maintenance of their health, and the physical dangers to the human body, but sexuality development does not fall into this purview. It is also a violation of the Natural Rights of a parent, guardian, or child to allow for any medical intervention, both physical or mental, in a child’s development without the consent of a parent or guardian. If such medical intervention is deemed necessary by someone other than the parent or guardian of a child, then the only recourse is with the consent of the parent or guardian or by a court order in which the parent or guardian is involved in the legal process.

Alas, we have also seen the sexuality of minor children exploited in the mass media, which is a moral affront. It is a moral affront as Religion, Morality, Ethics, Virtue, and Character development in a child is the duty and responsibility of parents or guardians to mold, and anyone who intervenes in this molding can only do so for the benefit of the child and with the proper legal authority to do so. It is also a moral affront as it is harmful to minor children as it sexualizes them at an age where they are mentally incapable of making rational decisions about their development and their future. It also makes children objects of sexual attraction that pedophiles can exploit to their advantage.

In human history, it has always been the duty and responsibility of society to protect its children, for they are the future of society. All predators of children have been dealt with harshly to afford the maximum deterrence and punishment of child predation. Legal deterrence and punishment, by themselves, are insufficient protections for a child as they often only occur after the fact and are based on fear of punishment. We need to instill a sense of shame in anyone who would sexually exploit a child to change their mindset to not even consider intervening in a child’s sexuality development. Consequently, all people of virtue should speak out against this sexual exploitation of children to instill shame upon those who would intervene in a child’s sexuality development.

12/19/22 The Wars You Don't Fight - Part III

In my Chirps on "11/28/21 The Wars You Don't Fight" and "12/10/21 The Wars You Don't Fight - Part II", I discussed several points as to America’s intervention in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict may be justified, and I also pointed out how some of the objections to America's involvement in this conflict were baseless. There is, no doubt, a basis for criticism of how we have approached this (now) war, some of which I unreservedly agree with. Tucker Carlson has taken the lead in objecting to this war, and many of his points are valid and should be addressed. The incompetence of the Biden Administration in their approach to this war is another reflection of the incompetence of the Biden Administration in almost all other matters. The support for the Biden Administrations' approach to this war by many Democrat Party Leaders and Republican Party Leaders is another example of the failures of our elected representatives to govern with intelligent reasoning and cognizant explanations to the American public and instead resort to emotional appeals to the American public.

Yet, the underlying justifications for this war remain the same as I discussed in my Chirps. A new article by Michael Allen, “Top 5 reasons America must support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia”, he points out that this war advances America's interests. These American interests are:

1. Ukraine keeps the war from spreading
2. Ukraine is degrading a hostile Russia
3. Ukrainian success helps restore economic vitality
4. A victorious Ukraine helps the U.S. competition with China
5. A Ukrainian Victory Promotes American Values

There is much short-term pain for America and Europe in pursuing this war, but the long-term gain is worth the pain, as this article explains. Consequently, we should resolve to win this war but also resolve to fight this war more effectively and efficiently to bring it to an end as soon as possible. But we should also remember General Douglas MacArthur’s maxim that “In war, there is no substitute for victory” and that victory is the attainment of the goals for which you fought the war. A negotiated settlement in which you do not obtain your goals is only an invitation for further war in the future. Let us not, therefore, negotiate peace for less than our goals, as this would only beget a future conflict over the same goals.

12/18/22 Legislating Virtue

Virtue—The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong—seems to have receded in modern America. This may be because many people do not have a firm grasp on what is right or wrong. The fluidity of morals and ethics, as well as the judgment of character in modern America, has led to confusion as to what is right or wrong. This fluidity has also impacted the state of Virtue in America.

As I have written in my Article, “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, Morality, Character, and Virtue were equally important as Religion to our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers also held a specific meaning of these words:

• Morality - Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
• Character - The inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions.
• Virtue - The quality of doing what is right and avoiding doing what is wrong.

Of these, Virtue was the most important for elected and appointed officials, as well as public servants, in the practice of their public duties. Virtue was also important for the people to practice, as it is necessary for the retention of our Liberties and Freedoms, or as Benjamin Franklin stated, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”

Alas, as a result of this fluidity, we are now attempting to legislate Virtue into our laws, rules, and regulations. But Virtue cannot be legislated, as it must come from the Religion, Morality, and Character of a person. Any attempt to legislate Virtue is, therefore, doomed to failure, as you cannot legislate the thoughts and feelings of a person. Without Virtue, our republic is lost and aimless, as noted by one of our Founding Fathers:

“When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled the republic is lost in essence, though it may still exist in form.”
 - John Adams

I am also reminded of another of John Adam’s words of wisdom:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
 - John Adams

Consequently, Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue are essential for Americans to retain and practice for our "American Ideals and Ideas" of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" to persevere. Therefore, there should be more public discussion and education on the meaning and importance of Virtue in governmental affairs and the insistence that elected and public officials practice Virtue in the conduct of their public duties.

12/17/22 A Republican Form of Government

Our Constitution enshrines that Republicanism is the only form of government allowed in America and that each citizen has the equal right to participate in this republican form of government. Such participation starts with the casting of votes to democratically elect the leaders of the republican form of government. The salient parts of the Constitution about this Republicanism are:

Article I Section 4:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Article IV Section 2: 

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Article IV Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

Amendment XIV Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Amendment XVII:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

This Republicanism can only be achieved with the integrity of the vote by free and fair elections. Otherwise, our elected leaders are not chosen by the people but are manipulated into leadership positions. Consequently, the integrity of elections is a prerequisite for a republican form of government. The last two elections (2020 & 2022) have been a challenge to the integrity of elections. As I have written in my Article, "Voting in America", we have had many issues concerning the integrity of the vote in these elections. A large percentage of the people do not believe that these were free and fair elections but were manipulated to achieve the desired result by the people responsible for ensuring the integrity of the vote. As such, the question becomes do we have a republican form of government if these (alleged) manipulations occurred? The answer is that we will never know if these manipulations occurred, as the people who certify the election are the same people alleged to have manipulated the vote.

Legislative investigations and Judicial actions into these elections need to be instituted, not only for the purposes of exposing voting irregularities and punishing the offenders but for the primary purpose of correcting these problems in future elections. Until we can ensure the integrity of the vote with free and fair elections, we cannot be assured that we have a Republican Form of Government that is responsive to the will of the people. If not, we will have the semblance of a Republican Form of Government whose substance is oligarchical by the manipulators of an election. It is, therefore, critical that we address election reforms that ensure the integrity of the vote to ensure that we have a Republican Form of Government as the Constitution requires.

12/16/22 Reality Bites

The Green New Deal and its dependence on Green Energy has been wholeheartedly supported in most European countries. While the goal may be laudable (and the risks understated), there are practicable consequences to dependence on Green Energy, especially in an industrial economy. A new article by Stephen Moore, “The Night the Lights Went Out in Europe”, examines the consequences of Europe’s rush to Green Energy. These consequences do not bode well for the European people who depend on Green Energy to supply their energy needs. Euroland has been thrust into an epic energy crisis with electricity rationing, power outages, $10 a gallon gas, and citizens encouraged by governments to use candles for lights and burning wood for heating purposes. We, in America, need to learn from these European consequences and proceed cautiously in our own attempts to convert to Green Energy sources. Otherwise, we will face the same consequences that the European people now face.

12/15/22 The Ultimate End of Tax and Spend

Regarding government taxing and spending, it can be said:

“The major difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party fiscal policies is that the Democrats love to tax and spend, while the Republicans love to reduce taxes and spend. The major controversies are on what to tax and how to spend the taxpayers’ monies.”
 - Mark Dawson

One of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is:

“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Russell B. Long

However, what follows this on spending is often:

“Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!”
 - Mark Dawson

However, As Taxing and Spending always lead to debts and deficits, and ultimately inflation and/or recession for me, you, and the other fellow, the truth is:

“Economically, the wisest thing to do is to reduce taxes on everyone and to constrict spending to the revenues generated by taxes while paying off the National Debt with part of the revenue generated.”
 - Mark Dawson

It also pits those that pay the taxes against those that receive the spending. And as there are fewer taxpayers and more spending receivers, it skewers elections in favor of those politicians that advocate increased taxing and spending.

This is a vicious cycle that feeds the growth of government and reduces the independence of the people. More government, more taxes, and more spending equate to less Liberty and Freedom for the individual. This is what our Founding Fathers wished to curtail—an increase of government at the expense of the individual. They attempted to accomplish this by restricting the government to limited enumerated powers. Today, however, the government feels that it can do whatever it deems necessary for the good of the people. The politicians that support this increase in taxing and spending have forgotten that the greatest necessity for the people is for Liberty and Freedom. Consequently, anything the government does that is outside of its limited enumerated powers is an encroachment on the Liberty and Freedoms of all Americans.

The utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify these taxes and spending as within their limited enumerated powers is an affront to "Rationality" and "Reasoning". It is also an attempt by elected officials to usurp power unto themselves that properly belongs to the people.

In the past, our best bulwark against these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms from the Legislative and Executive Branches of government was the Supreme Court. Alas, the Supreme Court has become less Constitutional and more political in its rulings since the time of the New Deal (1933–39) and the Great Society (1964–65). In our zeal to improve American society, we relegated Liberty and Freedom as secondary to the primacy of welfare and security. The Supreme Court acquiesced to this desire if there were no gross violations of the Constitution. However, the spirit of our "American Ideals and Ideas" was violated by these Supreme Court rulings.

This spirit of our American Ideals and Ideas needs to be restored; otherwise, we are a society without foundation except for materialism and avarice. In history, such societies have always faltered and collapsed, leaving their people into destitution and despotism, and often tyranny.

12/14/22 Government Interference in Free Speech

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents government involvement in the Natural Free Speech Rights of Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not solicit nor be involved in any private party’s actions in the exercise of any Constitutional Rights of a person (i.e., the legal doctrine that private entities cannot do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself). As such, the recent revelations that the government and Twitter cooperated with each other in restricting Twitter users' Free Speech rights is an assault on our Constitutional Rights by these government actors. All government actors have an affirmative duty to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of a person are protected and that any infringement of these rights is subject to criminal and civil prosecutions for the violations of these rights.

This assault that if it is not stopped, and the offenders punished for these actions, bodes ill for our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. The American people's seeming unconcern about these actions of the government in Free Speech is a poor reflection of the state of proper civic education in America. Worse, as they should know better, is the Mainstream Media’s lack of coverage and outrage about these government actions. But then again, the Mainstream Media has been cooperating for many decades with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their coverage of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives, which in itself is despicable as an independent Free Press is essential to our societal checks and balances against government overreach that is essential in retaining our Liberties and Freedoms. And even far worse is the Democrat Party Leader's lack of condemnation of these government actions, as all office holders take an Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and their lack of condemnation demonstrates that they do not take their oath seriously.

The problem with bringing to justice those government actors who have assaulted our Constitutional Rights is that the very people who assaulted our rights are responsible for bringing criminal and civil prosecutions. Thus, we have the legal problem of Nemo judex in causa sua, a dictum that translates to “no one should be a judge in his/her own cause”, which is widely considered a pre-requisite to a reliable, trustworthy judicial system. This principle is meant not merely to prevent a potential wrong-doer from condoning his errors by judging the validity of his actions but also, more importantly, to preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of the judiciary.

The appointment of a Special Prosecutor to peruse this matter is insufficient to assure justice, as the person appointed would be appointed by the person who may be investigated (i.e., the Attorney General of the United States), and this special prosecutor would be under the influence of the Attorney General. Congress may appoint, through appropriate legislation, a Special Prosecutor, but given the bitter partisanship of Congress and the partisanship of the allegations, I do not expect this to happen. We are, therefore, left with the conundrum of how to protect our rights when the Legislative and Executive Branches can not nor will not do so.

The answer is that the Supreme Court must take an extra ordinary step and become directly involved to resolve this conundrum. Under their Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, they must appoint a Special Prosecutor when the Legislative or Executive Branches are unable, unwilling, or cannot preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Legislative or Executive Branches. This Special Prosecutor would only answer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preserve their independence and to ensure they are operating within the boundaries of the law. Otherwise, the government may freely trample upon the Constitutional Rights of the people if this conundrum is not resolved.

12/13/22 A Public or Private Carrier

In response to the release of the ‘Twitter Files’, which revealed Twitter-Government cooperation to censor tweets, many commentators have retorted that Twitter is a private business and may choose what or what not is to be allowed within their private business. For most private businesses, this is very true, but Twitter is more than a private business—it is a Public Carrier business.

A Common Carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a Public Carrier in some civil law systems) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under a license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers, telecommunications providers, cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. In the United States, telecommunications carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

A Private Carrier is a company that transports only its own goods, and the carrier's primary business is not transportation. Private carriers may refuse to sell their services at their own discretion, but common carriers must treat all customers equally. Some corporations mix both systems, using common carriers and private carriage in what is called a blended operation.

As such, Twitter is a Public Carrier and must treat all customers equally except to restrict content that is forbidden as defined by 47 USC 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Therefore, as a Public Carrier, they have no right to censor any content except as above in 47 USC 230. Much as phone companies must treat all their customers equally, Twitter must treat all its users equally. A phone company may not listen to its customer's conversations and censor any conversation that they deem harmful, nor can it suspend or terminate a phone number without just cause, such as non-payment for services rendered. If Twitter wishes to claim that they are a Private Carrier, then it cannot be afforded the legal protections that 47 USC 230 provides. Thus, Twitter would be subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content posted on Twitter, as newspapers and magazines are subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content that they publish.

Twitter has also become a public forum where its users can express their thoughts and opinions, as well as obtain information to formulate their thoughts and opinions. Consequently, they have a duty and responsibility as a public forum to protect the Free Speech rights of their users. They also have a duty and responsibility to not interfere in the political processes, especially elections, in any manner whatsoever. The same could also be said about Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others in their public forum actions.

The recent efforts that Elon Musk has undertaken to reform Twitter are a good first step but must be vigorously pursued by Mr. Musk to ensure Twitter operates as a Public Carrier. These efforts should also be undertaken by Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other Public Carries of user-posted comments to ensure that they operate under the rules and regulations of a Public Carrier.

12/12/22 Reform the House of Representatives

Congress is a mess. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. They are no longer legislating but imposing new laws. The leadership of Congress has eviscerated the role of the rank-and-file congresspersons to be involved in the legislative process. The leadership has authoritative control of the workings of Congress that need not be responsive to the will of the people through their duly elected representatives in Congress. The House Freedom Caucus (HFC) is proposing new House rules to reassert that Members of Congress “must have the ability to participate in making laws”. These rule changes are outlined in their proposal “Restoring the People’s Voice In Congress”, and as they have stated in this proposal:

Between now and January, the House Freedom Caucus will work with likeminded colleagues to demand aggressive reforms to return the People’s House back to the American people and make it function again.

• The leaders of both political parties have consolidated so much power that most Members of Congress have no meaningful role in the legislative process beyond voting up or down.
• The result is that the “People’s House” is serving everyone in Washington except the American people: politicians, connected lobbyists, and entrenched bureaucrats.
• Republicans ran to fix Washington so we should not continue the same system that broke it. It’s time to restore real republican government and give elected representatives back their rightful role in lawmaking to implement the will of their voters.

 The reforms that they are proposing are:

Reform The House Republican Conference: Reclaim Legislative Impact for The People’s Representatives

• Enact a “Majority of the Majority” Rule.
• Restore the Independence of Committees
• Diversify the Steering Committee
• Open the Legislative Process
• Enforce Responsibility in Spending

Reform House Rules: Level the Playing Field For The American People

• Reset the House Rules.
• Hold Bureaucrats Accountable.
• End Secret Deals Behind Closed Doors
• Institute a Ban on Earmarks

I wholeheartedly support these reforms, and I do not believe that the Republicans should vote for the Speaker of the House until these reforms are instituted.

12/11/22 The Lack of Shame and Our Own Infallibility

Shame—A painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt—has all but disappeared from American culture. In its stead, we have seen a boatload of excuses for shameful behavior. Excuses such as being true to oneself, marching to the beat of a different drummer, and doing your own thing have replaced shame. The concept of Virtue in America—The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong— has no place in modern American society, as I have written in my Chirp on "12/18/22 Legislating Virtue".

Shame, however, is a very important emotion as, upon reflection on our shame, it allows us to correct our words and deeds for the betterment of ourselves and society. In my own early adult life, I did several shameful things which I regretted. However, I learned from this shame and vowed never to do these things again (a vow which I have kept). Without shame, it is not possible to acknowledge your misdeeds and take corrective actions.

Another modern American trait is the inability to admit mistakes and apologize for these mistakes. Instead, we offer a variety of excuses as to why they were not mistakes or errors in judgment. But we should remember the words of a founder of the American Bar Association:

“The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.”
 - Edward John Phelps

Mistakes are a natural part of being human, and we all make mistakes. It is what we do about these mistakes that define our character. To apologize and rectify your mistakes is a true test of character. How we deal with the mistakes of others is also a test of our character, as I have written in one of my Pearls of Wisdom, "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine". One of the ways we can reduce our mistakes is to remember, before we speak or act, the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

This lack of shame, along with our inability to admit mistakes, is plaguing modern America. A plague that has infected our elected leaders and activists of all stripes. We would all do much better if we learned from our shame and admitted our mistakes, as well as be wary of those who exhibit no shame or are unable to admit their mistakes.

12/10/22 The Real Existential Threat

For many months we have been harangued about the existential threat to our democracy posed by former President Trump and his MAGA supporters. Although they claim that these people are an existential threat, they give no existential reasons for their threat other than they are opponents of the political policies and agendas of Democrats and Progressives. These people pose no threat to our Constitutional government nor to our Constitutional Rights, but they do pose a threat to the Democrat's and Progressive's constitutional interpretation of a democratic constitution (the primacy of the collective people), as opposed to a republican constitution (the primacy of the individual person) interpretation, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". This difference in interpretation is not an existential threat but a robust disagreement. The only thing existential about this disagreement is that the loser of this argument may become politically irrelevant and be forced to change their political policies and agendas to be competitive in elections.

However, with the release of the ‘Twitter Files’ by Elon Musk, we now know who the real existential threat to our democracy is—Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, the Bureaucratic Swamp, and Big Tech, aided and assisted by the Mainstream Media. The (successful) efforts by Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists to suppress within Big Tech the free speech rights of their opponents to influence the outcome of an election is an existential threat to our democracy. With the aid and assistance of the mainstream media in not uncovering nor covering this suppression of the free speech rights of dissidents or opponents to the political policies and agendas of Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists, the Mainstream Media has become a part of this existential threat to our democracy.

It is an existential threat as these actions strike at the heart of the First Amendment and suppress the Free Speech Rights of those so targeted and, consequently, the Free Speech Rights of all Americans, as there must be free speech for all, or there will be no free speech for anyone. Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property, as well as in social media the assisting in criminal activities and dissemination of pornography).

We have also seen a concerted effort by these same parties to strip the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is antithetical to the intent of the Founding Fathers in ensuring that this Natural Right is sacrosanct in our society and protected against governmental interference. This effort along with their support for other violations of The Bill of Rights, too numerous and complex to discuss in this Chirp, demonstrates that these same parties pose an existential threat to our democracy.

The American people need to wake up from their slumber and recognize and oppose these existential threats to our society, or we shall continue down the slippery slope in the erosion of our Natural and Constitutional Rights and eventually into despotism.

12/09/22 The Evils of Big Tech

Can a company be evil? The horrors of WWI and WWII show that they can be evil by supporting and supplying goods and services to an evil government in the pursuit of profits. The question is, are Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft becoming evil in support of China and the interference with the Natural Rights of Americans? The answer is, unfortunately, that if evil is defined as the suppression of the Natural Rights of a people, then they are treading down the path to evil.

American companies are outsourcing their manufacturing to China, where slave labor and the suppression of the Natural Rights of the Chinese people are common and are often used to supply the labor for this outsourced manufacturing. The suppression of religion and the right of the Chinese people to freely speak, assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances also bespeaks of the evilness of the Chinese government. These evil actions by China, with the support of Big Tech, demonstrate that Big Tech is supporting evil and thus becoming evil.

Big Tech has also been involved in suppressing the Natural Rights of Americans by the recent revelations of Twitter interfering in elections by censoring the free speech of dissidents and suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. The fact that Apple restricted AirDrop file-sharing in China is an assault on the free speech rights of the Chinese people, and Big Tech’s allowance of TikTok and other spying apps used by the Chinese Communist Party for duplicitous spying on Americans is an assault on the privacy rights of Americans. The veracity of allegations that the other Big Tech companies are engaging in these activities has shown that Big Tech is becoming evil. Big Tech’s cooperation with the Democrat Party, Democrat candidates, and the Democrat-led American government in suppressing free speech is an assault on our First Amendment rights. In this, the Democrat Party, Democrat candidates, and the Democrat-led American government is also engaging in evil.

An American company has the moral responsibility to uphold the American ideals of the Natural Rights of the people, irrespective of profits. They must not do business with evil countries nor engage in any activities that contravene or suppress the Natural Rights of individuals in any country. The American people, and Congress, must take Constitutional actions that will constrict the evil doings of Big Tech, otherwise:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
 - Edmund Burke

12/08/22 Nationalism is Both Liberal and Illiberal

Nationalism has often been disparaged and vilified in our modern times because of the horrific events of the twentieth century. Nationalistic governments arose that plunged the world into wars, slaughtered millions of people, subjugated their peoples, and invaded and conquered the people of other nations. People began to associate Nationalism with evil and tried to shed Nationalism. What has been forgotten is that there are two sides to Nationalism: A Liberal Nationalism and Illiberal Nationalism.

Liberal Nationalism is the belief that the individual is loyal to a nation if the nation allows the national people to govern themselves, under laws created by themselves, for the benefit of all their people, and to institute Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All for the people of a nation. Liberal Nationalism is inclusive of all people that share these ideals, and Liberal Nationalism believes that their nation is superior to other nations that do not share these ideals. Liberal Nationalism believes that governmental powers originate from the people and that democratically elected leaders are responsible to the people.

Illiberal Nationalism is the belief in the supreme loyalty of an individual to his nation and that the nation is ethnically determined based on common race, language, culture, and heritage. Illiberal Nationalism is exclusory of all people that are not ethnically the same and often have the belief that their nation is superior to other nations and that their nation should dominate other nations. Illiberal Nationalism believes that governmental powers are vested in a strong leader who determines what is best for the people and who often governs through despotism.

Consequently, Liberal Nationalism is beneficial to humankind, while Illiberal Nationalism is detrimental to humankind. Therefore, let us all take Nationalistic pride in America, for we are a nation dedicated to Liberal Nationalism.

12/07/22 The Greater Good

In many of my Chirps and Articles, I discuss the concept of the Greater Good. The Greater Good is often utilized by politicians and activists to rationalize their political agendas and social policies. But it should always be remembered that:

“The Greater Good is the great fiction that all despots engage in to justify their actions.”
 - Mark Dawson

Whenever the Greater Good infringes on the Natural Rights of a person, it often does harm rather than good and often leads to despotism to enforce the Greater Good. We should also remember, to paraphrase the great economist Thomas Sowell, that:

"The most basic question is not what is the greater good, but who shall decide what is the greater good?"

The greater good is always that which promotes the Liberties and Freedoms of a person, consistent with an orderly society that preserves the Natural Rights of all the people in the society. Otherwise, the invocation of the Greater Good is often a call to despotism.

12/06/22 Lessons of Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is the ultimate statement of the ideal of individual freedom, which is at the core of the liberal tradition of liberty and freedom. It is a controversial idea that raises fundamental issues of individual rights and duties versus the necessity of an orderly society. The liberal tradition is of liberty and freedom for the members of society, while the illiberal tradition is one of obedience of individuals to society, as I discussed in my Chirp, "12/08/22 Nationalism is Both Liberal and Illiberal".

Henry David Thoreau was a leading proponent of Disobedience to an unjust state, as his essay "Civil Disobedience" establishes, and that forcible confrontation was sometimes necessary for rectifying injustice, as his support for the abolitionist John Brown demonstrates. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were disciples of Thoreau and believed that non-violent Civil Disobedience was the best means of Civil Disobedience.

The question is, are forcible confrontation or non-violence the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience? The answer is, as usual, it depends on the situation. When a government is to be challenged by Civil Disobedience, the first question is whether the government is one of a Liberal or Illiberal nature. A liberal government respects the rights of the challenger, while an illiberal government has little or no concern for a challenger. In a liberal government, the challenger has the opportunity to have their voice heard and effectuate change, while in an illiberal government, the challenger will be suppressed and silenced with little hope of effectuating change. Consequently, non-violent Civil Disobedience can be effective in a liberal government, while forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience in an illiberal government may be the only means to institute change.

Many admirers of Gandhi point to his effectiveness of non-violent Civil Disobedience to institute the change he desired while forgetting that he was confronting a liberal government in the British Empire. If Gandhi was confronting the illiberal government of the Soviet Union, he would have been sent to a prison camp or executed, thus, effectuating no change in the Soviet Union. Therefore, the proper and effective means of Civil Disobedience depends upon the Liberal or Illiberal nature of the government to be confronted. In simpler terms, it is whether you are confronting basically good or an inherently evil government.

In the case of Thoreau’s support for John Brown’s forcible confrontation against slavery, the institution of slavery was an evil that existed within a basically good government. Many of the American people did not understand or chose to ignore the evil of slavery, while some Americans did not believe slavery was evil. Consequently, forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience was necessary to shock the American people into confronting this evil and putting an end to slavery.

In the case of non-violent Civil Disobedience by Martin Luther King Jr., to confront the injustice of bigotry and discrimination against black Americans, non-violent Civil Disobedience was sufficient to awaken the American people into confronting this injustice and putting an end to bigotry and discrimination in America.

In the case of the Civil Disobedience against the Vietnam War, the use of non-violent Civil Disobedience at the start of these protests was insufficient to awaken the American people to the injustices of this war, and thus forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience became necessary. The only question was the extent of the forcible confrontation that was needed to awaken the American people.

We can, therefore, conclude that the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience are dependent upon the liberality or illiberality of the governments being confronted or the evil that is being confronted. There is no easy answer to what the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience are, but all that engage in Civil Disobedience must ponder this question, and all those who support or adjudge Civil Disobedience must consider this question.

12/05/22 Aspects of Freedom

The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in an address on January 6, 1941. In this address, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “Everywhere In The World” ought to enjoy: Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Worship, Freedom From Want, and Freedom From Fear.

My Article, “The Four Freedoms”, discusses these Freedoms and their implications for the governance of a people. Regrettably, I believe that these Four Freedoms are an insufficient aspect of freedom, as, by themselves, they do not assure the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. The question is, then, what are the core freedoms that allow for Liberty and Freedom for all? Professor J. Rufus Fears, in his Great Course, “A History of Freedom”, concludes this course with a summary of what constitutes core freedoms. These constituents are:

1. National Freedom
2. Individual Freedom
3. Economic Freedom
4. Scientific Freedom
5. Spiritual Freedom

My new Article, “Aspects of Freedom”, addressed these core freedoms and their importance to a free society.

12/04/22 What Can They Do?

With the Republicans about to take control of the House of Representatives, the question is how much can they do to right the course of America with the Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House? An article by Nicholas Waddy, “What the New Republican House Can and Can't Accomplish”, examines what can be accomplished. Alas, it is not the number of votes that will determine what they can do, but the politics and public perceptions that will determine what they can accomplish.

Given the Progressive and Democrat predictions of the Mainstream Media, the molding of public opinion will be an uphill battle for the Republicans. With the Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House and the presence of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in the House and Senate, it will be politically difficult to do anything meaningful to right the course of America. The best that can be expected is that the Republicans will be able to put a brake on spending and direct the allocations of monies to meaningful government programs.

To persuade the public of the necessity of changing our course, it will be important for the House Republicans to investigate the ineptitude, misdeeds,  and violations of our Liberties and Freedoms that have been perpetuated by President Biden and his administration, as I have outlined in my Article “A Harbinger of Bad Tidings”. Alas, persuading the RINOs may be more difficult, as they often cloak themselves in the robes of uprightness and bipartisanship while failing to recognize the harm to America they are allowing to perpetuate. However, they are often attuned to public perception and public polling, and if the Republicans can sway the American public, they can sway the RINOs.

The next two years are important for the 2024 Presidential election, for if the Republicans can persuade the American public that a wholesale change is necessary to right the course of America, it can be accomplished by putting Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

12/03/22 Destroying America

A new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “If You Really Wanted to Destroy the U.S., Then...” examines the governance of the Biden Administration, which is seemingly madness. He concludes his article with, “It would be hard to imagine any planned agenda to destroy America that would have been as injurious as what we already suffered the last two years.” In the damage they have wrought, I am reminded of the end of the movie “The Bridge on the River Kwai” when the camp doctor is observing the Japanese, British, and American dead and the destruction of the bridge and train, he started crying out “Madness, Madness, Madness” to describe the scene. If we do not stop this madness, I am afraid that we are viewing the destruction and death of American civil society.

12/02/22 An Insider Comment on the News Media

Former Rolling Stone contributing editor and reporter Matt Taibbi, now with Substack and not a Trump fan or a conservative, recently made the following comment on the modern news media that every American should ponder:

“I love the news business. It’s in my bones. But I mourn for it. It’s destroyed itself.

My father had a saying: “The story’s the boss.” In the American context, if the facts tell you the Republicans were the primary villains in this or that disaster, you write that story. If the facts point more at Democrats, you go that way. If it turns out they’re both culpable, as was often the case for me across nearly ten years of investigating Wall Street and the causes of the 2008 crash for Rolling Stone, you write that. We’re not supposed to nudge facts one way or another. Our job is to call things as we see them and leave the rest up to you.

We don’t do that now. The story is no longer the boss. Instead, we sell narrative, as part of a new business model that’s increasingly indifferent to fact.

[…]

With editors now more concerned with retaining audience than getting things right, the defining characteristic across the business — from right to left — is inaccuracy. We just get a lot of stuff wrong now. It’s now less important for reporters to be accurate than “directionally” correct, which in center-left “mainstream” media mostly comes down to having the right views, like opposing Donald Trump, or anti-vaxxers, or election-deniers, or protesting Canadian truckers, or any other people deemed wrongthinkers.

In the zeal to “hold Trump accountable,” or oppose figures like Vladimir Putin, ethical guardrails have been tossed out. Silent edits have become common. Serious accusations are made without calling people for comment. Reporters get too cozy with politicians, and as a result report information either without attribution at all or sourced to unnamed officials or “people familiar with the matter.” Like scientists, journalists should be able to reproduce each other’s work in the lab. With too many anonymous sources, this becomes impossible.

We had an incident a few weeks ago where the lead of a wire service story read, “A senior U.S. intelligence official says Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland.” That’s the kind of story where if you get it wrong, you can start a war, but they still put all their chips on one unnamed source. That’s very risky practice even if you’re right.

That story turned out to be wrong, which sadly is no longer uncommon. In the Trump years an extraordinary number of “bombshells” went sideways. From the “pee tape” to the Alfa Server story to speculation that Trump was a Russian spy (recruited before disco) to false reports of Russians hacking a Vermont utility to an evidence-free story about Trump’s campaign manager somehow sneaking undetected to meet the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, we’ve accumulated piles of wrong stories.

I’m no fan of Donald Trump. I wrote a book about the man called Insane Clown President. But I’ve compiled a list of over 100 of these “bombshells” that went belly up, from “Bountygate” to MSNBC saying Russian oligarchs co-signed a loan for Trump to countless others, because these stories offend me. A good journalist should always be ashamed of error. It bothers me to see so many of my colleagues so unashamed.

[…]

The excuse, “At least we’re not Breitbart,” doesn’t even hold. Think about another of these bombshells, the one in which Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen supposedly went to Prague to meet with Russian hackers. This story came from the now-disgraced dossier of former British spy Christopher Steele. It’s been refuted multiple times, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who flatly declared Cohen “never traveled to Prague.” Yet the tale will not die.

From MSNBC to CNN to McClatchy we’ve had leading media outlets continue to take seriously the idea that Donald Trump’s lawyer traveled to Prague to scheme with “Kremlin Representatives” over how to fix the election using Romanian hackers, who according to Steele would afterward retreat to Bulgaria, and use that country as a “bolt hole” to “lie low.” If that’s not a conspiracy theory, I don’t know what is.

This story is every bit as nuts as the idea that the 2020 election was stolen.”

My article, "Modern Journalism", has made the same points about the news media with different examples, and, as I have said before, they are no longer journalist but propagandist. His full comments and my article point out the sorry state of news media in America and are well worth the read.

12/01/22 Truth Detector - II

In my previous Chirp on “11/30/22 Truth Detector I”, I explained that economics is the best path to obtain the facts and truth. Dennis Prager has written an article, “Between Left and Right, How Do You Know Which Side Isn't Telling the Truth?”, in which he offers what may be the single most important indicator of who is more likely to be lying. It is not a perfect indicator of who is telling the truth -- there is no perfect indicator -- but it comes close. This indicator is:

“With rare exceptions, the party that calls for censorship is lying. People who tell the truth can deal with dissent and different opinions. In fact, truth-tellers welcome debate.”
 - Dennis Prager

In today’s America, we have seen the rise of censorship under various labels—misinformation or disinformation, ‘fact checking’, suppression of Social Media posts, the non-reporting of dissenting information by the Mainstream Media, and the restrictions on free speech in academia, as I have written in my Articles “Modern Journalism”, "Social Media and Free Speech", and “The Decline of Free Speech in America”.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, political economist, Member of Parliament (MP), civil servant, and one of the most influential thinkers in history. In his book “On Liberty”, he wrote that there is a necessity for plural debate, for taking absolutely nothing for granted but holding all our dearest assumptions up for national scrutiny. There must be ‘protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose… its own ideas and practices… on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development of any individuality not in harmony with its ways’.

Consequently, free speech is necessary for freedom, or as I have written in my Article, “Free Speech as a Means to Truth”:

“We must remember that there is no Free Speech unless there is Free Speech for all. Thus, without free speech for all, there cannot be any truths, and anyone who would suppress free speech is not interested in obtaining the truth. We also should remember that the truth shall set you free, and without freedom, there can be no progress for humankind nor Liberties and Freedoms for all.”
 - Mark Dawson

As such, those that wish to censor, and those who do not have economic answers for their policy positions, are not truth tellers but activists committed to their goals irrespective of the truth. In doing so, they would destroy our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in the pursuit of their goals. Therefore, all Americans should utilize these Truth Detectors and beware of these people, and not pay heed to their protestations, as they are not truth tellers but truth deniers.

11/30/22 Truth Detector I

In a world filled with lies, half-truths, and fabrications, it is difficult to discern the facts and truths. The best possible means to discover the facts and truths is to examine the economics of a situation and to follow the money. This is the reason that I have written much on economics in my Articles and Chirps. A new article by Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Economics Is a Force for Truth in a World of Lies”, examines how knowledge of economics can lead to facts and truths. In this article, he reminds us that “The world in general has chosen symbolism (political preening) and security (professional and financial and reputational) over truth.”, and then goes on to state:

“We are left with a grim reality. We do not know whom to trust in this world awash in lies. I do have one award to give, however. It is to economics itself, which is a force of nature that no man, no government, and no agency can forever avoid. It’s the most beautiful feature of economic forces operating in the world. It forms a hard wall against the perpetuation of lies and silly visions.”

“The beauty of economics is that it operates without any central direction and nothing can stop its operation. Economic forces blithely ignore the pronouncements of all the powers of the world, from governments to corporate to media darlings. Economics doesn’t care. It just keeps revealing the truth about the world no matter how many people decry it.”

“Economics has always been the business of saying: sorry but your dreams are illusions, no matter how much you believe them or how much power you have to enforce them. Economics is all about observing the indefatigability of cause and effect. You did this and that will be the result, and there is nothing you can do to change that.”

He summarizes that “Economics eventually gets its way. It is a teller of truth.” and “Economics reminds them that reality is a more powerful force in the world than the dopey dreams of both visionaries and outright fakes.” to reach a final conclusion of:

“Who or what can you trust to tell you the truth? In the long run, economic forces are what put a hard stop on the lies. They deserve our respect and admiration.”

11/29/22 Social Terrorism

I recently watched an interview with a person who was forced out of his job and lost the business he created because he expressed a pro-life sentiment. He labeled the actions of those who forced him out as ‘Social Terrorism’ rather than "Wokeness". And that is what wokeness has morphed into—Social Terrorism for the purpose of installing fear of repercussions for anyone who would express an opinion different from the woke mob.

Terrorism is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious, or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion, or instilling fear. As such, when the woke mob threatens repercussions for anyone who disagrees with them, they are behaving in a terroristic manner. Anyone who follows through and imposes the repercussions is, therefore, a terrorist. This is also the behavior of a despotic person who would attempt to dominate others through threats of punishment and violence.

They are not only behaving as a terrorist and a despot, but such terrorism and despotism is an assault on our First Amendment right to the freedom of speech and to other rights that Americans have in our society. As such, they are un-American in their ideology and ideas. They are more dangerous to our society than were the wackadoodles that staged an ‘insurrection’ on January 6th, 2020, at the national Capital building, as I have examined in my collection of Insurrection Chirps. These Social Terrorists are more insidious, widespread, and harmful than the ‘insurrectionists’ of January 6th, 2020.

Congress needs to have hearings on this Social Terrorism for the purposes of criminalizing these Social Terrorism actions to preserve the Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans. Otherwise, we will become a despotic society driven by Social Terrorists.

11/28/22 The Derangement of Michael Beschloss

Michael Beschloss is an American ‘historian’ specializing in the United States presidency and is the author of nine books on the presidency. However, Mr. Beschloss is a self-described "presidential historian" without any history degrees (he has a degree in political science from Williams College and an MBA from Harvard Business School). Although he has no history degree, he has spent his entire career involved in the modern history of the United States presidency. Mr. Beschloss has been a frequent commentator on the PBS NewsHour and NBC News, and he has been recently retained by MSNBC to be their presidential historian and commentator.

On Tuesday night, November 02, 2022, he warned on MSNBC that if Republican candidates win their races next week that:

"The story in 50 years from now, if historians are allowed to write in this country, and if there are still free publishing houses and a free press, which I'm not certain of, but if that is true, a historian will say what was at stake tonight and this week was the fact, whether we will be a democracy in the future. Whether our children will be arrested or conceivably killed. We're on the edge of a brutal authoritarian system and it could be a week away,"

Historians have always been poor prognosticators of the future, and many have not learned the true meaning of historical events, and they often bring their own predilections to their scholarship. A good historian is aware of this, and they take care to temper their scholarship with this in mind. However, Mr. Beschloss appears to have lost the scholarship that he previously exhibited and has slipped into derangement. His Progressive politics and his animosity toward Republicans and Conservatives have corrupted his scholarship. He is no longer utilizing "Rationality" and "Reasoning" to reach conclusions, but he has descended into "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" for those that he politically opposes.

This derangement, unfortunately, has happened to many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as they see their public opinion approval declining and their grip on political power abating. And this is dangerous to American society, as it pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans. This leads to "Divisiveness in America"  and the breakdown of "A Civil Society".

Now that the Democrats have lost control of the House of Representatives, we can only hope that they will engage in introspection and alter their words and deeds to become more civil. Alas, I do not expect that this will happen, as mental derangement is very difficult to overcome and rectify, especially if you believe that you are correct. As I have often stated, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. This unswerving belief that they are correct does not allow for proper introspection that will overcome and rectify their mental derangement. Consequently, we can only expect that they will become more deranged in their words and deeds as Republicans in Congress and the State governments exercise the powers that the American electorate has granted them.

11/27/22 Evidence of a Retreat from Our Founding Principles

In the course of American history in the last several decades, we have seen a retreat from the founding principles of our nation that were espoused in our original Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, and The Constitution of the United States. These Declaration principles that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, along with our Constitutional principles of Liberty, Freedom, Equality, and Equal Justice for All, have all been encroached upon by the growth of government, most especially the growth of the Federal government. The incremental growth of government has led to the incremental decline of our founding principles. Whether the reasons for this enlargement of government be for the noble purposes of safety or security or the ignoble purposes of power and control, it has resulted in the reduction of our founding principles. This growth of government at the expense of our founding principles has reached the point that we may endanger our founding principles and is leading us on a path to despotism.

To evidence this, I have updated my article, "A New Declaration of Independence", to include the particulars of the last few years. All of the particulars in this New Declaration of Independence are an assault upon the principles that our nation was founded upon. Consequently, We the People of the United States, should solemnly publish this Declaration and declare that the current United States Government is dissolved and that a new Government is instituted for the protection of our founding principles. I have also edited my article, "A New U.S. Constitution", to reflect the recent events in America for the purpose of reinstituting and ensuring our founding principles.

In this, we should mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor to institute a new government that reestablishes our founding principles.

11/26/22 Democracy Into Tyranny

Plato was a great ancient Athenian philosopher that philosophized on the nature and histories of government, examining how they rose and fell and how they governed in between. Some of Plato's most famous doctrines are contained in his books the Republic as well as in the Laws and the Statesman. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of Plato and other great philosophers and their thoughts on Government, Liberty, and Freedom. They incorporated their ideas in The Declaration of Independence as ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness’, and The Constitution of the United States ‘in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’ that could stand the test of time.

The great Founding Father John Adams summarized Plato’s treatment of how political structures change and deteriorate: Monarchy mutates into aristocracy, aristocracy into oligarchy, oligarchy into democracy, and democracy into tyranny. (Some of Plato’s reasons why democracies degenerate into tyrannies were licentiousness, disregard for the rule of law, and rendering “Strangers [i.e., foreigners] equal to citizens.”) He also believed that any national constitution should not be purely democratic but should feature monarchical and aristocratic elements as well. It should include a chief executive with some monarchical powers, a Senate to serve as an aristocratic branch and a democratic House of Representatives. The other lesson was that the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic branches should be balanced against each other.

In some cases, these governments fell from a democracy into a tyranny very quickly and usually through a civil war. In other cases, they devolved slowly from a democracy into an oligarchy, then tyranny. In almost all cases, it was the growth of government size and power and the rise of bureaucracies that led them from a democracy into a tyranny. Our Founding Fathers were very aware of this and attempted to limit the growth and power of government to ensure the Liberty and Freedom of Americans. This was accomplished by our Founding Fathers by dividing government duties and responsibilities between Federal, State, and local governments, and by further dividing the exercise of power at each level of government between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government.

Alas, modern America has forgotten history and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers as we have allowed an explosive growth of government. From the growth of Federal government powers at the expense of State and local powers of government, and the comingling of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government, for almost the last century, we have forgotten history and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

As such, we are endangering our Republic as we are devolving slowly from a Democratic-Republic into an oligarchy, with the possibility of tyranny in the near future.

11/25/22 A Recipe for Election Tragedy

In an article by Terry Paulson, “Why Did the Wave Become a Ripple?”, he sets forth that:

“Big government pays off for far too many Americans. Far too many Americans either have government jobs or receive extensive government entitlement funds. A vote for Republicans puts their standard of living in jeopardy. We remain deeply divided as a country by party. Those voting for Democrats don’t want smaller government; they receive a lot of money from Democrats. It’s understandable in these challenging times. The pandemic has impacted the confidence of citizens. They’re seeing inflation impact their standard of living, and they look to government for relief. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 57% of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes for 2021, up substantially from the 44% before the pandemic. They have gotten used to free money from government, rent relief in tough times, and the promises of student debt relief. When you get more from government than you put in, you’re not sure you want a party in control that commits to ending the entitlements you depend on.”

This is a premise that I have set forth in my article on "Entitlements". To continue in our entitlement ways is to continue down the slippery slope to more dependency of Americans on government largess. A government largess that requires more and more taxes to support and more government power over Americans. It is also the counter to the noble sentiments expressed by one of our recent Presidents:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
 - John F. Kennedy

This is also a recipe for disaster in the electoral chances of those who would put right the course of America, as well as a recipe for the destruction of our society. Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee FRSE (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish advocate, judge, writer, and historian who was a Professor of Universal History, and Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh. His words about democracy are still prescient and relevant to where we are today in America:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.”
 - Alexander Fraser Tytler

It is time to stop following this recipe for tragedy and right the course of America, and to only utilize entitlements to help lift the poor in America by helping them become self-sufficient. Or, as Benjamin Franklin said:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin

11/24/22 Thanksgiving for Freedom

Professor J. Rufus Fears, in his Great Course, “A History of Freedom”, concludes this excellent course with a summary of what constitutes true freedom. These constituents are:

1. National Freedom in the ability of a national people to govern themselves, under laws created by themselves, for the benefit of all their people, and to institute Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All for the people of a nation.
2. Individual Freedom to choose how to live your life so long as you do not harm another nor infringe upon the freedoms of others.
3. Economic Freedom of a free-market economy and the economic opportunity to participate in the free market.
4. Scientific Freedom to seek out the scientific facts and determine the truths of our universe, often to the benefit of all mankind.
5. Spiritual Freedom to practice your religion and worship God, as well as the freedom to follow your own conscience.

Our Country was founded on these ideals of freedom, and while we have not always met these ideals, nor have we currently achieved these ideals, we have, throughout our history, strived to meet these ideals. This Thanksgiving, we should all be thankful that we have these Freedoms in America. We should also dedicate ourselves to preserving and extending these freedoms in the future so that on future Thanksgiving days, we can give thanks for our freedoms.

11/23/22 Campaign Financing and Media Bias

The 2022 mid-term elections saw a tremendous amount of money being fed into the troughs of candidates in close or contested Congressional districts and Senate races. In many cases, one candidate often had two to three times or higher as much money as their opponent, and in all cases, it is the Democrat candidate that has the money edge. Much of this money edge is through Out-of-State Money fundraising from wealthy donors and special interest groups. This raises the issues and concerns that I have written about in my Article “Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures”.

The predilections and biases of the "Mainstream Media", "Social Media", and "Big Tech", were also on full display with consistent negative coverage of Republican candidates and favored coverage of Democrat candidates, as I have examined in my Articles "Modern Journalism" and "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression".

With such thumbs on the scale by these actors in favor of Democrat candidates, it is no wonder why Republican candidates had a difficult time getting their message across and must allocate much of their resources to defending themselves rather than espousing their positions on the issues. This one-sidedness bodes ill for free and fair elections in which both sides have an equal opportunity to present their case to the American electorate. It has also contributed to a loss of faith in our elected representatives and our democratic institutions, as many Americans are cynical that elections are being purchased and propagandized for Democrat candidates. Until we address the issues of Campaign Financing and Media Bias, the cynicism of the American electorate is justifiable.

The question is, however, what can be done about this? The answer is, unfortunately, that there is little that can be done about this. Our First Amendment Rights of freedom of speech and the press allow for this situation to occur, as it should be to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. The danger is that a cynical electorate results in the crumbling of our foundations of democracy and is injurious to the health and welfare of our democracy. A crumbling that could result in the collapse of our society and the loss of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and is antithetical to our ideals as expressed by President Abraham Lincoln that “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

11/22/22 A Republic of Party Affiliation

A friend of mine commented that the recent 2022 mid-term elections were an affirmation of party over policy and that the fear of change overrode the concern about the issues in this election. To his comments, I responded that self-interest was a contributing factor, as I will next Chirp on "11/25/22 A Recipe for Election Tragedy".

But there is much truth in what he had to say, as it seems that reflexive voting for a party candidate has taken the place of thoughtful consideration of a candidate’s policy positions and political agenda. The recent example of the election of John Fetterman as Senator from Pennsylvania is an example of this. Much early voting, before Mr. Fetterman’s physical condition and policy stances became known, was based on party affiliation. His candidacy was based on hiding his physical condition and subterfuge on his policy positions. As a result, much of the early voting was party based rather than his fitness and his stances on the issues. When the full extent of physical condition and policies became known, it was not possible for the early voters to change their minds and cast their ballots differently. In a close election, such as this one, this may have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The same could be said of the election of Joe Biden in the 2020 Presidential election. Joe Biden’s mental acuity was never evidenced, and he was portrayed as a moderating influence on the leftist wing of his party and as a uniter of Americans, all of which was a subterfuge.

This is yet another problem with early voting, as well as the lack of debates, as I have examined in my Chirp on "10/18/22 To Debate, or Not to Debate, That is the Question", and the other issues of voting that I have written about in my Article "Voting in America". The other problem is that a Republic of Party begets a Republic of Oligarchy, which is not a Democracy, as I have Chirped on, "01/11/22 Our Democracy". As such, our Democratic Republic is dissolving into a Political Party Oligarchy based on party affiliation, with such party affiliation based on underlying factors not related to the best interests of all Americans but the interests of those Americans affiliated with a party.

11/21/22 Winning Primaries and Losing General Elections

Many commentators and politicians have critiqued that in the recent 2022 mid-term elections, one of the factors for the Republican Party's minimal gains was that the Republicans had candidates that could win Primaries rather than General Elections. While this may be true, it is not germane to the reason for a political party unless the main reason for a political party is to win general elections. Such a reason is founded on the premise that the primary goal of a party is to obtain and retain political power rather than illuminate the differences between the parties and allow the electorate to choose between policy agendas and political agendas. While a political party must win general elections to implement its policy goals and political agendas, if it does so while losing its soul and reason for its existence, then it is a hollow victory without sustenance.

If a political party attempts to disguise its policy goals and political agendas from the electorate to win general elections thru the techniques of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", “The Perversion of the English Language”, and saying one thing but doing another, then it is a party in a masquerade that attempts to simply obtain and retain political power. Such a party is dedicated to rulership rather than leadership, which I have examined in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Alas, such masquerading has been the tactic of the Democrat Party for the last several decades. Since the candidacy and election of Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party has been more interested in subterfuge than candor to obtain political power. This has led the American electorate to make unwise decisions that are contrary to the best interests of America. Unwise decisions, as the American electorate has not been fully informed about the policy goals and political agendas of the Democrat Party and the consequences of their policy goals and political agendas. Instead, they have been swayed by emotionally charged rhetoric rather than intellectually based rationality. The American electorate has also been swayed by several underlying factors that have not been illuminated by the political parties nor by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". Indeed, these underlying factors have been ignored for the purpose of electing (mostly Democrat) candidates that support the predilections of the aforementioned interest groups.

This is why it is important for the Republican Party, in the Primaries, to nominate candidates of candor so that they can illuminate the differences between their party and their candidates. This allows the electorate in the General election to choose between different policy goals and political agendas and elect candidates they think will implement these goals and agendas. Otherwise, we will continue to be unknowledgeable and confused about the issues and problems facing America, and we will continue to make uninformed and usually poor choices with bad consequences in the General election as to the solutions to our problems.

My next several Chirps will examine, for your consideration, these underlying factors that need to be illuminated for the electorate to make informed choices.

11/20/22 The Death of Investigative Journalism

The Mainstream Media has lost the concept of Investigate Journalism, and it has, instead, become Narrative Journalism. Rather than spending the time to investigate and then report on a story, it has become instant reporting on a story that fits its political proclivities narrative. In this, they have been supported by Social Media, as I have written in my Articles “Modern Journalism” and "Social Media and Free Speech".

A brief list of recent Narrative Journalism in which they got it completely wrong due to a lack of Investigative Journalism includes:

• Andrew Cuomo's COVID-19 leadership was worthy of praise.
• Defaming Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington Catholic Students.
• Haitian migrants were ‘whipped’ at the border.
• The Hunter Biden Laptop.
• The Jussie Smollett incident.
• The Kyle Rittenhouse shooting and trial.
• The Wuhan lab leak theory was ‘fringe’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’.
• Trump Russian collusion and the Steele dossier.

Additionally, the lack of investigative journalism on the 2020 Presidential election irregularities, Joe Biden’s and John Fetterman’s Mental Fitness to hold office, and the Influence peddling by the Biden Family are a result of Narrative Journalism rather than Investigative Journalism—i.e., if it doesn’t fit the narrative than it is unworthy of investigation. Thus, they are not ‘comforting the allected and afflicting the comfortable’ but are, indeed, supporting the comfortable and powerful that share their political proclivities.

This Narrative Journalism has extended to not only not investing but slandering or suppressing any Free Speech of those that do not support their narrative, even those who are also journalists. This is an assault on the Free Speech rights of All American and is incongruous with a Free Press. They also have, along with Social Media, been in collusion with the Biden Administration in suppressing reporting of stories unfavorable to the Biden Administration.

Consequently, they are no longer ‘Journalists’ but Propagandists’. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the role of a Free Press to help guard against government overreach and to assure our Liberties and Freedoms, which is why they incorporated the Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Modern Journalism is failing in its duties and responsibilities to fully inform the American public of all the facts and, therefore, the truths of what is occurring in America.

This failure has dire consequences for America’s future as the American electorate cannot make fully informed decisions on whom they should vote for and what public policies they should support. The good news is that the American public is recognizing these failures of Modern Journalism and turning to alternative sources for news and information. If this trend continues, then Modern Journalism will be relegated to a slideshow, which is where they belong due to their Narrative Journalism.

11/19/22 No COVID Amnesty

On Monday, November 91, 2922, Brown University economist Emily Oster had an essay published by The Atlantic in which she begged, “Let's declare a pandemic amnesty because we need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

However, forgiveness should only be given to those who repent and ask for forgiveness, and in the case of criminal actions, only if they have paid the penalty for their crimes. In the case of the COVID-19 virus, we can segregate forgiveness into those persons that could not have known, those persons that should have known, those persons that did know and did not speak up, and those persons that knew and spoke and acted foolhardy, harmfully, or maliciously.

The harm that was done to our society, economy, the educational and social development of our children, and our Liberties and Freedoms are destructive and incalculable. Alas, much harm was done, some of which was not avoidable, but some of which could have been avoided if more deliberative and rational thought had been applied rather than a rush to ‘do something’. Therefore, forgiveness should be allocated to each group based on their culpability.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 virus, little was known, and excessive precautions were justifiable. As soon as we discovered the size and airborne transmission of the COVID-19 virus, anybody with a knowledge of medicine and physics (especially fluid dynamics and gases) would have known that masking and social distancing were ineffective in preventing the transmission and reception of the COVID-19 virus. As we learned more about the COVID-19 virus, we understood that its impacts were on our senior citizens and those adults that had comorbid complications, while most adults and children were minorly impacted by the COVID-19 virus. It was when this knowledge became known that we can adjudge persons for the forgiveness of their words and deeds.

As to those persons that could not have known, which includes most Americans, forgiveness is fully warranted. Those persons that should have known but did not examine the facts nor speak up should be forgiven but chastised for not finding out and speaking up. Those persons that did know and did not speak up should not be forgiven and reprimanded for failing to do the right thing. Those persons that knew and spoke and acted foolhardy, harmfully, or maliciously should not be forgiven and should face possible civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions for their actions.

What should not be forgiven is those people and organizations that attempted to silence or suppress information and warnings about the harmful actions that were undertaken in response to the COVID-19 virus. The people and organizations that raised the alarms about the COVID-19 virus responses should be lauded and indemnified for speaking out. It is those people and organizations that spoke out that the American people should pay heed to and support in the future, and those that silenced or suppressed their speech should not be forgiven and punished to ensure that this never happens again.

Consequently, it's time for COVID-19 virus responses accountability, not amnesty, as Spencer Brown has written in his article “There Should Be No Covid Amnesty” and Michael Brendan Dougherty article “A ‘Pandemic Amnesty’? Hell, No.” Blanket amnesty is not warranted and is, indeed, harmful to the future of our society. A harm to our society in that if the unforgivable persons and organizations are forgiven and go unpunished, then they will continue in their harmful ways without fear of punishment and in the hope for forgiveness for their future actions.

11/18/22 The Military-Industrialization Complex

The expression Military Industrialization Complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest that influences public policy. In the context of the United States, the appellation is sometimes extended to the Military–Industrial–Congressional Complex (MICC), adding the U.S. Congress to form a three-sided relationship termed an "iron triangle". Its three legs include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry; or, more broadly, the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, private military contractors, the Pentagon, Congress, and the Executive Branch.

I have no problem with the Military Industries making a profit on military expenditures, as this is the capitalistic way of life in America. My problem is that the Congressional and Executive Branch are making military decisions not based upon our national security needs but upon the needs of the Military Industry making profits and their own election and reelection coffers and vote garnering. As I have written in my Chirp on “11/02/22 A Woke and Atrophied Military”, many military observers are concerned that the military is losing focus on its mission to win armed conflicts due to wokism and atrophy. They are also concerned that our military cannot fight a two-front war, which has been our military policy for over half a century, and that we would have difficulty winning a one-front war. This is not only because of wokism and understaffing but also because we have not had the proper funding for the military, nor have they allocated the proper apportionments and resources in the military to the goal of winning a modern armed conflict.

Consequently, the Military Industry is not the problem; it is a problem of proper decision-making by the Congressional and Executive Branches on military funding and apportionments of resources within the military. The only solution to this problem is for the American electorate to vote for politicians that will put national security and military preparedness above their own insular needs. However, determining what is politically insular versus what is militarily needed is very difficult to accomplish for the electorate. The only wise method to accomplish this is to look for virtuous candidates that you believe will do what is best for America rather than what is best for themselves and their narrow constituent’s interests.

11/17/22 ESG – A Pathway to Ruination

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) has become the rage of Progressives/Leftists Governments and Activists and Activism. So, what Is ESG effectuation and investing? Environmental, social, and governance refer to a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by governments to implement national economic and social policies through company regulation and by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments for a company’s adherence to ESG goals. Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change and other environmental goals. Social criteria examine how a company manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.

As Andy Puzder, the former CEO of CKE Restaurants — parent to Hardee's and Carl's Junior — has explained, the basic tenets of ESG are radical environmental policy — the so-called "green" energy transition, progressive social policy — requiring woke principles to be enacted within a company from the top down, and governance policies that see merit-based systems replaced with preferences based on race or sex.

The consequences of ESG, in addition to the forced wokification of massive corporations, include a loss in financial benefit for the shareholders whose money the asset managers are entrusted to a steward. Puzder explained that "ESG policies do not encourage profits" and he goes on to state that, in fact, ESG investing is a negative for profits, it's a negative for investor returns and it's only a positive if you're one of these progressive crusaders who's trying to get these issues through and force them down a countries populations throats without going to the ballot box. These negative consequences on investors, as Sanjai Bhagat the Provost Professor of Finance at the University of Colorado, has written in a Harvard Business Review article, “An Inconvenient Truth About ESG Investing“-“How have investors fared? Not that well, it seems.”

Sri Lanka's recent economic collapse was in large part of the government adopting ESG criteria on the country’s companies and in its governance, while Dutch farmers are up in arms about the negative impacts on farming of ESG implementation. Germany has forced many ESG policies on its companies and within governmental policy, and its economy has been floundering. Throughout the world, ESG has had negative consequences on the people and economies where ESG is being implemented. ESG has led to shortages of products and supply chain problems to make up for these shortages, and all of this has led to increased prices for consumers. As Marc Joffe has written in his National Review article, “Why ESG Is Bad for the Economy”:

“Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment practices distract investors and corporate management from maximizing long-term profitability, which is often achieved through innovation, cost control, and customer focus. By diverting attention away from priorities that align with increased productivity and toward a shifting array of inconsistently defined social-impact criteria, the ESG orientation is a long-term threat to continued economic growth.”

“Like many movements in America’s past, the ESG-investment crusade has taken a reasonable idea and stretched it well beyond reason. If institutional investors continue to deploy funds according to shifting criteria other than long-term profitability, and relying on imprecise metrics while doing so, they will undermine the ability of the U.S. economy to grow and to thereby improve our standard of living.”

Throughout the world, the implementation of ESG has led to greater government control over businesses and the economies of their country. Consequently, ESG is not really about the environment, social, and governance goals; it is about power! The power to control persons and businesses by Government and Progressives/Leftists. The power to implement their agenda without the elective support of the people. The power to impinge upon the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and the power to reorganize society on utopian ideals. As such, ESG should be opposed by all persons who wish to control their own destinies and live under Liberty and Freedom. Otherwise, we will become serfs to their lordship, and democracies will devolve into despotism.

11/16/22 Stupid Is as Stupid Does

In the movie “Forrest Gump” there is the famous, often-quoted line, “Stupid is as stupid does”. Ignorance is often the fuel that powers stupidity, and ignorant stupidity is the most disastrous stupidity of all. Ignorant stupidity also often leads you to believe that you are right when you are wrong. Once again, President Biden and his Administration have demonstrated the truth of these statements and have proven their own ignorant stupidity.

President Biden said Friday, November 94, 2022, that coal plants are too expensive to operate, and "we're going to be shutting these plants down all across America" in order to shift to wind power. President Biden has ordered an end to overseas financing of coal plants and other carbon-intensive projects, the first such federal directive. In a diplomatic cable sent to every U.S. embassy, the White House ordered an immediate end to the financing of such projects as well as more indirect support, such as technical assistance to pipeline operators.

The ignorant stupidity of this policy is so astounding that it belies belief. As I have many times, “When the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine, and batteries don’t have the capacity to store sufficient power with ample duration to supply our electricity needs during these times, we risk electrical calamity”. To believe that wind (or solar) power can replace coal power in the near future is to ignore "The Basis of Our Modern Technological World" and "The Four E’s (Energy, Economic, End-To-End, and Environmental)", as well as disregard "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

This is again an example of President Biden and his Administration living in fantasyland, as I have Chirped on "10/21/22 Reality Bites I" and"10/22/22 Reality Bites II". The implementation of this coal plant elimination policy will come back and bite us, and it will be a terrible and highly injurious bite. The new Republican Congress needs to put an end to this policy and insist that President Biden and his Administration live in the real world.

11/15/22 Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

A looming crisis is approaching us, and it is a crisis not being fully acknowledged nor being addressed by the Biden Administration, nor is the American public aware of this crisis. It is the approaching crisis of a shortage of diesel fuel. It is expected that by the end of November 2022 that we will not have sufficient diesel fuel to meet our needs. As Waco economist Ray Perryman has explained in an article by Bob Campbell, “Diesel fuel shortage ominous”, “There are only a few weeks' supply left with the nation's 130 refineries going full blast and the truck fleets, trains, ships, farmers and military potentially facing big challenges.”

Diesel fuel is a bedrock of our economy that is essential for transportation and other needs of our economic activities. Diesel fuel is utilized for the vast majority of shipping by land and sea and for supplying aviation fuel to aircraft for all air traffic. Farming equipment, trucks, freight trains, barges, boats, ships, and our military all require diesel fuel to operate. Without the proper supply of diesel fuel, our economy will come to a grinding halt, and without sufficient diesel fuel, we will see shortages and increased prices for everything.

Farmers utilize diesel fuel to conduct their mechanized farming and the shipping of their products, business and consumer goods and supplies are shipped with diesel-fueled vehicles. Diesel fuel generators are a technology of choice for emergency and backup power systems because they can best provide immediate, full-strength, electric power when the primary power supply system fails. Many industrial facilities, large buildings, institutional facilities, hospitals, and electric utilities have diesel-fueled generators for backup and emergency power supply.

The importation of diesel fuel in the quantities needed to support our needs is not possible as a long-term solution, and as a short-term solution, it will only delay the inevitable. We, therefore, must produce the necessary quantity of diesel fuel to meet our needs. So, why is this shortage happening? There are a few important reasons for this, but the most important reasons are a lack of oil drilling, oil transportation, and diesel refining capabilities in America and a historically low supply of diesel reserves.

This is part in parcel with the Biden Administration’s desire to reduce our production of fossil fuels, a policy that has taken us from fossil fuel independence to fossil fuel dependence on foreign trade. A policy that makes us dependent on the vagaries and manipulations of oil-producing foreign nations and foreign oil companies. It also exposes us to capricious price increases for fossil fuels by oil-producing foreign nations.

Waco economist Ray Perryman has also stated that “The good news is that additional refinery capacity is coming online over time, though it still won't leave much slack. Refineries take years and billions to build if companies can even get permits and in the current political environment, such investments take on additional risk.” The Biden Administration needs to ease up on its fossil fuel restrictions and bring us back to fossil fuel independence. Given the almost religious-like fervor against fossil fuels that characterizes the Biden Administration, I do not expect this to happen. Consequently, it is important that we elect a new President in 2024 that will institute policies that restore our fossil fuel independence.

11/14/22 Kangaroo Courts in Congress

A Kangaroo Court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority that intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (i.e., a show trial).

In the recent past, some Congressional Committees have been operating as Kangaroo Courts. The Impeachment of President Trump Committee hearings and the January 6th, 2001 ‘Insurrection” committee hearings have clearly shown that Congress is acting as a Kangaroo Court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice. Other Committee hearings have also taken on the tone of a kangaroo court in that they are not being held to uncover the facts to determine the truths for valid Congressional legislative or investigative purposes. They are, instead, being held for political purposes to reach a foregone conclusion for the purposes of electioneering. It is important that "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" be upheld in Congressional hearings so as to ensure the protection of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of any person involved in these hearings.

In the Impeachment Hearings, the Impeachment Resolution gives the President and Republicans an illusion of Due Process, but it appears that the Democrat’s definition of Due Process is for the Republicans to be able to request Due Process, which can be denied by the Committee Chairman, or denied by a full Committee vote which is controlled by the Democrats. The Democrat Chairman also had the right to issue subpoenas without the joint concurrence of the Republicans, to restrict the subpoena power of the Republicans, and to limit questions to the witnesses. It, therefore, limits Due Process to the arbitrariness of the Democrat committee chairman or the Democrat majority in the committee. This Impeachment Resolution, in effect, means that the House Democrats are reserving the right to do whatever they please, howsoever they please, and whenever they please. These are the actions of a kangaroo court and not an investigative committee. My article on "Impeachment Resolution” examines this in more detail.

In the Insurrection hearings, the deck was stacked against former President Trump in that all the committee members were political opponents of President Trump, no testimony of or for the ‘insurgents’ was allowed, and a predetermined conclusion is inevitable. Counsel for President Trump was not allowed, no evidence in his favor was allowed, and testimony was edited and tailored against President Trump. The words and deeds of President Trump prior to and on January 6th, 2021, were taken out of context and were often misrepresented or tailored by omission. The actions of President Trump and the inactions of Congressional leaders prior to January 6th, 2021, to prepare for possible riots were ignored. My Chirps on "06/12/22 A Kangaroo Congressional Committee Hearing" and "07/02/22 Hearsay Evidence" examines this in more detail.

Kangaroo committee hearings are not for legitimate Congressional legislative or investigative purposes but to stoke enmity against a person or party. If, in Congressional committee hearings, this enmity cannot be abated, if civility cannot be restored, or if some semblance of bipartisanship cannot occur, then we will be locked into mortal combat rather than governance. If this can be rectified, then we can proceed with the normal order of business of the governance of the United States. This enmity and the lack of Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings are more damaging to our democracy than anything the Kangaroo Congressional committee is investigating. If Kangaroo Congressional Committees are allowed to continue, and if they influence an election, then we can expect other such Kangaroo Congressional Committees in the future.

But, alas, I do not expect this to happen as the Democrat politician's electioneering tactics are built upon enmity. In the 2022 mid-term elections, we have seen even more displays of Democrat candidates’ enmity and fear and loathing of their opponents rather than policy disagreements. The only way it will ever be over is for the American people to remove the Democrat Party politicians from the reins of power in an overwhelming manner. It is only this removal that will force the Democrats to reassess their tactics and approach to governance, and we can then proceed with the regular order of doing the business of governance.

If the Republicans win control of Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections, then the new Republican-controlled Congress will need to investigate the many cases of abuse of "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" that President Biden and his administration have engaged in. However, these investigations must not be run as a Kangaroo Congressional Committee but as fair and equitable Congressional committee proceedings that institute Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings.

11/13/22 It’s Time to Exit Stage Right

In an article by Terry Paulson, “Why Did the Wave Become a Ripple?”, he sets forth that:

“It’s clear now that Donald Trump is toxic! His victory and first term as president helped set the stage for needed conservative policy changes; he showed that a president could deliver on his promises. But his abrasive comments and personal attacks clearly contributed to Republican midterm losses in this election. Trump’s 2020 loss to Biden was not because of his conservative positions. His campaign was focused on demeaning Biden. More than half of Americans hated him so much that they gave the presidency to what we now know is an age-impaired president. In this election, not all of the Trump-endorsed candidates won. He may have endorsed them, but he did not take from his large political war chest to help fund their campaigns. His negative comments about Gov. DeSantis did not hurt the governor, but they did hurt the party. Trump made a difference, but his time has passed if the GOP is to win the future.”

Former President Donald Trump also recently ranted against Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin in what now appears to be a mocking campaign against potential rivals in the 2024 Presidential primary elections. He seems to have forgotten, or never knew, The Eleventh Commandment of Ronald Reagan "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." His ill speaking can only be harmful to the future of the electoral chances of conservative Republicans, which is harmful not only to Republicans but to America.

I, therefore, agree with Mr. Paulson that it’s time for Donald Trump to pass the torch to a younger generation that exposes his ideals and ideas. It is also time for Donald Trump supporters to throw their support to this new generation of Republican leaders. By doing so, they can help ensure that "Constitutional Conservatives" are elected for many years to come and help right the course of America. To right the course of America will take many years of hard work to accomplish, which will require a younger generation of dedicated conservative politicians to accomplish. Mr. Trump needs to put his ego aside and do what is best for the American people, which is for him to exit stage right while passing the torch without torching other conservative Republicans.

11/12/22 The Times They Are a Changing

Old-school Republicans are dead, and it is time to replace the old-school Republican leadership in Congress and the Republican Party. The mainstream Republicans have not been for some time the party of the wealthy and big business, nor the self-styled elites and government bureaucrats, while the old-school Republicans in Congress have also been mostly civil and accommodating in their words and deeds in Congress. The Democrats now have almost exclusive titles to the aforementioned class of people, while they have been losing the middle class and ethnic groups they have depended upon for several decades. The Democrats in Congress have also been uncivil and partisan in their words and deeds in Congress, as per my Article "Divisiveness in America". This change from old-school to new-school Republicans needs to be reflected in the new Republican leadership in Congress.

The recent mid-term elections of 2022 have not seen the Red Wave of Republicans being elected as expected. There are many different reasons and excuses for what occurred, but in all these reasons and excuses it comes down to, as President Truman’s desk plaque stated, ‘The Buck Stops Here’. Leadership is taking responsibility for all that occurs, both good and bad, under your leadership. When you have continually not met expectations or failed, it is time for a change in leadership.

It is, therefore, time to consider new Republican leadership in Congress and the Republican Party to replace the old Republican leadership, as the old Republican leadership has not met expectations or failed. Inroads have been made in the lower Republican leadership ranks, but the upper ranks of Republican leadership need to be shunted aside and replaced with younger new school Republicans for the Republican Party to thrive. This is especially true for Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, as he is the epitome of old schools Republicans. His performance during the recent 2022 election cycle did not advance new school Republicans and, indeed, did some harm to their election prospects. Also, the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) in the Senate need to be shunted aside and replaced by new-school Republicans in positions of leadership. The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has fared better in transitioning to new school Republicans in the lower ranks of leadership, and this should be further encouraged by a change to new school Republicans in the upper ranks of leadership. Current House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy is of the old-school Republican ranks, but he has become more new school over the last several years. However, he has also failed to act aggressively against President Biden and the Democrat's agenda in Congress. Therefore, the new school Republicans in the House of Representatives should elect a new school Republican leader to become the new Speaker of the House.

Both the House of Representatives and Senate Republican leaders need to have a more aggressive attitude in confronting Democrat leadership to change the culture in Washington D.C... A culture that puts activist government and special interests ahead of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and devalues our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists forces of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Wokeness, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering Identity Politics, Hyper-Partisanship, and a Herd Mentality need to be confronted and turned back to restore "A Civil Society" in America. The actions of the institutions of "Big Tech", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Mainstream Media", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" needs to be rectified to ensure that the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all Americans are not violated by these institutions.

The best means to correct these problems is for the new school Republican leadership in Congress, and new school Republican Party leaders, to illuminate these problems to the American people and then pass and promote legislation that will correct these problems, as I have examined in my new Article, “A Harbinger of Bad Tidings”. Only the new school Republicans can accomplish this objective, and they need to be in positions of leadership to achieve this goal. Consequently, it is time to replace the old-school Republican leadership with new-school Republican leadership in Congress and the Republican Party.

11/11/22 A Harbinger of Bad Tidings

My new Article, “A Harbinger of Bad Tidings”, reviews the many convulsions in the last two years that Congress needs to investigate, as well as the need for Congress to investigate other issues that are impacting our “American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". These and the other issues are:

• The Impacts and Consequences of an Open Border Policy
• The Impacts and Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic
• The Impacts and Consequences of the problems of Voting in America
• The Impacts and Consequences of increased Crime and a lack of Punishment for criminals
• The Impacts and Consequences of an Unequal and Prejudicial system of Justice
• The Impacts and Consequences of The Decline of Free Speech in America
• The Impacts and Consequences of a Woke and Atrophied Military
• The Impacts and Consequences of Homelessness
• The Impacts and Consequences of the problems of Public Education
• The Impacts and Consequences of Influence Peddling by Foreign Governments and other non-American actors
• The Impacts and Consequences of Bureaucratic Regulatory Capture
• And the true story of the January 6, 2020, "Insurrection"

In all these Congressional investigations, we must always keep in mind the difference between rhetoric and reality and focus on the facts and the truths of the facts, as well as keeping narcissism and vitriol out of the proceedings. The Congresspersons should also remember that the purpose of these hearings is to craft legislation to correct these problems and not to produce rhetoric for electioneering purposes.

The above points, and our current government actions on these points, are an erosion of the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans that could harbinger bad tidings for the future of America. As the Republicans have won narrow control of of the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections, the new Republican-controlled House will need to investigate these issues and the many other cases of abuses that President Biden and his administration have engaged in.

11/10/22 When Will We Learn

As I have written in my Article "Voting in America", Early Voting and Voting by Mail have had nefarious consequences in the 2022 mid-term elections, highlighted by the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. In Arizona and Nevada, the counting of Mail-In Ballots has caused extensive delays, while in Pennsylvania, early voting has skewered the outcome of the election.

Machine failures in Arizona appear to have been primarily in election districts that have traditionally voted heavily Republican, while in Nevada, there are concerns about biased ballot validation and the consequential counting of fraudulent ballots. In Pennsylvania, the extent of John Fetterman’s impairment due to his stroke was unknown to early voters, as I Chirp on "10/17/22 Physical Disability and Mental Impairment", in which the knowledge of his impairment may have changed enough votes to alter the election outcome.

We also had the problem of an extraordinary number of (Democrat) political candidates refusing to debate their opponents, or set unusual terms or conditions for a debate, or only debating well after early ballots are cast, as I Chirped on, "10/18/22 To Debate, or Not to Debate, That is the Question". This lack of transparency does not allow the voters to become more fully informed before casting their ballot, which skewers the outcome of the vote.

We have, additionally, the new problem of the Democrat Party meddling in GOP primaries by the Democrats' strategy of spending millions to boost pro-Trump candidates in Republican primaries, which appeared to pay off Tuesday as the party ended the night with a clean sweep of the races in which it chose to meddle, as examined in the Fox News article “CLEAN SWEEP: Democratic meddling in GOP primaries paid off in a big way on Election Day“. Democrats spent more than $40 million boosting those six GOP candidates, all of whom expressed support for former President Donald Trump as a leader of the Republican Party or were backed by him. All six of the Republican candidates who seemingly benefited from the meddling in their primary victories fell to their Democratic opponents. Those races include a number of key House and gubernatorial races, as well as the New Hampshire Senate race. Such meddling is nefarious and anti-democratic that could have serious repercussions in future elections if this becomes common practice.

All of these practices favor Democrat Party candidates to the detriment of Republican Party candidates, which is why Democrat Party Leaders express little concern or deny voting problems in America. Despite their protestations of concern for voting problems, they are only concerned with protecting their ability to cheat. In the bitter partisanship and close elections that we are experiencing in America today, cheating rather than persuasion seems to be the tactic of the Democratic Party to obtain and retain power. They have also resorted to emotional fearmongering against Trump supporters and Republicans in general in order to divide and pit Americans against each other to garner votes. This emotional fearmongering, not based on policy differences, but based on fear and loathing of their opponents, is destroying the commonality of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and “The Soul of the Nation”.

Until we can correct the voting problems in America, it will not be possible to correct the other problems in America, as we must have free and fair elections that reflect the will of the electorate to solve these problems.

These voting problems and the other problems I have discussed in my “A Harbinger of Bad Tidings” article are all reminiscent of what I have written in my Article “1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook” – which is an examination of the attempts by the Democrat Party to turn 1984 into a handbook for the governance of America instead of a cautionary tale of modern tyranny.

11/07/22 Please Vote

In my Chirp on "09/15/22 Please Don’t Vote", I implored the uninformed voters not to vote. In this Chirp, I am asking the informed voters to vote. I am also asking informed voters to vote based on intellectual rather than emotional responses to the candidate’s policies and positions, nor the candidate’s party affiliation.

Many of my Chirps in the last month have been about the importance of the Republicans regaining control of Congress. The 2022 mid-term elections may decide upon America’s near future and possibly far future, but in either case, America’s future hangs in the balance. Many of the issues, and the candidate's positions on these issues, are existential questions on the nature of governance of America. One party, The Democrats, believes in an interventionist and larger government for the purpose of creating what is best for America, while the other party, The Republicans, believes what is best for America is minimal governmental intervention and a smaller government that maximizes individual liberty and freedom.

In this, as the noted economist Thomas Sowell has often said:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

It is we, the American electorate, that will decide what is best for America’s future in this election. But we must recognize that all of us must work within the boundaries of the Constitution. Anyone, and especially politicians that wish to operate outside the bounds of the Constitution, poses an existential threat to America and must be rejected by the electorate. It may be difficult to determine those politicians that pose an existential threat, but most on the far left and far right fall into the category of existential threats. Given the shift of the Democrat Party to the far left, we should be wary that Democrat politicians will pose a threat. While the Republican Party has drifted more to the right, this drift has not been as serious or far-reaching as the shift of the Democrat Party to the far left. Thus, Republican politicians will pose much less of an existential threat than Democrat politicians.

Therefore, I still say that if you are uninformed about the issues, then I would still ask you not to vote, but if you are informed about the issues, then I would ask you to vote. And if you are truly informed about the issues, then I believe that you will vote for the Republican candidates.

11/06/22 Are You and America Better Off Today

In the final week of the 1980 presidential campaign between Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Republican nominee Ronald Reagan, the two candidates held their only debate. Going into the Oct. 28 event, Carter had managed to turn a dismal summer into a close race for a second term. And then, during the debate, Reagan posed what has become one of the most important campaign questions of all time: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

America has seen many convulsions in the last two years. On the International stage; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threatening actions of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues we have been convulsed by the policies of the Biden Administration.

Today, rather than a dismal summer under President Carter, we have had a disastrous almost two years under President Biden. We definitely are not better off today than we were when President Biden took office, and it appears we will not be getting any better in the near future. The 2022 mid-term elections cannot change this if the Democrats remain in control of Congress, but Republican control of Congress may be able to blunt the severity and duration of this downturn under the Biden Administration.

The Republican candidates may not be to your liking, but they are better than allowing the Democrat Congress to remain in power. Therefore, I say to the American electorate that it is better for our country to have a Republican Congress that may be able to alleviate some of these problems rather than a Democrat Congress that has brought forth these problems. Consequently, you should vote for the Republican candidate even if you need to hold your nose to do so.

11/05/22 The Destruction of America

I have never seen such a precipitous nor quick decline in America’s prospects as I have witnessed under the Biden Administration. It makes one wonder if it is total incompetence or deliberate actions that have brought about this decline. I suspect that it is both, as the Biden Administration is chock full of incompetent people and those that do not believe in traditional American values. In their quest to “fundamentally transform” America into their utopian ideals and ideas, as well as their incompetency, they have set a course for the destruction of America as we have known it to be.

In less than two years, we have witnessed the problems on the International stage of; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, and on the National stage of, the problems on; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problems, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues, America is in decline.

As the Philosophical Hanlon's Razor states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." However, stupidly cannot adequately explain the problems that have beset us; therefore, I believe that malice must be a part of our precipitous and quick decline. I have often stated that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans, and they cannot contemplate that they are wrong as they have an unswerving and almost religious belief in the correctness of their policy goals and political agendas.

They also have little grasp of “The Four E’s” or “The Basis of Our Modern Technological World” nor “The Law of Unintended Consequences” of their actions. They are so committed to their belief in "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" that they implement actions that are based on unrealities in today’s America. All this leads them to implement policy goals and political agendas that lead to the destruction of America.

This destruction of America can only end and be reversed by the rejection of the Democrat Party and its candidates by the American people. This is the overwhelming reason why a Red Wave (and hopefully a Red Tsunami) of Republicans and Conservatives should be elected in the 2022 mid-term elections, as well as the elections of a Republican President and Congress in the 2024 elections.

11/04/22 Semi-fascism in America

In the movie “Forrest Gump” there is the famous, often-quoted line, “Stupid is as stupid does”. Therefore, I would say, “Semi-Fascism is as semi-fascism does”, and look to actions rather than words to determine the real Semi-fascism in America. A new article by Rob Natelson, “Joe Biden’s Charge of ‘Semi-Fascism’”, looks at the actions of the Biden Administration to determine if they are semi-fascist. The list he compiled —which many readers of his know is merely a partial one—is frightening and should be of concern to all Americans as these actions show a disregard for our Constitution and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Professor Natelson utilizes the American Heritage Dictionary (5th edition) definition of fascism for his article:

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Despite the charges of Semi-fascism hurled at Republicans and Republican candidates, and Conservative commentators, there are few actions and words by Republicans and Conservative commentators that are Semi-Fascistic. However, there are many words and actions by Democrat Party leaders and Democrat candidates, as well as Progressive commentators, that are Semi-Fascistic. President Biden even gave a speech in front of Independence Hall on the night of September 01, 2022, that was Semi-fascistic and the most divisive, vile, and despicable speech given by a modern American President, as I have written about in my Article “The Soul of the Nation” and Rob Natelson has written about in his article “Biden’s nasty speech and the nation’s governors”. He again repeated these Semi-fascistic and divisive, vile, and despicable comments in a speech on the night of November 02, 2022, at Union Station in Washington, D.C.

These speeches are worthy of George III’s Ministers' and Members of Parliament's comments about the American Colonists who declared independence in that same hall. These speeches are also the tactics of that demonization of a group of people for the purposes of the incitement of the mob that Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao utilized to subjugate their own people. President Biden’s outright distortions and fabrications about his political opponents were abominable, and he set the predicate for the persecution and prosecution of his political opponents. As such, his comments were Semi-fascistic and an extreme threat to democracy, as well as an assault on our Constitutional Rights that were unworthy of the leader of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom.

I, therefore, say to the American electorate that a vote for a Democrat candidate is a vote for Semi-Fascism in America. The only way to prevent Semi-Fascism in America is to not elect Democrat candidates and have a Republican Congress that can act as a check on this Democrat Party Semi-Fascism in America.

11/03/22 Zugzwang and Schadenfreude

In the game of Chess Zugzwang  is a situation in which a player is forced to make a move as it is their turn, but they would rather not move because any move they make will weaken their position. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists and the Mainstream Media are facing their zugzwang moment in the 2022 mid-term elections. It now appears that a Red Wave (and perhaps a Red Tsunami) of Republicans and Conservatives may be elected. And they are in a panic!

The Democrats are attempting to change their messaging to address the concerns of Americans. They don’t understand that it is not the message but the consequences of their policy goals and political agendas that concern Americans, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/30/22 Message versus Actions”. This change of messaging is not having any impact, as the American people are not interested in listening to messages but are demanding changes in policies and agendas.

Despite the Mainstream Media's active attempts to cover for Democrat and Progressive candidates by downplaying the concerns of Americans, nefarious election polling, and disingenuous and sometimes outright lying on the Democrat candidate's past statements and votes, the Republican candidates are gaining and sometimes leading in the election polling. The American people are seeing past their deceptions and focusing on the impacts and consequences to their personal lives of disastrous Democrat policy goals and political agendas. And the American people do not like what they see in the Democrat Candidates and Democrat Party. Even traditional Democrat Party strongholds and interest groups are dissatisfied with their party.

All of this points to a Red Wave of Republicans being elected, and they have no answers but denial to counter this Red Wave. They appear to be dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t—thus zugzwang. Let those Americans concerned about the future of America utilize this zugzwang to checkmate the Democrat party candidates.

To this, I and many others are experiencing schadenfreude—delight in another person's misfortune. Those Americans that have experienced the misfortunes of Democrat Party policies and agendas should all be experiencing schadenfreude, and we should utilize this schadenfreude to motivate us to vote to ensure a Red Wave election. It is only with a Red Wave result in the election that we can begin to counter this misfortune and put America back on the right track.

However, a Red Wave election is only a start to putting America back on the right track. It must be followed by actions of the Republican-elected politicians to correct our course. Such actions will be stymied by Democrat-elected politicians and the Biden Administration, but the American people need to become more cognizant of the problems and the Republican solutions to these problems. The American people also need to be supportive of these solutions to force the hand of the Biden Administration. This may not be possible as the Democrats and the Biden Administration seem determined, despite the American people’s dissatisfaction with their policies and agendas, to continue to implement their policies and agendas. It may, therefore, take a Republican President and Republican Congress to fully right the course of America.

11/02/22 A Woke and Atrophied Military

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has embarked upon a course of "Wokeness" in the American military. From purging enlisted and officers that do not agree with his wokism, to the assigning of wokism reading material for officers, to the creation of a chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer at the Department of Defense's education wing, Secretary Austin has gone full-woke in the Defense Department. As a result, quality officers and enlisted personnel are leaving the military or not reenlisting, and recruitment goals are not being met, resulting in the understaffing of our military.

Many military observers are concerned that the military is losing focus on its mission to win armed conflicts of this wokism. They are also concerned that our military cannot fight a two-front war, which has been our military policy for over half a century, and that we would have difficulty winning a one-front war. This is not only because of wokism and understaffing but also because we have not had the proper funding for the military, nor have they allocated the proper apportionments and resources to the goal of winning a modern armed conflict.

This wokism and atrophying of our military has been a result of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders social policy goals and political agendas being imposed upon the military. This needs to end forthwith, which can only occur with a Republican Congress having the power of the purse to correct this situation. Consequently, it is important to our National Security that Republican candidates are elected in the 2022 mid-term elections to take control of Congress and correct this situation.

11/01/22 Crime and Punishment

A crime wave has struck America in the last few years, abetted by a lack of punishment for the offenders. Since the summer riots of 2020 (excuse me- the mostly peaceful protests) that cost $1.42 billion in property damage or destruction, with at least 358 civilian casualties (106 deaths and 252 injuries) and more than 2,000 law enforcement officers being injured, crime in America has precipitously increased. Many Democrat Party leaders and Democrat politicians defended these mob actions; some encouraged these mob actions, while the rest remained silent on these mob actions. At the same time, many Democrat Party leaders and Democrat politicians called for defunding the police or reimagining policing, and in some Democrat Party-controlled cities, they tried defunding the police; thereupon, crime increased in these cities due to a lack of policing.

Since the summer riots of 2020, ordinary and violent crimes have also precipitously increased. Wanton destruction of property, property theft, carjackings, assaults, muggings, and even murders have sharply increased. Violent criminals and gangs roam the streets, and when they are arrested, they are released without cash bail to continue their criminal actions. Many Democrat District Attorneys refused to press charges, or they plea deal downward to allow for probation or light sentences. Rarely are these criminals prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and when they are prosecuted, their punishment is mild and of short duration. Alas, many Democrat Party leaders and Democrat politicians defended these District Attorneys, or they remained silent. Excuses and rationalizations have poured forth from many Democrat Party leaders and Democrat politicians, as well as Progressives, to excuse their criminal actions, and they often criticized police actions against these criminals. Thereupon police officers stopped policing, and many became demoralized and quit or retired. As a result, the police forces in our cities are understaffed and underfunded, and crime in our cities is increasing.

Americans are afraid to go out on city streets, even in broad daylight, lest they become victims of these criminals. Americans are also angry about this situation and demanding a change to make our streets safer. But such change is not possible from Democrat Party leaders and Democrat politicians for the reasons I have written about in my Chirp on “10/30/22 Message versus Actions”. Consequently, if you desire a change for the better, the only recourse is to vote for the Republican candidates in the 2022 mid-term elections.

10/31/22 The Indoctrination of our Children

As I have written in my article, "Public Education", the public school systems in America are a failure. They fail to provide a good education for their students, they fail to provide a good environment for their students, they fail to prepare their students to become productive and contributing adults, they fail the parents of the students, and they fail the taxpayers who fund these schools. There are many reasons, mostly unspoken, for this failure which my article examines. The only success that they have achieved is in the indoctrination of our children with Progressives/Leftists ideals and ideas. In this, they have the full support of Democrat Party Leaders, as they share the same ideals and ideas.

This became readily apparent to their parents when they observed their children’s education during the remote teaching that occurred during the COVID-19 Pandemic lockdowns. As many parents began examining the educational materials and books that were being utilized in their children’s education, they became appalled by their content. When the parents looked at some of the instructional materials and recommended reading books and the teacher's interactions with the students in public education, they discovered sexually explicit content and sexual orientation instruction, the teaching of Critical Race Theory and Systemic Racism in America, the didactics of Socialistic ideas and the disparagement of Capitalism, and a general anti-Americanism that permeates the educational and pedagogical teaching in the classroom, as I examined in my Chirp on, "11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy".

Not only is this an assault on educational quality and integrity, but it also leads to confusion and psychological issues in the young minds that are unable to cope with this indoctrination. It creates students incapable of exercising "Rationality" and "Reasoning" in their thinking and, indeed, creates a "Herd Mentality" in their students. It also creates an ant-America attitude in their students. This is also an assault on parental rights to mold the morals and ethics of their children.

When these parents began to voice their displeasure of this (sometimes vitriolically) at school board meetings, they were either ignored or basically told to sit down and shut up. When the National School Boards Association complained about these parents’ actions during these meetings, the Justice Department thought it proper to open an investigation of possible ‘terrorism’ by these parents. Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, in his debate with now Gov. Glenn Youngkin, when so far as to say, “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions.” and “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This is an attitude that is all too common amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, and they should decide what is to be taught to students in our public schools.

This is an attitude that must be crushed and defeated at the polls by not voting for Democrat Party candidates and electing Governors, State and Local elected officials, and School Board members that are attuned to these concerns. Otherwise, we shall have indoctrinated rather than educated students that will be the future electorate in America.

10/30/22 Message versus Actions

I have often said that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, when the American people express dissatisfaction with the Progressives/Leftist and the Democrat Party policy goals and political agendas, they do not question their actions; they only question their messaging.

Their messaging often utilizes "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", and “The Perversion of the English Language” for the purposes of obscuring their true positions on the issues to hoodwink the American public. When this messaging fails to persuade the American public, they then try changing their messaging to further bamboozle the American electorate to garner support for their policy goals and political agenda. In this, they often are supported by the "Mainstream Media" and "Social Media" who share their political persuasions.

Message changing by Democrat candidates is what is now occurring in the 2022 mid-term elections, as the American people are expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in America. As in the proverb, ‘Actions speak louder than words’, the American people need to adjudge the Democrat candidates on their actions rather than their messaging. Most Americans are demanding a change in actions rather than a change in messaging to correct the problems facing America. Actions that the Democrats cannot contemplate, as they believe that they are always correct.

To vote for a Democrat candidate based on their messaging versus their actions, especially a Democrat candidate who has changed their message, is futile to achieve a change of actions. If you desire a change of action, the Democrat politicians and candidates are incapable of changing their actions due to their unswerving and almost religious belief in their policy goals and political agendas. Consequently, if you want a change of actions, the only change of actions that is possible is if you vote for the Republican candidate.

10/29/22 A Pathological Liar

In a column by John Nantz, he poses the question, “How Do You Successfully Lie To 300 Million People”, to which he begins to answer by stating:

“Joe Biden is a pathological liar. That’s easy to prove. Just about every public statement that he’s made is an outright lie. His claims about his law school career and standing were false. He claimed to have marched during the civil rights movement — a lie. He’s lied repeatedly, boldly about Hunter’s corrupt business dealings, and his intimate relationship to them. He’s spent 47 years stacking lie upon lie, building a colossal monument to his depravity and to the public’s gullibility.”

Joe Biden and his administration have spent their entire time in office lying to the American people. From his inaugural speech to the present day, they have been lying. His biggest and most despicable lie was in his remarks By President Biden on ‘The Continued Battle for The Soul of the Nation’ on September 01st, 2022, at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as I have written in my Article “The Soul of the Nation”. His most nefarious lie was his knowledge and involvement in his son’s business dealings, which were obviously an influence-peddling scheme to enrich both Joe and Hunter Biden. His most ongoing continuous lie, from the start of his Presidential campaign to today, is his mental fitness to hold the office of The Presidency of the United States.

He, and his administration, have continually lied about events on the international stage, as well as events on the National stage. On the International stage; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threatening actions of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues we have been lied to by President Biden and his Administration.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis stated this simple and powerful phrase with regard to a duty of publicity and the ability and the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men. The actual quote from Brandeis is a bit more eloquent and states:

"If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects."
 - Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis

Consequently, it is important for the Republicans to regain control of Congress, as they could then bring sunshine upon the lies of President Biden and his administration. This sunshine will allow the American people to make a factual, truthful, and honest judgment on the words and deeds of President Biden and his administration.

10/28/22 Current Election Polling Nefariousness

Political polling has become ubiquitous and nefarious in today’s society.

Ubiquitous because no matter how inane, vacuous, unimportant, or insignificant the topic of the poll, there are people and organizations that will poll the topic. And there will be a hubbub over the results. This is not much of a concern of mine, as people and groups are free to do whatever they choose with their time and monies, and I am free to ignore these polls.

Nefarious, however, is a big concern of mine. It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked, and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence the results of polls and therefore influence public policy.

This is why I have written an article on “Public Polling”.

Polling on elections is fraught with problems and errors, as well as being ubiquitous and nefarious. Jim McLaughlin, the president of the McLaughlin & Associates poll, is fed up. He told Newsmax on October 10 that major polling firms are intentionally ‘trying to drive down Republican support’ in the November midterm elections. He claims that a vast oversampling of Democrats in mainstream election surveys is intentional, as “They’re trying to drive down Republican support both in the electorate, because you’re not going to show up if your candidates going to lose, and they’re trying to dry up money.” and “Just like we get this biased mainstream media news coverage, their polls are biased.”. The noted political journalist John Fund has recently written a column, “Why Will Polls Now Show Republicans Doing Better?” that explains some of the nefariousness and the problems of the current election cycle polling.

This is why I have said for many years that if a Republican candidate is behind within the margin of error, they are probably equal or ahead in the election results, and if they are ahead in the polls, they will most likely win the election. Therefore, do not let election poll results determine if and how you should vote, and always remember that the election tally is the only poll that is meaningful.

10/27/22 Equal and Impartial Justice

“The most sacred of the duties of government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

Today, the government has failed in that sacred duty. These failures are so numerous that it is nearly impossible to recall or list all these failures. But the American people are recognizing these failures. From how our government treats protesters favoring Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders versus prosecutions against Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, to COVID-19 restrictions and inoculations for Yee and Thee but not for leftist protesters and illegal immigrants, to rhetoric and persecutions for anyone who would dissent or oppose Biden Administration policies and agendas, and to a host of other issues, the American people are awaking to a dual standard of justice in America that the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders are imposing upon America. It has become a system of ‘Us versus Them’ as I have written in my Article “The Weaponization of Government”.

This is a dangerous course for America to undertake, as illustrated by the history of Nazi Germany who undertook this course. As the Nazis believed that as they were more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they were, of course, always correct. Any person that disagreed with them was considered not to be in the wrong but evil, and their elimination from German society was considered an act of purification for the greater good of the German people. In this quest, they deployed the Gestapo, The Reich Ministry of Justice, and a People's Court to achieve their goals.

The Gestapo was the political police force of the Nazi state. The Gestapo was a notorious organization tasked with destroying political opponents of the Nazi movement, suppressing any opposition to Nazi policies, and persecuting Jews. From its origins as a Prussian intelligence organization, it grew into a sprawling and greatly feared apparatus of oppression. The Gestapo investigated any person or organization suspected of opposing the Nazi movement. Its presence became pervasive in Germany and later in the countries that the German military occupied.

The Reich Ministry of Justice was responsible for legal prosecutions in the Nazi state. The Nazi (Volksgerichtshof), which was set up outside constitutional authority, handled political actions against Hitler's dictatorial regime by conducting a series of show trials. Equality under the Law and Equal Justice for All was of no consideration in Nazi Germany. The court systems in Nazi Germany were notorious for not pursuing Justice and implementing and enforcing The Rule of Law, as I have written in my Article "Justice and The Rule of Law in America".  

The only consideration was the protection of the Nazi Party and its members and the suppression by intimidation, persecution, and removal via imprisonment or execution of any dissenters. The Gestapo and The Reich Ministry of Justice also assisted in the eradication of all persons, religions, or nationalities that the Nazi Party considered undesirable.

In today’s America, the Department of Justice has begun to operate as The Reich Ministry of Justice did, while the FBI is morphing into the Gestapo. The Department of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of various Intelligence Agencies, and the Department of Defense have also engaged in these activities. The people responsible for this are:

• Department of Justice Attorney General Merrick Garland
• Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray
• Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas
• Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines
• Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

However, it is The President of the United States, Joseph Biden, who bears ultimate responsibility for supporting and allowing this to happen. In this, he is violating his Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. Indeed, all the aforementioned persons are violating this same oath that they took upon entering office.

We are trotting upon a course that needs to stop and reversed, for as two wise men have stated:

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

This is another reason why the Democrats should not retain control of Congress, as they prefer and support this course. The Republicans, if they take control of Congress, need to illuminate this problem to the American people and take actions that will stymie, if not stop and revert this course. If not, we will lose our "American Ideals and Ideas" and put aside our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

10/26/22 Narcissism In America

I have often said that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".

Much of this Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' attitude can be attributed to their narcissist belief in themselves. A narcissism rooted in their upbringing and education. They have been taught by their parents and teachers a self-importance out of all proportion to self-achievement. They experience grade inflation unrelated to subject mastery, and they are awarded trophies for participation rather than success. Their parents treat them as adults and regard their decisions and opinions as worthy of serious consideration. Rarely do the parents correct their children’s words and deeds but encourage their autonomy regardless of consequences to themselves or others. All of this leads to a mindset rooted in narcissism. A narcissism that carries over to their political beliefs.

The book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D., is about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset and human nature and human freedom. Although the book was published in 2006, the Liberal/Progressive/Leftist Agenda has become more pronounced and easily understood by the words and deeds of today's Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders. These political goals and policy agendas are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and should frighten any person who believes in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”. This book inspired me to create articles that are extractions from this book. I would suggest that you read these articles in the following order to obtain the essence of this book:

• The Psychological Causes of Political Madness This article is my overview and commentary on this book.
• The Liberal Mind Overview - This article is an overview of the three sections of this book, which I have titled: I – The Nature of Man, II – The Development to Adulthood, and III – The Adult Liberal.
• The Liberal Mindset – This article is the author's selections from the book that highlight the major topics of the book.
• The Two Liberal Minds Beliefs - This article defines two types of liberals: ‘The Benign Liberal’ and ‘The Radical Liberal’ and their different viewpoints and perspectives.
• The Liberal Manifesto Major Principles - The section “The Liberal Manifesto: Major Principles” from Chapter 35 examines the political goals and policy agendas of today's Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party. I have excerpted this section of the book for your review and consideration.
• The Liberal Integrity and Treatment - The Chapter 48 section, ‘Integrity and Treatment’, has the best explanation of the difference between the Liberal and Conservative mindset that I have ever encountered. I have excerpted four sections of this chapter of the book for your review and consideration and as a basis for understanding the psychological nature of the political divides that are occurring in America today.
• The Ideal and Reality in Radical Liberalism  – The Chapter 47 sections, ‘The Liberal Agenda as an Evil’ and ‘Ideal and Reality in Radical Liberalism’ contradicts the claims of moral superiority and correctness that The Liberal Mind so often self-proclaims

This narcissism allows them to reject all opinions and beliefs contrary to their own opinions and beliefs. They, therefore, have not nor can they not grasp the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin"

And:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

10/25/22 Vitriol In America

In a recent monolog by Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight, he recounts a recent historical event that is apropos of what is currently happening in America.

“In July of 1993, a radio station in Kigali, Rwanda, began openly attacking one of the country's main ethnic groups, the Tutsis. The radio station was called RTLM, but many remember it as simply Hutu Radio because its audience was primarily Hutu. According to Hutu radio, Tutsi people were responsible for virtually every bad thing that ever happened in Rwanda. Tutsis had way too much money. They had way too much power. Tutsis were way too privileged. They were greedy. They were bigoted. They were racists. They were dangerous. Everything about Tutsiness was repulsive.

For the most part, actual Tutsis in Rwanda ignored all of this. Hutu Radio was not aimed at them, but then in July of 1994, just nine months after RTLM went on the air, a genocide began in Rwanda. More than half a million Tutsis were murdered, in many cases by Hutus whose rage had been stoked to violence by RTLM's broadcasts.

Entire Tutsi families were dragged from their homes and hacked to death with machetes. Hundreds of thousands of women were raped. The world watched in horror as it happened but did nothing to intervene. Instead, our leaders told us at the time, the genocide in Rwanda would live forever as a lesson to the rest of us about the capacity for evil that lurks inside every human heart and the dangers of reducing our neighbors to the sum total of their ethnicity. They're individuals, not ethnic groups.

Bill Clinton gave an eloquent speech actually on the subject in Kigali back in 1998. Look it up and ask yourself as you read it, if any Democratic Party official could today say those same words.”

He then goes on to relate how the commentary and news reporting on MSNBC about Conservatives and Republicans are analogous to what RTLM said about the Tutsis. MSNBC is the most egregious example of this, but other "Mainstream Media" outlets have commentary and news reporting that is of this ilk but not to the vitriol nor extent of MSNBC. In addition, "Social Media" has also engaged in this commentary by allowing Progressives/Leftists vitriolic comments while suppressing Conservatives comments and rebuttals. We have also recently seen many Democrat Party Leaders and Democrat candidates engage in this vitriol. This is dangerous to America, as it pits one group of Americans against another and rationalizes misbehavior and misdeeds by individuals and groups, as well as governmental actions, toward Conservatives and Republicans, as I have written in my Article “The Weaponization of Government”.

This often occurs because Progressives/Leftists (which most of the Mainstream Media and Social Media are) and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".

In the latest New York Times/Siena poll, they asked whether American democracy is ‘currently under threat,’ to which 74% of likely voters polled said ‘yes.’ Of those who responded in the affirmative, they were asked to rank various people and institutions that were a threat. The top threat? The mainstream media, with 59% saying it poses a “major threat to democracy,” 24% saying the mainstream media poses a ‘minor’ threat to democracy, and just 16% think there’s no threat at all. This attitude toward the media was strikingly bipartisan, with 95% of Republicans, 83% of independents, and 70% of Democrats calling the press a threat. However, only 38% of Democrats deem the media a “major” threat, compared to 80% of Republicans and 53% of independents. I suspect that the numbers are low on the Democrat and Independent sides as they are not the targets of this vitriol.

This poll reveals that the American people have recognized that the vitriolic behavior of "Modern Journalism" is an existential threat to America. At the very minimum, it enflames and increases the divisiveness in America, and it deprives the American people of factual and non-pejorative information that they need to make rational decisions on the solutions to the problems that beset America.

Given our First Amendment Rights to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, there is not much that can be done about this. However, if we allow more lawsuits of slander and libel against Mainstream Media and Social Media companies, this situation can be alleviated, as these companies would temper their commentary to avoid lawsuits. The other thing we can do is to not elect but vote against any candidate that benefits, supports, or engages in this vitriol.

However, we should never ignore them, and we should always call out their vitriol for:

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

10/24/22 Aspects of the Left

In a new column by Mark Lewis, “Some Despicable Aspects of the Left”, he examines some of the putrefactions (moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles) of the Left:

1. The Left judges' previous generations by their current moral vision.
2. They judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
3. They deny true human nature, believing only in a naturalistic, materialistic universe without spirit.
4. As a consequence, especially of point 3 above, liberals believe the government (controlled by them, of course) can solve nearly every human and world conundrum.

As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their putrefactions are the reality of the world. This leads them to policy positions and political agendas not based on reality but upon false assumptions. These false assumptions often have negative consequences and disastrous results for our society. They divide and pit Americans against each other by disclaiming our underlying "American Ideals and Ideas". They also reject our true history of both the good and bad aspects of our history by focusing only upon the bad and making them appear worse than they were (the 1619 Project is the perfect example of this).

This putrefaction has permeated the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech",  "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" to the detriment of our society and has set us onto a course of self-immolation that will destroy our American Ideals and Ideas. Consequently, we must resist and fight against these putrefactions or, as Abraham Lincoln said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

10/23/22 The True Meaning of Conservatism

In two new columns by Dennis Prager, he explains the true meaning of Conservatism—Individual Liberty and the conservation of the best of the past. Conservatives believe in individual liberty (there is no liberty other than individual liberty). This especially holds true for the greatest of all liberties—free speech. Conservativism attempts to conserve the best of the past—the best art, literature and music, the best standards, values and wisdom. Conservativism then passes the best of everything to every succeeding generation.

These columns, Explaining Conservatism and Explaining Conservativism II: Why the Left Hates It, are illuminative of the different beliefs of Conservatives and Progressives. They explain much of the difference in outlooks between Conservatives and Progressives. I would highly recommend that you read these columns as they will help you understand the different approaches that Conservatives and Progressives take to the issues and concerns that face America.

10/22/22 Reality Bites II

In my previous Chirp on “10/21/22 Reality Bites I”, I discuss those people who live in fantasyland. The three biggest fantasies that they engage in are discussed in my Articles:

• The Basis of Our Modern Technological World is an examination of the four indispensable sectors of items our modern technological world requires to function: Energy and Power, Food and Water, Essential Materials, and Globalization.
  
• The Four E’s are an examination of the Energy, Economic, End-To-End, and Environmental Factors in determining the costs and benefits, and impacts of an engineered system.
  
• Climate Change and the natural Climate Cycles, and the systemic problems and limitations with current climate models.

By engaging in these fantasies, they are charting a dangerous course for America and Americans. A course in which reality will bite, and America and Americans will continue to suffer.

10/21/22 Reality Bites I

In the movie, ‘Back to School’, millionaire businessman Thornton Melon is upset when his son Jason announces that he is not sure about going to college. Thornton insists that college is the best thing he has never had for himself, and to prove his point, he agrees to enroll in school along with his son. Thornton is a big hit on campus: always throwing the biggest parties, knowing all the right people, but is this the way to pass college? In one of the scenes, he takes a business course with his son, taught by the learned and expert Professor Barbay. He starts the lecture by discussing how to create a fictional company from the ground up by constructing the physical plant, setting up an efficient administrative and executive structure, then manufacturing the product, followed by marketing of the product. Thornton Melon makes some astute observations on Professor Barbay’s on the building of a plant, followed by the following dialog:

Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?
Thornton Melon: First of all, you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building, I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh, and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long-term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business, but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon!
Thornton Melon: Sorry. Just trying to help. That's all.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Now, notwithstanding Mr. Melon's input. The next question for us is where to build our factory?
Thornton Melon: How 'bout fantasyland?

Professor Barbay reminds me of many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as well as experts, academics, activists, journalists, and commentators, in that they have little knowledge or experience in the realities of the world. These people often propose solutions to the problems facing America without considering those realities, as well as not considering the truths of human nature. And reality bites in the real world. As such, they are living in a fantasyland, but a fantasyland that when reality bites, often lead to negative, unintended, or calamitous consequences.

The calamity to our economy of the COVID-19 restrictions, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problems, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues are a result of their living in fantasyland.

It is time that we ignore, and turn out of office, those people living in fantasyland for the good of our country. Otherwise, we will continue to try to live in a fantasyland where reality will bite, and America and Americans will continue to suffer.

10/20/22 Rhetoric versus Reality

It is all too common in America today that people often make their political decisions based on the rhetoric of politicians rather than the realities of the world. However, it should be remembered that it is the reality of political actions that are much more important than political rhetoric. Political rhetoric not based upon reality is to live in a fantasyland of imagination, which, when acted upon, dooms the acts to failure. A failure that will have negative consequences and could have disastrous results. Reality must always keep in mind the true economics, as I have written about in many of my “Miscellaneous Articles”, the engineering and technologies limitations as I have written about in many of my “Science Articles”, and the “The Basis of Our Modern Technological World” and “The Four E’s”, as well as the political will of any proposed solutions to the problems facing America. It must also, and always, keep in mind human nature as:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
  - Mark Dawson

Political rhetoric often raises the hopes of the American people. These rhetorical hopes are often then dashed by reality, and when these hopes fail to materialize, the American people often become cynical, despondent, or disillusioned about government and/or politicians. A cynicism, despondence, and disillusionment that turns the American people against their government and leads to civil unrest.

This political rhetoric reaches its peak during an election season and is a contributor to "Divisiveness in America". Most often, this political rhetoric divides the country into us versus them, where us is good, moral, and intelligent, while them are the polar opposite. This political rhetoric is part in parcel of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors",  "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”.

This political rhetoric is often done by demagogues to stir up mob passions and install fear and loathing of their political opponents. These wannabes are often of a despotic nature that wishes to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Rulership that often requires the imposition of despotism to achieve their agenda and goals.

The American people deserve better but often settle for less to achieve their policy goals and political agendas. But such achievements are hollow, as, without rational persuasion of the American people’s minds, you cannot have "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" but only oppressions of the American people.

10/19/22 The Perversion of the English Language

The perversion of the English language is one of the ways in which Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders try to confuse an issue. This English language perversion is accomplished by inventing new words and terms, assigning new meanings to current words and terms, and conflating the meanings of two words and terms.

Protologism (freshly coined) and neologism (new word) are important parts of the development of the English language. However, protologism words need time to develop a firm meaning and acceptance before they become a neologism. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often create a protologism, assign their own meaning, and act as if the word or term were a neologism or long-established word. Most often, this protologism is a pejorative that has been created to defame a Conservative or Republican. If you come across an unfamiliar word that ends with ‘ist’ or ‘ism” and is being used as a pejorative, then you can be almost certain that it is a protologism coined by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to attack Conservatives and Republicans.

The adding of a new meaning to a word is often done to take an innocuous or positive connotative word to insert a contentious meaning to the word so that the contentious meaning is more acceptable. Consequently, anyone who would dispute the more contentious meaning of the word appears to be disputing the innocuous or positive connotative of the word, which puts them at a perceived disadvantage in any discussion, dialog, or debate.

The conflation of words and terms is often done to ameliorate a disputable word or term with an unequivocal word or term. Often these terms and words are antithetic to each other. The most recent example of this is the conflation of ‘Equality’ and ‘Equity’, as I have Chirped on "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". By conflating these words, they have taken the positive emotional appeal of equality to attribute this positive emotional appeal to the contentiousness of equity.

Language is the way we communicate our thoughts and feelings, and perverting language leads to less understanding or misinterpretation. The Democrats and Progressives/Leftists will substitute a word or phrase that is innocuous and then utilize it instead of the proper non-innocuous word or phrase, thus leading to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the language. They also accomplish this as part and parcel of their Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, practices.

While Republicans and Conservatives sometimes engage in this English language perversion, it is a deliberate tactic of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to obtain their policy goals. Rather than resorting to "Rationality" and "Reasoning" to persuade the American public, they resort to the deception of misnomers or ill-defined language to obscure their true intentions. They also rely on emotional appeals to achieve their goals, in which the appeals and goals are obfuscated by this perversion of the English language.

I have recently updated my Article, "Dialog & Debate", to add this term as something to consider when you observe or read any discussion, dialog, or debate.

10/18/22 To Debate, or Not to Debate, That is the Question

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them:”
 - Hamlet by Shakespeare

This political season we have seen an extraordinary number of (Democrat) political candidates refusing to debate their opponents, or set unusual terms or conditions for a debate, or only debating well after early ballots are cast. In modern political debates, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders don't want to debate the Republicans, and they want to berate the Republicans. They will attempt to berate the Republican candidates while not addressing the issues and concerns that trouble most Americans.

The issues and concerns of the International stage; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problems, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues are not being addressed by Democrat candidates.

This political season the Democrat candidates have gone full tilt in their tactics of sowing “Divisiveness in America". They do this in order to install fear and loathing of Republican candidates so that the electorate will vote against Republican candidates rather than for Democrat candidates. Of course, Republican candidates do this as well, but without the vitriol that Democrat candidates invoke. Republican candidates will often focus their electioneering on the issues and concerns, while the Democrat candidates will focus on wedge issues while ignoring or dissembling their record on the issues and concerns that trouble most Americans.

The Democrat candidates do this because they are afraid. They are afraid that the American electorate has awoken to the Democrat’s calamitous policies and political agendas. They are afraid as they cannot explain nor justify their rhetoric or votes for these policies and agendas. They are afraid that their Republican opponents will expose their record, and they cannot disregard nor dissemble their record. They are afraid, and they are cowards for not facing their opponent! Any politician that is afraid or is a coward is not fit to be a leader of a free people.

It is the American electorate that should be afraid of the continuation of these Democrat policies and agendas. However, the American electorate can be brave and begin to correct this situation by not voting for the Democrat candidates. Even though they may not like the Republican candidate, they can be assured that the Republicans cannot make the situation worse than it is. Remember, in the famous quote of FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” So, I say to the Democrat electorate, put your fear of Republican candidates aside and vote for what is best for our country. To the Republican electorate, I would say now is the time to come out and vote for the Republican candidates for the good of the country. To all, I would say that what is good and best for the country is for the Republicans to control Congress to act as a check on the calamitous policies of the Biden Administration.

10/17/22 Physical Disability and Mental Impairment

Much has been said of Pennsylvania Democrat Senate candidate John Fetterman’s health problems, And much of this rhetoric has been "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors". His recent stroke led to physical disabilities, which he seems to be recovering from, and all compassionate people wish him a speedy and full recovery. He also suffered a mental impairment which is common in stroke victims. The extent of his mental impairment, the speed of his recovery, and the fullness of his recovery are the real and important questions of his campaign.

A physically disabled person is not a mentally impaired person, and a mentally impaired person is not a physically disabled person, although some people can be both physically disabled and mentally impaired. You should always keep this distinction in mind when dealing with a physically disabled and/or mentally impaired person. While a physically disabled person can overcome or work around their physical disabilities, a mentally impaired person often has limitations in living a full and productive life. A physically disabled person deserves consideration and assistance in employment, while a mentally impaired person may be unable to perform the duties and responsibilities of many tasks in their employment. This is a sad and unfortunate fact for people who suffer from mental impairments. It is this fact that limits employment opportunities for mentally impaired persons.

In the case of John Fetterman, he is attempting to obtain employment in a mentally challenging position of a United States Senator, which requires auditory and verbal skills, as well as the mental acuity to process information and make rational and reasonable decisions. His prospective employer, the people of Pennsylvania, need to know the extent of his mental impairments to determine if he is mentally fit to assume the duties and responsibilities of the office that he seeks. To date, he has not been forthcoming on the information the Pennsylvania electorate needs to make an informed decision on his mental fitness for office.

Many Fetterman supporters and much of the "Mainstream Media" have responded that questions on his mental acuity are attacks on a disabled person. But it is not his physical disability that is being challenged but his mental impairments that are being challenged. Challenges to a candidate’s policy and positions, as well as their mental acuity, are fair game in a political campaign. Anyone who would conflate physical disability and mental impairment are resorting to Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors to mislead or emotionally sway a voter. Such people are not to be trusted as they are not commenting on what is in the best interest of Pennsylvanians but only on their own partisan predilections.

John Fetterman’s campaign is reminiscent of the basement Presidential campaign of Joe Biden, in which the American people were not fully aware or cognizant of the mental acuity of Joe Biden. As a result of the lack of information about Joe Biden’s mental acuity, he was elected President, and consequently, America has been convulsed by many problems since Joe Biden assumed the office of the Presidency. Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors were utilized by the Biden campaign to disguise the mental acuity of Joe Biden, and Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors are now being utilized by the Fetterman campaign to disguise the mental acuity of John Fetterman.

There is an adage, ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.’ that Pennsylvania voters need to remember in casting their ballots for U.S. Senator. Do not bring shame on yourself by casting an uninformed ballot and instead demand all the information on John Fetterman’s mental impairment before you cast your vote. If such information is not available, then do not bring shame upon yourself and cast your vote for John Fetterman.

10/16/22 Distinctions

In a recent column by Dennis Prager, he notes that Torah is rooted in distinctions. Among these distinctions are the following:

• God and Man
• God and Nature
• Good and Evil
• Holy and Profane
• Life and Death
• Male and Female
• Man and Animal
• Parent and Child

He then goes on to state, “In the Torah’s views, these distinctions reflect God’s design—and therefore a Designer. In the biblical worldview, recognition of this design makes civilization possible. The demise of these distinctions would mean the end of civilization as we know it.”

Such distinctions are necessary to live a moral and ethical life, as, without these distinctions, we cannot make rational and wise decisions on the perplexities that we face in life. Such distinctions are also necessary for a society to make reasonable decisions on the many issues and concerns of the dilemmas that society faces and to order itself peaceably.

In today’s America, we seem determined to narrow or eliminate these distinctions, usually under the banner of “Who are you to judge?” and "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". This banner is often carried by "Progressives/Leftists" that are supported by "Democrat Party Leaders". Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are trying to remove these distinctions to obtain their policy goals and political agendas.

The confusion that they sow leads to a confused society where up is down, in is out, forward is backward, black is white, and slower is faster. In a confused society, it is easier to rule than lead, a herd mentality can be established, and mob rule can then be instituted. Such a society is doomed to collapse and be destroyed by the forces from within. Or, as a wise man once said:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
- Abraham Lincoln

We, therefore, must clear the confusion being sowed, and remember and act upon the distinctions, if we are to live through all time as a nation of freemen.

10/15/22 Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2022 Update

FYI - According to the IRS, 143.3 million people paid federal income taxes in 2019 for a total of $11.9 trillion in adjusted gross income. Total income taxes paid equaled $1.6 trillion in individual income taxes. More than 100 million U.S. households, or 61% of all taxpayers, paid no federal income taxes last year, according to a report from the Tax Policy Center. However, people who don’t pay federal income taxes must still pay some combination of state income, sales, and other taxes. There are approximately 246.7 million adults in the United States as of that same year.

Key Findings:

• In 2019, taxpayers filed 148.3 million tax returns, reported earning nearly $11.9 trillion in adjusted gross income, and paid $1.6 trillion in individual income taxes.
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.6 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).
• The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 20.1 percent from 20.9 percent in 2018. The top 1 percent’s share of federal individual income taxes paid fell to 38.8 percent from 40.1 percent.
• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.2 percent).
• The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced average tax rates across income groups.

When people say ‘Tax the Rich”, my comment is ‘We are Already Taxing the Rich’, as I have written in my Article “Tax the Rich and Make Them Pay Their Fair Share”. And when Tax the Rich rhetoric is utilized in an election campaign, you can be assured that those persons engaging in this rhetoric are uninformed or deliberately misleading the American public. Such people should not be paid attention to, as they lead America astray.

10/14/22 Balancing the Ticket

Since the time of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (passed by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804), when the election of the President and Vice President was combined into one ticket, Vice Presidents have been chosen to balance the ticket for geographical or political purposes to win an election. This has not led to many repercussions for our Nation, mostly because the Vice President has inconsequential duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, and most Presidents have ignored their Vice Presidents. However, on several occasions, this has led to negative repercussions, and on two occasions, it has had positive repercussions.

When Abraham Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his vice president, it was for the purpose of balancing the ticket geographically and giving a political voice to southern unionist sentiments. This turned out to be harmful to America as President Lincoln was the right man, at the right time, and in the right place to unify America after the calamities of the Civil War, and Andrew Johnson was the wrong man, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place to unify America. Consequently, America suffered for over one hundred years afterward by continued civil political strife and civil rights abuses because of Andrew Johnson and successive President's lack of moral clarity and effective leadership to overcome these problems.

William McKinley was a machine politician who chose Theodore Roosevelt as his vice president for the purpose of removing him as the Governor of New York; as Theodore Roosevelt was known as an upstart that challenged machine politics and had distinctly different ideas of governance in the tumultuous times at the turn of the 20th century. After the assassination of President McKinley, he was able to calm the waters that were besetting America as a man who led by undeniably conservative principles but who obfuscated his own policies with populist speeches. As such, his elevation to President was beneficial to America.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt chose Harry S. Truman as his vice president, it was because the incumbent, Henry A. Wallace, was unpopular with some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, and Truman was well-liked and personable. He was also thought to be amenable to the wishes of the Democrat Party leaders, and they knew that they could surround him with capable people who would help him govern competently as they saw fit. They also knew that Roosevelt's health was seriously declining, and everyone who saw Roosevelt, including the leaders of the Democratic Party, realized it. If he died during his next term, the vice president would become president, thus making the vice-presidential nomination very important. What they didn’t know was that Truman had an independent streak and was a strong-willed and steady person when he made up his mind and that he would make up his own mind and not defer to others. This served him well when he assumed the Presidency upon the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Thus, it was thus fortuitous for America that he became President.

John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson as his vice president to balance the Liberal and Conservative wings of the Democrat Party and to keep southern Democrats voting for the Democrat Party (Kennedy’s Southern Strategy). After Lyndon Johnson became president after the assassination of President Kennedy, he governed from a more liberal position, but he embroiled America in civil strife due to his Vietnam War stance and his ambivalence and confliction about Civil Rights (he was a closet racist only concerned with keeping the black vote for the Democrat Party).

Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for God only knows what reason he did so. To the extent that Spiro Agnew had a national reputation, it was as a middle-class Republican moderate who had recently begun to take a tough line on law and order. His background was hardly vetted, and his baggage was unknown. Eventually, this background and baggage forced him to resign, and thank God that Vice President Agnew was forced to resign before President Nixon was forced to resign. It is impossible to know what calamities may have ensued if Spiro Agnew had become President, but it is a good bet that his presidency would not have been beneficial to America.

When Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his vice president, it was for the political purpose of diversity (i.e., a black woman). This has turned out to be a pollical liability as Vice President Harris has been divisive, vacuous, and incompetent in any tasks President Biden has assigned to her. It may turn out to be disastrous for America if President Biden is unable to complete his term due to his advanced age or medical and mental issues. It has certainly been disastrous for the Democrat Party, as they are in a quandary as to who they should nominate to succeed President Biden. Many, including myself, are also concerned for the future of America if she should obtain the reins of the power of the presidency.

The lesson of American history is that you should be very careful in choosing your Vice President. The first priority when choosing a Vice President should be competency and integrity of character before you consider Balancing the Ticket. Otherwise, if your Vice President must take the reins of power, it may not be beneficial to America or your party politics.

10/13/22 Voting Problems in America – Part Deux

A little over two years ago, I Chirped and wrote an article on Voting Problems in America. With the upcoming election, I decided to reexamine this issue in light of the events that have occurred since then. As a result, I have updated and expanded my original article, "Voting in America". The new outline of the topics in this article is as follows:

• A Troubled History
• Protecting Your Right to Vote
• Protecting the Integrity of the Vote
• Proper Maintenance of Voter Rolls
• Suppression of the Vote
• Voting Age
• Voter Identification
• Election Day Voter Registration
• Early Voting
• Voting by Mail
  • Mail-In Ballots
  • Ballot Drop Boxes
  • Ballot Harvesting
• Internet Voting
• Election Polling
• Poll Watching vs. Poll Intimidation
• Election Recounts
• Conclusions

I believe that this article provides a sound basis for understanding the Voting Problems in America so that we may begin to address and then solve these problems. My companion article, “Voting Responsibilities”, has also been updated and expanded in light current events. This article examines the issue of who is responsible for addressing and solving these Voting Problems in America which has remained the same.

10/11/22 Septuagenarians and Octogenarians

Septuagenarians and Octogenarians have become much more common in our modern world due to advances in medicine and improvements in nutrition. Many remain physically healthy and mentally alert in their 70s and 80s and only begin to decline precipitously in their 90s. Most people, however, begin to decline physically and or mentally in their seventies and eighties. They can still live productive and useful lives; the question is only of how productive and useful their lives will be. This Chirp is not about most people but of septuagenarians and octogenarians in political office.

It is a fact that many leaders in Congress and the Executive branches are septuagenarians and octogenarians. Not only are the questions on their physical and mental capabilities apropos, but also of how attuned they are to the political, social, economic, and international realities of the 21st century. Sadly, in my opinion, quite a few of them are neither physically or mentally fit to be the leaders of a free people, and most of them are not attuned to the realities of the 21st century. The greatest addiction of all is power, and it is the hardest addiction to overcome, and most overcome this addiction when they die.

However, in our democracy, we can help them overcome this addiction by voting them out of office. To do so requires that "Democrat and Republican Voters" recognize those leaders whose time has passed and then not vote for them. One of the ways we can ease their pain of withdrawal is to respect and honor them after they are out of office, which is not a common occurrence in America due to our current "Hyper-Partisanship" and "Divisiveness in America". When these septuagenarians and octogenarians are voted out of office or retire, there should be a moratorium on criticism of them by both the public and other parties involved in political rhetoric. Instead, let us respect and commend them for their service and occasionally consult them for their knowledge and wisdom. Also, as the best means to overcome an addiction is abstinence, we should ensure they are absent from any positions of power or responsibility.

10/10/22 People Will Talk

In the movie People Will Talk, the successful and well-liked gynecologist, Dr. Noah Praetorius becomes the victim of a witch hunt at the hands of Professor Elwell, who disdains Praetorius's unorthodox medical views and also questions his relationship with the mysterious, ever-present Mr. Shunderson. Fuel is added to the fire when Praetorius befriends young Deborah Higgins, who has become suicidal at the prospect of having a baby by her ex-boyfriend, a military reservist who was called up for service in the Korean War and killed in action.

At one point in the movie Professor Elwell makes slanderous allegations against Dr. Praetorius, to which Shunderson replies:

“Professor Elwell, you're a little man. It's not that you're short. You're...little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn't touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out...you're even littler than you were before.”

And so, it is with many people. They try to elevate their own stature by demeaning another’s stature.

This is especially true for politicians and wickedly true during an election campaign. It is also a basis for “The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". Much of the slanderous allegations that politicians level against each other are gross misrepresentations of the other politician’s policy positions, but sometimes they are attacks on the character of the other politician. Character attacks are mostly done by the use of pejorative words or terms leveled upon a politician, as I discussed in my Article, "Divisiveness in America". These pejoratives are rarely accurate and always inflammatory and done to instill fear and loathing of the other politician for the purposes of garnering votes for the attacker or suppressing the votes for those being attacked. It is also a symptom of demagoguery by those politicians who engaged in such attacks. This is also true for many Progressives/Leftists, except the purpose for them is to obtain their policy goals by destroying their opposition. Many politicians and activists would claim that their pejoratives are accurate and true, but they can only be accurate and true if you believe that you are righteous and your opponent is unrighteous and driven by nefarious intentions.

As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders feel morally justified in making slanderous allegations against their Republican Party Leaders and Conservative opponents. It is also true that the reverse happens, but it is rarer for, but increasingly occurs, for Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives to make slanderous allegations against their opponents. It is wrong for both sides to do this, and it should cease forthwith to ensure "A Civil Society".

When a politician or activists engages in such rhetoric, they are demonstrating that they are little, in the mind and in the heart, and little people should not be placed in positions of power or responsibility. To place little people in positions of power or responsibility is to degrade true leadership of and for a free people, and it could also engender our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in their quest for power and control over a free people. Consequently, we must all consider if a politician is a little or big person before casting our ballots.

10/09/22 Financial Virtue in Public Office

There was a time in America that a successful and wealthy person in America would enter public service as a Congressperson or Executive Officer after they had achieved their wealth and success. Indeed, our Founding Fathers envisioned this scenario when they established our Democratic-Republic. This scenario did not play out as expected in the long run as the means to acquire wealth and success in America changed. At the time of our founding, most success and wealth were acquired by agrarian, mercantilism, and tradespersons or by inheritance means. During the Industrial Revolution (a period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840), the means of acquiring success and wealth increased significantly. Large-scale industrial and considerable financial investment means of acquiring success and wealth began to replace the previous means of acquiring success and wealth. Much of these industrial and financial means were indirectly (but sometimes directly) influenced by government activities (mostly internal infrastructure improvements and government procurements). In the twentieth century, direct government activities increased dramatically, and many people acquired success and wealth through their involvement in these government activities. Many other persons tracked and speculated financially on government activities and acquired success and wealth from these financial speculations.

Quite a few of these financial speculators do more than speculate; they often attempt to influence legislation and regulations that are beneficial to their speculations through their government lobbying activities. Indeed, it is often common for lobbyists to assist in the crafting of legislation and/or regulations that positively influence their financial speculations. Sometimes this influence is important and necessary to craft the legislation and/or regulations for the betterment of American society. However, oftentimes, these speculators' and lobbyists' personal interests take precedence over American societal interests. It is the duty and responsibility of Congresspersons and Executive Officers to ensure that parochial interests do not negatively impact American societal interests. However, sometimes, Congresspersons and Executive Officers have a personal financial interest in legislation and/or regulations through their own or their spouse's and family's financial investments. Indeed, a few powerful Congresspersons and Executive Officers have become wealthy through these personal financial interests. Many of our current wealthy elected and appointed officials had earned their wealth the old-fashioned way—before they entered office. Some, however, have become wealthy as a result of their government service.

A List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth and a List of richest American politicians makes for an interesting perusal if you discriminate between who entered into office wealthy and who obtained wealth during or after their elected office. The Clintons, The Obamas, The Bidens, the Pelosis, Al Gore, Dr. Anthony Falchi, and other Congresspersons and Executive Officers or powerful Executive branch employees have become wealthy as a result of their government positions or activities after government service that directly tied into their government service. The question is then how much of their wealth was gained through their government actions or influence upon government actions.

When the American people believe that the elected or appointed government officials are not acting on behalf of the American people but upon their own financial or other special interests, they become distrustful of the government. A distrust that quickly turns into cynicism, then dispiriting and destructive to American society. We used to depend upon the virtue of our Congresspersons and Executive Officers to curb this avarice, but virtue has seemed to disappear in American life, especially among Congresspersons and Executive Officers and the financial speculators and lobbyists. If anybody believes Congresspersons and Executive Officers protestations that they do not engage in these actions, and they are acting virtuously, then the believers are living in a fantasyland. Consequently, to curb this predicament, it has become necessary to pass legislation that regulates Congressperson and Executive Officer's financial activities while and after they leave office. If a Congressperson or an Executive Officer goes not want to undergo this scrutiny, then they should reconsider running for office or holding an executive position. Such should be the price of admission to elective or appointed governmental offices.

Such legislation would require that Congresspersons would adequately, and without loopholes, agree to be regulated or face judicial proceedings against themselves. It also has the question of interference in the spouse's and family member's Freedoms and Liberties to engage in the normal activities that other Americans are allowed under the law. This quandary may be exceedingly difficult to resolve legally, but timely, accurate, and comprehensive disclosure of Congresspersons and their spouses and immediate family member's finances would allow the American people to adjudge the actions of Congresspersons and Executive Officers to determine if they are acting virtuously.

10/09/22 The Big Picture and The Bottom Line

My Article, “The Devil is in the Details”, is about this truism that must always be remembered when considering any issue in our personal, work-related, or public lives. In this article, I considered three devils: The Big Picture, The Details, The Bottom Line, and the four devilish Issues and concerns of Presumptions and Assumptions, The Debatable, The Verbal versus the Written, and The Philosophical versus the Practicable. This Chirp is about The Big Picture, The Details, and The Bottom Line, with an example from two of my new articles.

When people ask for The Big Picture, it is not only for an understanding of what is to be discussed and resolved but is also often done to avoid the details, as they often wish to skip over The Details to reach The Bottom Line. This is often done for brevity purposes, as the details not only take time to discuss but also the time necessary to analyze the details. Many people do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to understand the full scope of the big picture, and therefore, the details are necessary to understand the big picture. The Big Picture is required to set the premises of any discussion, but The Details are required to affirm The Big Picture and The Bottom Line.

The Details are the crux of all the devils. Details often have assumptions and presumptions contained within them, and assumptions and presumptions are often incorrect or wrong and the work of the devil. Consequently, all assumptions within the details must be challenged to ascertain their validity. Details can also contain incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information that will lead you astray, and you will reach the wrong Bottom Line. In the details, you may also encounter the problems of Formal and Informal Logic, and a logical argument that has faulty logic will produce an incorrect Bottom Line. The Details also require that people have the knowledge, intelligence, reasoning, and rationality skills to analyze the details. As many people do not have one, some, or all of these skills, it is possible to sneak in the devil to obtain the wrong Bottom Line.

Skipping The Details and proceeding to The Bottom Line seems to be de rigueur in today's society. Often it is done for brevity to get to the ‘meat” or “heart” of the matter. However, The Bottom Line of faulty premises and improper details leads to the wrong conclusions. Consequently, the Bottom Line cannot be properly ascertained until you have a proper Big Picture and The Details are correct. The devil will also slip assumptions and presumptions into The Bottom Line, which properly belongs in The Big Picture or The Details. Therefore, I am not a bottom-line type of person until after I have verified the veracity and correctness of The Big Picture and The Details. The Bottom Line not only requires the proper conclusions from The Big Picture and The Details, but it must also contain the impacts of implementing the Bottom Line.

My new Articles, “The Basis of Our Modern Technological World” and “The Four E’s”, are excellent examples of The Big Picture and The Bottom Line. Both articles state a premise in their introduction, and both articles reach a conclusion based on the details. Without the details, the premises are debatable, and the conclusions are disputable. With the details, it is much more difficult to debate the premises and dispute the conclusions. Indeed, the details derail the "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" of modern debate and help the reader to understand the issues for them to become more informed and make better decisions. And often, the details negate "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate".

With a properly constructed Big Picture, Details, and Bottom Line, the disputes of a debate would be upon the veracity, correctness and completeness, appropriateness, and accuracy of the facts and truths of The Details to support or oppose The Big Picture and The Bottom Line. Therefore, as a consequence, civil debate is possible, which would lead to less divisiveness in America for "A Civil Society to prevail. Otherwise, we will continue to argue past each other and engage in uncivil debate.

10/08/22 The Basis of Our Modern Technological World

Our modern technological world requires four sectors of particulars to function: Energy and Power, Food and Water, Essential Materials, and Globalization. The sectors can be subdivided into:

• Energy and Power – The sources of energy; Fossil Fuels (Oil, Gas, and Coal), Hydro, Geothermal, Chemical, Solar, Wind, and Nuclear, and the power derived by the conversion of this energy, are essential to the functioning of the modern technological world.
• Food and Water – The farming fertilizers and water supplies, and the direct and indirect Fossil Fuels utilization in farming and food production, as well as abundant clean water supplies needed for drinking, cleaning, cooking, and sanitization processes for a population, are essential to a modern technological world. Also, much water is utilized in many manufacturing processes.
• Essential Materials – The Materials required for a modern technological world are surprisingly limited to Ammonia, Steel, Concrete, Plastics, and Rare-Earth Elements from which most of our modern construction, consumables, and conveniences are derived. These essential materials are the building blocks of a modern technological world.
• Globalization – The interconnection of transportation and communication to provide the Energy and Power, Food and Water, and Essential Materials required for a modern technological world.

All these particulars are interrelated to each other in a modern technological world. A disruption in any one of these particulars in a sector can have severe or disastrous consequences to the other sectors and disrupt or devastate our modern technological world. My new Article, “The Basis of Our Modern Technological World”, examines these four sectors and their impacts on the world.

10/07/22 The Four E’s

The understanding of The Four E’s, Energy, Economic, End-To-End, and Environmental, is essential to understanding the total costs and impacts of any engineered system developed by humanity. An engineered system is a human-developed system that is required to produce a product. Without this understanding of The Four E’s, it is impossible to judge the viability and the cost/benefits of an engineered system. Alas, most people, and most politicians, do not understand The Four E’s, and as a result, they make poor decisions on the feasibility, practicability, achievability, workability, practicality, and reasonableness of an engineered system. My new Article, “The Four E’s”, is an examination of this topic that should be considered whenever discussing an engineered system.

10/06/22 Deference to Computers Models

We, in America, have become enamored and often place much deference on the results of computer modeling. However, we should all remember that a Computer Model is the result of the efforts of computer programmers and subject experts, all of whom have their cognitive biases and the possibility of formal logic errors, as I have discussed in my Article, "Reasoning". We should also remember that experts can be wrong, and experts within a subject matter often disagree with each other.

The issue of a computer model that should first concern the public is that the construction of the algorithms in a computer model can be fraught with erroneous logic and improper assumptions. The data inputted into a computer model can also be incorrect or incomplete, and as the old computer acronym of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) infers, this can lead to wrong results. Thereafter, there are many other issues of computer modeling that need to be addressed, which I have discussed in my Article “Computer Modeling”.

An example of this is the Hockey stick graph of global temperature, which was one of the first computer models of Global Warming. For many years the developer of this computer model resisted releasing the algorithms and data utilized to create this computer model, claiming that it was proprietary research. After several years of litigation, it was determined that he had used federal funding for this research and, therefore, it was not proprietary, and he had to release the algorithms and data that he utilized in this computer model. Upon doing so, it was determined that the algorithms he created assumed the worst-case scenario, and the data he utilized was suspect in its quality and completeness. As a result, when the algorithms were rewritten for the best case and median case scenarios, and better data was utilized to run the computer model, the hockey stick was not much of a hockey stick, but they did show a milder rising slope of global temperature increase than his worst-case scenario.

Therefore, we all need to place less reliance on computer models and question the algorithms and data that go into a computer model before presuming the computer model is correct. To do otherwise is to make a false conclusion that if you act upon will result in making adverse decisions.

10/04/22 I Am Not an Expert nor Scholar

Some of my readers have expressed astonishment at the scope of my knowledge. They often wonder how I became an expert on so many topics. But I am Not an Expert, Nor am I a Scholar! A scholar is someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines, and an expert is a person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully. An expert or scholar is one who has a depth of knowledge on a subject, but often an expert or scholar does not have much knowledge on subjects outside of their own subject. This is a consequence of becoming an expert or scholar in a subject, as you need to narrow your focus to obtain a depth of knowledge due to the sheer quantity of knowledge on the subject that exists in today’s modern world. I have expertise on several topics within my chosen profession (Computers), but even in these topics, I do not consider myself an expert but a very knowledgeable person on these topics. This is usually the case for most persons in their chosen profession, as to become an expert requires considerable education that often leads to an academic or research career. These are the true experts in any field of knowledge. The precaution about relying upon experts is that they can be wrong, experts within a subject often disagree with each other, and experts who hold forth outside of their subject are no more reliable than anyone else. As such, we should be wary of experts; as I have discussed in my Chirp on, "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top". As George William Russell, the editor of the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead”, wrote in 1910 about the legislative process, which included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”

As such, I regard myself as someone who is intelligent and has a broad scope of knowledge but limited depth of knowledge, as well as someone who has gained much wisdom through my life’s experience, as I have explained in my Article, “Knowledgeable - From Information to Wisdom”. I also attempt to not be wrong in what I say, as I have explained in Chirp on, "11/09/19 To Be Right or Not to Be Wrong". I am also willing to change my opinions based on new or better information or rational and reasoned counterpoint, or as a wise sage has stated:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."
  - Benjamin Franklin

and

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

10/03/22 True Scholarship

In my Article, “College and University Education”, I lamented the sorry state of higher education in America, and indeed most of the western world. In my Chirp on “10/02/22 A True Scholar”, I pointed out the basis for a true scholarship. Unfortunately, however, true scholarship is often lacking in higher education. Those that practice true scholarship in higher education are often disparaged for their lack of "Political Correctness" or insufficient "Wokeness". Indeed, many of them have left higher education or have been dismissed from their employment due to this disparagement.

This is not a new phenomenon as it has been occurring for more than a half-century. One of the prime examples of this is the career of Thomas Sowell. He started his career as a summer intern in the federal Department of Commerce where he encountered the real-world impacts of federal policies. He then became an academic who taught at Cornell University, Rutgers University, Amherst College, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles, but who left academia as a result of this phenomenon. Since 1980, he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman, his mentor. While Mr. Sowell has contributed much and enriched our society, he did not do so as an academic in higher education. If he had remained in academia, he could have enriched and expanded the knowledge of thousands of students. This enrichment and expansion of knowledge are being denied to thousands of other students by the flight of true scholars from academia due to this disparagement. As a result, these students are receiving an "Indoctrination versus Education" that is a disservice to them and a detriment to society.

An example of this is in the study of race relations and slavery from the scholarship of Thomas Sowell. In a speech by Jason L. Riley, “The Continuing Importance of Thomas Sowell”, he points out:

“Sowell has long argued that the problems blacks face today involve far more than what whites have done to them in the past. It’s no mystery why black activists want to keep the focus on white racism. It helps them raise money and stay relevant. And it’s no mystery why politicians use the same tactics—it helps them win votes. But Sowell argued that it’s not at all clear that focusing on white racism is helping the black underclass. You can spend all day, every day pointing out the moral failings of other people, groups, institutions, and society in general. The question is whether that helps the people who most need help.”

And:

“The argument that America became prosperous due to slavery is also unsupported by the facts, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out. Individual slave owners certainly prospered, but that’s different from saying the country benefited. In fact, the regions of the country that had slavery were the poorest regions, both during slavery and afterward. Similarly, in Brazil, which imported far more slaves than the U.S. did, the regions where slavery was concentrated were the poorest regions, both during slavery and afterward. Eastern Europe, to look at another example, had slavery far longer than Western Europe—yet Western Europe has always been richer. Millions more African slaves were sent to Northern Africa and the Middle East than came to the West. If slave labor produces economic prosperity, why did those regions remain so poor for so long? And later, when the Middle East did start to become wealthier, it wasn’t due to slavery—it was due to the discovery of oil.”

If a student had exposure to this knowledge and the facts and truths of this knowledge, the state of race relations in America would have a different perspective that would be better for America. And many different perspectives in all fields of knowledge are being denied to students by the lack of true scholarship in higher education.

Mr. Sowell’s scholarship is far more than race relations. To the extent that Sowell is known, it’s mostly for his writings on racial controversies. But most of his books are not on racial themes, and Sowell would have distinguished himself as a first-rate scholar even if he’d never written a single word about race.

This true scholarship, knowledge, and facts and truths by Mr. Sowell and others are being denied to the students in higher education by the flight of true scholars from academia. This situation is shameful and needs to be corrected, or higher education will continue to become lower education to the disservice of their students and to the detriment of America.

10/02/22 A True Scholar

A speech by Jason L. Riley, “The Continuing Importance of Thomas Sowell”, is perhaps the best tribute to the legacy of Thomas Sowell. Mr. Riley stated that when he was researching his biography of economist Thomas Sowell, he kept coming across Thomas Sowell’s own descriptions of scholars Sowell admired, and Mr. Riley was often struck by how well those descriptions applied to Sowell himself.

For example, after the death of Nobel Prize-winning economist George Stigler, who was one of Sowell’s professors at the University of Chicago, Sowell wrote:

“In a world of self-promoting academics, coining buzzwords and aligning themselves on the side of the angels of the moment, George Stigler epitomized a rare integrity as well as a rare intellect. He jumped on no bandwagons, beat no drums for causes, created no personal cult. He did the work of a scholar and a teacher—both superbly—and found that sufficient. If you wanted to learn, and above all if you wanted to learn how to think—how to avoid the vague words, fuzzy thoughts, or maudlin sentiments that cloud over reality—then Stigler was your man.”

And here is Sowell describing another of his professors at Chicago, Milton Friedman:

“[He] was one of the very few intellectuals with both genius and common sense. He could express himself at the highest analytical levels to his fellow economists in academic publications and still write popular books . . . that could be understood by people who knew nothing about economics.”

These tributes to George Stigler and Milton Friedman are the definition of true scholarship and can be equally applied to the scholarship of Thomas Sowell. It is these definitions of scholarship that should be applied to all who claim to be or are attributed as scholars. If these definitions cannot be applied to a scholar, then they are pretended scholars and should be dealt with as such.

09/30/22 Tis the Season

As we enter into an October of an election year, we have entered into the season of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" by politicians. Much of this is to propagate fear and loathing of their political opponents in an attempt to garner votes for themselves and to muddle their own positions on the issues to deflect criticism of their positions.

As I have Chirped on “09/29/22 The Richter Scale of Political Discourse”, the rhetoric from these politicians can be rated on a 4-harsh or 5-severe scale in its intensity and destructiveness. While the Republicans are often in the 4-harsh scale, the Democrats are firmly in the 5-severe scale this election season. The reason for placing the Democrats in the 5-severe scale is a result of President Biden's speech on Sept. 5— ‘The Continued Battle for The Soul of the Nation’ and my thoughts on this speech in my Article, “The Soul of the Nation”. This speech was one of the vilest, most despicable, and divisive speeches by an American president. And the Democrats have taken up the battle cry of President Biden’s speech, and they are wielding his points in an attempt to not only defeat but destroy their opponents. This is beyond the bounds of acceptable political rhetoric in America. In addition, President Biden and his Administration's politicization of government, as I Chirp on "08/09/22 The Ultimate Weaponization of Government", have debased our "American Ideals and Ideas". In this, President Biden and the Democrat candidates have become a real existential threat to America, as I have Chirped on “09/17/22 The Real Existential Threat”.

Now, more than ever, the American people need to stand against these tactics and throw the bums out. When you vote in this election, you will not only be voting on a candidate but also on what is acceptable political rhetoric in America. You need to vote wisely and reject any candidate who engages in these tactics. Otherwise, you will be one of those responsible for the degradation of "A Civil Society" in America.

09/29/22 The Richter Scale of Political Discourse

The Richter Scale, also called the Richter magnitude scale, Richter's magnitude scale, and the Gutenberg-Richter scale – is a measure of the strength of earthquakes, developed by Charles Francis Richter and presented in his landmark 1935 paper, where he called it the "magnitude scale". This was later revised and renamed the local magnitude scale, denoted as ML or M_L. The use of this scale, when applied to human habitat locations, is an indication of the intensity and destructiveness of earthquakes.

Perhaps it is time that we develop a Richter Scale for the intensity and destructiveness of political words and deeds. This scale would be based on the prominence and importance of the person or group that is targeting another person(s) or group(s) and the prominence and importance of the person(s) or group(s) being targeted. It would also be based on the intensity of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" by the targeting person or group, as well as the physical harm inflicted or the physical destructiveness of those doing the targeting. This Richter Scale of Political Discourse (RSPD) would be utilized to determine the harm done to "A Civil Society". This scale is, by its very nature, a subjective scale, as there can be no objective criterion for importance or speech, but there can be an objective criterion for physical harm or destructiveness.

Whenever any person or group engages in these words or deeds, we should all use our own political Richter scale to determine the impacts of their words and deeds. This scale should be on a one-to-five basis (i.e., 1-mild, 2-modest, 3-medium, 4-harsh, 5-severe), where one is the least intensity and destructiveness and five is the greatest intensity and destructiveness. When one encounters the statement ‘both sides do it’, it is very important to utilize the political Richter scale to determine the balance between the two sides to adjudge the harm done to our Civil Society.

It has been my observation that in this century, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often operate on a four to five on this political Richter scale, while Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders often operate on a three to four on this political Richter scale. It would be best for America if both sides could operate on a one to two on this political Richter scale for normal political discourse and only rise to a status of three on this political Richter scale for the most important and serious societal issues and concerns. Alas, given the "Hyper-Partisanship" of today’s American politics, I do not foresee this happening for our political leaders and "Activists and Activism". We, however, as common Americans, can and should operate on a one to two on this political Richter scale in our interactions with each other.

09/28/22 An Elective Despotism

Because Thomas Jefferson thought it would be only a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into an “elective despotism”, he warned that citizens should act now in order to make sure that “the wolf [was kept] out of the fold”, or as he stated:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers took care to limit the powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government and to hedge them with checks and balances to prevent the servants of the sovereign people from becoming their masters. Therefore it is always the time to “act now” to preserve the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" bequeathed upon us by our Founding Fathers.

Today, in America, half of us believe we live under the old Constitution with original guarantees of Liberty and Freedom, while the other half believe in a “living constitution” that is adaptable by the will of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial to achieve their political goals and agendas. Thus, Living Constitutionalists would have us live in an elective despotism led by an oligarchy of like-minded persons, while the Constitutional Conservatives would have us live in a Democratic Republic reflecting the will of the people tempered by constitutional bounds.

This stroll to an elective despotism started in the first part of the 20th century, became a trot in the middle half of the 20th century, and is now in a full gallop in the latter half of the 20th century and at the start of the 21st century. This elective despotism has arisen by Congress delegating powers to the Executive Branch that were wielded by bureaucrats and agency experts who were under the influence of an oligarchy of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists and supported by Ivy League and other elite College and University trained judges who believe in a living constitution. Thus, we have instituted an elective despotism in today’s America.

This elective despotism has also seeped down to State governments, with California being the most prominent example. In California, they believe it is permissible for the government to determine what automobiles you may purchase, what heating and air conditioning are allowed, how much water and electricity may be consumed, and a host of other regulations on what consumers are not allowed to purchase, consume or utilize. California State regulations upon businesses also impact the operations of a business and affect the availability and costs of the products and services that businesses provide to consumers and other businesses. All these restrictions are done in the name of consumer protection, reduced environmental impacts, natural resource conservation, and a host of other societal reasons. There is no denying that government restrictions and regulations are needed for the protection of the health and safety of all the residents of California, and some regulations may be required to protect societal interests. The question is the extensiveness of these protections, for if these restrictions and regulations are too broad and/or too intrusive upon the lives of the people of California, then they become intrusive and an infringement on the Liberties, Freedoms, and the “pursuit of happiness” of Californians. It is also an unfortunate fact that these California regulatory approaches are being adopted by other States. It should also be kept in mind that all regulations and restrictions affect the availability and costs of the products and services in a State.

An Imprimis article by Myron Magnet, “Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution”, examines this issue in regard to the judicial philosophy of Clarence Thomas. As Mr. Magnet stated in his article:

“To the Old Constitutionalists, this government of decrees issued by bureaucrats and judges is not democratic self-government but something more like tyranny—hard or soft, depending on whether or not you are caught in the unelected rulers’ clutches. To the Living Constitutionalists, on the other hand, government by agency experts and Ivy League-trained judges—making rules for a progressive society (to use their language) and guided by enlightened principles of social justice that favor the “disadvantaged” and other victim groups—constitutes real democracy. So today we have the Freedom Party versus the Fairness Party, with unelected bureaucrats and judges saying what fairness is.”

* * * * *

Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Born in Pinpoint, Georgia, he is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. Prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, he served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri, an attorney with the Monsanto Company, a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2007, he published My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir. An excellent intellectual biography of Justice Thomas is “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” by Jason L. Riley.

09/27/22 The Dark Side of President Biden and his Administration

In the article “Left’s Vision for America Grows Increasingly Dark” by Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation, he recounts how the left, and especially President Biden, has drifted to the dark side, as I have exemplified in my Article, “The Soul of the Nation”. He recounts that:

“Not that anyone familiar with Biden’s career should be surprised. This is the man who said Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wanted to put black Americans “back in chains,” who discharged soldiers for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine and tried to force law-abiding civilians out of a job, who conspired with Orwellian technology corporations to censor dissent, who engineered an international humiliation in Afghanistan, who created a deadly border crisis, who spawned historic inflation, and who sicced the FBI on his political opponents and parents who protested failing school boards.”

Along with:

“. . . The families whose schools were closed, whose communities are beset by violent crime, whose children are being indoctrinated and sexualized in their classrooms, who were already paying more than ever for gas, food, and rent and are now paying off the student loans of lawyers, professors, and White House aides.”

President Biden, therefore, is leading America into the dark side, and this is further evidence for the need to Impeach President Biden, as I have written in my Article, “The Case for the Impeachment of President Biden”. If not, we shall see the further pitting of Americans against each other, the persecutions of the political opponents of President Biden, and the malicious prosecutions for alleged but bogus or frivolous criminal actions of his political opponents.

09/26/22 Feeding the Crocodile

In my Chirp on "04/13/22 Presumption of Innocence", I discuss that today, in America, we have forgotten or have chosen to ignore this Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion. From a political zeal to discredit an opponent, to disparage someone with whom we disagree, to allegations of personal misconduct, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven is commonplace. For someone to have to prove their innocence is equivalent to Proving a Negative (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic's being executed, lynching's occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. Today, in the court of public opinion, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven has led to an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society".

This guilty until proven innocent has often resulted in the ruination of reputation, loss of employment, and negative financial consequences for those so accused, and many times they have been proven to be not guilty of the allegations. When allegations are lodged against a person or organization, it is best to presume innocence until the facts are revealed, but it is often wise to be wary of the person or organization until the facts are uncovered. In our Hyper-Partisanship, Political Correctness, Wokeness, and Virtue Signaling world of today, you can also assume that many allegations lack veracity and are without foundation. When a person or organization makes allegations without veracity, you should be suspicious of them whenever they make future allegations against a person or organization. Otherwise, you will become ensnared in the following conundrum:

"Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely."
 - Winston Churchill

09/25/22 The Collapse of Our Civilization

Dr. Julie Ponesse is a professor of ethics who has taught at Ontario’s Huron University College for 20 years. She has written an article, “3, 2, 1 … Timber! A Philosopher’s Take on the Collapse of Our Civilization”, which examines the reasons for the collapse of civilizations. In this article, she states that the eminent anthropologist Sir John Glubb wrote:

“The life-expectation of a great nation, it appears, commences with a violent, and usually unforeseen, outburst of energy, and ends in a lowering of moral standards, cynicism, pessimism and frivolity.”

She also writes that:

“One lesson history tries to teach us is that civilizations are complex systems—of technology, economics, foreign relations, immunology, and civility—and complex systems regularly give way to failure. The collapse of our civilization is almost certainly inevitable; the only questions are when, why, and what will replace us.”

The ‘Greatest Generation of Americans understood the meaning of moral and ethical character, self-control, and self-sacrifice. It was these characteristics that led them to become the Greatest Generation and defeat the forces of despotism and human cruelty. Since then, and in the economic boom they created afterward, we have become more self-centered and absorbed in our own needs and wants. This societal attitude is typically the start of the collapse of a civilization. This collapse is not the result of outside forces of barbarism but comes forth by forces within a society often disguised as good intentions. However, we should all remember, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. And these internal forces in America today are being driven not by the lower classes (as was typical in history) but by the elite classes in America.

Led by the elite forces within the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, our ideals of "A Civil Society" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are under attack by Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Hyper-Partisanship, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering, and a Herd Mentality common in today's American society. Alas, it is the elites that have become the barbarians attacking our civilization. As Dr. Julie Ponesse said in her article:

“It is our leaders, our journalists, and our professionals who ignore the standards of rational discourse, who institutionalize hatred and incite division. Today, it is the elites who are the true barbarians among us.”

In a few short weeks, we will get to choose our leaders once again. In many of the 2022 elections, where there is a dichotomy between the candidates, with the Democrat candidates representing the views of most "Progressives/Leftists", while the Republican candidates represent the views of most "Conservatives". This dichotomy is also between the elite barbaric forces and their counterforces. We must all wisely choose the candidates we cast our ballots for, as we may well be deciding on the revitalization or the collapse of our civilization.

09/24/22 The Destruction of Our Children

Parents or guardians are not only responsible for providing for the health and welfare of their children but also for raising children to become productive and contributing members of society. Society has a duty and responsibility to ensure that children are properly cared for by their parents or guardians and that children are properly educated. Unfortunately, in the last several decades, this parental/guardian and societal obligation have fallen short of meeting its duties and responsibilities. This destruction of our children does not bode well for the future of America, as we are not raising our children to become productive and contributing members of society. A self-centered and self-important population cannot exercise self-control and self-sacrifice to solve the issues, concerns, and problems that we face in America. My new Article “The Destruction of Our Children”  examines some of the issues and concerns of how we are raising our children.

09/22/22 College and University Education

“Abandon all hope ye that enter here.”
 - Dante’s Divine Comedy

So, it can be said for most Colleges and Universities. The purpose of Colleges and Universities was to inform, educate, and challenge students by providing an environment that was conducive to learning. An environment that does not contain free speech or safe zones and microaggressions is unheard of. An environment in which all sides of an issue are taught and discussed without shouting or mob actions, and professors reflect every viewpoint and political persuasion. An environment where guest speakers of all ilk are welcomed and treated politely and respectfully. Such an environment was conducive to the growth of a student and to the improvement and advancement of humankind. It also prepared the student to become functional and productive members and leaders of society, able to deal with the vicissitudes of life. The learned professors provided "Rationality" and "Reasoning" to the issues, concerns, and solutions to the problems that beset society that reflect the realities of society.

Alas, such an environment is no longer in most Colleges and Universities. College and University administrators have been supine to the capriciousness of students and professors, professorship is of like-minded persons in which students are being indoctrinated instead of educated, and students believe that they are arbiters of what is acceptable speech and conduct. As such, Colleges and Universities are no longer the bastions of knowledge and enlightenment. Indeed, Colleges and Universities professors and students have become the rank and file of the conformity to Political Correctness, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, and Social Engineering, as I have written in my "Terminology" webpage.

My new Article, “College and University Education”, examines the current state of these institutions, and how they are failing to meet their duties and responsibilities to their students and society.

09/21/22 Principles – Part Deux

In my previous Chirp on “09/20/22 Principles”, I stated the major principles of my life. I also have several other principles that are important in my life. They are:

The circumstances of our birth (i.e., sex, race, health, intelligence, socioeconomic status, etc.) are not within our control, and we must all bear any burdens of these circumstances. It is how we bear these circumstances that determine the course of our life.

Only you are responsible for your life. Your words and deeds are yours alone, and nobody else is responsible for what you say or do.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.This includes your words in treating all persons politely and respectfully, as well as your deeds in your dealings with others, as I have outlined in my Article, “Pearls of Wisdom”.

Children are the responsibility of parents or guardians, and the duty of parents or guardians is not only to provide for the health and welfare of their children but to raise children to become productive and contributing members of society.

The public education of children on ideas and beliefs contrary to their parent's or guardian’s convictions is immoral and unethical, or as Thomas Jefferson has said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Therefore public education should be limited to teaching knowledge and critical thinking skills, as I have Chirped on "02/17/22 Public Education Responsibilities".

Nobody should be forced to undergo a medical procedure without their informed consent, and no person under eighteen years of age may undergo a medical procedure without parental or guardian consent. Otherwise, it is but a short and steep slippery slope to despotism. Too often in history, forced sterilizations and abortions, medical experimentations, medical incarcerations, and other Natural Rights violations have often been the end results of medical procedures without informed consent. And too often have children been harmed both emotionally and physically after undergoing medical procedures without parental or guardian consent.

“My body, my choice” is a fallacious argument as the unborn child is not your body—it is another body. The scientific definition of a human being is that of a being having the DNA structure of a human. And an unborn child has the DNA structure of a human, and its DNA is different from its mother's DNA. Therefore, an unborn child is a unique human being. Whether conceived in love or lust, rape or incest, the unborn child has the Natural Right to life as a human being. No person has the right to unjustly take the life of another person, even prior to the other person’s birth. Thus, abortion is an unjust taking of another human life, and therefore, abortion should be limited to the cases where it impacts the life or or the severe physiological health of the mother.

All of us will eventually die; it is only a matter of when, where, and how we shall die. Therefore, do not fret upon dying, but attempt to live your life to its fullest until the day you die.

These principles will not only assist you in living a moral and ethical life but also contribute to your psychological health and to the betterment of society.

09/20/22 Principles

The newest, and fiftieth book by Alan Dershowitz, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences, is a reflection of the principles that have guided his life. Throughout his narrative, Professor Dershowitz focuses on three sets of principles that have guided his life: 1) freedom of expression and conscience; 2) due process, fundamental fairness, and the adversary system of seeking justice; and 3) basic equality and meritocracy. As usual, when I read and critique the writings of Professor Dershowitz, there are many things that I agree or disagree with him. However, my agreements and disagreements are on an intellectually reasoned basis. The one thing I strongly agree with him is that in today’s America we are losing our principles to "Hyper-Partisanship" that ensues in "Cancel Culture". This book relates the personal cancel culture experiences that Professor Dershowitz has encountered by adhering to his principles and not submitting to the "Herd Mentality" of the "Progressives/Leftists". This book is quite an interesting and thoughtful read, which I very much recommend, and which has led me to reflect on my principles.

My primary principle is “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and the importance of “A Civil Society” that I believe is (mostly) obtained by our “American Ideals and Ideas”. These principles have guided my thoughts and the writing of my Chips and Articles.

We would all be better persons if we examined our moral and ethical principles and oriented our life around these principles. Unfortunately, many do not do this but rely on our upbringing and life experiences to mold our actions. While this may serve us well in most situations, it is not sufficient when confronted with difficult choices. When examining a difficult choice, a firm grasp of our principles will guide us to making a good and proper decision. Sometimes, these difficult choices must be made relatively quickly; consequently, it is best to prepare yourself for making a quick difficult choice by examining and knowing your principles beforehand.

It will also comfort us after deciding if our decisions have any negative repercussions. We may lose friends, acquaintances, or business relationships because of our choice and face negative financial consequences. Still, we will be comforted (and sleep well) if we decide based on our moral and ethical principles.

Therefore, be prepared to make difficult choices by examining your moral and ethical principles beforehand, and make your choices based upon your principles.

09/18/22 The Case for the Impeachment of President Biden

Impeachment, conviction, and removal from office of any executive official, whether it be President, Vice President, or any Senate-confirmed appointee, is a very serious matter and is not to be done lightly. This is why I opposed the two Impeachments of President Trump, and I believe that it was wrongly done in the impeachment of President Clinton, as I have written in my Article, “Impeachable Offenses”. My new Article, “The Case for the Impeachment of President Biden” examines if President Biden has committed any impeachable offenses for which he should be removed from office.

09/17/22 The Real Existential Threat

President Biden’s Sept. 1 speech—much of which he reaffirmed on Sept. 5—on ‘The Continued Battle for The Soul of the Nation’ has received much criticism on the right and some of the left of the political spectrum. It is noteworthy, however, that much of the “Mainstream Media” has been supportive of this speech, which is a sad commentary on the current state of the Mainstream Media, as they cannot recognize the real existential threat of his speech. The real existential threat of this speech has been elucidated by Rob Natelson in his column, Biden’s Nasty Speech and the Nation’s Governors, in which he states that the speech was designed to intimidate and anger:

“The intimidating background consisted of FBI raids on Biden’s most prominent political opponent and that opponent’s key supporters; an FBI invasion of the office of a sitting member of Congress—thereby violating one of our most treasured constitutional traditions; indefinite incarceration of Jan. 6 defendants; illegal COVID-19 decrees; the militarization of federal agencies; censorship cooperation between the administration and social media; 87,000 new IRS agents (many with guns); and the political purge of the U.S. military.”

“But the administration knows that all its adversaries cannot be intimidated. Those whom it could not intimidate, it tried to anger.”

“The intimidating image consisted of two U.S. Marines standing behind El Presidente.”

“The infuriating image was the color scheme behind the speech, all angry black and red.”

In this speech, President Biden echoes the tactics of McCarthyism. Let us remember when a freshman senator from Maine had the courage to stand and challenge Senator Joseph McCarthy as no one else would when he was demagoguing his opponents, much as President Biden is now doing, saying:

“Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in
making character assassinations are all too frequently those
who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic
principles of Americanism-
The right to criticize.
The right to hold unpopular beliefs.
The right to protest
The right to independent thought.”
 - Senator Margaret Chase Smith

It is time for all Americans to stand and challenge President Biden; otherwise, the real existential threat as a result of this speech will become the dissolution of “A Civil Society” in America.

09/16/22 The Pennsylvania 2024 Governor and Senate Elections

In the Pennsylvania 2024 Governor and Senate Elections, we have a microcosm of many of the state elections being played out across America. The Democrat candidates represent the views of most "Progressives/Leftists", while the Republican candidates represent the views of most "Conservatives". And the campaigning, on both sides, was become nasty and personal. If you strip away the nastiness and personal attacks, Pennsylvanians have a distinct choice—a Progressive or Conservative approach to governance and social policy. Pennsylvanians also face a Sophie’s Choice, as I have Chirped on “09/14/22 Sophie’s Choice”, as the candidates all have individual policy positions that are often objectionable to the mainstream of their supporters.

But a choice needs to be made, and this choice should not be made based upon the label of a Democrat or a Republican. Voting on your past predilections of a political party is not the responsible way to vote in this election, as we are at an inflection point as to how we wish to govern ourselves and implement social policy in the future. The consequences of our decision will run deep and for many years in the future. Our social fabric and our economy will be severely impacted by our decision. Consequently, we must vote not only with our hearts but also with our heads, and if you cannot do so, I would ask that you don’t cast a ballot, as I have Chirped on “09/15/22 Please Don’t Vote”. We Pennsylvanians must disregard the nastiness and personal attacks of the campaigns and consider all these factors of governance and social policy before casting our ballot. Let us thus make our vote speak to the future direction that we wish Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians to undertake.

In Pennsylvania, we have another issue that needs to be resolved. The Democrat candidate for Senator, John Fetterman, recently suffered a severe stroke and has not made many public appearances since his stroke. In those public appearances that he has made, he has only made a few semi-coherent remarks and no campaign speeches, and he is also refusing to debate his opponent until well after early voting has started. He has also set conditions for the debate that call into question his verbal cognitive abilities. As much of a Senator's responsibility is to hear verbal testimony in committee hearings and verbal debate on the Senate floor, then to verbally respond to this verbal testimony and debate, one wonders if he is capable of fulfilling this duty and responsibility of a Senator. In addition, it was recently revealed that one of the reasons that he always wears a hoodie is that he has been concealing a large growth on the back of his neck, for which no explanation has been offered.

This raises the question of his physical and mental fitness to serve. Despite assurances from his campaign team that he is getting better and that he will be well in the near future, the question is, is he non compos mentis (not of sound mind, memory, or understanding; and in law, legally not competent)? This raises Constitutional questions as to his ability to be sworn into office if he is elected, as he may not be able to take or understand his Oath of Office.

09/15/22 Please Don’t Vote

What’s that you say—asking Americans not to vote? Yes, I am, but only those Americans who have not thought about the issues and concerns affecting America, And I stress ‘Thinking’, and not “Feeling’ about a candidate, political party, or a single issue. Feelings often lead to improper conclusions, which allows for violations of Natural Rights and immoral actions such as mob violence, lynching, witch dunking and burning, physical torture and mental cruelty, and other atrocities.

Those that vote out of fear should also not vote. Fear is often aroused by a politician or activists as a tactic to pit one group of Americans against another, with the thought being that their groups are larger than your group and, therefore, they will garner more votes. But voting out of fear, rather than hope, will often lead to demagogues in power rather than leaders in power. It is also a slippery slope that can lead to despotism in America.

Single issue voting is often a problem, as, while you may feel passionate about an issue, the other stances of a politician that agrees with you on the single issue may be more harmful than beneficial to America. We must all remember that a politician’s stances will never completely agree with your stance and, therefore, you need to strike a balance of the politicians’ stances as more harmful or more beneficial to America to guide your vote.

09/14/22 Sophie’s Choice

As a resident of Pennsylvania and a political junkie, my cigar-smoking buddies and I are very interested in the Governor and Senate races in this year’s election. As a "Constitutional Conservative", I am much more inclined to the Republican candidates and disinclined to Democrat candidates. No candidate I have ever voted for in the past has met all my criteria for constitutional conservatism, and I would not expect such as all people differ with each other on some or many political issues. Some candidates, however, come close to our political opinions than others, and some candidates are so far from our political opinions that they are unacceptable to us.

In the current Pennsylvania Governor and Senate races in this year’s election, however, I face a Sophie’s Choice for whom I should vote. Sophie’s choice refers to an extremely difficult decision a person has to make. It describes a situation where no outcome is preferable over the other. This can be either because both outcomes are equally desirable or both are equally undesirable. In the case of this year’s Pennsylvania Governor and Senate races, I face a Sophie’s choice dilemma. Many of the Republican candidate’s policy positions are contrary to my Constitutional Conservatism, while most of the Democrat candidate’s policy positions are anathema to my Constitutional Conservatism.

One of my cigar-smoking buddies feels the same way, but he is so distressed by this situation he has vowed to change his registration from Republican to Independent and find a third-party candidate to vote for Governor and Senate. While I understand his distress, I believe that his solution will do more ill than good. A third-party candidate has no hope of being elected, and by voting for a third-party candidate and not voting for the Republican candidate, you may increase the chances of electing the Democrat candidates. In which case, the devil you don’t want will be elected while the devil you disagree with, but could possibly work with (as in Chirp on "07/16/22 Working with That and Pragmatism"), will go unelected.  

Therefore, my Sophie’s choice is to vote for the Republican candidates and hope that they will ameliorate their policy positions based on Republican voter feedback. Otherwise, we may elect the Democrat candidates that have no interest in ameliorating their policy positions as they are committed Progressives/Leftists.

09/13/22 Qualifications for Elected Offices

The eligibility to become President, Vice President, Senator, and Representative are Constitutionally bound and minimal, as in the table below:

Federal Elected Office	Description of Qualifications
President and Vice President (The qualifications to be vice president are not included in the U.S. Constitution. However, the vice president becomes president if the president resigns from office or dies. This means that the vice president must be qualified to be president in order to run for vice president).	1. At least 35 years old 2. Has lived in the U.S. for 14 years 3. Is a natural born citizen, which means born on U.S. soil (law of soil) or to a U.S. citizen parent (law of blood) 4. May not serve more than two 4-year terms. 5. The vice president may become president because the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, The vice president, upon becoming president, may be president for no more than 10 years, (This means that the vice president completes the president’s unfinished term and can run for president in the next two presidential elections).
A member of the U.S. Senate (U.S. Senator)	1. 30 years old 2. 9 years as a U.S. citizen 3. Members of the U.S. Senate must live in the state that they represent. 4. No term limits; they can serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms
A member of the U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. Representative)	1. 25 years old 2. 7 years as a U.S. citizen 3. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives do not have to live in the district that they represent, but they must live in the state in which their district is located. 4. No term limits; they can serve an unlimited number of 2-year terms

This is as I should be, as the people who elect them should have wide discretion on whom they want to elect to represent them. However, being minimally eligible is not the same as being qualified. Our Founding Fathers envisioned that elected office holders would be persons of accomplishment who would bring their knowledge and experience of life to their elected office. Too often, this has not been the case, as many elected officeholders have had no experience in life outside of the political world. Many officeholders have made a career in politics from an early age and have had no accomplishments outside of politics. In some cases, this has been advantageous due to the intelligence and upbringing of these persons, but in most cases, this has not been advantageous as they have not had the experience of the non-political (i.e., real) world. A few years of real-world experience is often insufficient to gain this experience, as it is often only after a decade or more of real-world experience that you have an understanding of the real world.

The hustle-and-bustle of real-world experiences better prepares you to deal with the real-world problems that politics addresses. Without this real-world experience, the solution to these problems is often incompatible or conflicts with the workings of the real world. This, in turn, creates more problems than it solves or makes it more difficult for people or businesses to function in the real world. It certainly incurs additional costs and efforts of persons and businesses to function. It also can have a deleterious impact on the interactions within society, leading to more societal problems that politicians believe they must address. A side effect is that these politicians often see the solutions to societal problems as more governmental intervention in the workings of society, leading to a cycle of government growth and intervention in the workings of society.

Thus, it is important that we elect politicians that have real-world experience to formulate real-world solutions to real-world problems. Therefore, it is important that we elect a person that is more than minimally eligible. We should all look at the qualifications of a candidate not only on their policy positions but on their real-world experience. Otherwise, we will create more and more real-world problems than we solve.

09/11/22 R.I.P. David McCullough

David Gaub McCullough (July 7, 1933 – August 7, 2022) was an American popular historian. He is the author of numerous books on many different topics on American history, and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. In 2006, he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the United States' highest civilian awards.

David McCullough wanted us to think of people as they experienced life—not in the past but in “the present, their present,” as he told a conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2001. And he wanted us to know about them so we could conserve the good things they passed down to us. “But let us not look down on anyone from the past for not having the benefit of what we know, or allow ourselves to feel superior,” he told a Dickinson College commencement audience in 1998. “In my experience, the more one learns of that founding generation of Americans—and I mean the real flesh-and-blood human beings, not the myths—the larger they become, the more one wonders what we’ve lost, or are in grave danger of losing.”

In my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”, I provide a perspective on how to view history and make judgements on civilizations and personages, much the same as David McCullough’s perspective. These words of wisdom by David McCullough and my own article thoughts about how to view our forefathers are also a warning about the current efforts to rewrite and reinterpret our history through modern morals and ethics. Let us not view our history through rose glasses nor through current morality and ethics, as our forefathers would always be found wanting just as our descendants will find us wanting based on their current morality and ethics. Instead, we need to examine history for what it was, for if not than we run the risk of:

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
  - Edmund Burke

09/10/22 Looking Good Rather Than Doing Good

Governments are too often in the business of looking good rather than doing good. Most environmental and climate change activists believe that they are doing good without having sufficient knowledge of the unintended consequences of their policy decisions. Many consumers often make purchasing decisions based on what they think is good for the environment and lessens climate change. And often, governments make environmental and climate change decisions based on looking good rather than doing good. And many of these decisions are often not good environmental or climate change decisions, as they often do more harm than good to the environment and do not lessen climate change as they shift the repercussions of these decisions from visible impacts to hidden impacts.

It is easier to react to your apprehensions and fears rather than to respond in a rational manner. Responding Rationality requires that you critically examine the issue from multiple perspectives based on intellectual Reasoning. A good example is a recent article by Madison Dibble, “The Unintended Consequences of Declaring 'Climate Emergency'”. Madison Dibble is the communications director for the Center for Accountability in Science,  which examines scientific research in a rational and reasonable manner. As they state in their ‘About Us’ webpage:

“Thanks to the internet, you can now read the latest issue of prestigious peer-reviewed journals as soon as they’re published. Of course, most people don’t get their science news from journals. Health and science reporters distill the details of new studies into news that’s accessible for most readers. Unfortunately, they don’t always have the resources to adequately explain new findings. Additionally, most readers don’t know anything about the organizations and researchers behind these news stories.

Get the info on these important issues here:

• Evaluating Research
• Funding in Science
• Science Journalism”

Some other websites also critically examine environmental and climate change science in a rational and reasonable manner from both the good and bad perspectives. They are:

• Environmental Progress is a non-profit incubator of ideas, leaders, and movements for nature, peace, and prosperity for all. Despite its lofty-sounding goals, they provide reasonable and practicable solutions to environmental and climate change issues from a humanistic perspective.
• Junk Science answers the question – What is “junk science?” as faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. The scientific method calls for trial and error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. Therefore, being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science. This site examines all the junk that’s fit to debunk.
• The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
• Real Climate Science critically examines the scientific faults and flaws of climate science. As the late, great, Quantum Physicist Richard Feynman has said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” This website debunks some of the expert’s ignorance with a careful examination and evaluation of the facts about climate change.

Most Americans have good intentions when they respond to environmental and climate change concerns. Most Americans, however, often make their decisions based on feeling good about their decision, and they rarely know all the impacts (both positive and negative) of their decision. The difference between feeling good and doing good is often far-reaching, and therefore, it is important that we decide on environmental and climate change issues based on knowledge of both the positive and negative impacts of our decisions and not react based on our intentions. After all, “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions”.

09/08/22 Settled Science

In today’s political arena, many people argue policy positions based on ‘settled science’. The question then becomes; is the science really settled?

In physics, the Newtonian concept of fixed space and time was displaced by Einstein’s Special Relativity, and Newton's Theory of Gravity was overthrown by Einstein’s General Relativity. The early physics of atomics was toppled by Quantum Mechanics, and our early beliefs on the structure of the Universe were completely reversed by advances in observational astronomy and Cosmology. In geography, the theory of the fixed structure of Earth was preempted by Plate Tectonics. In all the other sciences, there are similar stories of ‘settled science’ being overthrown by new and better experiments and observations. What was once thought to be true often turns out to be false, and the process of change was often opposed by leading scientists as contrary to ‘settled science’.

The lesson to be learned from these stories is that science is never settled. Great science is the questioning of ‘settled science’ with new and improved observations and experiments that often leads to the displacement of settled science. There is even a Philosophy of Science that examines this issue, as I have written in my Science Article, “Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn”. The advances in “Chaos, Complexity, Network, and Dynamic Science” of today are leading to even more questioning of settled science.

Consequently, science is never settled but only has a consensus on what theories are the best explanations of the observations and experimentation. Anyone who states that “the science is settled’ or ‘settled science” has no concept of “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”, and we should pay no heed to them or what they propose based on their settled science.

The same is also true when people argue based on mathematics, statistics, probabilities, and computer modeling (see my Articles on “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave” and “Computer Modeling”). Therefore, always beware of someone who trusses their argument based on settled science, statistics say, studies show, or computer modeling demonstrates, as they are often ignorant about the true nature of these topics.

09/06/22 Chaos, Complexity, Networks, and Dynamic Science

The great advancements in the physical sciences in the first half of the twentieth century were Special Relativity and General  Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics. The great advancements in the physical sciences in the second half of the twentieth century were Chaos theory and Complex, Network, and Dynamic systems theory. These advancements in science fundamentally changed how science understood the Universe.

Many people have some knowledge of Relativity and Quantum physics, but few people have knowledge about Chaos, Complexity, Networks, and Dynamics science. However, many people should be more aware of Chaos, Complexity, Networks, and Dynamic science, as it not only applies to the physical sciences but has been shown to apply to all human activities. The definition of these theories, from Wikipedia, is:

“Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws, of dynamical systems, that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, that were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities. Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of complex, chaotic systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is a sensitive dependence on initial conditions). A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:

“Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”

A Complex System is a system composed of many components which may interact with each other. Examples of complex systems are Earth's global climate, organisms, the human brain, infrastructure such as a power grid, transportation or communication systems, complex software and electronic systems, social and economic organizations (like cities), an ecosystem, a living cell, and ultimately the entire universe.

Complex systems are systems whose behavior is intrinsically difficult to model due to the dependencies, competitions, relationships, or other types of interactions between their parts or between a given system and its environment. Systems that are "complex" have distinct properties that arise from these relationships, such as nonlinearity, emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among others. Because such systems appear in a wide variety of fields, the commonalities among them have become the topic of their independent area of research. In many cases, it is useful to represent such a system as a network where the nodes represent the components and links to their interactions.

Networks Theory is the study of graphs as a representation of either symmetric relations or asymmetric relations between discrete objects. In computer science and network science, network theory is a part of graph theory: a network can be defined as a graph in which nodes and/or edges have attributes (e.g., names).

Network theory has applications in many disciplines, including statistical physics, particle physics, computer science, electrical engineering, biology, archaeology, economics, finance, operations research, climatology, ecology, public health, sociology, and neuroscience. Applications of network theory include logistical networks, the World Wide Web, Internet, gene regulatory networks, metabolic networks, social networks, epistemological networks, etc.; see List of network theory topics for more examples.

Euler's solution to the Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem is considered to be the first true proof in the theory of networks.

Dynamical Systems theory is an area of mathematics used to describe the behavior of complex dynamical systems, usually by employing differential equations or difference equations. When differential equations are employed, the theory is called continuous dynamical systems. From a physical point of view, continuous dynamical systems are a generalization of classical mechanics, a generalization where the equations of motion are postulated directly and are not constrained to be Euler–Lagrange equations of the least action principle. When difference equations are employed, the theory is called discrete dynamical systems. When the time variable runs over a set that is discrete over some intervals and continuous over other intervals or is any arbitrary time-set such as a Cantor set, one gets dynamic equations on time scales. Some situations may also be modeled by mixed operators, such as differential-difference equations.”

Chaos theory and Complex, Network, and Dynamic systems theory opens a breathtaking new perspective on the universe. All three theories can help us understand the universe in a way that can enrich our lives and help our understanding of how our societies, politics, economies, finance, commerce, and science/technologies interact and shape our world. We would all be better off and comprehend the forces that shape our world if we gained knowledge of the theories.

I have recently updated my Science Article, “Chaos, Complexity, Network, and Dynamic Science”, which outlines these theories in more detail and their implications for our worldview.

09/03/22 A Terrorist and a Fascist

It appears that not only am I a terrorist, as I explained in my Article “It Appears that I am a Domestic Terrorist”, but now I am a semi-fascist—at least according to President Biden. For those who are unaware of what Fascism truly is, I would direct you to my Article on “Nazism and Fascism”. Basically, Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before they spread to other European countries. It is best expressed by quotes from its leading proponent, Benito Mussolini:

• “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.”
• “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
• “We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.”

President Biden’s comments on the semi-fascism of President Trump’s supporters bespeak of the psychology of a twisted and dangerous mind. A twisted mind as in an older book by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D., “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” is about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset and human nature and human freedom, as I have reviewed in my Book It of “06/01/21 The Liberal Mind”. A dangerous mind, as a new book by Mattias Desmet, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, examines how the psychological forces of the individual and the mob that were and are in play in the recent past and today’s world stage led and leads us into totalitarianism. For those interested in a fuller explanation of mass formation, my article “Modern Totalitarianism” recaps the different sections of this book and my commentary on these sections.

President Biden’s speech in front of Independence Hall on Thursday night was the most divisive, vile, and despicable speech given by a modern American President, as I have written about in my new Article “The Soul of the Nation”. It was worthy of George III’s Ministers and Members of Parliament's comments about the American Colonists who declared independence in that same hall. It is also the tactics of the demonization of a group of people for the purposes of the incitement of the mob that Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao utilized to subjugate their own people. President Biden’s outright distortions and fabrications about his political opponents were abominable, and he set the predicate for the persecution and prosecution of his political opponents. As such, his comments were an extreme threat to democracy and an assault on our Constitutional Rights that were unworthy of the leader of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom.

President Biden’s actions have also exhibited a propensity for Authoritarianism, and many of his administration’s actions have been unconstitutional. He is quickly devolving into “Modern American Fascism”, which is antithetical to our “American Ideals and Ideas”. His twisted and dangerous mind, along with his administration lackeys and supporters, is a threat to the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” we enjoy in America. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable limits. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints.

As such, President Biden needs to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. If not, we will devolve into persecution and prosecution of all those that would disagree with President Biden and his administration and Democrat Party Leaders. If he is unchecked by impeachment, conviction, and removal from office, we run the risk of sliding into totalitarianism in America or a potential civil war to regain our Liberties and Freedoms.

One wonders how long it will take for the Biden Administration to require that Trump supporters must wear the following badge while in public:

09/02/22 Expert Opinion

In the 20th century, we in America have become captivated by expert opinion in all aspects of our society. We have, however, forgotten to be wary of expert opinion, as their expert opinions often come with caveats. Some of these caveats are:

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
 - George Orwell

“Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge, and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character.”
 - Winston Churchill

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”
 - William F. Buckley

I have examined this phenomenon in my Article, “The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) and Skin in the Game (SIG)”, and my Chirps on “01/09/21 The Intellectual and the Preposterous” and “06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top”, but it bears repeating especially in light of what has happened as a result of our COVID-19 responses.

The major lesson to be learned from our COVID-19 responses is that we should not blindly follow the advice of experts, as experts often disagree amongst themselves, and they rarely consider the impacts of their opinions outside of their field of expertise. There is also the issue of the correctness of their Studies and Statistics, as I have outlined in my Article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave ”.

What we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong. Wrong because they lack sufficient knowledge of all aspects of an issue, wrong because the facts they rely on are incorrect, wrong because they have an unrealistic belief in the accuracy of their statistics and modeling, and most importantly, they are wrong because they lack wisdom. And sometimes, the experts have hidden agendas for their expert opinions. Hidden agendas to accomplish what they believe to be good for Americans, but that they believe Americans cannot fully understand the good they wish to achieve.

Therefore, let us be wary of expert opinion, examine the dissenting expert opinion, and obtain expert opinion from others outside the field of expertise that will be impacted by an expert opinion. If not, then we will continue to be seriously impacted by expert opinion that can be wrong or not examined in light of the impacts outside of the field of expertise.

08/31/22 Assuming

To ASSUME is to make an ASS out of yoU and ME, and to assume is to risk the possibility of failure or disaster. History is rife with people, groups, organizations, companies, societies, and governments that have made assumptions that are ruinous to themselves and others. There are many reasons for assumptions, and most of these reasons are erroneous. Often, these reasons become excuses after a failure or disaster.

One of the best ways to avoid the dangers of assumptions is to think beforehand, as explained in my Pearls of Wisdom –"Think Before You Respond" and "Think Before You Act". Another good practice is to remember the ABC rule when thinking about or to analyze anything someone has said or done:

Accept nothing,
Believe nobody,
Challenge everything.

There are some common types of assumptions, but the number of types of assumptions is in the hundreds. The webpage, 12 Types of Assumptions by John Spacey of Simplicable, explains some of the more common assumptions as “Assumptions are things that you hold to be true without proof that they are true. These are often required to get anything done in an environment of unknowns and uncertainties. The following are common types of assumptions.”:

1. Likely Facts
2. Naive
3. Optimistic
4. Pessimistic
5. Pragmatic
6. Predictions
7. Productive Assumptions
8. Sour Grapes
9. Unproductive Assumptions
10. Unquestioned
11. Unrecognized
12. Unstated

In the webpage, “12 Assumptions People Often Wrongly Made About Their Life” by Carol Morgan of Lifehack she highlights and explains the common wrongly held assumptions that people make about their lives— “So you think you know how the world works, huh? Sure, we all do. We all like to think that we have it figured out. But do you really? Many times, people make assumptions about life that simply aren’t true. Here are 12 of them.”:

1. People are watching your every move and judging you.
2. You have “failed,” when in fact you just haven’t succeeded yet.
3. If you ignore a problem, it will go away.
4. You need to be perfect.
5. Everything that goes wrong is other people’s fault, not yours.
6. You just can’t do it.
7. All of your expectations of other people are reasonable.
8. You think “this” is permanent. It’s not.
9. You’re not important.
10. You think you’re always right.
11. Something is holding you back.
12. You can’t be happy.

In the webpage, 50 Wrong Assumptions that You Always Make by Brian Lee of LifeHack, he explains that “We can make wrong assumptions about almost anything in life. Sometimes we make mistakes from them, sometimes they misguide us and sometimes we can even use them as an excuse. They can be misleading or sometimes even irrational. There are assumptions about anything from work ethics, mathematics and even relationships and happiness. Here are fifty of the most common misassumptions. Perhaps you have heard these or even said some yourself.” He then lists 50 common reasons/excuses that people often make based on assumptions.

Groupthink is a melting pot of assumptions on steroids. The leaders of, or the most vocal members of, the group often base their opinions on assumptions that they believe are common to the group, and the other members of the group often blindly accept these assumptions. Thus, the group is self-reinforcing in its assumptions.

In today’s politics, the most common assumptions and groupthink are "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". These falsehoods are often the basis for laws, rules, and regulations by the government, and they can be ruinous to America. We would do well to remember the ABC rule when thinking about and to act upon these falsehoods. We would also do well to not become involved in groupthink and, instead, make up our own minds by applying "Rationality" and "Reasoning" and then go "Beyond Rationality and Reasoning" to reach our decision.

08/29/22 Classified Information

Whenever you hear someone speaking about classified information or the handling of classified information, you should always keep in mind that those who know what they are talking about rarely talk, and those who talk rarely know what they are talking about. This is because until you have worked in a classified environment, it is impossible to understand the intricacies of the handling of classified information. I know this for a fact, as I am one of those people who rarely talk, as I spent about ten years in a classified job and handled thousands of pieces of classified information. However, given the events of the last dozen or so years involving the mishandling of classified information by high-profile persons and the deliberate distortion of media and others to justify or condemn this mishandling of classified information, I feel compelled to speak up and set the record straight. Of necessity, I will be circumspect and not reveal too much, as this could be a violation of my legal responsibility to remain silent about such matters. However, I do not believe that I am in violation of my legal responsibilities, as I have not revealed any classified information and I have utilized unclassified sources (including government web sites) in writing my new article.

My new Article, “Classified Information” was written for the purpose of providing a foundation for understanding the handling of classified information to those not initiated into the world of classified information. This should provide you with sufficient knowledge to ascertain the veracity of what others are saying when discussing possible breaches of the handling of classified information. If another is saying something that contradicts or contravenes what I have written, then you can be fairly certain that the person does not know what they are talking about regarding the handling of classified information, or they are being disingenuous. Either way, you should not give credence to what they are saying.

08/28/22 Judeo-Christian Morality

The importance of the black preacher in the Civil Rights movement cannot be overstated. Not only did they galvanize their congregants to peaceably support this movement, but they raised the conscience of white Americans to the morality and justness of this cause. Without their voice, the Civil Rights movement may have failed or degenerated into mob violence.

Throughout the following decades, they have continued to support the importance of Civil Rights, but they have also drifted apart from the core issues into supporting tangential issues that have led them astray from the core issue of Civil Rights—the importance of treating every person as an individual. The worth and dignity of each individual person, and the importance of Judeo-Christian morality in dealing with each person and the ills of society, are at the core of Civil Rights.

Consequently, all preachers of Judeo-Christian morality need to ask and answer the following questions regarding the role of Judeo-Christian morality in the functioning of our society, and the actions of individuals within our society:

• What is the Judeo-Christian morality of making a people dependent upon government subsidies for their subsistence?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality of affirmative action by government that favors one group of persons at the expense of another group of persons?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for the countenance of mob violence to achieve a positive social goal?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for theft and violence against persons and their businesses and employees?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for illegal drug use and illegal drug dealing?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for forcing a person to undergo medical treatments against their will?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for not allowing persons to freely associate with each other?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for pregnancy outside of marriage?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for the acceptance of abortion?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for a father abandoning a mother and his children?
• What is the Judeo-Christian morality for the acceptance of single motherhood?

The answer to these questions is self-obvious to a person of Judeo-Christian morality—they are a sin as they transgress against the Ten Commandments, and they are an affront to the worth and dignity of each individual person. These affronts are also destructive to the moral fiber of America and ruinous to our society.

As such, preachers of all faiths and races need to become more involved and vocal about Judeo-Christian morality in individual actions and societal solutions to the ills confronting America. And these actions and solutions need to be based upon Judeo-Christian morality of the importance of treating every person as an individual. America would be a much better place if all persons treated each person as an individual worthy of dignity and respect.

08/26/22 The Thwarter

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been given a lot of nicknames (Cocaine Mitch, Grim Reaper, Moscow Mitch, Massacre Mitch, Midnight Mitch) by those hostile to his politics (see McConnell once called himself the 'Grim Reaper.' Here are the nicknames he's earned since” by Ben Tobin). This is typical of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" that are often practiced by today’s Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

However, he is now earning another nickname by those who support his politics—The Thwarter. His recent comments about some Republican Senate candidates are not only not helpful but, indeed, dampens their chances of election. He may not like or believe in their chances of being elected, but as a Republican leader, he needs to support them. Otherwise, he may find himself still in the minority of the Senate and the American people continuing to be saddled by the destructive policies and agendas of the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders. This saddling is much worse than having, as he has said, ‘bad candidates’ on the Republican ticket.

As Mitch McConnell has spent most of his career on the defense against the Democrats, it appears that he is unable or unwilling to go on the offense against his opponents. But offense is what we now need to regain control of Congress to impede the destructive policies and agendas of the Democrats. If the Republicans gain control of the Senate, despite his lack of support for these candidates, it may be necessary to replace Mitch McConnell as the Senate Majority Leader. Even if they do not regain control of the Senate, it is time for him to be replaced as the Republican Leader. In these turbulent times, the Republicans need aggressive leadership to challenge the Democrats. Sadly, Mitch McConnell has not shown he can lead an offense against the Democrats. And offense is what we now need to right the course of America.

08/24/22 The Decline of the Rule of Law

Robert G. Natelson, one of my Three Scholars Understanding and Defending the Constitution, who I regularly read to understand Constitutional meaning, has written two new articles and one old article on the importance of the Rule of Law in America:

• Governor DeSantis and the Rule of Law—Part I
• Governor DeSantis, the Raid on Trump, and the Rule of Law—Part II
• The link between the rule of law and your economic well-being

Given my recent focus on this topic, with a series of Chirps on The Weaponization of Government, I thought that these articles are a nice complement to my Chirps as well as pointing out other issues regarding this topic. I am hoping that he will continue to write other articles on this topic, and if so, I will post Chirps when he does so. Meanwhile, I hope that you will read his and Jonathan Turley’s and Michael Stokes Paulsen’s articles on the meaning of the Constitution on my aforementioned webpage on this topic.

08/22/22 Abortion as a Constitutional Issue

Rob Natelson, a distinguished Constitutional Scholar with whom I mostly agree, has written a new article, “Understanding the Constitution: Why It Doesn’t Protect the Unborn”, with which I mostly disagree. My disagreement with his article is that he haphazardly utilizes some words and terms in his arguments that are not explicit in the Constitution. I also believe that he has not examined one of the main arguments for the Unconstitutionality of abortion.

In response, I have written a new Article, “The Constitution and Abortion” which is a critique of Professor Natelson’s article, and an examination as to why abortion is a Constitutional issue and not a States Rights Issue.

Since the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the total number of abortions in America from 1973 through 2020 is approximately 63.6 million+. This is 63.6 million+ human beings' lives that were not protected and ended, depriving them of their Natural Right to life. As with the shame of slavery, we must now bear the shame of abortion. And, as with slavery, we must end this practice forthwith to assure the protection of the Natural Rights of all human beings.

08/21/22 The Jewish Banker

One of the biggest falsehoods of anti-Semitism is that the Jews control the world through their influence in banking and financial institutions. While there are many Jews and non-Jews in these institutions, the Jews play no more prominent role than any other groups involved in these institutions.

The origin of this anti-Semitism goes back to Medieval Europe when Christians believed that Moneylending and Usury was a sin, as Jesus scattered the moneylenders at the Temple in Jerusalem. As such, Christians were not to be involved in moneylending except as a recipient of loans, and interest on these loans was considered sinful. As the Jewish religion had no such compunctions, if done in a fair and equitable manner, the moneylenders of Medieval Europe tended to be Jewish. However, moneylending was not constricted to people of the Jewish faith, and many prominent Christian noblemen engaged in banking, such as the House of Medici as well as the Knights Templar.

The largest Jewish involvement in banking and financial institutions was with the Rothschild family, a wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish family originally from Frankfurt that rose to prominence with Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), a court factor to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, Holy Roman Empire, who established his banking business in the 1760s. Unlike most previous court factors, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth and established an international banking family through his five sons, who established businesses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Naples. More information about the involvement and contribution of Jewish Bankers throughout history can be found on the webpage “Ancient Jewish History: Banking & Bankers” of the Jewish Virtual Library website.

Today, as it has been throughout history, banking and financing are not a providence of any one group of people. It is the intelligence, knowledge, experience, skills, and abilities of those involved in banking and finance that determine the success of an enterprise and their influence on others, as it is with any other enterprise or societal influences. Consequently, Anti-Semitism in banking and finances, and in all its forms, must be confronted and condemned whenever it rears its ugly head, as I have Chirped on, "08/16/19 Anti-Semitism in the USA". History has shown that whenever Anti-Semitism is not confronted and eliminated, it festers and grows to become a cancer that will eventually destroy society.

08/19/22 Stop the Swap

With the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment in Russia of U.S. citizen and basketball star Brittney Griner on drug smuggling charges, there has been a hue and cry to swap her with an American prisoner of Russian nationality. It has also been suggested that another American, Paul Whelan, who is imprisoned in Russia on espionage charges, be included in this swap. Although both Americans are prisoners in Russia, their cases are different. Ms. Griner is clearly guilty of the crime she committed, while Mr. Whelan may have been wrongly convicted on trumped-up charges.

Ms. Griner traveled to Russia with a small amount of marijuana which she tried to slip through Russian customs officials. Her excuse was that in her rush to pack; she thoughtlessly put this (disguised) marijuana in her luggage. Mr. Whelan was convicted on uncorroborated reports he had been caught receiving a digital storage device containing a list of intelligence officials, charges which he has denied and claims were a ruse to swap him for a Russian national in an American prison.

President Joe Biden recently stated that his administration would “pursue every possible avenue” to bring U.S. citizens Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan home to the United States. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken confirmed that the United States put forward a "substantial proposal" to Putin’s regime for a prisoner exchange, which reportedly would entail releasing Viktor Bout, a dangerous Russian arms trafficker, in exchange for Ms. Griner and Mr. Whelan.

In an article by Rebekah Koffler, “Three reasons why Biden's Russian prisoner swap is a bad idea”, she proffers three reasons why this prisoner swap is a bad idea:

First, the deal would embolden Putin to continue using "hostage diplomacy" to achieve his anti-American agenda.

Second, giving up Viktor Bout to the Russians would harm American security as he would probably resume his arms trafficking.

Finally, by giving up Viktor Bout, it would have wasted the time, money, and effort spent on capturing this notorious criminal.

I would also mention that Viktor Bout is indirectly responsible for the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of persons because of his arms trafficking. I would, therefore, ask where is the justice for his victims if he is released?

While I agree that the sentence of nine years for Ms. Griner is harsh, it was her responsibility to ensure that she did not violate any laws of the country she was visiting. The lesson of Ms. Griner is that when you are engaged in foreign travel, you must proactively ensure that you do not violate any of their laws. The 16-year sentence of Mr. Whelan, if he was guilty of the crime, was a longish but just sentence for this type of crime. The lesson of Mr. Whelan Griner is that when you are engaged in foreign travel to a hostile nation, you may become embroiled in circumstances beyond your control that could endanger you, and perhaps you should rethink your travel.

I, therefore, sadly conclude that this prisoner swap is Inequitable and should not occur, and it is not in the best interests of future American tourists who may be entrapped for hostage diplomacy. Also, President Biden must prioritize American interests and security, and the cause of justice, by keeping Viktor Bout in jail.

08/17/22 Big Government Begets Big Corporations

I recently read an article where someone stated, "The bigger the government, the bigger the corporations". I regard this quote as a truism, as whenever a government becomes more involved in the business of corporations, the more the corporations become involved in the business of government. This involvement fosters more rules and regulations by the government and more bureaucrats to administer them, which fuels the growth of government. It also fosters more corporate costs and employees to meet the rules and regulations of government. It also fosters more corporate lobbying of the government to influence these rules and regulations, and much of the lobbying is for the benefit of the corporations and not the American people. It also has a deleterious impact on small businesses, as they must expend more costs and time to meet these rules and regulations, which sometimes puts them at a competitive disadvantage with corporations as these rules and regulations are more tailored to big business.

The government does have a role in the rules and regulations of businesses to assure the health and safety of the employees of businesses and the American public. It also has a role in determining the legal boundaries of business operations to ensure a free and fair marketplace that a business must operate within. Too often, however, this government involvement in businesses has become excessive and a detriment to the free and fair marketplace.

Of course, politicians love to become involved in businesses as it gives them more power, enriches their coffers as businesspersons contribute to their elections and reelection campaigns, and they can demagogue on these issues to obtain votes in an election.

Thus, we have a vicious cycle of government and corporate growth at the expense of the American public. This quote is, therefore, a truism, and along with Dennis Prager's article and truism, “The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen”, we in America find ourselves with a larger government, larger corporations, and smaller citizens.

08/15/22 Free Speech as a Means to Truth

Upon reading the book “A History of Dangerous Assumptions” by John Molesworth, I came across a section of this book that is very illuminative of the importance of Free Speech in obtaining Truth. I have extracted this section to create a new Article, “Free Speech as a Means to Truth”. This section discusses the necessity and importance of free speech to humankind, as was based on the writings of John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty. John Stuart Mill was a great philosopher, political economist and member of parliament was one of the greatest foes of the making of assumptions. His essay On Liberty is one of his most famous works. Here are some selected quotes dealing with free speech from John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty:

“. . . protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose… its own ideas and practices… on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development of any individuality not in harmony with its ways”

“That the sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the Liberty of Action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; and robbing those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.”

“All silencing of discussion is ‘an Assumption of Infallibility’.”

More information about this essay can be viewed on the Libertarianism webpage on “An Introduction to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty“.

08/14/22 Us versus Them

I have combined my Chirps on the alarming trend of the weaponization of government that has occurred during 21st century America, which can be read here. This trend is most notable in the administrations of President Obama and President Biden, as they have pursued investigations and prosecutions against their political opponents. Many claim that President Trump also weaponized government, but the evidence for this is scant and often involves "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to be believed. Indeed, President Trump had the opportunity to weaponize government when his supporters chanted “Lock Her Up’ in regards to his 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton for her possible criminal actions as Secretary of State. Despite the veracity of the evidence of the criminality of Hillary Clinton’s actions, he declined to pursue criminal investigations and prosecutions against her. The same could be said against other members of President Obama’s administration who engaged in dubious and possibly illegal activities. President Trump declined to do so as he realized that such investigations and prosecutions would be the weaponization of government for political purposes and would be harmful to the body politic.

There appears that there are no such compunctions in the Biden Administration, and it also appears that the weaponization of government to achieve political goals and policies is a tactic of the Biden Administration. Anyone associated with the Trump Administration appears to be fair game for the Biden Administration. Any supporters of President Trump are also targets for the Biden Administration. Any perceived actions by anyone that can be demonized as MAGA activities are targets for the weaponization of government by the Biden Administration. The Biden Administration has thus divided Americans into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. In the Biden Administration, the Them are targeted with the weaponization of government while the Us is protected and not prosecuted for criminal activities. This attitude is also prevalent among Democrat Governors, Mayors, District Attorneys, Federal, State, and Local bureaucrats, and other Democrat-controlled government agencies.

Us believes that the Constitution is only an impediment to be circumvented or overcome to achieve their political goals and social policies, while Them believes that the Constitution is a rulebook for a civil society that preserves the Liberties and Freedoms of all. Us also believes that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, the Us believes that its policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Us are motivated to do whatever they believe is best for America using constitutionally torturous and convoluted reasoning, while the Them believes in doing what is best for all Americans using constitutionally straightforward reasoning. Us, therefore, believes it is acceptable to engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" as they are combating evil, and any and all means to destroy evil are acceptable. Them believes that Us are wrong and only proper "Dialog and Debate" is acceptable. The Us believes in democratic rule rather than republic rule and a democratic interpretation of the Constitution, as I have examined in my Articles, “A Republic versus a Democracy” and "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution", while Them believes the opposite. The Us also believes in rulership rather than leadership, while Them will only accept leadership, as I have examined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Thus, a cold civil war is in progress in America. Us believes that disagreements with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are not to be tolerated and are to be criminalized for Them, nor is Free Speech and other Constitutional and Civil Rights to be allowed for Them. The Us believe that there is only room in America for Us, and the Them are to be expunged from American society. The continuation of this cold civil war can only lead to the dissolution of "A Civil Society" and end to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" or to a hot civil war between Us and Them to resolve this problem. The American people need to put an end to this cold civil war and preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. The only peaceful way of ending this cold civil war is to vote out of office anyone who supports the actions of Us; otherwise, it may be necessary for Them to engage in a hot civil war to end this cold civil war. If this hot civil war should occur, then Them should keep in mind that:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

08/12/21 Das ist das Ende, das Ende

Near the end of the movie ‘Patton’, as the Germans are destroying papers in anticipation of defeat, the words ‘Das ist das Ende, das Ende’ (This is the End, the End) are heard when the German general tells another officer that the War is over.

With the raid of the Mar-a-Lago home of former President Donald Trump by the Justice Department, led by the FBI, Das ist das Ende, das Ende has come upon America. It will either be the end of our Constitutional Republic or the end of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as we must choose one or the other as they can no longer coexist. If these actions by the Justice Department and the FBI are allowed to stand, then we will allow the further weaponization of government, as I have Chirped on “08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government”. No person will be safe from government persecution and prosecution that dares to contradict the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists policies. Bureaucrats will determine, through unspoken or indirect threats of persecution or prosecution, who shall speak and what they are allowed to say and who shall be allowed to hold the reins of power in America.

The cast of characters in this abomination of our Liberties and Freedoms has been one of those who have exhibited animosity toward President Trump. From the former Director of the National Archives to FBI Director Wray, Attorney General Garland, President Biden, and all the other responsible persons in between, they have all exhibited an anti-Trump abhorrence that has guided their actions. Even the judge that signed off on the search warrant is a known anti-Trumper who should have recused himself from involvement in these actions. Abhorrence to a politician should not translate into judicial actions but should be limited to the political arena, and only the criminal actions of a politician should be investigated and prosecuted. No legal "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" should be utilized to pursue criminal prosecution of a politician, for to do so is the weaponization of the judicial system for the purposes of the politicization of justice. Such actions are only worthy of a banana republic and not of a nation dedicated to Liberty and Freedom.

This raid is unprecedented in American history and yet another example of the Biden Administration's weaponization of government for the purposes of the politicization of justice. The reported pretext for the search warrant is just a cover for their persecution and prosecution of political opponents. The flimsy pretext of official and classified documents not being turned over to the National Archives is belied by previous subpoenas that were being complied with by President Trump and his staff, with disputes being negotiated by all the parties involved. Such disputes between former Presidents and the National Archives have been common in the past, especially with former President Obama retaining over 30,000 pages of documents that he has promised to digitize and then turn over to the National Archives but has not yet done so.

In addition, as a matter of law, no President can be charged under the Espionage Act for “mishandling” classified information or records. A Supreme Court decision in 1987 made it clear that the President has inherent constitutional power, as Commander-In-Chief, to classify and declassify anything they want at will, and no law, statute, or regulation may usurp this constitutional power. They can do it through their words and deeds — and they don’t need to label it, they don’t need to report it, and they don’t have to tell anyone. Former presidents do not have this power, but if a President removes these classified documents from their secure location before they leave office, they have every authority to do so. Once someone removed these classified documents from their secure locations under instructions from a sitting President then they are no longer considered classified and, therefore, not subject to criminal nor civil prosecution.

The manner in which they conducted this raid appears contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The actions of the FBI in the raid of not allowing Trump’s lawyers to see the search warrant except at a distance of ten feet, not providing his lawyers with a copy of the search warrant, not allowing his lawyers to observe the actual search, ordering the security cameras to be turned off so as to not record the FBI agent’s search actions, to the sealing of the Search Warrant from public scrutiny bespeak of secrecy and cover-up. There is also the question as to whether evidence is being doctored, manufactured, and planted in these seized documents, as there has been no proper inventory of the documents that were seized at the time of the seizure. As Trump’s lawyers were not present at the time of seizure to assure the accuracy and completeness of the list of the documents that were seized, and they are not present at the subsequent compilation of this list, any list of seized documents that the Department of Justice and the FBI compiles after the seizure is suspect. There is also the question, and suspicion, that the chain of evidence has been broken with these seized documents.

It is also noteworthy that many of the persons involved in this action have been known to perjure themselves in submissions to the court (i.e., the false affidavits submitted to the FISA court in the Russian Collusion investigations) and the altering of documents to support these affidavits. They have also been known to utilize evidence of dubious veracity, and sometimes known to be false, to justify investigations of President Trump and his associates. They have also spied upon President Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign and during his Presidential Administration, and now during his post Presidential life.

This search warrant and the affidavits supporting the warrant need to be unsealed for the American public and our elective representatives to examine and determine the validity of the Justice Department and the FBI actions. After the search warrant and the affidavits are unsealed, our elective representatives need to take the appropriate actions as necessary to determine their veracity and appropriateness, as well as the legality of these actions by the Justice Department and the FBI. These appropriate actions should include, but not be limited to, impeachment of Executive Officers, dismissal of employment by those staff members who should have known better than to engage in these actions (just following orders is no excuse when you are in a leadership or management position), the stripping of pensions and benefits of those impeached or dismissed, and prosecutions of criminal wrongdoing by the persons responsible for these actions, as warranted by the facts. This unsealing should not include the list of items seized, except with the approval of President Trump, as this list would be an invasion of Trump’s privacy rights as it appears that many of the items seized were outside the scope of the official and classified documents that were to be seized under the search warrant.

Finally, this raid was far out of proportion to its stated goals and may not have been necessary as a subpoena may have been more appropriate under these circumstances. The proper function of a Search Warrant is to seize and preserve evidence from destruction or concealment for future prosecution by a legal authority. A Subpoena is a writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence (such as records, documents, or property) before a court or legal authority and other deliberative bodies. As many of the items seized at the Mar-a-Lago home of former President Donald Trump were outside the scope of the search warrant, it is reasonable to question if the recovery of documents was the true intent of this search warrant. It is more reasonable to assume that the Justice Department and the FBI were on a fishing expedition to serendipitously gather evidence of other dubious allegations of criminal actions by President Trump. If this is the case, then the Justice Department and the FBI are engaging in an assault on the Constitutional and Civil Rights of President Trump. An assault, if allowed to stand, that signals Das ist das Ende, das Ende for "Justice and The Rule of Law in America".

The American people need to put an end to the weaponization of government for the purposes of the politicization of justice. To not do so is to allow for the disintegration of our "American Ideals and Ideas", which will lead to the end of our Constitutional Republic and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". The only peaceful way of ending this assault on our rights is to vote out of office for anyone who supports these actions by the Justice Department and the FBI; otherwise, it may be necessary to engage in non-peaceful means to restore our rights. If this non-peaceful means should occur, then we should keep in mind that:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

08/09/22 The Ultimate Weaponization of Government

Two days after I posted my Chirp on “08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government”, the Justice Department, led by the FBI, raided the Mar-a-Lago home of former President Donald Trump. This raid is unprecedented in American history and yet another example of the Biden Administration's weaponization of government for the purposes of the politicization of justice. The flimsy reported pretext for the search warrant (not as yet confirmed) is just a cover for their persecution and prosecution of political opponents, and the manner in which they conducted this raid appears contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

One of the lessons I have learned in my life experiences is that when I become angry, it is best to bite my tongue and say nothing until my anger subsides (as explained in my Pearls of Wisdom –"Think Before You Respond" and "Think Before You Act"). This raid has not only angered me but has made me livid, and as such, I will not say anything more about this raid until my anger subsides. When I have more information and my anger subsides, I will write a rational and reasonable criticism and critique (as explained in my Pearls of Wisdom - "Know the Difference between Criticism and Critique") of these actions by the Justice Department and the FBI.

Until then, I can only say that this raid appears to be contrary to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and a degradation to "A Civil Society", and is only worthy of a Banana Republic.

08/08/22 Defense Production Act

The Defense Production Act was passed in 1950 in response to the start of the Korean War. It was part of a broad civil defense and war mobilization effort in the context of the Cold War. Since 1950, this act has been reauthorized over 50 times, and it has been periodically amended and remains in force. The act contains three major sections. The first authorizes the President to require businesses to accept and prioritize contracts for materials deemed necessary for national defense, regardless of a loss incurred on business. The law also allows the President to designate materials to be prohibited from hoarding or price gouging. The second section authorizes the President to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders, or agencies) to allocate materials, services, and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the President to control the civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs. The act also authorizes the President to requisition property, force industry to expand production and the supply of basic resources, settle labor disputes, control consumer and real estate credit, establish contractual priorities, and allocate raw materials towards national defense.

Most of the time, this act has been invoked for national defense reasons, but in the last several decades, it has been utilized for non-defense reasons employing "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify these government actions. Most recently, it has been invoked for the COVID-19 Pandemic response and to address the baby formula shortage. Recently, President Biden has invoked this act for the manufacturing and importation of Solar Energy Panels and is considering the utilization of the Defense Production Act to implement a larger portion of the Green New Deal, for which he has been unable to get Congressional approval. This action, if taken, would be a usurpation of Congressional powers to legislate and, in my opinion, would be entirely Unconstitutional. If a President cannot get Congress to legislate, then they have no power to implement their unapproved agenda. This is yet another example of rulership, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", and as I have Chirped on "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders".

It is time to amend the Defense Production Act to limit it to defense actions and to establish a new law for non-defense emergency actions. This new law would set time limits for Presidential emergency actions for a fixed number of days, and it would require Legislative approval for any Presidential non-defense emergency actions that exceed this time limit. If we do not amend this act to restrict it to defense actions and create a new act for non-defense emergency actions, then we will continue downward on the slippery slope to rulership and into despotism.

08/07/22 A Real Insurrection

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified before a Congressional Oversight Committee on a variety of topics. Congressional oversight, from Wikipedia, is:

“Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; which is specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.”

In his testimony, he refused to answer several questions, with the reasoning being that he could not discuss current investigations or comment on personnel decisions. It is important that testimony in front of the Congressional Oversight Committee be restricted to a closed session when discussing matters of national security. But it is equally important that Congress and the American people hear open testimony on non-national security issues. As far as current Judicial or FBI investigations are concerned, there may be legitimate reasons why the testimony should be in a closed session, but it is the Congressional Oversight Committees' duty and responsibility to close a session in these cases. It cannot be the Executive Officer's decision whether to testify or not testify, as too often Executive Officers refuse to answer questions, not because of legitimate reasons but to cover up malfeasance. Such malfeasance needs to be exposed before Congress and the American public to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. In America, we have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, and the people need to know if malfeasance is occurring within government, especially in the Executive Branch judicial process, as this directly impacts their Constitutional and Civil Rights. Without open oversight, Executive Officers may feel free to trample on these rights to achieve their goals, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government”.

His refusal to answer these questions appears to have the support of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as it serves their political purposes. As such, the Democrat Party is not supporting proper Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch to root out malfeasance to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans, which is a dereliction of their Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

In refusing to answer these questions, he is also violating his Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same:” as you cannot keep this oath if you are stymieing Congressional Oversight. For this reason, FBI Director Christopher Wray is engaging in an insurrection against the Constitution, and he must be forthwith removed from office for this reason.

08/06/22 The Weaponization of Government

A Two-Tiered system of justice in the Justice Department and the FBI now appears to be firmly entrenched in the Biden Administration, as I have Chirp on "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System" and "06/22/22 Injustice Department and the Federal Bureau of Iniquity". In addition, we have seen the corruption of the Intelligence agencies to support political policies and agendas and the degradation of the military to achieve social justice goals rather than to win conflicts. All of these actions represent the weaponization of government to support political goals rather than the performance of their duties and responsibilities.

In these actions, they appear to have the support of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as it advances their political agendas. As such, the Democrat Party is supporting the weaponization of government and lawlessness, as I have Chirp on "05/19/22 The Lawless Party".

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland leads the Justice Department, which includes the FBI, and he is responsible for assuring that all laws are applied equally and that the Constitutional and Civil Rights of the American people are protected. As such, he must resist any political pressures from any source in the performance of his duties.

The selective investigations and prosecutions against political opponents and the non-investigations and lack of prosecutions of political supporters have become notorious. Their threatening words, and the ignominious deeds of investigations, have been for the purposes of intimidating their political opponents. There appears to be little concern for the Constitutional and Civil Rights of their opponents and the equality of justice for all.

Attorney General Garland’s refusal to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the investigation of Hunter Biden, which is fully justified under the law regarding special prosecutors, is an assault on the integrity of the Justice Department and a dereliction of his duties and responsibilities to assure "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". It is indicative of his complicity, or acquiescence to pressure, for the purposes of protecting the President of the United States from political harm, which is not a sufficient reason for his inactions in this matter. The American people need to know the involvement of Joe Biden in his son's business dealings, as I have Chirp on "07/24/22 What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?".

It is also against his Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same:”. You cannot keep this oath if you are not applying equal justice without prejudice and not protecting the Constitutional and Civil Rights of the American people. For this reason, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is engaging in an insurrection against the Constitution, and he must be forthwith removed from office for this reason.

We should also investigate the actions of the Executive Officers of the intelligence agencies to determine if they are violating their Oath of Office and endangering the American people by their actions. At the same time, the Military leadership needs to be investigated to see if they are in dereliction of their duties to defend the American people from foreign enemies.

If we do not correct this situation, then we cannot have “A Just Government and a Just Society” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", and we will become a nation ruled by men rather than the rule of law.

08/05/22 Emergency Executive Orders

In my Chirp on "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders", I contended that to be ruled by regulation and Executive Orders is to be ruled by despotism. When Executive orders are not about enforcing the law but extending or ignoring the law, when regulations are contorted to become more than the law intended and subject to the predilections of the regulators, and when laws are written and passed that allow for these actions, we are not a Republic of the Citizens but a Tyranny by the Bureaucrats.

In the last several decades, we have seen a slew of ‘National Emergency Executive Orders’ to deal with a crisis. There is no doubt that we have a national crisis when natural disasters strike a region of our country or when the COVID-19 Pandemic struck our country. But such a crisis should be limited in scope and of a short duration. For if they are not so limited, then they are usurping the powers of Congress to legislate national policies, and therefore they are Unconstitutional. They are also a form of rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". This is not a question of what is needful as our Constitution relegates the determination of what is needful to Congress, and Executive Orders are only to be utilized to carry out what Congress has legislated.

We have also seen Executive Orders utilized to ignore laws that Congress has passed when the President disagrees with these laws. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

The COVID-19 Pandemic is an example of the dangers of these Executive Orders, as these orders had a significant negative impact on our economy and a deleterious effect on our Liberties and Freedoms. They were also done without the approval of Congress, and therefore, they were Unconstitutional.

The most recent example of this is President Biden declaring Climate Change a national crisis and issuing Executive Orders to meet this crisis. In doing so, he is directing national policies, expending monies that Congress has not allocated for that purpose, and circumventing Supreme Court rulings on this issue. And in doing so, he is destroying the Balance of Powers between three co-equal branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. This is also a violation of his Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”.

It is also true that anyone who would support these types of Executive Orders is also supporting the usurpation of the Constitution. This is especially distressing when members of Congress or Judges and Justices support these Executive Orders, as they too are upsetting the Balance of Powers and violating their Oath of Office.

08/04/22 Modern Totalitarianism

An older book by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D., “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” is about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset and human nature and human freedom, as I have reviewed in my Book It of “06/01/21 The Liberal Mind”. A new book by Mattias Desmet, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, examines how the psychological forces of the individual and the mob that are in play on today’s world stage that is leading us into totalitarianism. My new article, “Modern Totalitarianism”, recaps the different sections of this book and my commentary on these sections.

This book is an invaluable resource in understanding the how and why of the psychological underpinnings of the current irrationality in American society and the rest of the democratic world, has come about. In his examination, he warns that this psychology can easily be manipulated to become totalitarianism of the masses, as the masses unquestionably accept the reasoning and statistics presented to them. The first five chapters of this book cover how the mechanist-materialistic view of man and the world creates the specific social-psychological conditions in which mass formation and totalitarianism thrive. Chapters six to eight detail the process of mass formation and its relationship to totalitarianism. Finally, chapters nine to eleven investigate a way to transcend the current condition of man and the world so as to render totalitarianism superfluous.

Mattias Desmet is a world-renowned Belgian Professor of Clinical Psychology and professor in clinical psychology at Ghent University. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Psychological Sciences as well as a Master's degree in statistics. His previous books include “The Pursuit of Objectivity in Psychology” and “Lacan’s Logic of Subjectivity: A Walk on the Graph of Desire”. Professor Desmet is the author of over one hundred peer-reviewed academic papers. In 2018 he received the Evidence-Based Psychoanalytic Case Study Prize from the Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, and in 2019 he received the Wim Trijsburg Prize from the Dutch Association of Psychotherapy.

This book is not only an examination of the psychological forces in play, but it is also a warning that we may end up under totalitarianism in some form if this irrationality is not obliviated. Or, as one reviewer has stated:

"Desmet is waking a lot of people up to the dangerous place we are now with a brilliant distillation of how we ended up here."
 ―Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

08/03/22 Beyond Rationality and Reasoning

In my Articles, "Rationality" and "Reasoning", I explained the importance of sound rationality and proper reasoning. Upon reading an interview of Mattias Desmet in a web article on a different topic, Mattias Desmet: ‘Mass Formation’ Hypnosis and the Rise of Technocratic Totalitarianism, I realized that I had not placed rationality and reasoning in context to the ethical principles of your conclusions. He discussed the importance of going beyond rationality and reasoning to reach a decision on the suitability, rightness, or appropriateness, and the appropriate actions to undertake based on your rational and reasoned conclusions. I, therefore, realized that I had not placed rationality and reasoning in context to your ethical principles, something that I have always tried to do in my Articles and Chirps but have never formally considered. As he explained in this interview:

“Rationality is always blind. If we believe we are rational, we usually become blind to all the subjective factors that play a role in rational thinking. That’s also the reason why I believe that rationality or rational understanding can never be the basis of human living. The only thing that can really organize society and human living in a fruitful way and in a humane way is ethical principles. It is our ethical principles, the eternal principles of humanity, that should be the basis of humanity living together. We can be rational. We have to think rationally, of course. But we should understand that rationality, in itself, can never grasp the essence of our human existence and can never grasp the essence of everything around us.”

“This rational understanding is extremely limited, and can never be the basis of society. Throughout the last few centuries, we have been thinking that rational understanding is crucial, and that it is the basis of humanity living together. The entire tradition of enlightenment actually believed that a society should be organized according to rational knowledge and rational understanding, and that we should try to manipulate the world around us in a rational way, in such a way that it becomes more friendly to the human being.”

Consequently, we all must consider our ethical principles after reaching a rational and reasonable conclusion. I, therefore, have written a new article for your consideration, “Beyond Rationality and Reasoning”, that further examines this topic so that you can better decide what course of action to undertake when you reach a rational and reasonable conclusion.

08/02/22 The Corruption of Modern Science

In my Book It of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never”, I recommend a book by Michael Shellenberger that discusses environmentalism and climate change. Michael Shellenberger is the nationally bestselling author of Apocalypse Never, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment,” the winner of the 2008 Green Book Award from the Stevens Institute of Technology’s Center for Science Writings, and an invited expert reviewer of the next Assessment Report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has written on energy and the environment for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Nature Energy, and other publications for two decades. He is the founder and President of Environmental Progress, an independent, nonpartisan research organization based in Berkeley, California.

Another book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters” by Steven E. Koonin, which I have recommended in my Book it of “08/01/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change”, is a definitive book on ‘the science’ of climate change, rather than ‘The Science’ of climate change. Dr. Koonin is a scientist who has been involved in Climate Change Research, a leader in science policy in the United States for several decades, and he served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama.

In a new book by Mattias Desmet, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, he examines and notes how science is often incorrect and misused by persons with a political agenda. Mattias Desmet is a world-renowned Belgian Professor of Clinical Psychology and professor in clinical psychology at Ghent University. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Psychological Sciences as well as a Master of Science degree in statistics. Professor Desmet is the author of two other books on psychology and over one hundred peer-reviewed academic papers. In 2018 he received the Evidence-Based Psychoanalytic Case Study Prize from the Association for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, and in 2019 he received the Wim Trijsburg Prize from the Dutch Association of Psychotherapy.

In Professor Desmet’s book, he observes that “Science adapts its theory to reality, whereas ideology adapts reality to theory.”, to which I would add that in today’s hyper-partisanship, we often see ideologues attempts to warp science into their theories, and sometimes with the assistance of the scientists themselves. In his book, he utilizes the science of the COVID-19 Pandemic, along with other examples, to explore how science has been misused and corrupted to bolster the governmental responses to the pandemic and to persuade the public as to the efficacy and desirability of these responses. In doing so, the government has increased its powers over the public and consequently decreased individual liberty and freedom. A process that the government has increasingly utilized in the 20th and 21st centuries to accumulate more powers unto themselves. Powers that, if unchecked, lead to a slippery slope into despotism.

All three of these books highlight how modern science has become influenced and corrupted by ideology and partisan politics. Where at the beginnings of science, it challenged religious dogma and established authority, today it has become dogma and authority. As Mattias Desmet has stated, “At its birth, science was synonymous with open-mindedness, with a way of thinking that banished dogmas and questioned beliefs. As it evolved, however, it also turned itself into ideology, belief, and prejudice.”

Today, if you question the science, you are a science denier, and if you dispute the scientists, you are disputing science. Modern science has also become dependent on massive funding to conduct its research. Funding that originates from large institutions, big businesses, and government and, as such, it often fawns on the source of the money by buttressing their ideologies, beliefs, and prejudices in its science. Problems that I have discussed in my Science Articles on “The Problems with Modern Science” and “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”.

Therefore, science is being corrupted for the subjugation of the public rather than the liberation of the public.

08/01/22 Details Without Ends

An author who has written several books on stories from middle America in the last few decades was being interviewed about his experiences. The Interviewer asked him if he had some notable stories from his career. The author responded that he had a story related to him at the beginning of his career that has stayed with him his entire career. He related that he was talking to the Fire Chief of a small town in the Midwest who had just had a discussion with the sales representative of a fire equipment manufacturer about upgrading and replacing the town’s fire equipment. The sales representative was just starting to discuss the benefits and capabilities of his equipment and the technical details when the Fire Chief stopped the discussion as he was overwhelmed by the details and the technical jargon.

The Fire Chief imparted that he had only one question for the sales representative. He explained that when he had a house burning down, a house that was everything to the people residing in it, his question was how long it would take for the manufacturer's equipment to put the wet stuff on the red stuff of the burning house? The Fire Chief then told the sales representative that when he could answer that question, he could come back and talk to him about upgrading and replacing the town’s fire equipment. As the sales representative did not have an answer to this question, the meeting came to an end.

This is an issue that we all face in life – being focused on the details while not remembering the ends. Consequently, always keep in mind the ends when working on the details. Otherwise, you may produce something that does not satisfy your ends.

Details Without Ends is especially prevalent in political discussions, as the details are often discussed without clarifying and agreeing on the ends, or the ends are so nebulous that the details are inconsequential to the ends. It is also one of the reasons for the partisanship in America, as, without agreement on the ends, the details only produce arguments rather than solutions. Of course, it is not always possible to achieve agreement in political discourse, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “07/16/22 Working with That and Pragmatism”. When this occurs, which is frequently in today’s partisan politics, the disagreements should initially focus on the ends to find the commonalities in the ends. The parties can then argue the details to achieve the agreed-upon ends. As always, when the ends or the details cannot be agreed upon or resolved, then the issues must be submitted to the American electorate to resolve these ends and details. Therefore, political arguments should first be about the ends followed by the details to achieve the ends.

When these disagreements occur, it is important that they be conducted through a civil political process to maintain "A Civil Society" and that all parties should not resort to "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" that often results in "Divisiveness in America". In any resolution of the ends and details, it is crucial that the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all Americans be abided by in the resolution. Otherwise, the rights of the minority will not be respected, and despotism will be necessary to implement the solution.

07/31/22 Core Principles and Core Values

In my Chirp on, “07/16/22 Working with That and Pragmatism”, I mentioned Core Principles and Core Values without clearly distinguish what I mean by these terms. My definition is that Core Principles are the bedrock of what you believe, while Core Values are how you conduct your life.

My Core Principles are Life, Liberty, Freedom, Property, the Pursuit of Happiness, along with the importance of Constitutional governance (which preserve these core principles), and the preservation of Natural and Constitutional Rights. Many of my Articles and Chirps have been about my core principles and their application in today’s society and politics. Another of my core principles is a belief in God, which I have written out in my Article on “Religiosity”.

My Core Values are to treat everyone politely and respectfully, in a truthful and honest manner, along with other values which I have written about in my Article, “Pearls of Wisdom”.

These Core Principles and Core Values have guided my life and were difficult and took some time to ascertain. This is one of the reasons that I have written my Articles and Chirp – so that I may impart these Core Principles and Core Values to others to ease their journey of discovery of these principles and values.

07/30/22 A Rededication to Free Speech in America

As the previous Chirps on Free Speech have mentioned, Free Speech is under assault in America today. An assault that, if successful, will destroy America and impede, if not regress, the advancement of humankind. It must be vigorously opposed by all that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", for if not opposed, we will lose these cherished ideals in America.

It must be opposed not only by law, for "The Law is Not All", but by rededicating ourselves to the principles of free speech in America. Perhaps if we understood the principles of Free Speech and incorporated these principles into our words and deeds, there would be fewer assaults on free speech and less need for governmental intervention. We, therefore, need a recommitment to the principles of free speech in the hearts and minds of the American people to assure Liberty and Freedom, and for the continuation of the advancement of humankind.

Please note that for future reference I have collected these chirps on Professor Turley’s treatise, in the order of which they were written, in my Article, "The Decline of Free Speech in America".

07/29/22 Educational Space Free Speech

In a treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, one of the topics he examines is the decline of free speech in academic institutions and the impacts of this decline. As he has stated, “Academics were once united in free speech as a virtual article of faith. That has changed. What was once an atmosphere of pluralism and tolerance has become one of orthodoxy and retribution. Our failing as academics has created the dangerous vacuum that is enabling groups to silence those with opposing views.”

He has proposed ten principles to address this decline, but he has cautioned that “The ten proposed principles do not supplant the universities in determining when violations have occurred. They do not compel university verdicts or adjudications. Instead, they create an obligation to address and document such cases. They also do not intrude into academic freedom or judgment, even when schools have limited the ideological range of the faculty.”

These ten principles are from his Congressional testimony - The Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: Protecting Speech by Stopping Anarchist Violence: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Aug. 4, 2020). These ten principles are:

1. Guaranteeing that speakers appear on campus under the same costs and conditions, regardless of their views (or opposition to their views).
2. Committing to disciplinary action of students or faculty who block classes, lectures, or speeches by violent acts or threats of violence.
3. Committing to the expulsion or termination of students or faculty who physically assault speakers or others seeking to exercise free speech or the right to peaceful assembly.
4. Committing to disciplinary action of students or faculty who block classes, lectures, or speeches through disruptive conduct inside classrooms, halls or other spaces reserved for such presentations.
5. Enforcing a presumption that the exercise of free speech outside of the school (including statements on social media) for faculty or students is generally not a matter for school sanctions or termination.
6. Committing to due process of students and faculty who are disciplined for exercising free speech rights, including the right to discovery of patterns of bias or inconsistent treatment in other controversies.
7. Barring restrictive “free speech zones” and other exclusionary zones for free expression (other than rules barring demonstrations, disruptions, or exhibits in classrooms, halls, or other spaces used for lectures, presentations, and events).
8. Barring student governments or organizations from sanctioning or censuring fellow students for their exercise of free speech without a clear and narrowly tailored standard as well as the approval of a university body.
9. Barring faculty from sanctioning, censoring, or retaliating against students for their political, social, or religious statements or values (subject to protected exceptions for religious-based institutions).
10. Barring faculty from requiring that students adhere to, adopt, or endorse political, social, or religious positions as a condition for any class, program, or benefit (subject to protected exceptions for religious-based institutions).

Western civilization has recognized for millennia that diversity of thought and opinion is crucial for the advancement of humankind. From Liberty and Freedom to science and medicine, it has been the diversity of thought and opinion that has led to the betterment of humankind. From the time of the Ancient Greeks to today, it has been the dissident of orthodoxy that has led to this advancement. Much of this diversity of thought has been centered in academic institutions where both the teachers and students are free to challenge this orthodoxy and learn how to think and not what to think. Over the last several decades, this diversity of thought in academics has been severely constricted, and the dissident from orthodoxy has not been allowed to speak, or they have been silenced, restricted, or expelled from campuses.

One of the topics that he does not address in any detail is Free Speech in K-12 public schools. With the rise of social "Activists and Activism" in the teaching of K-12 students, as exhibited by the incorporation of Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project in public K-12 education, we are venturing into educating these students on how to think and not what to think. This is being done for the purposes of molding the students rather than for the teaching of subject matter for the purposes of educating our children to become productive members of society. This is leading to parental discontent, and the public funding of controversial ideas in the classroom, which is abhorrent as:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors in sinful and tyrannical."
 - Thomas Jefferson

We, therefore, need to examine the limits of Free Speech by teachers in K-12 classrooms.

This trend has been deleterious to the advancement of humankind, and if allowed to continue, it will lead to poor and improper social policy and to a regression of Liberty and Freedom. It is time to stop this trend and to right the course of academic freedom in America. The ten principles exposited above are a good start and should be codified into law, but we need more than the law to stop this trend. We need a recommitment to the principles of free speech in the hearts and minds of all to assure the advancement of humankind.

07/28/22 Physical Marketplace Free Speech

Free Speech in America is under serious assault in today’s society. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem to support Free speech for me and mine, but restricted speech for you and yours. At the same time, Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders seem to want free speech restrictions for what they perceive as immorality. All sides are hypocritical on the issues of free speech, but the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists side is fraught with danger to our society as they would restrict or suppress speech that is in opposition to their policy positions and political agendas. These restrictions of suppression would harm the body politic by not providing the American public with the information they need to make rational and reasonable decisions on public policy and laws, rules, and regulations in government.

While most Americans are rightly concerned about government restrictions on free speech, today, we need to be concerned about the non-governmental restriction on free speech. Free Speech is more than the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment of our Constitution. To freely speak your mind in all arenas of life is crucial to our Liberties and Freedoms, for, without it, we all become prisoners of our minds as we are unable to express ourselves and our individual thoughts. As ‘Cato’s letters or Essays on Liberty” has stated:

“[w]ithout Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as wisdom; and no such thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt and Control the right of another.”

Non-governmental restrictions emanate from "Big Tech", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Mainstream Media", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" in today’s society, as I have written in my Articles, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression" and "Social Media and Free Speech". Free speech values are, therefore, neither synonymous with nor contained exclusively within the First Amendment. As Johnathan Turley examines in the below-mentioned treatise, all of these public and private forms of censorship undermine free speech values.

Never in American history have Americans been more polarized on the issue of free speech, and never has there been a decline of free speech in America as we have seen today. A treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, examines this decline and its impacts of the decline. Here are some excerpts:

“Throughout its history, the United States has struggled with movements that aim to silence others through state or private action. These periods have been pendulous, with acute suppression followed by relative tolerance for free speech. This boom–or-bust pattern for free speech may well continue. However, the United States is arguably living through one of its most serious anti-free speech periods, and there are signs that the current period could result in lasting damage for free speech due to a rising orthodoxy and intolerance on our campuses and in our public debate.”

“Where fighting for freedom of speech was once a near-universal rallying cry, opposing free speech has now become an article of faith for some in our society. This has led to a rising movement that justifies silencing opposing views, often on the grounds that stopping others from speaking is, in fact, an exercise in free speech. This movement has both public and private components, but it is different from any prior period due to new technological, political, and economic pressures on the exercise of free speech.”

“The harm from loss of free speech was viewed as existential for our democracy. Today, the focus of many writers and academics is on the harm of unregulated free speech. Recently, a leading cable host heralded censorship on the Internet as part of a new “harm reduction model” of both free speech and freedom of the press. Free speech is now treated as presumptively harmful absent governmental and corporate regulation. The harm is often ill-defined and applied inconsistently. The premise remains that unregulated free speech can threaten the democracy as a whole or it can threaten individual students who feel unsafe due to the expression of opposing views. Rather than treating free speech as the essential element for intellectual discourse, it is often portrayed as akin to a type of controlled substance in our public and academic discourse.”

While this treatise is longish, it is well worth the read by all Americans concerned about free speech in America.

07/27/22 Virtual Marketplace Free Speech

In a treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, one of the topics he examines is ‘Protecting The Virtual Marketplace’ for the purposes of Free Speech. Over the last few years, we have seen the deleterious effects of "Social Media" constrictions on Free Speech, as I have pointed out in my Article, "Social Media and Free Speech". The canceling of social media accounts, the labeling of content as misinformation or disinformation, and the ‘fact checking’ of posts have changed the course of America by restricting contrary or dissenting thoughts or opinions. In two recent cases, these constrictions have been found to be improper and wrong, which led to significant changes in America. These two cases were of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The COVID-19 Pandemic discussions of the origins of the virus, the ethics and dangers of biomedical research and drug development, and the dissenting opinions on the proper approach to combating the virus were not freely discussed and were often constricted or suppressed by social media. This would have been a good time to freely discuss our interdependence with China, and a reexamination of our relationship with China was merited. Biomedical research and drug development and approval, Including the efficacy of the vaccinations, should also have been freely discussed for the American people to decide if they wished to undertake the risks of the inoculations. The governmental directives and restrictions to combat the pandemic have led to significant negative economic impacts upon America, and the costs and benefits of these governmental directives and restrictions were not freely debated before being implemented, nor during the continuation of these governmental directives and restrictions. Many of these governmental directives and restrictions also had a detrimental impact on the Liberty and Freedoms of Americans, and almost all dissenting opinions on these governmental directives and restrictions were constricted, and alternative approaches were not allowed or panned by social media companies. In these constrictions and suppressions, social media companies toed the government line and curtailed or excluded any free speech on these topics on their platforms.

The suppression of the discussions and of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop and the advancement of the reports that his laptop was ‘Russian Disinformation’ most likely and significantly impacted the 2020 Presidential election. If the contents of this laptop were known by the American electorate, it might have changed the outcome of the election. America would be significantly different than it is today if President Trump had won reelection, and the debacles of President Biden and his administration would never have occurred. This was an example of the social media companies utilizing their platforms to constrict information that was not advantageous, and indeed harmful, to their political proclivities. As such, they demonstrated that they would allow free speech for me and mine but constrict free speech for you and yours. This highlights the debates of if social media companies are to be considered as a Common carrier of content for any person or company or a Publishing company that exercises editorial control of the content. As a common carrier, they have no right to restrict free speech other than that which directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses a direct harm to the listeners, or speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding, as I have Chirped on “07/26/22 Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”.

However, these two cases are not the only cases of Social Media’s constrictions on Free Speech. They are only the two cases in which the problems of these constrictions of free speech on social media are clear and unambiguous. There are many other cases in which the issues of free speech constrictions in social media have had pernicious impacts on America. These two cases also demonstrate the significant impact that social media has on America. Consequently, we need to address free speech on these platforms to ensure that all Americans are informed with a diversity of thought and opinion. If not, then we run the risk that free speech on social media is passé, and social media companies can control the flow of information in America, and hence the future direction of America.

07/26/22 Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”

In the treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, he examines the Public And Private Regulation of the “Marketplace of Ideas”. While I am a free speech absolutist, almost, I do have some disagreement with Professor Turley’s conclusions. I believe in the widest interpretation of free speech possible, as does Professor Turley. However, there are some exceptions to free speech absolutism. These exceptions are speech that directly incites violence or criminal activity, speech that poses direct harm to the listeners (i.e., shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater), and speech that is intended to intimidate those involved in a judicial proceeding to influence the outcome of the judicial proceeding. It is this last point that I have some disagreements with Professor Turley’s conclusions.

The question about these exceptions is, when do they apply? What is a direct incitement of violence or criminal activity, and what speech causes direct harm? Who is to decide if this speech has occurred, and what actions may the government take under these circumstances? These are questions that have been around for millennia, and most particularly since the establishment of our Constitution.

My judicial exception applies to witnesses, defendants, prosecutors, litigants, arbitrators, and judges or justices. The judicial exception is important to have a civil and peaceful society, and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" requires a fair and impartial judicial system that imparts "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". Peaceful assemblies and protests about judicial matters and proceedings are acceptable, but vitriolic and threatening speech is not acceptable. To engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those involved in judicial proceedings is an assault on the impartiality of judicial proceedings and does harm to the body politic, and should be roundly condemned by all parties but not necessarily restricted.

The additional issue of the judicial exception is are those protests that are for the purposes of influencing current judicial proceedings, or are the protests for the purposes of influencing future judicial proceedings, or both. Two articles, “Protesters Target the Dobbs Majority” by Richard A. Epstein and “Protests and “First Amendment Exceptionalism”: A Response to Professor Richard Epstein” by Jonathan Turley, examine this issue from two different perspectives. The harm to society from influencing current judicial proceedings is that the guilty may go unpunished, the innocent may be punished, the law may be unjustly applied, and laws, rules, and regulations that infringe upon our Natural and Constitutional Rights may be implemented nor may they be overturned.

There is also the tangential issue of privacy at your place of residence. What is the balance of your right to privacy and a peaceable abode for yourself and your family, and your neighbors and their family’s peaceable abode when protestors gather outside of your and their homes, versus the free speech rights of the protestors? There is also the tangential issue of privacy when conducting ourselves in the normal intercourse of life such as shopping, going to restaurants, being present at religious services, attending a sporting event or a concert, etc. What are your and the other non-protesting persons or a businessperson’s rights not to be adversely impacted by protesters at these places? It would be exceedingly difficult to legally define these circumstances that the free speech protestor's rights could be limited without infringing upon free speech. However, it is easy to be a free speech absolutist when your privacy rights are not being harmed, but much more difficult if your life or livelihood is being impacted by these tangential issues.

As a free speech absolutist, I am troubled by both perspectives and their implications for judicial exceptions and for the tangential issues on free speech rights. While I believe in the widest interpretation of free speech possible, I am also concerned about the negative consequences to society of judicial intimidation and the harm to the tangential issues to privacy rights. The balance between free speech and the possible harm to fair and impartial judicial proceedings and the tangential issues is difficult to resolve. In this resolution, you must also keep in mind that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", as to allow judicial intimidation is to allow for the dissolution of our society.

There is no perfect solution to this problem. However, with the protests about the Supreme Court abortion ruling, and the earlier and subsequent protests it has engendered, it is time to bring more resolution to this issue. And resolve it we must, as:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

07/25/22 Free Speech in the United States

In the treatise by Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, he examines the state of Free Speech in today’s America. This PDF is rather long (132 pages, but with many footnotes and wide margins which reduces the content length), and it has no table of contents. I, therefore, have constructed a table of contents that can be utilized by my readers::

Never in American history have Americans been more polarized on the issue of free speech, and never has there been a decline of free speech in America as we have seen today. While this article is long, it is well worth the read by all Americans concerned about free speech in America.

This week’s Chirps will be dedicated to this treatise, with my own commentary on sections of this treatise.

________________________________________________________

^[1] Millian – a school of thought from English philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), remembered for his interpretations of empiricism (the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience) and utilitarianism (the doctrine that the useful is the good; especially as elaborated by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill; the aim was said to be the greatest happiness for the greatest number).

07/24/22 What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?

Nearly thirty years ago, Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN), the top Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee, famously asked Nixon White House counsel John Dean: "What did the president know and when did he know it?". This question was the beginning of the end of President Nixon. It is a question that has often been repeated when examining the conduct of other Presidents. It is a question that needs to be asked and answered about President Biden’s involvement in the business activities of his son, not only during his presidency but also when he was a Senator and Vice-President.

It strains all credulity to believe that Joe Biden did not know anything about the business dealings of his son Hunter Biden. Given Joe Biden’s propensity of being a liar, a rewriter of his own history, and an opportunist, as I have Chirped on “07/23/22 A Sorry Excuse”, his assertions that he knew nothing of their business dealings are not credulous. The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop have many e-mails, photos, and videos that show Joe Biden’s associations with Hunter Biden’s business associates and his clients. In addition, we have statements of his business associates that give evidence of the involvement of Joe Biden in his son’s business dealings. We also have the records of the visits of Hunter Biden and his business associates and his clients to the White House when Joe Biden was Vice-President and President.

The contents of this laptop often utilize "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" to obscure his father’s involvement in his business dealings. However, this obfuscation is often easily seen through by any unbiased person because of a lack of subtlety in these obfuscations. Any rational person could easily ascertain that Joe Biden is the person they are discussing when they are trying to obfuscate.

The question is, then, how Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s business dealings has impacted his official duties or influenced his decisions? The other question is that of Joe Biden’s susceptibility to blackmail by Hunter Biden’s business clients, given that most of Hunter’s clients were governments or government-controlled entities (and sometimes entities that controlled governments)? If Joe Biden is involved in his son’s business dealings, and it has impacted his duties and decisions, then Joe and Hunter Biden are involved in a conspiracy to defraud the American government that has negatively impacted the American public. The question of what Joe Biden knew and when did he know it becomes central to the current investigations of the criminality of Hunter Biden’s actions. Given the two-tiered justice system that we currently have, where the politically connected, wealthy donors, and partisan social activists are treated differently, I do not have much hope that this question will be asked or answered by the criminal investigation.

This question must be asked and answered, and if it is not done in the criminal investigation, it must be done in the political arena. Given that Congress is controlled by the Democrat Party, I do not expect them to ask or require answers to this question. This is another reason why the Republican Party gain control of Congress in the next election – so that they must ask and obtain answers to this question. And ask and obtaining answers to this question is crucial to our republic and should not be swept under the rug for political expediency purposes.

07/23/22 A Sorry Excuse

President Biden has spent almost his entire adult life in an elective office where rhetoric is often more important than accomplishment, where there is little accountability for being wrong, and excuses are utilized to absolve being wrong. His entire career has been of rhetoric and excuses with little accomplishments. He has been a plagiarist, a liar, a rewriter of his own history, a partisan, an opportunist, and a flip-flopper his entire career. As such, he has shown that he is nothing but an opportunist with no core principles. His and his family’s accumulation of wealth, based on his political connectedness, has demonstrated a corruption of character that places his own interests over the public interests for which he was elected.

His incompetence has also been acknowledged by those that work with him, or as President Obama once said, “Never underestimate the ability of Biden to f*** things up.”, and as Robert Gates, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, once put it, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

All of these traits have been exhibited in the first year and a half of his Presidency in the debacles they have overseen. On the International stage; the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, and to a host of other issues they only have excuses or blame. Excuses and blame on the COVID-19 Pandemic, on Putin, on former President Trump, on Republican obstructionism, on greedy businesspersons, on ultra-MAGA supporters, and now on unforeseen circumstances. Excuses in which they have never addressed their own shortcomings. The Executive Officers in his administration have had failures after failures that demonstrate their incompetence, but they have had no accountability for their actions and are never replaced by competent officers. These Executive Officers, and President Biden himself, have also resorted to "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and sometimes outright lies as a modus operandi to mask their incompetence.

A two-tiered system of justice has been instituted in his administration in which his supporters are held unaccountable for injustices while his political opponents are often harassed, persecuted, and sometimes prosecuted. He and his administration often engaged in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", which increased "Divisiveness in America". He has no concept of an "A Civil Society", and he has exhibited a propensity for rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

His and his administration's excuses are sorry excuses, but the only truly sorry excuse is President Biden himself. His rhetoric and excuses with little accomplishments have come back to haunt him, and unfortunately, it is now haunting the American people. A haunting that can only be excised by an exorcism of him and his administration and his supporters in Congress and in the American public.

07/22/22 A Republic or a Democracy

As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party believe that they should get most of what they want, and Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders should concede most of what they want. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders should concede on their core principles, while Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders should make no concessions on their core principles. This leads to much conflict and partisanship in America.

Much of this conflict originates as a result of a disparate belief in the core principles of our Constitution and the role of government in our society, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". It is also because of a misconstruing of the meaning of a republic versus a democracy, as I have written in my new Article, “A Republic or a Democracy”. As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are committed to a Democracy and majoritarian rule, while Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are committed to a democratically elected Republic, such conflicts naturally arise. However, our Founding Fathers were committed to a democratic republic form of government, as they knew that Democracies and Republics often trampled upon the Natural Rights of the individual, resorted to mob or aristocratic rule, split their citizens into partisan groups, and often ended up in civil unrest or a civil war that led to the collapse of their society. These are all a result of "The Problems of Democracy and Majoritarian Rule".

Whenever a politician or activist advocates for democracy, they are advocating for the eventual collapse of our society. Let us all remember this so that we may preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, and Justice for All". We should also keep in mind that when the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?'
Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

Let us hope that we can keep our democratic republic despite all the advocates for fundamentally transforming our government.

07/21/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change

In my Book It of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never”, I recommend a book by Michael Shellenberger that discusses environmentalism and climate change. A companion book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters” by Steven E. Koonin, is a definitive book on ‘the science’ of climate change, rather than ‘The Science’ of climate change. Dr. Koonin is a scientist who has been involved in Climate Change Research, a leader in science policy in the United States for several decades, and he served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama.

Dr. Koonin examines the scientific facts and scientific conclusions based upon the facts (‘the science’) of Climate Change rather than what the proponents of Climate Change (The Media, Politicians, Scientific Institutions, Scientists, Activists and Nongovernmental Organizations, and The Public) wishes us to conclude about Climate Change (‘The Science’). He is neither a climate change denier nor a proponent of calamitous climate change but dispassionately analyzes the observations, experiments, computer modeling, and the scientific reasoning of the science of Climate Change. He does believe that human activity has contributed to climate change, but he points out that the significance of the human contribution is very difficult to quantify. He also points out the scientific, technological, economic, sociological, and political difficulties in addressing Climate Change.

For those of us who wish to understand ‘the science’ of Climate Change rather than accept ‘The Science” of Climate Change, this is the book to gain this understanding.

07/20/22 Ecological Impacts

Wind Turbines and Solar Power arrays are not as green as their proponents proclaim. They both have environmental impacts that are often glossed over by their proponents. These impacts are in the Design, Development, Production, Utilization, and Disposal of these items, as I have written in my Article, “Life Cycle Costs (a.k.a. End-To-End or Total Cost of Operation (TCO))”. While all these impacts are inherent in anything that is manufactured, they are often glossed over for Wind Turbines and Solar Power while highlighted for coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power.

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators generally have less ecological impacts in the utilization phase of End-To-End Total Cost of Operation, which is the phase its proponents focus upon. However, they do have indirect ecological impacts on the wildlife and the environment in this phase that can be disruptive to wildlife and the environment. Their major ecological impacts are in the Development, Production, and Disposal phases of the End-To-End Total Cost of Operation. The largest of these ecological impacts are in the mining of the rare earth minerals required to manufacture Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators and the disposal of these Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators when they reach end-of-life (somewhere between 15 and 20 years after usage).

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators have the additional problem of their key components being manufactured with rare earth minerals that are unavailable in America and are imported from other countries that are hostile to American interests, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/19 Rare Earth Minerals". If these other countries limit or stop exporting these rare earth minerals, Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators will cease to operate.

Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators are often unreliable when the wind stops blowing, the sun stops shining, or when they are subject to extreme weather conditions, as they are open-air generators of power. Battery backups, if utilized, while Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators are not generating power, are insufficient to supply the energy needs of our economy, and battery backups, if utilized, have major ecological impacts in themselves. Therefore, these battery backups ecological impacts need to be incorporated into any discussions of the Total Cost of Operation ecological impacts of Wind Turbines and Solar Power generators.

Consequently, we need to consider all these issues when we discuss Green Energy and Climate Change. Two fine books that rationally and reasonably discuss these issues are "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" by Michael Shellenberger and “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters“ by Steven E. Koonin.

07/19/22 The Unconstitutionality of Federal Abortion Legislation

With the recent United States Supreme Court decision on abortion, they ruled that the abortion issue is not in the Constitution and therefore not the purview of the Federal Government. They, therefore, remanded the abortion issue to the State Governments under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. While I have some disagreement with this, as I believe "The Abortion Question" is an issue of the human rights of the unborn child, and therefore could be decide under the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, this was the decision of the Supreme Court. However, if they did rule under the 9th Amendment it would require that the Supreme Court make a decision when human life begins, which is fraught with difficulties and ambiguities best left to legislatures and the people to decide, rather than an unelected court deciding. Or, as Abraham Lincoln once said:

“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

Under this Supreme Court ruling it is up to the legislatures and the people of the State to make this decision, and the only way for the Federal government to make this decision is for a Constitutional Amendment that delegates this power to the Federal government.

After this ruling was issued Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists demanded that the Congress and the Presidency (the Legislative and the Executive branches of government) codify abortion in Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. All such efforts to do so are an assault on the Judicial branch, as they have the duty and responsibility to decide issues of Constitutionality, and the Legislative and the Executive branches have the duty and responsibility to abide by these decisions. It is also against their oath of office to ‘Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States’ if they attempt to circumvent this ruling. It is proper and acceptable to disagree with a Supreme Court decision, but it is improper for the Legislative and Executive branches of government to try to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling. And it is only proper and acceptable to express this disagreement in rational and reasonable terms, and not to engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" in your disagreement. To utilize The Three D’s is to attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court Constitutionally invested powers, and it does not ‘Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States’.

To codify abortion in Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders is also to upset the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government that was instituted to preserve our Constitutional and Natural Rights. Again, as Abraham Lincoln has said:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

Indeed, in doing so, they are instituting an internal insurrection against the Constitution. An internal insurrection that must be opposed and not allowed to succeed. An opposition that is morally and legally justified as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Therefore, we have the right to utilize whatever means necessary to oppose these actions, as:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

07/18/22 Abortion Electioneering

Many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists wish to make the 2022 election about abortion rights, and more specifically the question of abortions in the case of rape and incest. This is an emotional appeal to a tragedy for which we all feel compassion for the victim. Such compassion for the victim should be channeled into comfort and support for the victim and services to alleviate their pain and suffering. Compassion for the victim, however, should not lead you to ignore or disregard the core issue of abortion. When I look upon the subject of abortion, I believe the core of the issue is very simple. The question of abortion is – ‘Is an unborn child a human being or not a human being?’, as I have written in my Article, "The Abortion Question". Until you can answer this question you cannot have a rational policy on the question of abortion.

The abortion supporters bring up the argument of the case of rape or incest to utilize this as a case to allow for abortion under these circumstances, and to demonstrate that abortion is permissible within circumstances. To which I say to them, can you explain to me how an unborn child is any less human because of the manner in which it was conceived? Conceived in love, passion, accidental, hate, anger, rape, incest, or any other manner does not diminish the humanity of an unborn child in any manner whatsoever. And in the case of rape and incest an abortion is as unjustifiable as it is in every other case as it violates the human right to life of the unborn child. I, therefore, believe in the human right to life of the unborn child no matter how it was conceived.

Many abortion proponents deny the human status of an unborn child until some point in gestation or at the moment of birth. They have no scientific or medical definition of when the humanity of the unborn child begins during gestation, and by waiting until the birth of the unborn child to determine humanity allows for the gruesome and barbaric practice of partial-birth abortions and the abortion of a viable unborn child. Many other abortion proponents also claim that it is the decision of the mother to determine the humanity of the unborn child. But allowing the mother to make this decision is to allow the mother to make an incorrect decision that would result in the death of unborn human child. No one should be allowed to unjustly take the life of another, or to judge the humanity of another. This logic of determining the humanity of a person has led to great tragedy in history, as many have utilized this logic of judging the humanity of a person to justify enslaving one group of humans, or exterminating groups of people, based on their supposed humanity or sub humanity (one has only to think of the enslavements of negros in the Antebellum South and the mass extermination of Jews and other undesirable groups by NAZI Germany). The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery is therefore apropos, as slavery was often justified by degrading the human status of the Negro.

The argument that abortion is permissible within other circumstances also raises the question what are the other circumstances that it is permissible to obtain an abortion. Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Amenia, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, and many other pre-birth congenital defects can now be detected by doctors prior to birth. If the unborn child is diagnosed with a pre-birth congenital defect, is it permissible for the mother to obtain an abortion under these circumstances. What if the mother does not want a male or female child, or if the unborn child has a propensity for homosexuality? If it is the mother’s decision to abort an unborn child is an abortion permissible under these circumstances. There are other potential circumstances that raise the question of whether abortion is permissible or impermissible. Who is to decide which circumstances allow for an abortion – the mother or society?

This then, are the real questions that need to be addressed and answered if abortion is to become a 2022 election issue. However, the pro abortionists do not wish to address these questions, as they know that if they truthfully and honestly answered these questions they would not garner the support of the majority of Americans for their stance on this issue. Consequently, their electioneering is for the purposes of ginning up their base and not for resolving the issues of abortion.

07/17/22 Permissible Discrimination

Discrimination, in most of its forms, is despicable and should not be tolerated. However, discrimination based on Character, Intelligence, and Words and Deeds are all forms of permissible discrimination. Who would want to be associated with a person of ill repute, or a person insufficiently intelligent to perform a task, not to mention a person whose speech and actions are detestable? When such discrimination occurs, it is honorable and should be encouraged. Such discrimination, when it occurs, is also a motivator for the discriminated person to change their ways.

The question, as always, is such discrimination based on the above characteristics or other reasons? Malevolence is often attributed to discrimination even when the discrimination is based on the above characteristics. Sometimes the discrimination is based on thoughtlessness or stupidity. In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon or avoid unnecessary actions. One of philosophies tenets is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Before jumping to a conclusion as to the basis of discrimination you should consider if the discrimination was permissible or impermissible discrimination, or if it was just plain stupidity. Stupidity should be objurgated by admonishments and corrective actions, while malice should be corrected by legal actions. If we do this, I believe that much of the discrimination In America would be based on stupidity rather than malice.

07/16/22 Working with That and Pragmatism

One of my cigar-smoking buddies will often proclaim that he can ‘work with that’ when Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists make a more moderate statement. No matter how many moderate statements they may make, the question is not can he work with that, but will they work with that? My experience is that many of these moderate statements are to mollify the electorate or to entice Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders into working with them. However, when it comes to working with them, it generally is to lure the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders into significantly compromising their position, while the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists barely budge on their positions. And many times, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will not concede anything of consequence. Consequently, ‘Working with That’ often means that Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders will not be able to achieve much of their goals while allowing Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to achieve many of their goals.

This same cigar-smoking buddy also proclaims that he wishes to be pragmatic and obtain as much as possible, given the partisanship of today. Pragmatism is important on the tangential issues or the means to accomplish a goal. You must also distinguish the difference between core principles and core values. A core value is what you believe is the best way to achieve your goals, while a core principle is why you believe your core values are important. For more on Core Principles and Core Values please refer to my newer Chirp on “07/31/22 Core Principles and Core Values”. Being pragmatic about your core values is important to achieving your goals; however, being pragmatic about your core principles is not having any core principles.You may lose the battle on your core principles, but you should not lose your core principles unless you determine that they may be erroneous.

When the core principle between two or more parties is in conflict, you must first examine if a core principle violates the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of a person or groups of persons to determine the validity of a core principle. If such violations exist in a core principle, then the core principle is unsound, and you should not be pragmatic and concede to a violation of someone’s rights.

Sometimes, however, there are disputes as to the soundness of a core principle. When such disputes occur in the body politic, each party must present a rational and reasonable argument to the body politic to settle the dispute. An emotional appeal to the body politic rarely resolves the dispute and often exacerbates the bitter partisanship in our society, partisanship that will undermine "A Civil Society" and lead to more "Divisiveness in America".

Consequently, ‘Working with That’ and ‘Pragmatism’ regarding core principles often lead to compromises that negatively impact the rights of a person or groups of persons and that harm the body politic.

07/15/22 Assault Weapons

In my Chirp on “07/14/22 Red Flag Laws Redux”, I quoted David B. Kopel on Confucius:

“When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered, “It would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.” Bills that claim to be about “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” are not correct; the bills cover much lower-level risks, or just “a danger.” Likewise, the term “red flag” is dubious because some bills label as dangerous the peaceable exercise of constitutional rights. A more accurate name for these laws is “gun confiscation orders.”

I would paraphrase this comment regarding the use of the term ‘Assault Weapons’:

“When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered, “It would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.” Likewise, the term “Assault Weapon” is dubious because it is being applied incorrectly. An Automatic Weapon fires and reloads continuously when the trigger is pulled, while a Semi-Automatic Weapon only fires and reloads each time the trigger is pulled. However, proponents of gun control group these two weapon types under the term “Assault Weapon” for the purposes of emotional manipulation of the populace to justify the confiscation of guns.”

And the confiscation of guns is their goal as they believe that guns kill people, rather than people utilizing guns to kill people. Proponents of gun control often make no mention of or downplay the role of guns in self-protection and ignore the role of guns in the preservation of Liberties and Freedom. One of the more interesting and relevant of David B. Kopel’s articles is “Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most”:

"What are the relative risks of a nation having too many guns compared to the risks of the nation having too few guns? Comparing and contrasting Europe and the United States during the twentieth century, the article finds that the United States might have suffered up to three-quarters of million excess firearms homicide over the course of the century—based on certain assumptions made to maximize the highest possible figure. In contrast, during the twentieth century Europe suffered 87 million excess homicides against civilians by mass-murdering tyrannical governments. The article suggests that Americans should not be complacent that they have some perpetual immunity to being subjected to tyranny. The historical record shows that governments planning mass murder work assiduously to disarm their intended victims. While victim resistance cannot necessarily overthrow a tyrannical regime, resistance does save many lives."

“This Article compares the relative dangers of excessive gun ownership and of excessive gun control based on the historical record of the twentieth century. Part I describes tensions in some treaties, declarations, and other legal documents from the United Nations and the European Union. On the one hand, they recognize the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny and genocide; on the other hand, the UN and EU gun control programs seem to make armed resistance nearly impossible. This Article compares the relative dangers of excessive gun ownership and of excessive gun control based on the historical record of the twentieth century. Part I describes tensions in some treaties, declarations, and other legal documents from the United Nations and the European Union. On the one hand, they recognize the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny and genocide; on the other hand, the UN and EU gun control programs seem to make armed resistance nearly impossible.”

This article examines:

Supporters of gun control should read this article and pause to think about it before they rush to impose gun control. My Article on “Gun Control“ is an examination of the realities of Gun Control in America, while my Article, “Thinking and Reasoning About Gun Control“, is an example, utilizing Gun Control, of how incorrect "Reasoning" can lead to incorrect statements even by experts on reasoning.

07/14/22 Red Flag Laws Redux

In a law article written by David B. Kopel, “Red Flag Laws: Proceed with Caution”, he reviews the Constitutionality and Jurisprudence of Red Flag Laws and Extreme Risk Protection Orders. In his introduction, he states that:

“Red flag” laws, or “Extreme Risk Protection Orders”, have been enacted in several states. While the idea for these laws is reasonable, some statutes are not. They destroy due process of law, endanger law enforcement and the public, and can be handy tools for stalkers and abusers to disarm their innocent victims. Many orders are improperly issued against innocent people.”

He then outlines what is necessary for these laws and orders to be Constitutional:

“When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered, “It would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.” Bills that claim to be about “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” are not correct; the bills cover much lower-level risks, or just “a danger.” Likewise, the term “red flag” is dubious because some bills label as dangerous the peaceable exercise of constitutional rights. A more accurate name for these laws is “gun confiscation orders.”

Such orders can be legitimate when fair procedures accurately identify dangerous individuals. Such laws include the following features:

• Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
• Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
• Proof by clear and convincing evidence that has been corroborated.
• Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
• Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
• A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
• Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
• Strict controls on no-knock raids.
• Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
• Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
• Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
• Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
• Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.”

At this point, he examines all these bullet points, and he concludes by stating:

“Red Flag gun confiscation orders are legitimate tools for public safety when applied to persons who pose extreme, imminent risk of misusing a firearm. But no Red Flag law enacted thus far has fully protected due process rights of the respondent, and some laws foster atrocious violations.

Lawmakers should aim to reduce the high error rate of ex parte orders, and to ensure protection of due process at every step. States should go beyond the bare minimum for due process; they should provide appointed counsel for all respondents and careful controls on ex parte proceedings.

States that thwart cross-examination, promote unnecessary no-knock raids, leave innocent victims without a civil remedy for false or malicious petitions, or deny any of the seven core elements of due process are complicit in the schemes of gun prohibition organizations to use laws that are ostensibly aimed a very dangerous people to disarm the peaceable.”

More of David B. Kopel’s thoughts on gun control can be reviewed on his website. My Article, “Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag”, expressed my concerns about these laws. If all of David B. Kopel’s bullet points were addressed in a Red Flag law, I would have much less concern, and these concerns would be in the proper jurisprudence in administering these laws.

07/13/22 The Progressive Road to Serfdom

The road to serfdom in America is being constructed and driven by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. It is being done gradually and subtly by utilizing "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness". Emotional appeals and sloganeering have replaced "Dialog and Debate" as the basis for changing our society. As a result, "Divisiveness in America" abounds, and we no longer have "A Civil Society". An article by Mark Hendrickson, “The Progressive Road to Serfdom”, examines this road as:

“First, a tip of the hat to the late Austrian Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek for his 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom.” (pdf) The imagery of that title is clear and penetrating. Hayek was warning of generic tyranny, not a literal return to the old English system of serfdom. There are many roads to tyranny, and American progressives are charging pell-mell in that direction. This article will trace the arc of progressivism from meliorism to perfectionism to utopianism to tyranny.”

He ends up by explaining that:

“Ultimately, to achieve their utopian goals, progressives need to have the power to smash their opponents. Dissent from the utopian agenda can’t be tolerated. People can’t be left free to pursue individual happiness. Progressives must obtain total political control over all the people. The only way for progressives to achieve utopia is to first achieve tyranny.”

Today, the most common slogan being utilized by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to drive this road is ‘Our Democracy’, and emotional appeals are often accomplished by placing an adjective in front of the word “Justice”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalismThe same holds true for truth, as in ‘My Truth’ or ‘Your Truth’ rarely reveals ‘The Truth’. We now are placing adjectives in front of other words, such as ‘Democratic’ in front of ‘Socialism’ or ‘Our’ in front of ‘Democracy’. Socialism is not democratic as it must be imposed by despotism, while ‘Our Democracy’ is not real democracy. In a new article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, he explains:

“But you shouldn’t confuse Our Democracy with real democracy. The initial modifier serves to debase the noun—much as “sub-human” means less than human or “social justice” rationalizes acts of individual injustice.”

This article clarifies the true meaning of ‘Our Democracy’ and how it is, in reality, undemocratic. He closes this article with:

“Our Democracy” really looks like “Their Oligarchy.” Or like some of those other “democracies” the left has erected over the years: The Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea comes readily to mind, as does the former (East) German Democratic Republic.

This is yet another example of lofty words concealing dastardly deeds, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds”. I would highly recommend that you read both of these articles to understand The Progressive Road to Serfdom.

07/12/22 Free Speech in Modern Times

Professor Alan Dershowitz and I disagree on many subjects (such as in my article in Vaccine Mandates), but he and I agree on one very important topic – Free Speech. He has written a book on this topic that examines Free Speech in our modern times; “Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities”. He, along with Jonathan Turley, are two preeminent scholars that are proponents of Free Speech as envisioned in our Constitution. His newsletter can be reviewed here, and Jonathan Turley’s articles on Free Speech can be reviewed here. I would encourage all to read this book and review his newsletter, along with Jonathan Turley’s articles, to better understand today’s assaults on Free Speech.

However, I have found that Professor Dershowitz’s book, while having an excellent Introduction to this topic, is somewhat unfocused or tangential to the main theme of the book in the subsequent chapters. While he says many important things in the book, many of these things are not directly apropos to this topic. Specifically, his comments on anti-Semitism and anti-Israel are important, and they need to be said, but they are better dealt with in other books he has written on this topic. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on President Trump’s January 6, 2021 ‘Insurrection’ speech while not spending sufficient time on the speeches of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that are assaults on Free Speech.

I was also hoping for more Constitutional legal analysis on censorship by non-governmental actors on the topics of Government and Big Tech Collusion to suppress Free Speech, Mainstream Media suppression of news stories harmful to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, Section 230 protections for censorship on Social Media, Slander and Libel on Social Media Posts, and Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities bans on or limits to Free Speech.

Government and Big Tech Collusion to suppress Free Speech, and the Mainstream Media suppression of news stories harmful to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as I have discussed in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression", needs to be Constitutionally examined.

Slander and Libel on Social Media Posts and Social Media censorship protection under ‘Section 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material’, a.k.a. Section 230, are shields that have been expanded by Social Media companies to allow for any censorship that they deem acceptable, as I have written in my Article “Social Media and Free Speech”.

Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities Bans on or limits to Free Speech have pernicious effects, as I have addressed in my Article,  "Indoctrination versus Education", and such bans and limits need to be Constitutionally addressed.

I had hoped that Professor Dershowitz’s book would examine these topics from a Constitutional basis, and while he does make Constitutional comments on these topics, he does not address these topics in depth from a Constitutional basis. He does, however, make a persuasive case that the harm done by Free Speech is much less than the harm done by censorship. Or, as he has stated at the end of his Introduction:

“In the end, our modest goal is to persuade the nay-sayers that freedom of speech, like democracy itself, is the least worst alternative in a world filled with risks and dangers on all sides. We must accept the burden of proving to a skeptical world that free speech is the lifeblood of democracy – that, without it, democracy cannot survive.”

07/11/22 An Issue Is Just a Weapon

A recent article by Rob Natelson, “Why overturning Roe v. Wade causes so much rage”, explains how politicians and political operatives view an issue – generally, not something to be resolved but something to be utilized to garner votes. As he states at the beginning of this article”

“But to the pure political operative, an issue is just a weapon. It’s merely a tool you use to clobber the other guy. Among other purposes, a political operative uses issues to (1) raise enthusiasm and voter turnout in his own base, (2) discourage and depress turnout in the opposition’s base, (3) entice swing voters toward his candidate or cause, (4) frighten swing voters away from the other guy’s candidate or cause, (5) divide the opposition, (6) unify everyone on his side, and (7) distract attention from damaging information.”

He then goes on to explain how this works for politicians and political operatives and how our Constitution was designed to diminish the negative impacts of this thinking. He also explains how the changes in Federal powers in the 20th century have weakened this diminishment and led to the polarization of American society. This is a very good article to understand how politicians and political operatives think and why there is so much partisanship in America today.

07/10/22 A Tangled Web

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"
  - Sir Walter Scott

With the withdrawal of Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter, the tangled web of this offer has become much more tangled. It is my belief that Elon Musk has put himself into a Win-Win situation while Twitter is in a Lose-Lose situation. Twitter is threatening to sue Elon Musk to recover the one-billion-dollar withdrawal penalty of the offer, while Elon Musk can counter sue Twitter for not providing or providing false and misleading information that was contingent upon the offer. The discovery process for both the suit and countersuit would require Twitter to provide this information, under court order, to determine the veracity of these claims. Twitter seemed reluctant to provide Elon Musk with this information but would now be forced to provide this information as part of the lawsuits. If Twitter had nothing to hide, then they could recover this withdrawal penalty, but they could open themselves to a class-action lawsuit from their shareholders for non-cooperation with Elon Musk, which depressed the value of the shareholder's stocks. If Twitter did have something to hide, they could not recover this withdrawal penalty, as you cannot sue someone in a contract when you are being deceptive by providing false or misleading information. Additionally, if you are being false and misleading to an investor, then you may have provided fraudulent statements to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would place you in criminal jeopardy, as well as a class-action lawsuit from their shareholders for fraudulent solicitation for investment purposes. It is, therefore, unlikely that Twitter remains unscathed in this situation, and they could win under this scenario.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, if he loses the lawsuit, would lose one billion dollars which is not a significant percentage of his net value. He lost more than that when his other investment's stock values dropped due to shareholder concerns with his involvement in Twitter. If he is no longer involved with Twitter, I would expect that his other investments would rebound and may even exceed their previous value, which would more than compensate for the one-billion-dollar withdrawal penalty. Even if the other stocks do not rebound to their previous levels, they will eventually rise, and he will recover his loss. However, if he wins his countersuit, then he will not have to pay the withdrawal penalty, and Twitter may face consequences that will further depress their stock values and possible civil fines from the class-action lawsuit from their shareholders as well as possible criminal penalties. These civil fines and criminal penalties may eventually force Twitter into bankruptcy, where Elon Musk could purchase Twitter for pennies on the dollar or significantly less than his initial offer to buy Twitter.

Thus, Elon Musk ends up in a Win-Win situation while Twitter ends up in a Lose-Lose situation.

07/08/22 Is It a Privacy Issue?

Most pro-abortion activist claim that the issue of an abortion is a privacy issue, but is it a privacy issue? Certainly, the discussions between a mother and her doctor involve Doctor-Patient confidentiality and they should remain private. However, once the decision to abort the unborn child is made the issue of privacy is more nebulous. When a State has laws that restrict an abortion after a certain amount of time from conception the State is de facto declaring that it has an interest in protecting the right to life of the unborn child. At this point it is no longer a privacy issue, as there are two parties impacted by the decision to abort – the mother and the unborn child. As the unborn child has no ability to object to the abortion the State is assuming the responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child. Just as a State in extraordinary circumstances can intervene to protect the rights of an underage child (especially regarding the dissolution of a marriage, a child custody dispute, or life threating medical decisions) the State has the right to protect the life of an unborn child when the State has determined that a human life is in peril. Consequently, as two parties are now involved in an abortion, the mother and the unborn child, it is not longer a privacy issue of the mother, and the State has the right to prohibit the abortion to protect the right to life of the unborn child.

p.s. – For more of my thoughts on abortion please review my Articles, "The Abortion Question" and "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery".

07/06/22 The Causes of Inflation

The rise in prices is not the cause of inflation, as prices can rise or fall due to the economic Law of Supply and Demand. Price rises are one of the many symptoms when inflation strikes. The rise of inflation is due to the monetary policy of governments. The best explanation for inflation is an article by Lawrence W. Reed, “Government Is an Inflation Fighter”. Once you read this article, you will weep about our current inflation, as you will understand how the Biden Administration bears full responsibility for our current inflation.

07/04/22 Independence Day is More Than a Celebration

Independence Day is more than Barbeques, Picnics, Parades, celebrations, and fireworks. It is even more than a proclamation of sovereignty from England. It is the values that are incorporated into The Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is divided into five parts: the preamble, the statement of philosophy, the grievances, the operative words, and the statement of the signers. The Declaration’s values surface in every part of the document. An article by Rob Natelson, “The Values in the Declaration of Independence”, does a better job of explaining the values of each part than I could hope to achieve. I would encourage all to read this article and reflect upon our founding values.

Consequently, when we celebrate Independence Day, we are celebrating the values of The Declaration of Independence. Values that should not be forgotten but reaffirmed every July 4th. In our tumultuous times of bitter partisanship, these are values that can bind us together, as these values are timeless. Let us not forget these values but seek to reestablish these values in all that we do as Americans, for these are the values of Liberty and Freedom for all.

07/03/22 The Assault on Our American Ideals

The Declaration of Independence is more than just a declaration of freedom from Great Britain. It is also a list of grievances about the injustices perpetrated by Great Britain upon the American Colonialists. Today, we are faced with additional assaults on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". However, today, these assaults on our Liberties and Freedoms are being perpetuated by Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts. In the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), we have seen these assaults, as I have Chirp on, "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". We have seen the persecution and prosecution of opponents of President Biden and his administration under the guise of terroristic activities by them and confrontational searches and arrests of persons that oppose their actions. We have also seen selective prosecutions, or no prosecutions, based on the political ideology of the perpetrators. A double standard of justice seems to be in place as if you are politically connected or powerful; the law will not be enforced. Many of these governmental actions, or threats of actions, against individuals or organizations appear to be for the purposes of intimidation to silence those targeted or anyone who would support them or their goals.

The statements and pronouncements by Congresspersons, the President and Vice-President, and Executive Officers have been dissimulations or falsehoods meant to obfuscate and embrangle the assaults on our Constitutional Rights. Indeed, they appear to desire to circumvent and abrogate our rights, most especially our rights under The Bill of Rights. They often feign that our rights are granted by the government and can be modified by the government, rather than these rights superseding the government.

These words and deeds are contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas", and they are a threat to our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" as well as "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". They also portend a propensity for rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Not only has the Biden Administration been actively engaged in these assaults, but Congress is also engaging in these assaults through their various committee hearings, proceedings, and pronouncements. The Courts are also complicit, as they have not stepped in to halt these actions and often approve Search Warrants and Subpoenas of dubious merit.

If these words and deeds continue, then perhaps it will be necessary for a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution, as I have written in my Articles, "A New Declaration of Independence" and "A New U.S. Constitution". Or perhaps an insurrection will be required to correct this situation, as:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
  - Abraham Lincoln

Let us hope that we can right our course before such drastic actions are necessary, but we must right our course or:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
 - Abraham Lincoln

07/02/22 Hearsay Evidence

The January 6th, 2001 ‘Insurrection” committee has once again shown that they are a Kangaroo Court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, as I have Chirp on, "06/12/22 A Kangaroo Congressional Committee Hearing". The testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was explosive but consisted of nothing but uncorroborated allegations and no firsthand accounts of events, including that of Ms. Hutchinson. As such, it was hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence that is never permissible in a court of law and should not be permissible in other governmental actions, as I have written in my Article, "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings". To allow hearsay evidence in a public hearing is to engage in a smear campaign against the target, and not to allow contravening testimony is to compound the smear campaign. And this is what the January 6th, 2001 ‘Insurrection” committee has become – a smear campaign.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not allow Republican members on this committee that would support and defend President Trump. Instead, she has stacked this committee with Republican members that opposed President Trump. This is another example of a Kangaroo Court that has a predetermined outcome. The Democrat Leaders proclaim that this committee was formed to ‘preserve our democracy’, but you cannot preserve that which you infringe.

As such, this Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing has done more harm to our democracy than anything the ‘insurrections’ did, as it is an assault on The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings for the accused (President Trump and the ‘Insurrectionists’). It has turned Congressional Hearings into a Witch-Hunt to persecute political opponents. It is also in violation of the Congressional authorization for this select committee, as the minority Republican Leader was not allowed to appoint members of this select committee as the authorization required. As a result, this select committee is being run as a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing. Indeed, they are becoming a form of the House Un-American Activities Committee that plagued America in its past, and the words of the committee members are reminiscent of McCarthyism.

As we celebrate Independence Day, we should remember our "American Ideals and Ideas" and reaffirm them. One of the reasons for the American Revolution was to end the practice of Kangaroo Courts that the British often utilized against American Colonists that opposed their actions in America. As such, this committee is antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas, and all Americans that support these ideas and ideals should oppose this committee.

Addendum (07/06/22) - An article by Byron York, "Cherry-Picking Jan. 6" explores this topic in more detail.

07/01/22 Economic Truths

“The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
 - Henry Hazlitt

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are fond of asserting slogans and clichés that are to be accepted as truths without challenge. Many of these slogans and clichés have perverse economic implications that are also deleterious to society and our Liberties and Freedoms. This month’s Book It selections examine the underlying economics that contradicts these slogans and clichés. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who make the assertion. As Christopher Hitchens once said, which is now a Philosophical Razor, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” And Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have offered no evidence for these slogans and clichés, and therefore they fail to meet their Burden of Proof. Thus, these slogans and clichés can be dismissed without proof. However, my three new Book It recommendations belie the economics of these slogans and clichés and offer evidence against these slogans and clichés.

Also, when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders use these slogans or clichés, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Macbeth when he says, “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

06/29/22 Current American Despotism

Over the last several years, I have Chirped about Despotism in America. Despotism in America that has been growing throughout the 20th century and has accelerated dramatically in the 21st century. Despotism that is defined as dominance through the threat of punishment or violence. It is for this reason that I wrote my Article, “Despotism in America Chirps”, and it is for this reason that I have collected my Chirps that deal with some aspects of despotism. I would also ask all to remember that:

"Despotism is just an intermediate step into tyranny."
  - Mark Dawson

06/28/22 Whispers and Shouts

I find it quite annoying when President Biden shouts or whispers as if shouting or whispering emphases or reveals some truths. It does none of these things, but it does reveal a lack of "Rationality" and "Reasoning". Every time he shouts or whispers, you can be assured that he is demonstrating his lack of intellectual acuity and misleading the public. He often does this for the purposes of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against his political opponents.

In doing so, he has become a divider rather than an uniter, as he promised during his inauguration speech. He has pitted one group of Americans against another, sowing "Divisiveness in America" and lessening "A Civil Society" in America. In doing so, he has also exhibited a propensity for rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

These shouts and whispers are often a tactic of demagoguery, and President Biden and his administration have become increasingly demagogic against Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have often resorted to demagoguery; however, President Biden and his administration have taken this to a new level as the American people have increasingly disapproved of the direction of the country under his leadership.

It is also an attempt to herd the American people into actions that, on careful consideration, they would not take. These actions that they would undertake are often unconstitutional and an attempt to accrue more powers to the government. As a result, they are an assault on the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

Consequently, my annoyance is more than emotional. It is a cause of concern that America is traveling down the slippery slope to despotism by these whispers and shouts.

06/27/22 The Road to Hell

There is a reason nearly everyone is familiar with the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The reason is, of course, that it is true, and therefore it helps explain why there is so much evil. My newest Article, “Good Intentions”, examines the good intentions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. However, it is not an article I have written, but an article by Lawrence W. Reed, “#52-Progressives Have Good Intentions, So What Else is Required?”. In this article, he reveals the Progressives thought processes based upon good intentions and the harm (hell) that they cause.

This is one of fifty-two essays in the book, Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism by Lawrence W. Reed et al. These essays examine many of these slogans and clichés of Progressives and are an excellent handbook to refute these slogans and clichés. The Foundation for Economic Freedom, of which Lawrence W. Reed is President emeritus, has also posted these essays on their website, which can be read online here.

06/25/22 What a Week in the History of Liberty and Freedom

It has been quite a week in the history of America, as three rulings by the Supreme Court in the past week have reaffirmed the Liberties and Freedoms of the American people. These rulings are:

• Carson v. Makin
  Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen
  New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
  The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion as in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. Thus, those decisions are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

The first two rulings reaffirmed the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, while the third ruling returned to the people, rather than the courts, the decisions on social policy. The third ruling also put lower courts on notice not to be expansive when ruling on social issues but to defer to the will of the people as expressed in their State Legislatures and Congress. It also shifted the burden of social policy issues from the courts to the politicians, where it properly belongs.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court continues this line of legal reasoning and that future rulings are faithful to the Constitution and a reaffirmation of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

06/24/22 A Deliberative Body No More

The United States Senate used to be called ‘The World's Greatest Deliberative Body’. With the passage of the new gun control bill, it must relinquish this title, for there was no deliberation involved in the Senate’s passage of this bill. There were no hearings, no testimony, and no consideration of Constitutional questions about the bill, but a rush to ‘do something’ based on emotional reactions to recent mass shootings.

It is even possible that this bill will have minimal impact on future mass shootings, as there are so many ambiguities and loopholes as to make it problematic as to its impact. There is also the very real possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may find sections of this bill to be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional in that it may violate the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As such, the Senators who voted for this bill mat have violated their oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Passing a bill without consideration as to its constitutionality is not to “support and defend the Constitution” but an affront to the Constitution. This is what happens when they rush to ‘do something’ rather than be deliberative to do something useful and constitutional. By not being deliberative and rushing to ‘do something’, they are also endangering our democracy by resorting to mob rule. A mob rule that may engulf our institutions and trample upon our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/23/22 The Destruction of Civilization

In an article by Charles C. W. Cooke, “Once Again: It Is Not the Supreme Court’s Job to Follow ‘Majority Public Opinion”, he states:

“The Supreme Court is a court, and its job is to uphold the law — whether statutory or constitutional — as it actually exists. The wishes of “majority public opinion” — or of would-be political assassins — are irrelevant to this endeavor. If a sufficient majority of Americans no longer like the law, they can use their democratic power to change its text. But, until they do so, that text will remain what it is, and the Court will be obliged to interpret it without fear, favor, contrivance, or reference to anything beyond its written terms.”
 - Charles C. W. Cooke

He also points out that the Courts are established to uphold the law and not make the law, as a court is not a legislature, and because its job is not to decide what the law should be but what it is. As such, they are formal institutions that require formal textual law on which to base their decisions. When the courts rule outside the formal textual law, they are encroaching upon the prerogatives of Congress. This raises the issue of legal interpretation, which I have Chirped on, "07/12/21 'Constitutional Originalism' versus 'A Living Constitution'". As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in A Matter of Interpretation, the existence of formal institutions requires the use of formal institutions. This is true even in such cases as their application frustrates the majority, pushes the question to a different branch of government, or delays what observers may believe to be a foregone conclusion:

“Of all the criticisms leveled against textualism, the most mindless is that it is “formalistic.” The answer to that is, of course it’s formalistic! The rule of law is about form. A murderer has been caught with blood on his hands, bending over the body of his victim; a neighbor with a video camera has filmed the crime; and the murderer has confessed in writing and on videotape. We nonetheless insist that before the state can punish this miscreant, it must conduct a full-dress criminal trial that results in a verdict of guilty. Is that not formalism? Long live formalism. It is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men.”
- Antonin Scalia

The law is the law. And, until it is changed, it remains the law, irrespective of what the majority might want, how “charged” the atmosphere might become, and how many people try to intimidate or assassinate those whose job it is to uphold it. That’s not a problem to be fixed or bemoaned; it’s the basis of all civilization.

This is why the protesters outside of Supreme Court Justices' homes are despicable. They are assaulting civilization by trying to institute mob rule in America. And this is why President Biden’s Administration, especially the Department of Justice, is disgraceful and complicit in the mob's actions. To not arrest and prosecute these mob actors is to allow and condone mob actions and to assist in the destruction of civilization.

06/22/22 Injustice Department and the Federal Bureau of Iniquity

The recent history of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Obama and Biden administrations has been dubitable. The selective investigations and prosecutions against political opponents and the non-investigations and lack of prosecutions of political supporters have become notorious. Their words of intimidation, and the ignominious deeds of investigations, have been for the purposes of frightening their political opponents. There appears to be little concern for the Constitutional and Civil Rights of their opponents and the equality of justice for all, as I have written in my Articles "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They have misled or lied to Congress and the American people about their actions on a regular and frequent basis.

Al this bespeaks intolerance for political dissent or opposition to their administrations and a corruption of their leadership duties and responsibilities. Such conduct has become so widespread In the Justice Department and the FBI that many, if not most, Americans believe that we have a two-tiered justice system in America. One tier for the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the other tier for their political opponents. As such, the faith in the justice system has been shaken as well as their faith in the American government to protect our Liberties and Freedoms.

Given the incompetence and lack of self-introspection, and indeed, arrogance, of the Biden Administration, we can not expect this situation to be corrected. It will, therefore, be necessary for the next President to correct this situation. And the only correction will be to fire all the leadership of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and replace them with persons of integrity that understand their duties and responsibilities to Constitutional and Civil Rights and the importance of equal justice for all.

We should also know and remember the following words of warning:

“It didn't start with gas chambers.
It started with one party controlling the media.
It started with one party controlling the message.
It started with one party deciding what is the truth.
It started with one party censoring speech and silencing the opposition.
It started with one party dividing citizens into 'Us' and 'Them'.
It started with one party calling on their supporters to harass 'Them'.
It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.
It ended with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.”
 - paraphrased from the Holocaust Museum

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

06/20/22 Mobs and Social Media

In an article by Rob Natelson, “The Founders and the Twitter Mob”, he begins the commentary by stating:

“Over the past two centuries, our Constitution has done a good job of curbing the menace of mob behavior. Unfortunately, social media have created new challenges by re-empowering political mobs—notably, but not exclusively, the ‘Twitter Mob.’

In this essay, I discuss the risks mobs pose to republican political systems. I explain how the American Founders addressed those risks and how modern social media has re-created some of them.”

He then sections the article into; The Historical Background, The American Founders Recognized the Risk of Mobs, The Founders Addressed How to Curb Mobs, Enter Technology, Addressing the Problems, and Repealing or Enforcing Section 230. These sections illuminate the issue of mob actions on Social Media and their deleterious effects on society.  In other articles by him, he addresses the legal issues of Social Media regulation in the context of a lawsuit by President Trump against Twitter., While this lawsuit has been dismissed, the issues remain. These articles are:

• “Trump v. Twitter, Part 1: How Social Media Censorship Abuses Federal Law”
• “Trump v. Twitter, Part 2: Can a private company violate the First Amendment?”
• “Twitter v. Trump, Part 3: Trump’s best ‘free speech’ claim against Twitter”

Given Social Media's actions in the last Presidential election of canceling conservative voices, the promotion of disinformation on physically violent mob actions, and suppressing news stories unfavorable to President Biden, we have seen how social media can interfere and change the course of elections in America. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved if we are to have Free Speech and the dissemination of contrary or unpopular ideas in America – which is essential to preserve the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in America.

06/18/22 What Hath God Wrought

"What hath God wrought" is a Biblical phrase from the Book of Numbers (23:23) to express awe at something that has happened. It is often utilized to express consternation about adverse events. As we look over the history of America in the last several decades, we can all exclaim, ‘What hath God wrought’. The changes in our society, and our societal norms, have been so extensive that our society is unrecognizable to those that lived prior to the 1960s. Some of these changes are for the better, but some have had a deleterious effect on our society.

The bitter partisanship on any political issue, the division of Americans into group identities, the erosion of our "American Ideals and Ideas", the curtailment of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and the intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives are some of the major deleterious effects on our society. Progressives/Leftists seem to hate anyone who disagrees with them, while "Conservatives" despise Progressives/Leftists. Politeness and "A Civil Society" are a relic of the past, and "Divisiveness in America" is the norm for Progressives/Leftists rhetoric. "Rationality" and "Reasoning" are passé, and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" are the norm for intellectual acuity.

The acceptance of all people, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, and disability within American society has been constructive. The advances in science and technology have bettered the lives of all Americans. Extreme poverty has been eliminated in America, while those that live in poverty are able to obtain the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, clothing), as well as other amenities of life.

I suspect that God had nothing to do with what has happened in America, as most Progressives today are atheists or agnostic about God. And perhaps the absence of God in our daily lives, as well as the decline of morality and ethics in our conduct (as I have Chirped on 06/16/22 Morality and Ethics), are responsible for the deterioration of American society.

06/16/22 Morality and Ethics

It is an unfortunate fact that many people interchangeably utilize ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’. However, they are distinct concepts, as can readily be seen by their definitions:

• Morality - Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong conduct
• Ethics - A system of principles governing acceptable conduct

Ethics require a Morality for them to be beneficial. If your morals are disreputable, then your ethics will be reprehensive. Therefore, we need to distinguish between the morality of a person and their ethical conduct, and Criticism vs. Critique a person based on their morals or on their ethics.

It is also easier for a person to correct ethical lapses if they have good morals, while an immoral person will not change their ethics as they have no basis for a change. We should also not resort to the excuse of legal versus illegal activity to justify immoral or unethical behavior, as I have written in my Article, "The Law is Not All".

This distinguishment between morality and ethics will help us better understand a person’s behavior, and we will know how to adjudge a person and perhaps guide someone to become a better person when they have moral or ethical lapses.

06/14/22 Ah, Youth – Part Deux

In my Chirp on "07/20/20 Ah, Youth", I point out that we know as a scientific fact that the human brain does not fully develop until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to develop is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is responsible for most "higher-order" or intellectual brain functions such as thinking, reasoning, judging, planning, voluntary movement, and overall behavior.

This raises the question of when a person should be considered an adult. Today we generally consider a person an adult when they reach the age of eighteen. At this age, they are permitted to engage in all activities of an adult – the exercise of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, service in the armed forces, voting in elections, taking prescription medications, alcohol and drug consumption, marriage, sexual relations, freedom to travel, driving (although some States allow for this prior to 18 years of age), etc... They are also subject to being treated as an adult in our criminal justice system, although some States treat them as adults prior to 18 years of age. There is also some talk of lowering the voting age to sixteen years.

We are now engaged in a societal debate as to when a person may “keep and bear Arms” and when a youth may undergo medical treatments without parental permission (such as abortion, transgender transformation, dispensing prescription medications, etc.). This, as well as what is appropriate public education on a variety of topics (such as social justice, gender identity, sexuality, morality, ethics, and religion), are current topics of debate. This debate highlights when a parent or guardian is responsible for a child’s wellbeing and what are the duties and responsibilities of parents and guardians. It also highlights the role of government in child-rearing.

This stratification of adulthood by age is a bipolarism of our indecisiveness as to what constitutes an adult, and it is also an inequality of treatment under the law by age. If we should raise by age the right to keep and bear arms, then we can also raise by age alcohol and drug consumption, as both have deleterious effects on a person and other persons. We could also raise by age the exercise of our First Amendment and other Constitutional rights under this standard of what adult activities are allowed by age. As such, we need to resolve this issue and be consistent in our approach to the duties and responsibilities of both parenthood and adulthood and at what age a person assumes the duties and responsibilities of adulthood.

We also need to clarify what are the duties and responsibilities of parenthood and when these duties and responsibilities of parenthood end, while at the same time, we should also define the rights of children that are to be protected by the government. We also need to resolve what actions are permissible by the State in the raising of children and to assure that the State does not interfere with parental duties and responsibilities. This could be done under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Under this banner, the rights of parenthood and children would be protected, and the limits of governmental actions upon children would be restrained. Until this issue is resolved, there will be tensions between parents, children, and the government as to what is proper and just for both parents and children.

For my own part, I do not foresee any other age than eighteen years as politically practicable, but I believe that twenty-one years is more advisable. The Constitution sets eighteen years for the voting age, twenty-five years for a member of the House of Representatives, thirty years for a Senator, and thirty-five years for President and Vice President, and many state laws set eighteen years as the age of adulthood. Consequently, the only practicable age of adulthood is eighteen years.

06/12/22 A Kangaroo Congressional Committee Hearing

A Kangaroo Court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority that intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (i.e., a show trial).

On Thursday night, June 9th, 2022, we saw an example of a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing. The deck was stacked against former President Trump in that all the committee members were political opponents of President Trump, no testimony of or for the ‘insurgents’ was allowed, and a predetermined conclusion is inevitable. Counsel for President Trump was not allowed, no evidence in his favor was allowed, and testimony was edited and tailored against President Trump. The words and deeds of President Trump prior to and on January 6th, 2021, were taken out of context and were often misrepresentative or tailored by omission. The actions of President Trump and the inactions of Congressional leaders prior to January 6th, 2021, to prepare for possible riots were ignored.

The hiring of Ex-ABC News executive James Goldston to produce the committee’s primetime hearing is further evidence of a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing, and it may have been illegal on several counts. Mr. Goldston was once responsible for quashing a news story about the Jeffrey Epstein-Bill Clinton connection, which calls into question his ethics and objectivity. Many assertions and allegations were leveled that the words and deeds of President Trump and the ‘insurrectionists’ were an assault on our democracy. As I have written in many Chirps on "01/06/22 Insurrection Day", "10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax", "08/08/21 A True Insurrection", "08/01/21 Justifiable Insurrection", "07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?", "06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?", "06/03/21 Insurrectionists", "04/19/21 Insurrection", "02/15/21 Insurrection and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution", "08/31/20 Insurrection" (which I have combined into a new article “Insurrections Chirps”), this ‘insurrection’ was a tepid and ineffectual ‘insurrection’ if indeed it can be labeled an insurrection at all. This was indeed a show trial for political purposes of damaging President Trump, rather than a Congressional investigation for the purposes of potential legislation to prevent these riots in the future.

As such, this Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing has done more harm to our democracy than anything the ‘insurrections’ did, as it is an assault on "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" for the accused (President Trump and the ‘Insurrectionists’). It has turned Congressional Hearings into a Witch-Hunt to persecute political opponents. It is also in violation of the Congressional authorization for this select committee, as the minority Republican Leader was not allowed to appoint members of this select committee as the authorization required. As a result, this select committee is being run as a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing. Indeed, they are becoming a form of the House Un-American Activities Committee that plagued America in its past, and the words of the committee members are reminiscent of McCarthyism.

There is a need for a Congressional Hearing to determine the causes and preventive measures that were not undertaken prior to and on January 6th, 2021, for the purposes of preventing these occurrences in the future. However, this Congressional hearing is not structured nor administered to achieve this purpose. Its only purpose appears to be a witch-hunt to persecute President Trump and to deny or stultify any attempt that he may make to run for President in 2024.

If this Kangaroo Congressional Committee is allowed to proceed in this manner and it influences an election, then we can expect other such Kangaroo Congressional Committees in the future. This, more than the actions of President Trump and the ‘Insurrections’ on January 6th, 2021, would be more damaging to our democracy than any of their words and deeds on January 6th, 2021.

Addendum (07/06/22) - An article by Larry O'Connor, "Criminalizing Conservatives" explores this topic in more detail.

06/10/22 Red Flag Laws Redux

In my Articles on "Gun Control" and “Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag“, and my Chirps on “05/29/22 It’s Not the Gun, It’s the Gunman”, "09/01/19 A Red Flag Abuse", and "08/22/19 Gun Control and Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag", I have noted many issues and concerns regarding Gun Control. One of my biggest concerns is the utilization of Red Flag Laws to control the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

The proposals are for the Federal government to create and maintain a database of those persons not permitted to purchase a firearm, with such a database to be queried before a firearm is purchased. The practicality of the Federal government in creating and maintaining a database of persons not allowed to purchase firearms is insuperable. This would require the cooperation of all Federal, State, and Local governments to assure this database is up-to-date and contains no errors, a task that no government entity has ever been able to achieve with any database (e.g., the voter registration rolls of any State or Locality). If this database is wrong, then you would be denying a person their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and if this database is incomplete, then you would be allowing a person to own arms that should not be permitted to own arms. It also does nothing to stop a person from transferring, borrowing, or stealing arms from a friend, family member, or neighbor. It also has no effect on the illegal purchase or transfer of arms by criminals and gangs in America. Nor does it solve the problem of a person who has become mentally unstable but has not yet been diagnosed and added to the database. Consequently, Red Flag laws are a band-aid to the solution of the problem of preventing the purchase of firearms by those persons not allowed to own firearms or ‘potential’ abusers of firearms.

There is also the question of whom should be allowed to access this database. Which Federal, State, and local government agencies would be allowed to enter, change, or remove information in this database, and who should be allowed to query this database? All gun dealers would need to query this database before selling a firearm, and individuals who suspect their names are on this database would need to query this database to determine and challenge their inclusion in this database. This raises the question of abuse of this database by improper queries by government agencies, gun dealers, and individuals querying this database. How could the government possibly control what is proper and improper utilization of this database, and is it a constitutional invasion of privacy when this database is queried improperly?

Red Flag laws are also prone to abuse of reporting suspicious persons and the due process rights of those so accused. It would be easy for Red Flag laws to be utilized to harass a person with whom you dislike or disagree with their politics. Once accused, a person would have to prove their innocence or the government to prove their guilt before being denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Proof of innocence has never been allowed in America, as the burden of proof of guilt has always constitutionally rested upon the prosecution. Also, in America, no one may be prohibited from exercising their constitutional and civil rights until a conviction for a crime; therefore, confiscation of firearms before conviction of a crime has dubious constitutionality. The due process questions of the accuser being able to confront the accuser, the cross-examining of the witnesses for the prosecution, calling witnesses for the defense, a speedy trial, and a trial by jury must also be resolved. This process would be time-consuming, financially prohibitive for the accused, and a burden on the courts, and it would not resolve the constitutional question of what happens to the firearms between the accusation and the resolution of the court proceedings. There is also the question of the due process for challenging the inclusion of someone in the database and the expeditious removal of them when it is discovered that they were incorrectly entered into the database.

The response to the potential reporting abuse of Red Flag laws is that the accuser would face legal actions for making a false accusation; however, such false accusations may be difficult to prove in a court of law. Given the recent history of the Justice Department in selectively prosecuting or not prosecuting people based on their political affiliation or political views, this is a hollow response.

Consequently, Red Flag Laws are an illusion of doing something while not solving the problem while at the same time violating the constitutional rights of Americans.

06/08/22 Save the Country

The state of "Public Education" and Higher Education (Colleges and Universities) in America is appalling. Indoctrination rather than education is par for the course, as I have written in my Article "Indoctrination versus Education". College degrees that have no basis for a career are far too common. Schools are often more concerned with protecting a student’s feelings rather than providing them with the tools to cope with the vicissitudes of modern life. The costs of Higher Education have become so great that they financially hobble a student for a decade after their graduation. All of this invokes "The Law of Unintended Consequences", which have negative repercussions upon America. As a result, we have a nation of citizens that is unknowledgeable, incapable of "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and are ill-prepared to become functioning and contributing members of society.

The question is, how can we resolve this situation? The answer is not more money for students, as this only exacerbates the situation. We need to make a systemic change to education to fix this problem. The answer may be in a new article by Derek Hunter, “To Save The Country, Destroy The Public Education System”. I believe that America would be a better place if we implemented his solution to this education problem. And America does need to make a change in its Public and Higher Education institutions to preserve our "American Ideals and Ideas".

06/06/22 Progressivisms Throw-Away Slogans and Clichés

In the 20th century, Progressivism found its place in American politics and governance. However, Progressivism (a political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society) without Individualism (a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence) often morphs into Egalitarianism (the doctrine that all people are equal and the desirability of political, economic and social equality). An Egalitarianism that is not based on the equality of opportunity but and equality of outcomes, as I have written in my Chirp on "07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome". To accomplish this Egalitarianism, they categorized Americans into groups, with one group or another receiving special treatment or disfavor by the government.

Progressivism is also fond of asserting slogans and clichés that are to be accepted as truths without challenge. These slogans and clichés are sprinkled throughout their talking points in such profusion as to be difficult to challenge. When their assertions are challenged, the Progressive often adopts an attitude that they are correct, and they must be proven wrong or else they are right (which is a logical absurdity). Much of the proof by the challenger would require that they ‘Prove a Negative’ (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

As such, whenever a Progressive utilizes a throw-away slogan or cliché, they should immediately be challenged and not allowed to shift the burden of proof upon the challenger. And the Progressives' response should be limited to "Rationality" and "Reasoning" based on facts and not suppositions. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and, as I have often stated, "Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."

In these throw-away slogans or clichés, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Macbeth when he says, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A new book, Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism by Lawrence W. Reed, examines many of these slogans and clichés of Progressives, and is an excellent handbook to refute these slogans and clichés as the back cover states:

“There's little truly "progressive" about Progressivism. True progress happens when humans are free, yet the Progressive agenda substantially diminishes freedom while promising the unachievable. Excuse Me, Professor provides a handy reference for anyone actively engaged in advancing liberty, with essential essays debunking more than 50 Progressive clichés.

Does the free market truly ignore the poor? Are humans really destroying the Earth? Is the government truly the first best source to relieve distress?”

Compiled and edited by Lawrence W. Reed in collaboration with the Foundation for Economic Education and Young America's Foundation, this anthology is an indispensable addition to every freedom lover's arsenal of intellectual ammunition.”

The Foundation for Economic Freedom, which Lawrence W. Reed is president emeritus, has also posted the essays in the book which can be read here.

06/03/22 No They Don’t

Democrat Party Leaders and their supporters often claim that Republican Party Leaders don’t have a plan and need to present one to the American people before the next election to win the next election. They also like to misrepresent and demagogue Florida Senator Rick Scott’s plan, which has no support amongst other Republican Senators, as the Republicans plan. This last point is why they want a Republican plan – so that they can misrepresent and demagogue a Republican plan.

The Democrat Party Leaders only wish to install outrage and fear of Republicans in the electorate in hopes of blunting Republican gains in the 2022 elections, as outrage and fear of Republicans is their only hope of blunting Republican gains in the 2022 elections. This tactic of outrage and fear of Republicans is and has been, for the last several decades, their playbook. A playbook that divides Americans into groups then pits groups of Americans against each other in the hope that their groups will be energized and outnumber the other groups.

The only Republican plan that needs to be presented to the American electorate is to blunt as many of the Biden Administrations' initiatives as possible. A blunting to stave off the disastrous course that Americans have endured since the Democrats have been in power and control of the Congress and Presidency since the 2021 election. It should also be remembered that in the 2020 Presidential election, candidate Biden presented no plan to Americans but only promised to fix perceived problems and to change course from the Trump Administration's agenda.

Therefore, the only Republican plan should be that they will oppose the Biden Administrations' initiatives as much as possible, and they will introduce legislation to constrict the Biden Administrations' initiatives. As President Biden has a veto pen, this legislation cannot be expected to be implemented. However, with the election of a Republican Congress, the power of the purse and Congressional oversight of the Biden Administrations' initiatives will illuminate their disastrous policies and energize Americans to oppose the Biden Administrations’ initiatives.

Consequently, the Republicans need not present a plan in the 2022 election but only highlight that the 2022 elections are a choice between the current course of America and a blunting of the current course. It is up to the 2024 Presidential elections to change the course of America for the better, and it is in this election that the Republican Party needs to present a plan to the American electorate.

06/01/22 Dystopia

Given the political and social events of the last few decades in America, Canada, Europe, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, I decided to reread the three great dystopian novels of the first half of the 20th century - Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Brave New World. These three books are often quoted but rarely read and not fully understood by those that are knowledgeable of these books. The last time I read these novels, I was in my teens, and I thought with all the knowledge and wisdom I have gained in the intervening years that I may have a different perspective on these novels in my seventies. In this, I discovered that, indeed, my perspective of these novels has changed and deepened. When you compare current political and social events to the contents of these novels, you will be even more concerned for the future of America and Europe. It appears that we are on a slippery slope downward into dystopia. Until we understand why we are on this slippery slope and the possible consequences of this slippery slope, it is difficult to change the course of this slippery slope.

In rereading these three dystopian novels, I have been able to detect elements in all of them that are applicable to our current society and may portend the future direction of our society. I have no intention nor desire to oppose social progress for the betterment of humankind or to be a Luddite (an opponent of technological progress), but I have every intention and desire to assure that we do not glide down the slippery slope into Dystopia as we appear to be doing today. Until we understand how it is possible to become a dystopian society, we cannot take proactive measures to prevent gliding down the slippery slope path into dystopia. A slippery slope path into dystopia that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem intent on taking America.

My new Article, “Dystopia”, examines these three novels in consideration of these current events.

05/30/22 Embrace History

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

Given the deficiencies of "Public Education", the last two generations of Americans are woefully lacking in their historical knowledge or have been improperly educated in history, especially American history. History to most Americans is what happened last month or last year. What little historical knowledge that they have is often distorted by political correctness or political agendas rather than fact-based and intellectual reasoning.

To discover a person's knowledge of American History, I often ask them a question that is illuminative of their knowledge. I ask them what the history, purpose, and reasoning behind the 3/5 slave counting clause and the skirting of the issue of slavery in the creation of the U.S. Constitution is? If they give me a satisfactory explanation, I then ask them why the extinction of slavery did not occur as the Founding Fathers expected? I will finally ask them why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves? Most people do not have a good answer to these questions, as they are unknowledgeable about American history. For the answer to these questions I would direct you to my Articles “The Constitutional Founding Fathers Goals” and “Slavery in the United States Constitution”.

Many Progressives, and most Leftists, give an answer that is bereft of historical knowledge and is often irrational. Their explanation often reeks of Political Correctness and Political Agendas rather than knowledgeable intellectual reasoning. This Political Correctness and Political Agendas that distort history often lead to bad policies in the present. People are swayed by emotional responses to incorrect historical facts rather than rational responses about our history and base their policy agendas on this emotional response.

The proper knowledge of history allows you to understand the causes and effects of historical events. This will lead you to learn the lessons from history and, hopefully, the wisdom to guide you in not making the same mistakes of history. I, therefore, say to all Americans that you should embrace history, learn the lessons of history, and vow to not repeat the mistakes of history. For if you do not, then:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

05/29/22 It’s Not the Gun, It’s the Gunman

Once again, in the wake of the senseless mass shooting of school children and teachers in Uvalde, TX, the usual cries of gun control by the usual suspects, with the usual retorts by the usual suspects, the usual evasion of the actual problem is unminded.  The actual problem is not the gun; it’s the gunman. If no guns were available to a deranged mind that would commit mass murder, they would find other means to commit their mass murder.

Since the European discovery and settlement of North America, we have been a land of gun ownership. Gun ownership that was instrumental in the Revolutionary War and the expansion of our country from sea to shining sea. For over three centuries in America, we did not have a problem with mass senseless shootings, and it has only been the last several decades that this problem has arisen. As gun ownership has not changed, there must have been a change in our society that has led to these senseless shootings. This is the problem that must be discovered and addressed to prevent these senseless shootings.

We can start by looking a the Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems in America, but to insist that gun control is a solution is to ignore the realities and practicalities of gun control in America. In my February 2021 Article on "Gun Control", I examined the realities and practicalities of Gun Control in America. I conclude this article with the words that Dr. Ben Carson said after the tragedy of the mass murder of the black church members of Charleston, SC, in June of 2015:

"I think we have to start is going to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart. The heart and soul of people. You know, this young man didn't wake up yesterday and suddenly turn into a maniac. Clearly there have been things in his background, in his upbringing that led to the type of mentality that would allow him to do something like this. And one of the things that I think that we really need to start concentrating on in this country is once again instilling the right kinds of values particularly in our young people. You know, we're so busy giving away all of our values and principles for the sake of political correctness that we have people floating around out there with no solid foundation or beliefs. "

To which I say - Amen!

05/26/22 We Are All Victims

Victimhood is rampant in America. But victimhood is rampant throughout the world and throughout history. There have been suppressors and oppressors, tyrants, bullies, (hard) taskmasters, slavedrivers, despots, dictators, persecutors, tormentors, torturers, intimidators, bigots, and discriminators in every society throughout history. A society should not only be defined by its victims and oppressors but by the possibilities of the victims to overcome their suppressors and oppressors.

In America, we are fortunate to have a society that allows victims to overcome their suppressors and oppressors. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" allow for everybody to succeed in America. It is not often easy and often difficult to succeed in America, but it is possible to succeed in America. As such, cries of victimhood are not a reason, but an excuse, for not succeeding in America. In America, one of the reasons our democratic republic government was established was to provide equal treatment of all people by the government and an equal opportunity for all Americans to succeed. While we have not always been perfect in achieving this goal, we have always strived to achieve this goal.

Capitalism in America has allowed a multitude of people to rise above the circumstances of their birth and achieve their dreams. Capitalism may not be a perfect economic system, but it is the best economic system yet invented by humankind to allow people to succeed. Capitalism's primary thrust is to provide as many goods and services in an expedient and economical manner as possible while rewarding those who provide the goods and services that other people want. No other economic system except Capitalism has succeeded in bringing the people the goods and services they want at a price they can afford or in a timely manner than Capitalism. It has provided growth and innovation that benefits all. Capitalism has also been instrumental in the advancement of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, as Capitalism requires the Rule of Law in contracts and property to flourish. Therefore, Capitalists are not suppressors and oppressors but liberators of people.

Our democratic republic government and capitalistic economic system have reduced victimhood to manageable proportions, and whenever suppressors and oppressors rear their ugly heads in America, we attempt to reign them in with laws that outlaw their actions. Consequently, victimhood in America is not a systemic problem but one of individual infringements. And often, it is not an infringement but happenstance, as:

"Shit happens. Sometimes you shit on yourself, sometimes others shit on you,
and other times shit just happens.
It doesn't matter how shit happens, it only matters how you deal with the shit.
You can either clean yourself up and smell the roses,
Or you can wallow in the shit and everything stinks.
And remember; It's just as important to learn from the shit,
as it is to clean yourself up from the shit!"
  - Mark Dawson

We, therefore, need to distinguish between infringements and shit in our lives, place the blame where it properly belongs, and stop utilizing victimhood as an excuse for the lack of success. We should also remember that:

“The more that the government intervenes to correct a social problem, the worse the social problem becomes.”
 - Mark Dawson

05/24/22 Information Shapers

In a recent article by Sharyl Attkisson, “10 Ways Info Shapers Have Infiltrated Our Institutions”, she points out:

“Few matters are so important as the integrity of the information we receive and the recent degradation in its reliability.

The recent leak of a Supreme Court draft related to the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case underscores how corrupted so many of our important institutions have become by those dedicated to shaping public opinion in a sometimes-dishonest way.

Nearly every facet of our American institutions has been infiltrated by activists, corporate and political propagandists, and even criminals.

Here are 10 key institutions that have been successfully infiltrated by information-shapers:”

I would encourage all to read this article to see how perverse and widespread information shapers are in American society.

05/21/22 What Are They Good At?

The Biden Administration and its supporters have tried to point out the accomplishments of the Biden Administration. They are silent, except to play the excuse or blame game on the debacles they have overseen. On the International stage; the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues they only have excuses or blame. Excuses and blame on the COVID-19 Pandemic, on Putin, on Republican obstructionism, and now ultra-MAGA supporters, but they have never addressed their own shortcomings.

They have, however, excelled in one area – finding people to fill Biden administrative positions that are diverse in appearance but lack the competence or commitment to excel in their duties and responsibilities. The Biden administrative people have also excelled at being bitterly partisan, Leftist in their politics, and congenital liars (as I have written in Chirp on "08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving"). These people have also exhibited that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". These people also view the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a controlling rule to the governance of America.

They have also been very good a uniting America, as President Biden promised at his inauguration. The latest polls have revealed that 75% of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track. When three-quarters of Americans agree on something, you can safely say that Americans are united on that topic.

As a result, America now finds itself being led by incompetent persons and would-be despots who have no conception of "American Ideals and Ideas". They do, however, believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans regardless of the consequences to America and Americans. Such egotism and arrogance of these people are dangerous for America, and they should be opposed by all Americans who believe in Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as The Rule of Law as I have Chirped on “05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women”.

05/19/22 The Lawless Party

The “rioters” of 2020 and the ‘Insurrectionists” of January 6, 2021, have been treated quite differently by the law and by the words and deeds of the Democrat Party Leaders. Equality under the law requires that:

“No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.”
 - President Theodore Roosevelt

This different treatment of the “rioters” and the “insurrectionist” is but one example of a two-tiered system of justice by the Biden Administration. Attorney General Merrick Garland of the Department of Justice and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security has consistently ignored laws that they disagree with and only enforced laws against their opponents but have not enforced laws against their supporters. Their inactions in enforcing immigration laws on our southern border are the most egregious example of their ignoring laws that they do not support. Ignoring a law that you disagree with or ignoring the law until you can change the law to something you agree with is not enforcement of duly enacted laws but a subterfuge to justify lawlessness. Selectively enforcing laws is not the Rule of Law but rather the Rule by Men and Women. In this, they have exhibited that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

The most recent example is the Biden Administration's inactions against the protesters of the draft opinion of the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. A current law, 18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading, is very clear on what is acceptable protests against judicial officials:

“Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The inactions of the Biden Administration in enforcing this law are a telling example of their two-tiered system of justice. Legal inactions for their supporters, and legal actions against their opponents, are modus operandi for the Biden Administration. Thus, we have a two-tiered system of justice under the Biden Administration, and Prosecutorial Discretion is not a valid excuse for inaction, as I have Chirped on "03/29/22 Prosecutorial Discretion".

This is no aberration, as the Democrat Party in the last several decades has resorted to "Divisiveness in America" and verbal support of mob actions. Consequently, The Democrat Party has become the party of rulership, threats, intimidations, mob rule, and ignoring the law, and hence the party of lawlessness in America.

05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women

In America, since our founding, we have been committed to the Rule of Law. The law is above all persons, and all persons must obey the law. No special disposition is given to the rich or powerful, nor to the poor or powerless. All persons must obey the law. Yet, today in America, we see a special disposition for selective groups of Americans or selective persons in America. This special disposition comes in many guises - Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, funding for special interest groups, tax breaks for companies or groups of people, and various other government programs that target groups of Americans. We have also seen that politicians often have rules for thee but not for me or my supporters, especially during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Most insidious is selectively enforcing laws or going outside Constitutional bounds to institute policies, as this is not The Rule of Law but The Rule by Men and Women.

This breakdown of The Rule of Law leads to a dissolution of American society, as people and groups scramble for special dispositions for themselves. It pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans and leads to greater disharmony in America. It leads to politicians pandering to groups of Americans that will support and vote for them. Other groups of Americans can become marginalized, and their concerns need not be addressed by politicians. People become self-centered and no longer concerned about other Americans and what is best for America and all Americans.

All of this is a result of The Rule by Men and Woman rather than The Rule of Law. Until we return to The Rule of Law, we will continue to see the dissolution of American society. A dissolution that will end our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

05/15/22 One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All

Having entered the seventh decade of my life today, I have witnessed and experienced many changes in America. As a child of the fifties, an adolescent of the sixties, and a young adult of the seventies, I have lived through tumultuous times. The tumultuous times of the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Stagflation of the late seventies shaped my youth, while the bitter partisan divides of the 21st century have molded my perspective. From the patriotic nationalism and national economy of the fifties and sixties to the internationalistic viewpoint and global economy of this century, America has been transformed.

One of the greatest and quietest transformations has been the religiosity of Americans. As America entered the middle of the 20th century, it became less Protestant Christian religious and more secular. Other religions, such as Catholic Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, became more acceptable and mainstream in America. Belief in science and technology increased, often accompanied by a decrease in religiosity. In many ways, this was good for America and Americans, but in other ways, it has presented problems.

My new Article, “ One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All” examines this transformation and its repercussions.

05/13/22 Useful and Malicious Idiots

Much ado has been made about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) sometimes outrageous comments. The Democrats in Georgia have even tried (unsuccessfully) to bar her from running from Congress because of these comments and her verbal support for the January 6th, 2021 “insurrectionists”, as I have Chirped on "01/06/22 Insurrection Day". There is no doubt that Rep. Greene has some outlandish opinions and represents a small faction of the Republican Party.

In comparison, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-MY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Maxine Watters (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) have outlandish opinions, and they represent a large faction of the Democratic Party. In addition, Democrat House leadership often makes outlandish statements against their opponents.

In the Senate, outlandish opinions and statements by Republicans are rare but commonplace by Democrats. Led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and many of the prominent Democrat Senators, outlandish statements against Republicans, Conservatives, and Trump supporters are de rigueur.

This ratio, 10 to 1, is not far off from the ratio of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who express themselves outlandishly in comparison to "Republican Party Leaders" and Conservatives. It is often claimed by Democrats and their supporters that both sides do it, but there is a difference in the Democrats doing it. Of course, both sides do it, as in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism/Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is, “are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side doing it?”. When you see one side or the other paying more heed or engaging in extreme deeds or words, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to make not only a determination of the number of words and misdeeds incidents but also the severity of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase ‘Both Sides Do It’ is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme words or deeds by the one side engaged in these words or deeds. You must also carefully examine the words that are utilized by each side to determine if they are adjectives or pejoratives.  Adjectives, when used properly, are not outrageous comments, but pejoratives are usually utilized for egregious purposes, as I have written in my Article, "Divisiveness in America".

The question then is, are these Congresspersons Useful or Malicious Idiots? In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders. The term was originally used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and manipulation. The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution has not been substantiated. Malicious Idiots can be defined as those who know their statements are outlandish but utter them for political gain in motivating their base for voting purposes, or for political contributions, or to advance their political agenda. Often these malicious statements are made to "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" their opponents to silence or marginalize them so that the uninformed public will not pay heed to what they are saying.

In my opinion, I believe that the Democrat House leadership and Senators are being malicious, while the Democrat House members are useful idiots. Both the useful and malicious idiots in the Democrat Party are much more likely to use pejoratives than adjectives when commenting on their opponents. This is because, in general, Republican believe their opponents are wrong while Democrats believe that their opponents are evil and pejoratives are justified in the face of evil. In all cases, it is not good for the body politic for Democrats to engage in this outlandish rhetoric. It divides the country and pits one group of Americans against another group. Also, in my opinion, the only way to stop this rhetoric is to make it ineffective by voting out of office those politicians who engage in this outlandish rhetoric. It would also be helpful if "Modern Journalism" called them out for this outlandish rhetoric, but, alas, as Modern Journalism is in the pocket of the Democrat Party, I do not expect that this will happen.  Until voters remove these politicians from office, we can expect that bitter partisanship will continue in America. A red tidal wave election in 2022 would be a good first step in resolving this outlandish rhetoric problem in America. Here’s hoping!

05/11/22 Progressivism and Leftism Is Becoming Totalitarianism

With the recent uproar over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, the Disinformation Governance Board, and the draft opinion of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it has become even more apparent that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have a wide and deep totalitarian steak embedded within their psyche. While Leftism has always been totalitarian, Progressivism has drifted toward totalitarianism as they have seen their political power reduced. The election of George Bush to President in 2000 started this drift, while the election of Donald Trump as President in 2016 accelerated and solidified this drift.

They wish to control the free flow of information and impose their policies by government fiat or court rulings. They have often attempted to justify their actions as preserving “our democracy”. But as I have written in my Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", their meaning of this term is “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. And Oligarchs often resort to despotism to enforce their rule and often slide into tyranny if their despotism does not succeed.

As I have written in my Chirp on, "02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential", Freedom of Speech is essential to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, for free speech staves off the encroachments of would-be despots, dictators, and tyrants. Their attempts to control speech, under any guise, are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas". Any speech protected under our 1st Amendment right is allowable and should in no way be restricted, even on "Social Media" and in "Modern Big Business". We should also remember that:

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

Judges are not meant to legislate the law but only to adjudicate the law. The courts are not intended to legislate, execute, craft, or decide policy. They are meant to provide citizens an avenue for recourse to reconcile wrongs for which they have causes of action. They are meant to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislators and signed by the President. Judicial independence consists of the intellectual honesty and dedication to [the] enforcement of the rule of law regardless of popular sentiment and the ability to render a decision in the absence of political pressures and personal interests.

Today, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have resorted to intimidations and threats against Justices and Jurist to sway their opinions and decisions, thus constraining them of their Judicial independence. Peaceful demonstrations in public places are an exercise of your Constitutional Rights. Mob actions of intimidation and threats are not peaceful but terroristic. It is an exercise of raw power, and we should remember the words of caution about power:

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
— George Orwell, 1984

As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, they have no compunctions in exercising power, as they are fervently convinced that they know better than the American people what is best for America. We should all remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

And Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they should decide what is best for America. Decisions that often resort to despotism to enforce their rule and that may slip into tyranny.

05/09/22 1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook

The dystopian novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell was meant to be a precautionary tale against modern tyranny. Instead, the Democrat Party seems to want to make it into a handbook for the governance of America. The newest and most perverse form of implementing their homogeneity is through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), a Ministry of Truth and Propaganda, and a partnership with Big Tech, as I have written in my Chirps on “04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)”, “04/30/22 Ministry of Truth and Propaganda” and “05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship”. My new article, “1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook”, combines these Chirps with additional thoughts on 1984 and our perilous slide toward a 1984 society in America.

05/07/22 Dissemblers of Misinformation

After some online research, I have discovered some of the biggest dissemblers of misinformation in history:

• A Consensus of Leading Geologists has determined that the Theory of Continental Drift is Disinformation
• Abolitionists Continue to Spread Disinformation on the Human Status and Treatment of Slaves According to Leading Democrat Senators
• Austrian physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann, Continues to Spread Disinformation on the Existence of Atoms According to Leading Scientists
• Claims that cigarette smoking cause cancer is Disinformation According to Cigarette Manufacturers
• Colonial Rebels Continue to Spread Disinformation on British Rule in America According to the Prime Minister of Great Britain
• French chemist, Louis Pasteur, Continues to Spread Disinformation about germs and vaccinations According to Leading Doctors
• Greek Philosopher, Socrates, Continues to Spread Disinformation Corrupting the Minds of the Youth of Athens, and for Impiety, According to a Jury of Hundreds of Male Athenian Citizens
• Italian Scientist, Galileo Galilei, Continues to Spread Disinformation on the Sun Revolving Around the Earth According to the Inquisition
• Local Jewish Carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, Continues to Spread Disinformation Deemed Harmful by Jewish Religious Experts
• Prominent French novelist, Émile Zola, Continues to Spread Disinformation about the Guilt of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, According to French Military Authorities

We should all remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

To which I would paraphrase Thomas Sowell on Disinformation:

"The most basic question is not what is disinformation, but who shall decide what is disinformation?"

05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship

The Constitution and its Amendments were drafted and implemented to create a Democratic-Republic government of limited and enumerated Federal powers to protect the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. As such, the Federal Government is constrained on the direct actions that it may take against individuals exercising their “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”. Democracy is an unruly form of society with a cacophony of voices, while all governments prefer an orderly society. Consequently, all governments would impose their dictates on society and proscribe which voices are allowed or disallowed. In America, these direct dictates and proscriptions are not permitted under our Constitution.

Given the rise of the regulatory state in the 20th and 21st centuries, the government has become more involved in the affairs of businesses. This has led to businesses becoming more involved in the affairs of government, as they wish to have favorable treatment of governmental laws and regulations. This has also brought forth the concept of Regulatory Capture as I have Chirp on “12/21/21 Regulatory Capture”. This connection between government and business has developed into a symbiotic relationship between the two.

In the 21st century, this symbiotic relationship has morphed into the ability of the government to pressure “Modern Big Business”, and especially “Big Tech”, into taking actions against individuals and groups that would not be permissible for the government to directly undertake. This pressure, along with the acquiescence of “Modern Journalism” in not exposing this business pressure and symbiotic relationship, has led to the suppression of the Natural l Rights of the people and groups that would disagree with governmental actions.

Contacts and communications between business and the Executive branch, along with lobbying and leaks with Congress, are the de rigueur means that are utilized to foster this symbiotic relationship. The Obama and Biden Administrations have turned this cooperation into a de facto means of trying to govern the people of America. This is also made easier by the “Progressives/Leftists” leanings of the owners, managers, and employees in Big Tech and the corruption of Modern Big Business into utilizing “Other People’s Money (OPM)” to support governmental actions.

My Article on “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?” is an example of this cooperation, while my Chirps on “04/25/22 The Affairs of Companies”, “02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)”, “10/04/20 Big Business Social Advertising and Financial Support” are also illuminative of this cooperation.

This symbiotic relationship has resulted in the lessening of the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans and may be a violation of the Constitution. It is certainly an infringement on our Natural Rights and of our “American Ideals and Ideas”. As the Presidency and Congress have no interest in dissolving this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, and the Supreme Court is reluctant to address this issue (as I have Chirped on “04/15/22 The Supreme Court’s Reluctance”), the American people need to become aware of this symbiotic relationship and demand that it be ended. If not, America will devolve into a Big Brother state governed by Big Government and Big Business.

05/03/22 The Fall of Wikipedia

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias -- out of date by the time we bought them. Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia – Wikipedia. All writing and editing in Wikipedia are done by volunteers. Wales hoped there would be enough diverse political persuasions that biases would be countered by others. But that's not what's happening. I recently learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia's political pages have turned into leftist "propaganda."

The world needs an online encyclopedia that provides factual, accurate, and unbiased information that everybody can rely upon. Knowledge is power, but incorrect, insufficient, or tendentious knowledge corrupts power. I have often relied upon Wikipedia in researching and writing my Articles and Chirps, and I often hyperlink to Wikipedia articles in my Articles and Chirps. I, too, have noticed that Wikipedia has drifted to the left in many of its political, social, and current history articles. 

In my Article on "Reasoning", I point out one of the problems of proper reasoning is "Cognitive Biases", and this problem of Cognitive Biases is imbued within most writings and commentary on political, social, and historical issues. While some of this bias at Wikipedia may be nefarious, I believe that most of this is a result of Myside Cognitive Bias, as I have written In my Article, “Myside Bias”. In the book  Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, by Steven Pinker, he defines Myside Bias as:

“Politically motivated numeracy and other forms of biased evaluations show that people reason their way into or out of a conclusion even when it offers them no personal advantage. It’s enough that the conclusion enhances the correctness or nobility of their political, religious, ethnic, or cultural tribe. It’s called, obviously enough, the Myside bias, and it commandeers every kind of reasoning, even logic. Recall that the validity of a syllogism depends on its form, not its content, but that people let their knowledge seep in and judge an argument valid if it ends in a conclusion they know is true or want to be true.”

I suspect that most of the editors and decision-makers at Wikipedia are Progressives/Leftists in their viewpoints and that they have an unconscious Progressives/Leftists Myside Bias in their editing and decision making. As I have often stated that Progressives/Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct. So it is with the editors and decision-makers at Wikipedia in that they assume that they are always correct. This is the root cause for Wikipedia’s drift leftward.

A course correction at Wikipedia is needed to correct this problem. The problem with a course correction is that most Progressives/Leftists have no interest in countenancing any viewpoint other than their own. As such, it may be necessary for Wikipedia to institute new management and perhaps new ownership dedicated to factual, accurate, and unbiased information on Wikipedia. If not, then Wikipedia may sink to irrelevance, and the world will have lost a valuable resource.

05/01/22 The Charles Krauthammer Award for American Commentary

With the checkered history of the Pulitzer Prize, which many consider the gold standard for journalism awards, perhaps it is time that we establish another prize. This prize would be awarded annually for any published commentary in the previous year that supports our "American Ideals and Ideas" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This prize would be based on the truths of our two founding documents:

“The bedrock of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Constitution. Anything that contravenes this bedrock or foundation is anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated.”
 - Mark Dawson

Any published commentary in the previous year that supports the concepts and ideology of these two documents would be eligible for this prize. I would suggest that three awards be given every year – the Gold Standard Award, the Silver Standard Award, and the Bronze Standard Award. These awards would, hopefully, encourage the general public to read and think about the contents of these columns. I would also propose that we name this prize after one of the most distinguished columnists and political commentators of the late 20th and early 21st century in America - Charles Krauthammer.

Charles Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. Columns of this nature would be the basis for this ‘Charles Krauthammer Award for American Commentary’.

04/30/22 Ministry of Truth and Propaganda

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified on Wednesday, April 27th, 2022, that the Department of Homeland Security has created a "Disinformation Governance Board" to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms. This DHS board will be led by Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers, co-chaired with principal deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskill. The executive director will be Nina Jankowicz, a 33-year-old, highly self-confident young woman who is a known disassembler of misinformation from the left (most particularly that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation).

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by English writer George Orwell, he describes ‘The Ministry of Truth’ (Newspeak: Minitrue) that is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania. As well as administering "truth", the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events. At the time that this book was written, the concern was that the government would become corrupt, coercive, and oppressive to the people. Today, the concern is that the Disinformation Governance Board will act as The Ministry of Truth.

This Disinformation Governance Board also harkens to NAZI Germany, when the lead “truth” teller was Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. His successful lying allowed the Nazis to obtain and retain power and commit some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in human history. Successful lying always leads to bad consequences and often unintended negative consequences, and successful lying by people in power leads to tragic consequences for the Natural and Human rights of individuals within the power of the liars. The Ministry of Propaganda was backed up by the Gestapo, the political police force of the Nazi state that enforced NAZI truths and harshly persecuted anyone who would not conform to NAZI ideas and ideology.

I can also see ghosts of the Inquisition, when the Catholic Church set up courts whose aim was to combat heresy, conducting trials of suspected heretics. Courts whose verdicts were often preordained, and punishments were often severe and sometimes included death by burning. The accused were often imprisoned and tortured before the trial, and they were given little recourse to defend themselves at trial.

In thinking about the role of the Disinformation Governance Board, we should also remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

To which I would paraphrase Thomas Sowell on the Disinformation Governance Board:

"The most basic question is not what is disinformation, but who shall decide what is disinformation?"

As I have Chirped on "08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving", the Biden Administration are congenital liars, and we can therefore expect that this Disinformation Governance Board will function as the Ministry of Truth and Propaganda. Lying is often a strong word to use, as sometimes they are just mistakes or confusion. However, the sheer number and scope of the Biden Administration's lies demonstrate that they are not mistakes or confusion but deliberate attempts to mislead the American public.

Given that the Department of Homeland Security is a law enforcement agency, and it is the second most heavily armed department behind the Department of Defense, one wonders what actions they will take to address misinformation. Even if they take no direct actions other than words of disapproval or condemnation, the intimidation factor is so large that it will silence Free Speech in America. As I have Chirped on, "03/12/21 Free Speech is Essential", as, without Free Speech, democracy is dead, and despotism is the law of the land. If they do take any actions against the people in America, then they have become the Inquisitors and Gestapo in America.

My revulsion to the idea of a Disinformation Governance Board cannot be overstated. It is an assault on our Liberties and Freedoms and our Constitutional Rights, as I have Chirped on, "09/01/20 The Assault on Our Constitutional Rights". This Disinformation Governance Board needs to be disbanded immediately, and all those government officials who were involved in its creation and administration need to be removed from government service, as they have proven themselves to be antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Anyone who countenances or endorses the idea of a government disinformation agency is despicable and not to be trusted with power, as they too are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/29/22 Read, Don’t Read Into

In my "Dialog & Debate" article section on "Putting Words into Another's Mouth", I point out that many people do not read or listen to the actual words someone has written or spoken, but read into meanings of the words, then criticize a person based on the reading into words. This putting words into someone’s mouth, then criticizing the words you put into their mouth is another argumentative technique too often utilized in today’s political discussions and debates. This technique is to rephrase or restate what someone has said in the most negative connotation possible or to add negative statements into another’s mouth. The person who puts the words into another’s mouth then goes on to criticize the words they put into someone’s mouth. This is a dishonest and despicable tactic and a wholly inappropriate manner to debate political issues. It is often done to disparage, denigrate, or demonize someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person actually said. It is your responsibility to only speak your own thoughts and reasoning or to quote the words of another person in critiquing another person. After both sides have laid out their reasoning and conclusions, then it is fair to critique the reasoning or conclusions of the other based on what they have stated, not what you have stated for them.

In writing my Chirps and Articles, I am very careful of the words, terms, and expressions I utilize and to say what I mean and mean what I say. An example of being careful of what you say or write is from a sentence I encountered in my recent readings:

“America’s first president (George Washington) never took a college course and still managed to be the most influential person of his time.”

The phrase ‘to be the most’ implies he was more influential than the other Founding Fathers - such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. This assertion about George Washington is highly debatable and unresolvable, for it is impossible to determine who was the most influential of these luminaries. A more historically accurate phrase would be ‘to be one of the most’, and the sentence would have read:

“America’s first president (George Washington) never took a college course and still managed to be one of the most influential persons of his time.”

In writing my Articles and Chirps, I try to avoid assertions without justification, with these justifications being succinct and without ambiguity. If it is not possible to be succinct in a Chirp, I will hyperlink to an article on the topic or to another Chirp that has a lengthier justification. In all my writings, I attempt to be unambiguous so that there can be no misinterpretation of the meaning of what I am asserting.

When reading or listening to another, I keep this in mind and only mentally note questionable assertions and ambiguous justifications. It is only after the person has finished do I critique based on the actual words they have said or written. This is most difficult when reading a book due to the lengthy nature of books. I, therefore, will often pause after reading a chapter and critique the chapter, often rereading certain paragraphs where I have mentally noted an issue that I may have had with a paragraph(s).

If we all kept this in mind, along with my thoughts on "A Civil Society" and “Criticism vs. Critique”, there would be less acrimony and bitter partisanship in our public dialog and debate.

04/28/22 Criticism vs. Critique

The only acceptable method of public discourse is disagreement - to be of different opinions. If you are in disagreement with someone, you should be cognizant that people of good character can and often disagree with each other. The method of their disagreement is very important to achieving civil discourse, as I have written in my Article on “A Civil Society” and my new Article “Criticism vs. Critique”. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

• Criticism - Disapproval that is expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings.
• Critique - A serious examination and judgment of something.

Most people and most commentators have forgotten the difference between Criticism and Critique. This has led to hyper-partisanship in today’s society. In a civil society critiquing a viewpoint or policy position should be encouraged. This will often allow for a fuller consideration of the issues and perhaps a better viewpoint or policy position without invoking hyper-partisanship. We can expect that partisanship will often occur, as people of good character can and often disagree with each other. Criticizing a viewpoint or policy position will often lead to hostility, rancor, and enmity, which results in the breakdown of civil discourse and hyper-partisanship. It is fine to criticize someone for their bad or destructive behavior, but it is best to critique them for their opinions or words. We would all do better if we remembered to critique someone rather than criticize someone.

Please remember that if you disagree with the messenger, it is not acceptable to kill the messenger. You may kill the messenger, but the message will remain.

04/27/22 The Real World

Most Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do not have real-world solutions but rhetoric that translates into bad policies in the real world. This is evident from the 2020 elections when Democrats ran on rhetoric and then instituted policies that have had disastrous consequences for America. On the International stage, the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues their rhetoric has translated in bad policies for America and Americans.

They put into place an addled President Biden, who exhibits all the signs of dementia, and turned over power to Progressives/Leftists ideologues in his administration. They also put into place a Vice-President who is obviously incompetent on both foreign and domestic issues and is unfit to become President. His Cabinet Secretaries appear to be overwhelmed by their tasks and incapable of exercising their duties and responsibilities. This is not the adults being in charge, as they often claimed in the 2020 elections.

The leftists' members of Congress seem to be running the show in Congress and directing legislative decisions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer have been ineffective, thank God, in fully implementing their bad policies. No attempts were made by Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to ameliorate the bad policies of the Biden Administration, and indeed, they often supported these bad policies.

The dysfunction of the Democrat Party at all levels of government has led to dysfunction in America. As Victor Davis Hanson has stated in his recent article, “How America Became La La Land”, ‘America these last 14 months resembles a dystopia.’ He concludes ‘First, all of these problems are self-induced. They did not exist until Biden birthed them for ideological or political reasons.’ and ‘The common denominator? Biden knows that he inherited a stable, prosperous America and has nearly ruined it.”

This is a conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree. My hope is that the American people now recognize that Progressive and Leftists ideas and ideals do not work in the real world and are destructive. A destruction that can only be stopped by voting Democrats out of office until they reform themselves and propose real-world solutions to the problems that beset America. The Red Wave that many are predicting in the 2022 elections needs to be a Red Tidal Wave at all levels of government to stop this destruction. Even then, it will take many years and a Republican President to undo the damage that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have inflicted upon America.

04/25/22 The Affairs of Companies

In the recent clash between Disney and Florida about the state's recently passed parental rights bill, Colorado’s Governor Polis recently Tweeted that “we don’t meddle in affairs of companies” He also is urging Disney to move to Colorado after the Florida legislature stripped the company of its special exemptions. The invitation is but grandstanding, as Colorado does not have the weather conditions for a year-round amusement park that Disney would require. As to the comment that “we don’t meddle in affairs of companies”, I would ask Governor Polis if Colorado allows companies to meddle in affairs of the State, as Disney was attempting to do in Florida.

As I have Chirped on, "02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)", "11/18/21 Fascist Corporatism", and "10/15/20 Stakeholder Capitalism is a Form of Socialism on a Small Scale" companies meddling in affairs not related to their business has become more common in America today.

In my "Terminology" webpage, I note that "Modern Big Business" has branched out to social activism, rather than constraining themselves to provide products and services in a timely manner that the common man can afford. In doing so, they are taking company monies from their shareholders' profits, increasing customers' prices, or both to spend on their social activism. For a company to spend monies on social activism, for which the other people may not agree, without the permission of the other people, is immoral, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. In the advertising of their social activism, they are also skewering the political and social environment to fit their vision of good social policy, as they do not present a balanced viewpoint of this social activism. And most of this social activism by companies has a decidedly Progressive/Leftists orientation.

The reactions of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to the clash between Disney and Florida are also illuminative. When a company such as Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby expresses conservative values, they are often aghast and condemnable of the company. However, for any company that expresses Progressives/Leftists values, they are supportive and encouraging of their efforts. This reveals that they are not concerned about the interactions between companies and government but only concerned with expanding their political agenda.

Disney’s words and deeds in Florida thrust them into the political arena. When you enter the political arena, you must be prepared for political repercussions. Disney is now suffering these political repercussions, as they should have expected. This should be a lesson for any company that enters the political arena that there is no free lunch, and political actions by companies will have political repercussions upon companies.

For my own part, I believe that companies should only be involved in government actions that impact the operations of their company. Any government actions outside of impacts on a business are no business of a company. And no "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" and "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" by companies to justify their non-business interactions with the government should be acceptable.

04/23/22 Mankind Was My Business

As I have Chirped on, "03/31/22 A Global Economy", for the last several decades, we have seen businesspersons and politicians tote the advantages of a ‘Global Economy’. Businesspersons for the purposes of expanding their market share in foreign countries and for the purpose of manufacturing goods at a lower cost in countries with lower labor costs. Politicians for the purpose of bringing less free countries into the political sphere in the hopes that they would become freer and more supportive of America. One of the main beneficiaries of this Global Economy has been China, and the main failure of this Global Economy is China.

China has thrived economically while, at the same time, it has remained belligerent to the ideals of Liberty and Freedom and rarely supportive of America. Indeed, as America has become more dependent on inexpensive Chinese goods, China has been pressing against American interests. We have also seen negative impacts on American jobs and manufacturing as more businesses outsource their manufacturing to China. This has been especially hard on middle America and middle-class Americans. At the same time, the business management of multi-national companies has become more compliant with China’s interests and propensities as they have become more entangled in China.

These propensities of China include the gross violations of the human rights of its citizens for the purposes of political power. The actions and inactions of China in the origination and the contagion of the Covid-19 pandemic were reprehensible and impacted the entire world due to China’s inclusion in the Global Economy. China’s recent gross human rights violations of its own citizens in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Xinjiang, along with its actions in Tibet, and its attempts to suppress Falun Gong in both China and the rest of the world, demonstrate that the Chinese government has no regard for human rights or the opinions of the rest of the world. The usage of forced or slave labor occurs throughout China and sometimes in the manufacture of goods for multi-national companies. In all of these Chinese actions, the multi-national companies turned a blind eye or rationalized China’s actions. After all, it is good business for them as it increases their profit margins or reduces their costs of doing business.

In this multi-national business amenableness to China, I am reminded of a passage from Charles Dicken's story ‘A Christmas Carol’. When Scrooge is confronted by the suffering ghost of Marley, all draped in chains and locks because of his actions in life, Scrooge exclaims:

“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,' faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

“’Business!' cried Marley’s Ghost, wringing its hands again. ‘Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!’”
 - Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

And so, it is, for these business people who are amenable to China’s human rights violations. But the suffering, chains, and locks they are imposing are not occurring in the next life but in the current lives of the Chinese people and all humankind. And we in America are complicit in this suffering, chains, and locks, as we allow these businesspeople to be amenable to China’s actions. We in America bear some of this responsibility due to our dependency on imported goods from China, our desire for inexpensive goods despite the human costs, and often ignorance of the full extent of China’s Human Rights violations. By allowing these businesspersons to be amenable to China’s human rights violations, we are creating our own suffering, chains, and locks in the next life. But like Scrooge, we have the possibility of freeing ourselves from an afterlife of suffering, chains, and locks due to our inactions or complacency. This can only happen if we insist that the multi-national businesspersons stop being amenable to China’s human rights violations and insist that China reform itself if they wish to be involved in the Global Economy.

May God have mercy on America, and our own souls, if we do not take the moral, ethical, and proper actions to help China reform itself and end these gross human rights violations.

04/21/22 The Real Hate Speech

No rational person likes hate speech, but a rational person also understands that preserving free speech entails the toleration of hate speech. As I have Chirped on, "02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential". The best means to counter hate speech is more free speech in opposition to hate speech. It is also an unfortunate fact that many assertions of hate speech are often based on policy disagreements rather than ‘hate’, and they are often lodged in an attempt to silence the opposition.

There is also a category of hate speech that is often not acknowledged in modern America, as it is subtle hate speech, but it has far-reaching consequences. This is a hate speech that attempts to demonize America or individuals or groups of Americans. Some of the common terms for this form of hate speech are: ‘White Supremacist, ‘White Privilege’, ‘Racist’, and ‘Systemic Racism’. These terms are often utilized to foster hate that is often not justified but done for political purposes. America has had these problems in our past, as all societies and nations have and have these problems in their past and present history. Some of these problems still exist in America, but they are not as widespread or as rooted as those who utilize these terms would have you believe. These problems, when they occur in America, are often swiftly addressed to correct them to ensure a just society in America. This is one of the greatness of America, as Americans are willing to acknowledge and correct problems in our society. These hate speech terms are most often utilized for sowing political divisions and garnering votes by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and not to correct these problems when they are encountered.

Rather than addressing the real ills in America of "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems", they continue to utilize these terms, along with espousing other hateful terms associated with "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", to obtain and retain political power. The utilization of these terms also fosters a victim mentality in many Americans, which often leads to improper rationalisms to justify violent mob actions and criminal activities of the supposed victims. This victim mentality often leads to mental health problems in the supposed victims that prevent them from living a healthy and productive life. Depression, anger, and hate are not healthy and often lead to actions or inactions that do not improve your life. They also lead to making improper political decisions as to the solutions to the ills that beset America.

The statistics of ‘White Supremacist, ‘White Privilege’, ‘Racist’, and ‘Systemic Racism’ in America do not bear out these hate speech terms and often contradict these assertions. Consequently, the people who utilize these terms are either ignorant or demagoguing. Either way, they are people who do not love and wish to improve America, but they wish to transform America into some utopian ideal, as I have Chirp on, "11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?". Such people should not be heeded, nor should they have any power in America, for their attempts to transform America will only bring about the destruction of America.

04/19/22 The Take Over of America

America is in the process of being taken over by political policies and agendas that are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This takeover is being accomplished by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, with the assistance of Modern Big Business, and most especially by Big Tech and Modern Journalism.

This takeover is succeeding because of an appalling lack of proper history and civics education in our Public Education system. Due to this lack of education, the American people have little basis for understanding the societal impacts of these political policies and agendas. Therefore, they often fall prey to ideas that sound good but have negative repercussions on our society.

This takeover was foreshadowed by some that wished to change, or preserve, America. The former is encapsulated in the words of Alexander Trachtenberg, speaking at the National Convention of Communist Parties in Madison Square Garden in 1994:

“When we get ready to take the United States we will not take you under the label of Communism, we will not take you under the label of Socialism. . .We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under Liberalism, under Progressivism, under Democracy. But take it we will.”

If he had known about the future of Big Tech, he might have added, “We will take it under the banner of ‘community standards’, ‘disinformation and misinformation’, and the ‘hate speech’ algorithms of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.”

It is, therefore, imperative that Elon Musk is successful in his takeover of Twitter, as he is a stalwart supporter of Free Speech. If he can instill Free Speech on Twitter, he may institute a course correction in the other Big Tech firms. A course correction that is desperately needed to preserve America as a society dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms.

04/17/22 The Slippery Slope

When discussing a politician’s stance on a thorny political issue, many people in opposition to the politician’s stance respond that they can ‘work with that’ or they are ‘a realist’ to seek accommodation or bipartisanship for a solution to the thorny political issue. Rarely, however, is the politician interested in accommodation or bipartisanship when it comes to thorny political issues, but only interested in advancing their political agenda.

There is also the problem that thorny political issues often involve a conflict of the nature of our society, and this invokes issues and concerns of Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. To seek accommodation or bipartisanship often involves infringements on our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights or allows for the continuation or expansion of infringements to our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights.

The classic example of this in modern American history is when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in Birmingham, AL, for leading a peaceful civil disobedience to protest against the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights violations of blacks that were common in the South (and other parts of America) at the time. Many clergy and civil leaders encouraged him to be a ‘realist’ and ‘work with’ them and others to change the laws. Dr. King wrote a letter from his jail cell, "Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’", which eloquently explained that you could not work with or be a realist when there are violations of Natural, Human, or Civil Rights. As I have Chirp on "02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws" and "10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience", you must oppose unjust laws, and you should oppose unjust lawgivers; otherwise, you will end up living in an unjust society.

Therefore, you cannot be ‘a realist’ or ‘work with that’ when faced with infringements to our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights. A small degree of being a realist or working with, in a series of small realisms and small working with, adds up to a large degree of injustice and despotism to enforce the injustice. Consequently, the problem with being ‘a realist’ or ‘work with that’ is that it allows for the slippery slope of a glide down into despotism.

04/15/22 The Supreme Court's Reluctance

My new Article, “The Supreme Court's Reluctance”, examines the issues that the Supreme Court appears to be reluctant to address forthrightly. But these issues must be fully and forthrightly resolved to assure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans in the future. These issues are:

• Restrictions on Religious Freedoms
• The Recognition of Natural Rights
• Non-Governmental Restrictions on Natural Rights

A hornet’s nest of legal implications and ramifications for the Supreme Court to address, but a hornet’s nest for society if they cannot, or will not, address this hornet’s nest. Without the preservation of our Natural Rights, our society will degenerate into subservience and subjugation to the will of governmental and non-governmental actors. Liberty and Freedom will become abstract concepts that are virtually nonexistent in the functioning of our society. This will rip our society apart, and as President Abraham Lincoln said - ‘the last best hope of earth’ will be relegated to the dustbin of history. The Supreme Court, and all of us, should also remember the words of wisdom from the Irish-born British statesman, economist, and philosopher - Edmund Burke:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
 - Edmund Burke

04/13/22 Presumption of Innocence

The Presumption of Innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In the United States, the Presumption of Innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases, prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. In America, the Presumption of Innocence is inherent in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

In the court of public opinion, the Presumption of Innocence is not required, but it is advisable, especially when a person is accused of criminal activities. For if you do not presume innocence, then the accused stands to lose their reputation, employment, wealth, future opportunities, and even family and friends based on unproven allegations or assertions. These items should not be lightly taken from anyone without proof of wrongdoing, and the proof being credible, verifiable, and substantiated. The question is, then, how can you judge an allegation or assertion of wrongdoing? The answer to this question is in another article I have written: “Who are you to Judge?”. I would encourage you to review this article at your convenience.

Today, in America, we have forgotten or have chosen to ignore this Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion. From a political zeal to discredit an opponent to disparage someone with whom we disagree, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven is commonplace. For someone to have to prove their innocence is equivalent to Proving a Negative (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. Today, in the court of public opinion, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven has led to an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society".

From the very beginning (and even before) the administration of President Trump, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media made little pretense of the Presumption of Innocence of President Trump and his associates. Statements by these parties and the pervasive news coverage were practically all based on rumors and innuendo that presumed guilt. To not keep an open mind and the Presumption of Innocence is an attempt to preordain an outcome, an outcome not based on evidence. It also led these parties to make many outrageous statements that were proved by the Special Prosecutor to be false in the Russian Collusion Delusion. Indeed, all of their presumptions of guilt of President Trump and his associates have been shown to be false presumptions of guilt.

Today, the Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion is being played out in the case of Hunter Biden’s activities in the last two decades. Assertions and allegations of pay to play, influence peddling, money laundering, and other criminal actions are being asserted against President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as President Biden’s brothers Frank and James. Per an article in ProPublica, the brothers have become rich because of the ties to then-Senator, then Vice-President, and now President Biden. The veracity of these allegations is high, as we have had the public disclosure of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a computer repair shop. He is entitled to a Presumption of Innocence in any judicial proceeding that he may face, and the public should be concerned about his actions but be wary of any allegations and assertions of guilt in the court of public opinion.

My concern is that the very people that are asserting Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion are the very people who asserted the guilt of President Trump and his associates in the court of public opinion. Their protestations of Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence bespeak of rank hypocrisy and political gamesmanship considering their assertions of their Presumption of Guilt of President Trump and his associates in the recent past. Such people are not to be trusted nor heeded, as they are not interested in the concepts of the Presumption of Innocence but are only interested in politics. And when it comes to the questions of a person’s Presumption of Innocence, politics should never be a consideration.

04/11/22 A Successful President

The President of the United States has a job description. It appears in the specific document that creates the position: the Constitution of the United States. A successful president does the following things well:

• “Faithfully execute[s] the Office … and … preserve[s], protect[s] and defend[s] the Constitution of the United States.”
• Signs and vetoes bills, using responsible criteria.
• Serves as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
• Enforces the laws faithfully.
• Grants pardons in appropriate circumstances.
• With some congressional input, conducts foreign policy. (This is a summary of several more specific responsibilities.)
• Appoints and commissions judges and other officers, sometimes subject to Senate approval and sometimes not.
• Nominates a qualified person to fill the vice presidency when there is a vacancy.
• Provides Congress with information on the condition of the country (“State of the Union”).
• Recommends to Congress “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
• In certain circumstances, convenes and adjourns Congress.

Many historians and other organizations like to rank the presidents, but rarely are these rankings based upon the above criteria. A recent article by Rob Natelson, “Using the Constitution to Re-Rank the Presidents”, explains the above criteria and why ranking by historians and other organizations is often improper as:

“I think there are two primary reasons for these anomalies. First, when you limit participation to academics, your pool is overwhelmingly left-of-center. Liberals and leftists value big government, and naturally they like presidents who share their agenda. Second, these surveys generally ask respondents to judge presidents by criteria that do not measure presidential performance well. They include questions such as whether a president ‘made a difference’ (changed America in some way), ‘achieved his goals,’ or had ‘vision’.”

These historians and the other organizations' criteria for ranking a president are very subjective and open to debate. However, if you conduct such a debate based on improper criteria, you will obtain improper rankings. Therefore, such rankings are often misleading, and are ideological preferences and not objectively based on the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of a President. As they are often done for political considerations and to sway popular political opinion, Americans should, therefore, disregard these rankings. Americans should also insist that the President abide by their job description and not exceed their duties and responsibilities.

04/09/22 A Diplomatic Solution

In my chirp on, “03/25/22 In War There is No Substitute for Victory”, I discuss the importance of victory in a war. As the war in Ukraine rages on and atrocities against civilians mount, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the war and restore peace in Ukraine. For those that are desirous of peace, I would remind you of the words of a great philosopher:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

Will a peaceful diplomatic solution in Ukraine restore justice to Ukraine or instill a benevolent state of mind in Russia toward Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to turn over to an international court those persons accused of war crimes in Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to the Ukrainian people who suffered death, injury, and property losses as a result of Russia’s actions during the war? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to Ukraine for the destruction of its infrastructure and economy by its Crime of Aggression in the invasion of Ukraine?

I do not expect any of the above to happen in a peaceful diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian war. Therefore, there will be no ‘peaceful’ solution in Ukraine, only a cessation of hostilities without justice in Ukraine. There will also be no deterrence against Russia engaging in future Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine or any other country that they may target in the future. It also sends a signal to other countries that they could engage in Crimes of Aggression and suffer little consequences if they negotiate a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the wars that they started.

A peaceful diplomatic solution is only possible before an aggressive war begins. Any peaceful diplomatic solution to end any war requires “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice" to restore peace. Otherwise, it is just a cessation of hostilities that can lead to future hostilities and not ‘Peace’.

04/07/22 Who is Responsible for Inflation?

A new San Francisco Federal Reserve study that was recently released contains a chart showing that U.S. inflation spiked in early 2021 at almost precisely the same moment that President Biden signed his massive $1.9 trillion Covid 'relief' bill. This study, titled 'Why Is U.S. Inflation Higher than in Other Countries?' compares inflation in the U.S. to inflation in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries across a group of OECD economies: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In this study, they relied on core inflation measures, which removed the more volatile food and energy prices that would have increased inflation for both the U.S. and OECD countries in the study. A simple chart that they produced is worth a thousand words:

President Biden started out denying inflation was long-term or claiming it only impacted wealthy persons, then swiveled to blaming unforeseeable circumstances and greedy companies for the rise in inflation, and he has now pivoted to blaming Putin and the War in Ukraine for inflation. If the latter was the case, why has inflation spiked before the War in Ukraine, and why is inflation spiking greater in the United States than in the OECD countries. Although the War in Ukraine has contributed to inflation, the main cause of inflation is the economic policies of the Biden administration. Don’t be fooled by President Biden’s rhetoric, but carefully consider the inflationary impacts of the economic policies of the Biden administration.

04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Governments and  Modern Big Business have begun to create Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments within their agencies or companies. A common description of DEI is that Diversity is the characteristics and experiences, both seen and unseen, that make everyone unique. Equity is ensuring fair access to opportunities and resources, while taking into consideration individual’s barriers or privileges and eliminating systemic barriers and privileges. While Inclusion is the actions taken to understand, embrace, and leverage the unique identities and perspectives of all individuals so that all feel welcomed, valued, and supported.

While the ideals of DEI are lofty, they are often very difficult to quantify in legal terms. And while the objective of DEI is noble, the means to achieve them are often ignoble. DEI has often been implemented by the suppression of workplace speech within their agencies or companies and the limiting of employment and promotions to those persons who fit within their DEI criteria. As always, whenever you are trying to determine what is best, the question is:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

As most DEI departments are staffed by "Progressives/Leftists", their decisions have a conscience or unconscious bias on which persons fit within their DEI criteria and the policies that will be utilized to implement DEI. And much of the time, they decide in a manner that excludes conservative or traditional values. As I have often stated - ‘Progressives believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct.’ They, therefore, believe that their DEI policies are what is best for their agencies or companies and need not consider ideas and opinions of differing viewpoints.

The real-world reality of DEI is that it is ERC (Exclusion, Redistribution, and Conformity), for the following reasons.

Diversity is Exclusion of non-diverse persons, as it is a form of discrimination where all people that are not considered diverse can be discriminated against.

Equity is Redistribution of Resources as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services, which is the goal of Equity.

Inclusion is Conformity of Thought, as they have no interest in any person being included who would differ from their thoughts.

A better acronym than DEI is DIE, for that is what will happen to American society if DEI is normalized in America. It is also true that many of the DEI policies and decisions are an assault on the Free Speech and other Natural Rights of their workforce. In this, they are in violation of our Constitutional Rights and Non-Discriminatory Civil Rights laws, rules, and regulations. As such, DEI has promoted more harm than good in American society and needs to be discontinued in all arenas in which it exists.

04/03/22 The Wars You Don’t Fight

No one should want to fight a war, especially a war that has no direct impact on yourself. However, not only should you consider fighting a war that has a direct impact, but you should also consider fighting a war that does not have a direct impact but may eventually engulf yourself. Such indirect wars are hard to justify but even harder to determine if there could be a justification.

I have extracted my previous Chirps on this topic into a new Article, “The Wars You Don’t Fight” that examines the issue of to fight, or to not fight, a war. As I further chirp on the this topic I will be adding these Chirps to this article as to have a running commentary on this subject of war and peace.

04/01/22 Three Years of Chirping

It was three years ago today that I began to write and post my Chirps and Article about subjects that have piqued my interest or curiosity, or my ire or indignation, as well as the knowledge that I have gained. In this, I have tried to impart the knowledge and wisdom that I have garnered over several decades. I have endeavored to do this in an intelligent manner, utilizing "Rationality" and "Reasoning" rather than in an emotional outburst.

I hope that you have enjoyed or at least considered my thoughts on the topics that I have written about.  In many of my Chirps and Articles, I have written about my personal experiences that have led me to my thoughts and conclusions. I have related the stories of my life to many of my personal friends, and several of these friends have commented that I should write down these stories. I, therefore, have decided to do so. However, the effort required to do so will be time-consuming and detract from my writing Chirps and Articles. Therefore, over the next several months, you may notice a decrease in my Chirps and Articles as I expend more of my time writing the stories of my life.

Most people have many stories from their lives that have impacted their lives, both positively and negatively. The important question is if they have learned the lessons of these stories and utilized these lessons to improve their lives. These stories from my life will be both about the good and bad and the bitter and the sweet occurrences in my life. Many will be about the bad and bitter, as I have often said:

"True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!"
  - Mark Dawson

Many people utilize the stories from their lives as an excuse for their current situation in life rather than a reason to improve their lives. I, however, for as long as I can remember, have examined the stories of my life and the lessons learned from these stories to try to improve myself and become a better person, as I have written in my Article "Be the Better Person". Many of these stories have led me to my Pearls of Wisdom, which I have utilized to guide my life. I hope that these stories will help you in examining your own life, learn the lessons from your own stories, and become a better person based on your own life experiences.

When I have finished writing these ‘Stories from an Examined Life’, I shall create a webpage of these stories. I do this in the hopes that these stories will help you understand why I believe what I believe, why I have reached the conclusions in my Chirps and Articles, and how I obtained my wisdom by examining and learning the lessons from these stories of my life.

03/31/22 A Global Economy

For the last several decades, we have seen businesspersons and politicians tote the advantages of a ‘Global Economy’. Businesspersons for the purposes of expanding their market share in foreign countries and for the purpose of manufacturing goods at a lower cost in countries with lower labor costs. Politicians for the purpose of bringing less free countries into the political sphere in the hopes that they would become freer and more supportive of America. The question is, have they achieved these goals after several decades of a Global Economy?

It is true that businesses have increased their markets overseas and lowered the cost of their goods to Americans. But this has also come at a cost that has impacted America. Manufacturing and its supporting jobs have been lost in America and impacted the well-being of many Americans. America has become more dependent on other countries for the essential goods needed in our society. Businesses have also become more dependent on foreign governments to sustain their growth. This dependence has made them more concerned with foreign government's interests and more subservient to foreign government's policies and dictates than with America and American interests. These multi-national businesses have become international in their standpoints and less concerned about what is best for America and Americans. Indeed, they will work to the detriment of America if it is to the benefit or advantage of the foreign countries with which they have economic ties.

Many foreign countries have been exploitive of their labor force and, in some cases, have utilized forced labor in manufacturing. The workplace conditions for their labor force are often appalling, and the health and safety of the labor force are often neglected. The prosperity of their labor force often comes at the expense of the humane, health, and safety of the individual workers, and often their Liberties and Freedoms.

It is not true that these foreign countries have become much freer and more supportive of America. They have often become more aggressive in opposition to America as they have gained more economic influence upon America. And they have not reformed themselves to become more supportive of the Liberties and Freedoms of their citizens. Whatever gains their citizens have made in Liberty and Freedom have been for the purposes of making them more economically competitive and not for the benefit of political Freedom and Liberty. The Natural Rights of their citizens are not recognized and often suppressed to retain and maintain the power of their illegitimate and corrupt governments. For no government can be legitimate if, as the Declaration of Independent states:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is past time that we ended this type of Global Economy and replaced it with a Global Economy of Liberty and Freedom-loving countries (Favored Nations) versus those countries not supportive of Liberty and Freedom (Unfavored Nations). Imports and exports between Favored Nations would have few restrictions, while Imports and exports to and from Unfavored Nations would be highly regulated. Until these Unfavored Nations reform themselves to be supportive of the Liberties and Freedoms of their citizens, they should have minimal economic ties to Favored Nations. Multi-national businesses need to have standpoints in support of Liberties and Freedoms, and American multi-national businesses should not be allowed to operate to the detriment of America and Americans. And it is not up to the multi-national businesses in America to determine what is or is not to the detriment of America and Americans, as that is the prerogative of Congress under the regulation of foreign commerce in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

While it may be difficult to bring about this change to the Global Economy, it is imperative that we do so if we wish to save our Liberties and Freedoms while maintaining a healthy and robust economy in America. This would, of course, require legislators who recognize this situation and be supportive of a change to the Global Economy and not tied to the special interests of multi-national businesses. This would also require that Americans vote for legislators who support this change and turn out of office those legislators who do not support this change. It is, therefore, up to the American voters to bring about this change to the Global Economy.

03/29/22 Prosecutorial Discretion

In my Chirp on "06/16/21 Crime and Punishment", I discuss the impacts on society when a prosecutor uses their discretion to not prosecute criminals. There is also the flip side of Prosecutorial Discretion, in which a prosecutor will use their discretion to target someone or some entity for prosecution. In doing so, many prosecutors have forgotten that they investigate and prosecute criminal acts and not persons. In their attempts to demonize persons or politicians that they disagree with, they often initiate prosecutorial investigations and indictments against such persons without much veracity of the evidence of criminal actions, as I have written in my Article, “The Criminalization of Politics”. This, too, has a deleterious effect on society as well as being a corruption of governmental powers.

Robert Jackson, in 1940 when he was attorney general before going on to be a Supreme Court justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, famously warned about this abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion:

“There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn’t blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints. If the Department of Justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, ten times its present staff will be inadequate. We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning. What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm — in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

True in 1940 and even more true today. Today, we have seen a slew of prosecutorial actions against Republican politicians and Conservative voices in an effort to silence them. Not only is this improper Prosecutorial Discretion, but it is an assault on the Freedom of Speech. In some cases, these prosecutorial actions are targeting independent conservative journalists, which is an assault on the Freedom of the Press. Such prosecutors are not dedicated to "Justice and The Rule of Law in America“ but are motivated by partisan political interests. Such prosecutors need to be stopped and removed from office to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

As Americans, we have the Constitutional right to have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. As such, a prosecutor is required to remain silent about all investigatory matters until an indictment is presented. Prior to an indictment, a prosecutor can submit court filings that can assert facts of the case for judicial review as to the appropriateness of the investigation, but they can make no assertion of guilt in these court filings. If no indictment is presented, or no trial is to be convened, then the prosecutor can make no assertion nor innuendo of guilt, as the accused person would have no ability to defend themselves in a court of law. A prosecutor is never allowed to assert guilt until after a person has been found guilty in a court of law, but they may assert that they intended to prove guilt once an indictment is presented and during a trial. Consequently, before a guilty verdict or after a not guilty verdict, they may not make an assertion or innuendo of guilt as that would violate a person’s presumption of innocence. Any prosecutor who does make an assertion or innuendo of guilt without a guilty verdict is liable to have their Law License revoked as it would be a violation of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. Therefore, prosecutors who speak of the guilt of a person without a guilty verdict are anathema to justice, and they need to be removed from office and have their law license revoked to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

These improper prosecutorial actions have become much too common today, and they are often done for purely political reasons. Politics of this sort has no place in a judicial setting, and politics of this sort often leads to bitter acrimony between the parties involved and, indeed, within society itself. Such bitter acrimony divides the country and makes it much more difficult to achieve consensus as to the solutions required to address the issues and concerns of Americans. These improper prosecutorial actions must end forthwith to retain the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

03/27/22 The Wrong Person

The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the upcoming vacant seat on the Supreme Court is going worse than I expected as I Chirped on “03/08/22 Supreme Court Justices”.

Her reply to the request by a Senator for her to provide a definition of a woman was that she could not, as she was not a biologist, was absurd. I may not be a veterinarian, but if you hand me a dog or cat, I could tell if they are a male or a female. You can tell the differences by a visual examination of their genitals, and you don’t need to be a scientist to know the difference between a male and a females’ genitals. You do need to be a scientist to understand the physiological differences between a man and a woman, but this is not germane to knowing the general difference between a man and a woman.

The definition of a woman is a female, adult, human. Female as they have an XX chromosome type, an adult as their brain has matured to its full capacity, and human as they have a homo-sapiens DNA structure. Any other definition is an absurdity brought forth through the use of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" and arrived at by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning".

One wonders what she would reply if asked for the definition of a black person as the race of a person is difficult to determine, as the scientific definition of race provides little help as there is broad consensus across the biological sciences that race is a social construct, not an accurate representation of human genetic variation. What would be her definition of the social construct that determines race as there is no help from science on a racial definition?

As America has many laws that prohibit discrimination, especially racial and sexual discrimination, a Supreme Court Justice would need an unambiguous definition of sex or race to rule on matters of sexual and racial discrimination. As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has no concept of what these terms actually mean, she would be unable to rule on these matters properly.

Her explanation of the lenient sentencing she has melted out for child pornographers reveals that she believes that a judge can ignore the law if they believe that the law is improper, outdated, or just plain wrong-headed.

In America, the Separation of Powers in the Constitution is a foundation for preserving our Liberties and Freedoms. Each branch of government, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches, have their own duties, responsibilities, and powers. Each branch of government is equal to the other branches, and each branch may not assume nor delegate the duties, responsibilities, and powers of the other branches.

In her explanation of her reasoning for the lenient sentencing that she imposed, she evidenced that she believes that a Judge can assume the powers of the Legislative branch in the adoption, modification, and annulment of laws. She also evidenced that she believes that the Judicial branch is supreme over the Legislative and Executive branches. Thus, she is destroying the balance of powers in our Constitution, and, in this, she also believes that Judges are Lords, as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

When any judge does so, we should be reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton:

"Liberty can have nothing to fear' from judges who apply the law, but liberty 'has everything to fear' if judges try to legislate."
 - Alexander Hamilton

Many claim that we should not oppose her nomination as it does not change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is not meant to be ideologically balanced, as the Supreme Court is for the purpose of enforcing the Constitution and assuring Equal Justice for All. Ideological balance is not required on the Supreme Court, but a commitment to the principles of and the integrity to the Constitution and the Rule of Law is required, as their first and second Oath of Office states.

The First Oath that all elected persons and officers of the government take is:

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The Second Oath is for appointees to the Supreme Court Bench, and they must not only take the first oath listed above but a second oath. This second oath is called The Judicial Oath, and it is mandatory for Supreme Court Justices to begin serving. The text of this Second Oath is:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Any Senator who would vote to confirm any judicial nominee based on ‘balance’ or any other reasons other than their Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament, and their commitment to the principles of, and integrity to, the Constitution and the Rule of Law are demonstrating their own lack of commitment and integrity to our Constitution and to the Rule of Law.

In Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s answers to her questioning, she is either being disingenuous, deceptive, deceitful, or being deeply political. This attitude demonstrates that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers or authorities. I believe that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's history, and her current answers to questions at her hearing, have shown that her Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament are not suitable for being a Supreme Court Justice, nor even for being a Judge. The Senate should, therefore, not confirm her nomination as a Supreme Court Justice and President Biden should find someone who is committed to our Constitutional principles and to the Rule of Law to fill this seat on the Supreme Court.

03/25/22 In War There is No Substitute for Victory

With the war in Ukraine raging on, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to the conflict. But in war, there is no substitute for victory, as anything short of victory in the face of unprovoked aggression or evil conduct will often reward the aggressor or evildoer.

We did not pursue a peaceful diplomatic solution to the aggression and evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WW II, but we did pursue and achieve victory to end their actions and punish the aggressors and evildoers. Since WW II, we have often entered into conflicts without the goal of victory but for the purposes of obtaining a peaceful diplomatic solution to conflicts. This has led to more aggression and evil-doing throughout the world, as aggressors and evildoers know that they will suffer little or no punishments for their actions.

This cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions has led to more conflict and more death and injuries to civilians, and to the destruction of infrastructure, buildings, property, and the economies in the affected countries. A cycle that cannot be broken by peaceful diplomatic solutions but requires victory and the punishment of the aggressors and evildoers. Then, and only with victory and punishment can we hope to end this cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions.

03/23/22 Absurdities and Atrocities

Absurdities and Atrocities are like Love and Marriage, first comes one, then comes the other. There are many citations about absurdities and atrocities (often misattributed to Voltaire). Some of the most famous are:

(1) Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

(2) People will continue to commit atrocities if they continue to believe absurdities.

(3) If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.

These citations can be translated into some truisms about justice:

Translation 01: Certainly, whoever has the right to make you absurd has the right to make you unjust.

Translation 02: Truly, whoever can make you look absurd can make you act unjustly.

Translation 03: Certainly, anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

In America, we have become the Theatre of the Absurd in which logical thought and argument give way to irrational and illogical speech and to the ultimate deeds—atrocities being committed. The absurdities, as I have written in my "Terminology" webpage, of Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and a Herd Mentality. Absurdities promulgated by  Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders for the purposes of obtaining or retaining power and to fundamentally transform America. The current atrocities being committed from these absurdities are the violations of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

If we continue down this path, we will begin to commit greater atrocities. These greater atrocities will be in the form of physical constraints and physical harm to Americans, and potentially greater atrocities against other peoples of the world. We, therefore, must reject these absurdities and think rationality to assure Liberty and Freedom for all.

03/21/22 They Owe Us an Apology

In a new article by Dr. Marty Makary, “10 biggest COVID mistakes – Americans deserve an apology from the medical experts”, he discusses the biggest mistake our “experts’ made about the COVID-19 virus. Sometimes mistakes are made through ignorance, sometimes by willful blindness, and sometimes by pernicious considerations. Unfortunately, many of the mistakes about COVID-19 were made by willful blindness or pernicious considerations. This was especially true after science determined the physical characteristics and transmission method (size and aerosol) of the COVID-19 virus, which was determined early on in the Pandemic.

His list of the biggest mistakes that our experts made is:

• Surface transmission
• No hospital visitation
• Closing schools
• Ignoring natural immunity
• Downplaying therapeutics
• Not spacing out vaccine doses
• Cloth masks
• Promising no vaccines mandates, then breaking it
• Downplaying a lab leak
• Boosters for young people

Unfortunately, these mistakes have had, and are continuing to have, far-reaching negative consequences in both the short and long term that have impacted all Americans and the nature of our society. The negative impacts on our economy for all persons, businesses, and the government itself will be felt for the next decade or more. Society has fractured along the lines of those that embraced the edicts of masking, social distancing, and vaccinations and those that disputed the need for such edicts. Government at all levels took greater control over the lives of Americans, and in this control, they often violated the Natural and Constitutional Rights of Americans. Americans have become more dependent upon government largess in providing for their needs and, therefore, less self-reliant. This government largess has plunged America into deeper and deeper debt, which burdens future generations of Americans to pay off this debt.  Americans have also become more inured to government intervention in our lives, and many political leaders feel emboldened to continue this government intrusion into our lives.

It is for these mistakes that the American people deserve a forthright and candid apology from those persons who perpetrated these mistakes. Public health officials and politicians alike need to apologize for these mistakes and to make amends, if possible, for these mistakes.

Given the facts and truths that are now surfacing about these mistakes, many Americans have become disillusioned about science, scientists, and government and government officials who perpetrated these mistakes. The cynicism and distrust of government have grown to the point where many Americans no longer believe that government has the best interest of Americans at heart but are only interested in the best interests of politicians, bureaucrats, and businesses that support and benefit from the government actions in this pandemic.

This disillusionment, cynicism, and distrust, along with the erosion of our Natural and Constitutional Rights, has led to a lessening of our "American Ideals and Ideas". A lessening that may end the American experiment, as President Lincoln so nobly said in his Gettysburg Address; “… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

03/20/22 Yiddish Proverbs

Yiddish Proverbs are famous for their wit and wisdom. Yiddish is known as being its own rich linguistic culture. Born out of Hebrew and German, Yiddish has many unique words and phrases that are used to give humor, sarcasm, and joy at the moment as needed. My new article lists some of my favorite Yiddish Proverbs. And for those that are wondering, I am not Yiddish; I am a Pasty Protestant.

03/19/22 Believing Your Own Propaganda

In a recent article by Derek Hunter, “What If Everyone Is Wrong About The Russian Military?” he posits the idea that the Russians believe in an easy victory in Ukraine because they believed that they had a powerful military. They also believed that the Ukrainian people would welcome them and provide little opposition to their invasion. Events in the war in Ukraine have proven that the Russian military is not as powerful as they presupposed, and that the Ukrainian people were defiant of their invasion, and as a result, the invasion of Ukraine has not gone as well or swiftly as they had presumed. This appears to be a case of the disastrous consequences of believing your own propaganda.

The disastrous consequence of believing your own propaganda not only applies to war decisions but to all decision-making. When you believe your own propaganda, you will institute bad policies and have bad priorities for your policies, as I have Chirped on, "03/18/22 Bad Policies and Bad Priorities".

This appears to be the case for President Biden and his administration, as well as Democrat Party Leaders, as they appear to be fully committed to the policy goals and political agendas based on believing their own propaganda. Their explanations and justification for their policy goals and political agendas reveal that they believe that their propaganda has the correct facts and proper truths behind them. As President Biden and his administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and they, therefore, believe that their goals and agenda are what is best for all Americans. They will brook no dissent of their facts and truths, and they are dismissive and derisive to anyone who would disagree with their propaganda.

As a result of their believing their own propaganda, they are making decisions that are having disastrous consequences to America. From the International stage of the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the Iran Deal, and to the threats of Russia and China, to the National stage to the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to climate change positions, and to a host of other issues they are making decisions based on the belief of their own propaganda.

The lesson for all Americans is that "Rationality" and "Reasoning" should be utilized in the formation of all policy goals, and that you should never believe your own propaganda. For to believe in your own propaganda is to invite disastrous consequences upon America, which is the reason that we are in the mess that we are in.

03/18/22 Bad Policies and Bad Priorities

In my previous Chirp on “03/12/22 Who’s to Blame?” I asked and answered this question. However, it is not only a question of ‘Who?’ but of ‘What?’ is to blame for the mess we are in. The answer to this question is policies and priorities. Bad policies carry real-life implications, but the problem extends beyond just policies - it goes to priorities as well.

Policies that are not well thought out, nor examined for intended and unintended consequences, are not policies but wish lists. Wish lists that are more wishful thinking than sensible plans to achieve a goal. They often do not consider human nature or human reactions to change. And they just as often do not take into account the economic impact of the policy. Such policies are bad policies, and if they are implemented, they will result in bad consequences for the American people.

Is it important or not? Does it need to be done right away, or can it be postponed to a later time? Is it a big-ticket or a small ticket item? The rational answer to these questions is what determines the priorities of your actions. Rationality is the critical component to determine priorities, and a rationality as I have written in my articles on "Rationality" and "Reasoning". When policy prioritization is determined by political considerations, rationality is often secondary in importance in determining priorities. When you focus on lesser important policies or prioritize lesser important policies to the level of importance that is unwarranted, you distract attention from what is truly important. The lack of policy prioritization, or the improper prioritization of policies, also contribute to the mess we are in.

Policies that will have a major impact on society, or change the nature of our society, must be considered crucial and must be carefully and rationally examined. They must also be considered as to their constitutionality, and they must have the majority support of Americans. As such, the American people must be to be fully informed as to the correct facts and proper truths that led to the policy and the impacts on the implementation of the policy. Sloganeering, excessive rhetoric, stoking fear, demonization of the opposition, incorrect facts and improper truths, and other nefarious tactics are no substitute for honesty with the American people. Those that would engage in such nefarious tactics have no wish to inform the American public but only to impose what they believe is best on the American public.

Bad Policies and Bad Priorities seem to be the de rigueur for the Biden Administration and Democrat Party leaders. Their attempts to ‘Fundamentally Transform’ and ‘Build Back Better’ America rests upon bad policies and bad priorities and seem to be entirely motivated by political considerations rather than rationality. These bad policies and bad priorities also seem to result in more government control over the lives of Americans and more power for Democrat Party leaders. These bad policies and bad priorities also do not take into account Constitutional limits on government actions. As such, opposition to these Bad Policies and Bad Priorities is the duty and responsibility for all Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans.

03/17/22 Who’s to Blame?

From the International stage of the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the Iran Deal, and to the threats of Russia and China, to the National stage to the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues the question arises as to ‘Who’s is to blame?’

Many would lay the blame to the feet of President Biden and his administration. If so, the question is who is to blame for President Biden and his administration? The answer to this question is multi-faceted, but there is a hierarchical order of blame:

1. Democrat Party Leaders
2. Modern Journalism
3. Democrat Party Voters

The machinations of Democrat Party Leaders in assuring the nomination of Joe Biden and their covering-up his deficiencies (both mentally and physically), as well as his modest intellectual competence, ineptitude, and lack of leadership, have led us to where we are.

Modern Journalism support for the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders policies and positions, and their assistance in this Democrat Party Leaders cover-up have also led us to where we are. If Modern Journalism had taken its responsibilities seriously, they would have reported all the facts and uncovered the truths about Joe Biden. This would have allowed the voters to make an informed decision about their vote, and the machinations of the Democrat Party Leaders would have been ineffective.

Ultimately, however, it is those people who voted for Joe Biden that must bear the major responsibility for the mess we are in. For without Democrat voters electing President Biden, the machinations of Democrat Party Leaders and Modern Journalism would be for naught. When Democrat voters look at themselves in the mirror and ask, ‘What Happened?’ the answer is that you happened! You did not do your due diligence when examining candidate Biden and his policies. You did not ask the question of what the intended and unintended consequences of his policies would be. You allowed "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to cloud your judgment. You feel hook, line, and sinker for the machinations of Democrat Party Leaders and Modern Journalism. You are to blame for what happened.

And no equivocations or excuses are acceptable for your vote, as you had the responsibility as a voter to examine and think about your vote before casting your vote. As a result of your vote, we now have the mess we are in, and we will have to endure this mess for the next three years. However, we can blunt but not eradicate this mess by assuring the Democrat Party loses control of both chambers of Congress in the next election.

03/16/22 Twisting and Turning the Constitution's Intent

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders like to claim that our Constitution as a Living, Breathing Document. By this, they mean that they can interpret it in the manner they want and change the meaning of words to suit their ends.

Much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.'
'the question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'the question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ' that's all.'

To this, I respond how would you like to play any game in which the rules are living and breathing so that in the middle of the game you or another player can change the rules to give yourself or them an advantage? The Constitution is a rule book in how we organize our society. The Constitution is a living document in that it lives through the process of amending, based upon the will of the people and/or the states, and this change should only be through the Constitutional Amendment process. Until that happens, we should all be playing with the same rulebook (i.e. The Constitution). It is a breathing document in that it has ambiguity built in so that each generation can interpret it as their needs arise (but it should only do so within the bounds of what the founder's purpose was in creating that ambiguity). However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of the American people. Fidelity to the Constitution, as it is intended, is the only way we can assure Peace and Justice in our society.

Torturous logic and reasoning the bend the Constitution to suit your goals is not acceptable. The Constitution was written for the Government of the People, By the People, and For the People, and should be understandable by the people. Anything else takes the Constitution away from the people impinges upon our Liberties and Freedoms.

03/15/22 A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document

Many say that our Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document, and by this, they mean that they can interpret it in the manner they want and change the meaning of words to suit their ends. The Constitution is a living document in that it lives through the process of amending, based upon the will of the people and/or the States, and this change should only be through the Constitutional Amendment process. It is a breathing document in that it has ambiguity built-in so that each generation can interpret it as their needs arise (but it should only do so within the bounds of what the founder's purpose was in creating that ambiguity). However, under no circumstances should the Constitution be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon the Liberties and Freedoms of the American people. Fidelity to the Constitution, as it is intended, is the only way we can assure Liberty and Freedom in our society, or has been said:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

My new Article, “A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document” is an examination of the concept of the Constitution being a Compact and a Contract as opposed to it being a Living, Breathing Document.

03/14/22 Constitutional Terms and Words

There have been fewer Chips for the last two weeks as I have been working on my new Article, “Constitutional Terms and Words”. This article defines the more frequent terms and words in the Constitution, many of which I have utilized in my Articles and Chirps. Many of these terms and words were familiar to the people of the time but are less familiar today. Also, over time some of these terms and words' meanings have changed, as is common in the English language. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of these terms and words in the context of the times in which they were written.

03/13/22 Lessons from the Schoolyard

My Elementary School education had some problems that I outlined in the section “My Own Public School Education” of my Article on "Public Education". However, I did learn three important lessons from the schoolyard of my Elementary School. They are:

Bullies

When I was eleven or twelve years old, at the beginning of the school year, a classmate who was obnoxious the previous year began to bully my other classmates and me. As he had grown larger and more intimidating over the summer recess, we were all fearful of him and did nothing to stop the bullying. One day on the schoolyard field, he began to bully me, and my anger grew larger than my fear. At that point, I began fisticuffs with him, and I soon knocked him to the ground and began to beat on him. Being the coward that he really was, he whimpered and cried and begged me to stop the beating. I quickly did so, but as I arose, I warned him that he continued to bully my classmates and me; he would have to answer to me. He shook his head in assent and never bullied anyone thereafter. My classmates, at this point, placed me on their shoulders and carried me off the field, cheering me all the way off the field.

Finaglers and Cheaters

That same year in the early spring, we had a double recess that we decided to have a sandlot baseball game. I was chosen to be the captain of one of the teams, while another of my classmates was chosen to be the captain of the other team. The captain of the other team was someone who believed that as his father was a successful small businessman, he was deserving of more consideration and leeway than was merited by his own accomplishments. He often finagled or cheated to obtain what he wanted, and he and I intensely disliked each other. As I was the captain of my team, I decided that I would be the pitcher, while he decided that he would be the first batter for his team. One of our male teachers was enlisted to be the Umpire for the game. As I stood to make the first pitch, I noticed that he would position his upper body in the strike zone, something that I had noticed him doing in several previous baseball games we had played. Not wanting to hit him with a pitch, I threw the ball outside the strike zone, to which he stood up before the pitch arrived and the Umpire called a ball. This happened all three times I pitched to him, and as a result, I ended up walking him to first base. When the half-inning ended, I complained to the Umpire about his actions, to which the Umpire explained that any pitch in the strike zone was a strike regardless of what else happened.

When I next faced him as a pitcher, I steadied myself and threw a hard fastball down the center of the strike zone. He was unable to straighten up before the baseball hit him, and he was struck on the left forearm. He yelled at me and started trotting to first base when the Umpire yelled ‘Strike One’. He pivoted to the Umpire and declared that he was a hit batsman and deserving of first base, whereupon the Umpire informed him that the ball was in the strike zone and therefore it was a strike and nothing else mattered. He returned to the batting box and proceeded to employ the same tactic, whereupon I threw another fastball in the strike zone that hit him again, and the Umpire yelled ‘Strike Two’. My next pitch was a fastball into the strike zone, but he did not utilize his cheating tactic, and the Umpire yelled ‘Strike Three – You’re Out’. At the end of the half-inning, I informed all my classmates of his cheating tactic, and he was never able to employ that tactic again. I should also note that these pitches may have been the finest I have ever pitched, and they are certainly the most satisfying pitches I ever threw.

Worthwhile Punishments

Another time, at about the same age, my best friend and I got into an argument on the schoolyard in which we began pushing and shoving each other. The recess teacher intervened and sent us to sit on the step of the adjacent cafeteria entrance. When we sat down, still upset with each other, we discovered that there were several pornographic magazines on the step. Where they came from and how they got there, we do not know, but we began to leaf through them and gawk at the pictures of naked women in various states of undress. All anger was put aside as we were thoroughly enjoying our ‘punishment’. When the teacher returned at the end of the recess, she discovered us enjoying these magazines, much to her consternation. My friend and I agreed that we hoped that we would receive many such punishments in the future.

The lessons that I learned from these incidents is that fear of bullies must be overcome, and bullies must be confronted, oftentimes by physical force, for the bullying to end. That throwing a strike in the strike zone that hits someone is not your problem but the other persons' problem, and that finaglers and cheatwes must be neutralized. And that if someone is to be punished, make sure that the punishment is not more rewarding than the actions that led to the punishment. Whether they be individuals, groups of persons, organizations, businesses, or governments, you cannot allow Bullies or Finaglers and Cheats to get their way, and you must assure that any punishments for their actions are worthwhile punishments.

This is analogous to the current situation of Putin and Ukraine, as Putin is a bully, a finagler, and a cheat whose punishment is more rewarding than his actions. We must stand up to Putin, or the Bullies, Finaglers, and Cheats will control the world, and without worthwhile punishments, they have no incentive to change their actions.

03/12/22 To Be or Not to Be

Not making a decision is making a decision to do nothing. Equivocating on a decision is a decision to do nothing or to not do enough to make a difference. Equivocation in the face of evil allows for evil to triumph. Putin’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate that he is evil, and he needs to be confronted so as to not allow evil to triumph. When we equivocate, I am reminded of the words of the Bard:

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them …”
 - Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

A new article by Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, (ret.),  “Putin wants Ukraine and if we do nothing to stop him our world will never be the same”, he states:

“Doing nothing about the desecration of Ukraine by an international thug is still doing something, much like turning away as someone beats up your neighbor down the street. True, if I rush to rescue him there are risks to me.  However, it’s not enough to just yell harsh words at the criminal and then declare, "I’ve done everything possible." That’s cowardice and inhuman, not a reflection of the America many of us know and love.

There is a better way but it takes moxie that President Joe Biden probably lacks. Real leaders take risks and stand-up against bullies like Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

What’s not in question is that our president has the support of some Americans who insist that the Ukraine war isn’t our fight. I hear their angry protests, "Let the Europeans fight Putin. It’s not worth American blood and treasure.

The same sort of comments were heard before each of the First and Second World Wars by the same kind of people, the elites. They smugly tell us to ignore live television images of more than a million frightened Ukrainians fleeing war, bleeding in the streets and smoke billowing from apartment buildings and hospitals bombed by Putin’s forces.”

He ends his article by asking the question and commenting:

“Will Biden accept the risk and come to the rescue of Ukraine’s civilian population? Unlikely, much as the neighbor and the armchair non-intervention critics, Biden will look away as Ukraine gets beaten up.

And, that my friends, will contribute to the world losing more trust in America and our own sense of morality plummets further.”

Equivocation did not work out well for the Prince of Denmark, nor will it work out well for the people of America and the world in confronting Putin and the actions of Russia in Ukraine. We should all be concerned that any actions we take in Ukraine may lead to a wider war and possible nuclear confrontation. But inaction could also lead us to this possibility. A decision to do nothing in the face of threats of a wider war and possible usage of nuclear weapons by Putin opens us up to doing nothing in the face of threats of a wider war or use of nuclear weapons by other powers that have well-armed forces or nuclear weapons. A world in which well-armed or nuclear bullies would dictate our actions, and a world in which evil could triumph.

03/10/22 The Writ of Habeas Corpus

In Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, a Writ of Habeas Corpus was established that could be issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint (i.e., the Latin term for you should have the body). Since the time of the Magna Carta, a Writ of Habeas Corpus was considered essential to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all persons. The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why you are being held. If there is no good or compelling reason for your being held, then you must be set free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of The Writ of Habeas Corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

As such, what is happening to those arrested for the January 6th, 2020 ‘Insurrection’ is a violation of their Writ of Habeas Corpus right, as it appears that they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor has there been any compelling reason for them being held. The government response that there is a need for secrecy for security purposes does not outweigh the violation of their Writ of Habeas Corpus rights. Nor should secrecy be utilized to shroud these proceedings from public view, as anything that the government does judicially that is shrouded in secrecy is suspect, as it may involve the violation of the rights of Americans. As Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas has said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” We need sunlight on these judicial proceedings against the ‘Insurgents’ to assure that their rights as Americans are not being violated in these proceedings.

Their Fifth Amendment rights to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law are also being violated, as well as their Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial are also being violated along with other Sixth Amendment rights. Their Eight Amendment Right to no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted may have also been violated, given the reporting of the conditions in which they are being held. They are also not being permitted to be set free on reasonable bail while they are awaiting trial. Again, these actions by the government need to be laid bare to determine if the government is violating their rights.

While all these actions by the government may fall within the letter of the law, they certainly fall outside the spirit of the law. Without the spirit of the law, the letter of the law rings hollow, and the letter of the law can be manipulated for nefarious purposes. All Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans need to be alarmed and appalled by these government actions, and all Americans should demand that these actions be open to the disinfectant of sunshine.

It is past time that all Constitutional Scholars dedicated to our Liberties and Freedoms, our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and The Rule of Law arise and condemn these actions by the Government. And these condemnations must not only be of written and verbal commentaries but of a peaceable public protest at the doors of the Supreme Court. Such a peaceable public protest would inform and alert the American public as to the violation of our rights by the government. For them to not publicly protest is for them to remain paper chasers rather than spirited defenders of American rights and privileges, and it would also demonstrate that they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

03/08/22 Supreme Court Justices

With the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the upcoming vacant seat on the Supreme Court, we begin the dog and pony show in which the nominee is praised for their education, legal skills, and empathy for the American people. And none of these matters for a Supreme Court Justice. The only thing that matters is their dedication to the Constitution, along with the wisdom to apply their allegiance to the Constitution.

The hearings on her nomination will be a series of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", to justify her appointment to the Supreme Court. Very few questions or discussions will be about her Judicial Philosophy as I have outlined in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution", Judicial Temperament in the application of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", as well as a commitment to our "American Ideals and Ideas”. Yet these are the only things that really matter for a Supreme Court Justice, for without these things, our Constitution is but a hollow document with many lofty words and phrases.

It is the duty and responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice to assure that the Constitution is more than lofty words and phrases but a governing document to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. The purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is not to achieve a political or social justice goal but to assure that all governmental actions are within the framework of the Constitution. Any nominee that would become a Supreme Court Justice must put aside politics and social justice and only rule based upon the framework of the Constitution.

I believe that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's past history has not shown that her Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament are suitable for being a Supreme Court Justice. We should, therefore, be very wary of appointing her as a Supreme Court Justice.

03/06/22 Democrat and Republican Voters

Many people vote for their party regardless of the candidates’ policies and positions or what the party stands for. Often, as a result, they vote for policies and positions that are not in their best interests nor the best interests of America. When a person votes this way, they are behaving as a lemming does when it marches over a cliff as part of the crowd.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Democrat Party has more lemmings than the Republican Party. The Democrat Party also has a different sort of lemming – an unthoughtful lemming. The Republican Party has more of a thoughtful type of lemming. The difference between these two types of lemmings is that the unthoughtful lemming votes without concern to the candidates or parties’ policy and positions in both the primary and general election, while the thoughtful lemming votes in the primary for a candidate that they agree with their policies and position but then votes for the party candidate in the general election.

The unthoughtful lemmings are often driven by an unreasonable fear of the opposition by the negative sloganeering and excessive rhetoric of fear of the opposition promulgated by Democrat Party Leaders. The thoughtful lemming is often driven by the concern that the opposition policies and positions are wrong for America and do not represent our American Ideals and Ideas, and they rarely pay attention to the rhetoric of the Republican Party Leaders.

To both types of lemmings, I say stop being a lemming and become a responsible voter and examine and think about your vote before casting your vote in both the primary and general election. Ignore all rhetoric and sloganeering from both sides and vote responsibly. You should never vote out of fear but should always vote out of hope for a better future for yourself and America. Also, think about what is not only best for you but also what is best for America before you vote.

03/04/22 Forms of Governance

Various forms of governance of a society have been tried throughout human history. Most of them have contravened Natural Law and Natural Rights. Below is a short list and definition of these various forms of governance:

• Absolutism - The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
• Aristocratic & Aristocracy - Government by an aristocratic class; a state with such a government.
• Authoritarian & Authoritarianism - A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition, etc.).
• Autocracy & Autarchy - A political system governed by a group or a single individual.
• Democratic & Democracy - A political system ruled by the people through majority rule.
• Despotic & Despotism - Dominance through the threat of punishment and violence.
• Dictatorial & Dictatorialness - Expecting unquestioning obedience.
• Meritocracy - The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
• Monarch & Monarchy - An autocracy governed by a monarch (usually a King or Emperor) who usually inherits the authority.
• Oligarchy & Oligarchic - A political system governed by a few people.
• Ochlocracy - A political system in which a mob is the source of control; government by the masses.
• Serfdom - The state of a serf in which a person is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord.
• Tyranny & Tyrannic & Tyrannical - Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty.
• Republic & Republicanism - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

I very carefully utilize these words in my Articles and Chirps to distinguish between them.

03/02/22 Fly Eagles Fly

I have been a huge Philadelphia Eagles NFL Football team fan for over fifty years. As such, I have known many disappointments and some delights over these many decades. The Eagle winning Super Bowl LII over the New England Patriots, their winning the 1980 NFC Championship game against the Dallas Cowboys, the 2004 NFC Championship defeat of the Atlanta Falcons, and the Eagles 2018 NFC Championship winning game win over the Minnesota Vikings are some of my most memorable highlights. There are too many lowlights to mention in this Chirp, but these lowlights part of being an Eagles fan.

As a huge Eagles fan, I believe that I know what is best for the team future, as most fans of professional sports believe they know what is best for their team’s future. However, I am cognizant and humble enough to recognize that as a fan I do not know enough to make the best decisions for a team. I do, however, have an opinion, which is part to the fun of being a fan. Therefore, these are my opinions of what I believe is best for the Eagles team in the upcoming 2022 offseason:

Jalen Hurts needs another year as a starter to show if he is or isn't a starting Quarterback in the NFL. The 2021 season was essentially a rookie season for Hurts in which he showed much promise, but some deficiencies. If he can correct these deficiencies in the 2022 season, he can show he is a starting Quarterback in the NFL.

Jalen Reagor, J.J. Arcega-Whiteside, Derek Barnett, Ryan Kerrigan, and Steven Nelson cannot be on this football team next year. They have consistently hurt the Eagles, and their few and far between contributions do not outweigh the hurt that they inflict.

The top 2022 Free Agent signing for the Eagles should be a starting Wide Receiver. A receiving core that features DeVonte Smith, a Free Agent, Quez Watkins in the slot, and Greg Ward as a swing slot/outside receiver would make for a formidable receiving corp.

The lineup of Jordan Mailata, Landon Dickerson, Jason Kelce- Isaac Seumalo, Jack Driscoll, and Lane Johnson is a one very good Offensive-line. Therefore, the O-line should not be a priority until the later rounds in the 2022 Draft as the Eagles need significant improvement in their Defense. As the Eagles have always been at their best when they have a very good defense they must shore-up their Defense going forward.

The Eagles 2022 Draft needs are an Edge Rusher, Cornerback, Linebacker, and Safety. A defense heavy draft, but the Defense needs the most improvement for the Eagles to be a more competitive team. And my fervent hope is that the Eagles are a competitive team that is in the playoffs every year. A hope that cannot be realized unless they have a good defense. Given GM Howie Roseman’s predilection for wheeling and dealing draft picks, as well as their propensity for the offense in the upper rounds in the draft, I do not expect this to happen. But I believe that this should happen for the Eagles to be a more competitive team in the NFL. Since 2014 owner Jeffrey Lurie and General Manager Howie Roseman have been part of first-round draft decisions that have landed Marcus Smith, Nelson Agholor, Andre Dillard, Jalen Reagor, Derek Barnett, and Carson Wentz — all disappointments to one degree or another. This needs to change for the Eagles to become an annually competitive team. Let all Eagles fans hope that this change occurs with their three first round draft picks in the 2022 NFL Draft. If so, their is hope that the Eagles can once more become a dominant NFL team.

03/01/22 Give Peace A Chance

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
 - John Lennon lyrics from ‘Give Peace A Chance’

"Give Peace a Chance" is an anti-war song by John Lennon, written and released in July 1969, which became an anthem of the American anti-war movement during the 1970s. Peace is always desirable, but peace does not mean the absence of conflict, as the great philosopher has said:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

Peace, when confronted with evil, rarely has a chance, for evil does not recognize nor pay heed to peace. Evil must often be confronted by power and conflict for the true meaning of peace to prevail. Otherwise, evil may triumph to the detriment of true peace. And in this triumph, it often attempts to expand its evil and engulfs others in its despotism. The evildoers often attempt to justify their actions with lofty-sounding rhetoric and justifications for their evil, but it is nevertheless evil.

Natural Law and Natural Rights know no national boundaries, and all governments need to respect Natural Law and Natural Rights for them to be legitimate governments. Therefore, any such governments that do not respect Natural Law and Natural Rights are engaging in evil. Consequently, we must always confront this evil and extinguish its power. To not do so is as the great Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher has said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

As the great American General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is hell”, but sometimes you must go through hell to extinguish evil when the evil is greater than the hell of war. Today, we are faced with a choice between doing nothing or responding insufficiently or sufficiently to oppose evil, as the evil of Russia and China needs confrontation. The actions of Russia in Ukraine are the result of not confronting the evil of Vladimir Putin. Tomorrow, the actions of China in Taiwan and other countries by Xi Jinping will require confrontation. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are the faces of evil, but the governments of Russia and China are the sources of their evil. Russia and China need to be reformulated to eliminate evil, as evil is the basis of their governments. Any government or business that supports Russia or China is enabling evil, and such support needs to end for peace to prevail. Decades of support by governments and businesses in the hopes of reforming Russia and China have failed, and until a full reformulation of these governments happens, it will not be possible to give peace a chance.

02/28/22 The Importance of Data

All Studies and Statistics rely on data. The data must be as thorough and accurate as possible for the studies and statistics to be meaningful. In addition, the data and the methodology (i.e., Data Mining, Data Massaging, and Data Quality) utilized to analyze the data that goes into the studies and statistics must be made available to others to verify the veracity of the studies and statistics. This data and methodology release will allow others to discover possible mistakes the researchers made have made or to verify the veracity of the studies and statistics. For a researcher to withhold the data or the methodology is to automatically make the studies and statistics suspect, and it is considered fraud in academia when data or methodology is withheld.

However, there is simply no way that data alone can provide a genuine full picture of reality. There will always be holes. It will always be late. There will always be mistakes. There will always be uncertainties over causality. Moreover, all data represents a snapshot in time and can prove extremely misleading with changes over time. I have examined some of the other problems with data and methodology in my Article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”.

It has been recently discovered that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been collecting data on the COVID-19 Pandemic but has not released this data to the public. Data that is crucial to our understanding of the science behind the pandemic and our responses to this pandemic. This lack of the release of this data in unconscionable. In this they have perpetuated a fraud upon America and impacted the health and safety of all Americans, as well as the economic well being of America. They have thus done great damage to Americans, and they must be held accountable for this damage. I do not know if they can be legally criminal or civil liable for this damage, but at the very least all those involved in this cover-up must be fired forthwith from their government posts and not be hired for any academic or research organization position. Their actions and inactions in this matter are also worthy of the scorn of all Americans.

02/27/22 They Are Not Worried

A recent article by Victor Davis Hanson, Why is the Left Suddenly Worried About the End of Democracy? explains the bunkum about ‘the end of our democracy’ being uttered by so many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. He explains that it is not the end of our democracy that they are worried about, but the end of their power that concerns them. After reading this article you will understand what they really mean by the end of our democracy, and perhaps chuckle at this nonsense. Another article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, also looks at the motivations of those that utter about ‘the end of our democracy’ and the dire consequences of believing this nonsense.

02/26/22 (Bad) Actors

In June of 2021, I wrote the article. Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society, which is an examination of these qualities and their importance in American society. Given the trucker protest in Canada and various American governments' actions over the last two years, this article is even more apropos. The lack of these characteristics in our current political leadership is appalling and is responsible for many of the ills that beset America and Canada (along with many other democratic nations in the world). Today’s political leaders are driven by a lust for power, most especially amongst Democrat Party Leaders in America and Progressives/Leftists worldwide, and a desire to be rulers rather than leaders, as I examined in my article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They often justify these actions as doing what is best for the people. They often make decisions based on what is best for them and their supporters rather than what is best for all Americans. In this, they have forgotten, or did not know, the words of wisdom and caution of a great American:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

The best decision for Americans is best decided by each American, based on accurate and factual information rather than governmental decisions. However, this would require that they trust Americans to make the best decisions for themselves, a trust in Americans that our political leaders seem to lack. It also requires that Americans examine the facts and make responsible decisions. It also requires that Americans apply their Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue when making a decision regarding issues and concerns impacting all Americans.

Alas, many Americans do not have the background and education to understand these issues and concerns due to "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and the poor state of American public education, as I discussed in my article "Public Education". The solution is not to have government make these decisions but to educate the American public so that they can make better decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, our current society is not structured to achieve this goal as many (bad) actors would rather have a supine public that accedes to their decisions.

Amongst the leading bad actors are Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. We, therefore, need to reign in these bad actors and level the playing field to assure the American people have the knowledge to make good decisions. This leveling cannot be done by government regulation, as this would cause more problems than it would solve. The proper course of action is to allow those Americans that have been impacted by these bad actors to take legal actions against bad actors when they act badly. It would also require that we extensively reform our public education system to educate Americans as to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

We also need to reform the problems of "Modern Journalism". In their rush to be first in their reporting or for sensationalism to expand viewership and readership, they have forgotten the importance of accuracy and veracity in their reporting. The journalistic reports on the Russian Collusion Delusion, The Coronavirus Pandemic, Systemic Racism in America, and their defamation of Americans that do not kowtow to their viewpoints, along with other dubious actions by journalists and editors, have done great harm to the body politic. Freedom of the Press is essential to our American Ideals and Ideas, but this freedom should not allow for them to misinform or defame Americans. Freedom of the Press is not to be free to say or write anything without constraints. Again, government regulation is not the answer, but a healthy concern about legal lawsuits should give them concern and pause to reflect before they report.

Social Media also needs to be reformed to protect the Free Speech Rights of all Americans, as I have written in my article “Social Media and Free Speech”. Social Medial has taken it upon themselves to restrict what may be said on their sites or for them to label posts or opinions as false, or mis- dis- and mal-information. This restricts the Free Speech rights of Americans and makes social media the arbiters of truth, the truth being something that nobody can objectively determine. These Social Media decisions and actions are based solely on their discretion, with little recourse for the users so impacted. There is also an alarming trend of social media engaging in these decisions and actions against political thought with which they disagree. Opening them up to legal lawsuits is an answer, but again, government regulation is not the answer. However, a healthy concern about legal lawsuits should give them concern to pause and reflect before they engage in these actions.

As I have written in my Chirp on, “02/08/22 Comity in the Workplace”, Modern Big Business is becoming a bad actor. They seem to believe that you must give up your natural rights as a condition of employment, rather than tempering your natural rights while in your workplace to achieve the common business goals of the workplace. Modern Big Business also believes that they have the right to set social policy through social activism rather than follow social policy as delineated by law as I have Chirped on, “02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)”, and my Article “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. This social activism spending by Modern Big Business needs to cease as it is not the proper function of companies in our society, as well as being immoral, as explained in my OPM article. Companies need to focus on their products and services to meet their customers’ needs and not spend monies to meet a social goal. Social goals are the responsibility of the government and the American people and not businesses.

These lawsuits would require extensive changes to slander and libel laws to open lawsuits against the bad actors’ actions. No person or entity should be free to make slanderous or libelous statements against another, nor to make false or unsubstantiated allegations against another person, nor to cause reputational harm to another person or organization without being subject to lawsuits. And nobody should reserve the right to determine what the truth is. All these bad actors should remember that "With great power comes great responsibility", and they should all act responsibly.

02/25/22 Approval of Despotism

A new poll of Americans from The Trafalgar Group surveyed 1080 likely general election voters from February 18-20, 2022, with a margin of error of 3%. This poll occurred after Trudeau brought federal, provincial, and local law enforcement into Ottawa to forcibly clear out hundreds of protesters and dozens of vehicles from Parliament Hill and surrounding areas.

Democrats overwhelmingly favored Trudeau’s response with 65% approval to 17% disapproval. Republican responses were weighted even more heavily against Trudeau, however, with 87% of likely GOP voters disapproving to just 8% approving. Respondents who said they did not belong to either one of the two main parties cut against Trudeau’s crackdown with 74% disapproving versus 21% approving.

Aside from Democrats, the only other demographic areas identified in the poll that cut in Trudeau’s favor are the ages 65 and older category and among blacks and Hispanics. Every other demographic – men, women, Asian, white, younger age groups – disapproved of Trudeau’s handling of the protesters.

The largest difference in approval versus disapproval took place among 25 to 34-year-olds. In that age group, 100% of respondents disapproved of Trudeau’s tactics.

As I Chirped on, “02/24/22 Sliding into Despotism”, Americans have become more inured to despotism, but this poll reveals the extent and to which groups of Americans are accepting of despotism. And it is shocking! It appears that Democrats, blacks, and Hispanics are more accepting of despotism - which are the core groups of Democrat voters. The only good news is that young people disapprove of Trudeau’s tactics. However, the question is if this disapproval by young people is motivated by their understanding of our American Ideals and Ideas or their rebellious nature? I suspect the answer is the latter, but I hope that in large part, it is the former.

This does not bode well for America if Democrat Party Leaders retain power, and they pander to their core constituency. It also does not speak well of our public education system that has not educated these groups on our core American values and, indeed, may have miseducated these groups. It also does not speak well of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media who have perpetuated despotic ideals and ideas. These bad actors are laying the groundwork for more despotism in America, as my next Chirp illuminates.

This perpetuation of despotism needs to end if we are to retain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Otherwise, we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of governmental authority. The hubris of a government that believes that they can rule a free people is astounding, as only a subjugated or subservient people can be ruled. To not resist these despotic actions and ideas is to submit to despotism and the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms.

02/24/22 Sliding into Despotism

Life, Liberty, and Property are the Natural Rights of all persons. As such, a person has the right to defend themselves, their families, and their society against encroachment to their Natural Rights. Whether these encroachments are from other persons, organizations, or governments, a person has the Natural Right of defense. We often delegate the protection of Natural Rights to the government to assure justice, but justice requires just laws to assure justice. Justice also requires that all just laws be enforced equality for justice to reign supreme. However:

“Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal.”
 - Frederic Bastiat - "The Law"

When this occurs, then the government is no longer just and a protector of our Natural Rights. Such governments must utilize fear and intimidation to prevent a person from defending themselves, their family, and society against the encroachments to their Natural Rights. To accomplish this, a government must become despotic to achieve and maintain its powers. In an article, Despotism is all around us: the warnings of Montesquieu by Vickie B Sullivan, a Cornelia M Jackson professor of political science at Tufts University in Massachusetts, she writes:

“Montesquieu, the 18th-century French philosopher who brought the term ‘despotism’ into our political vocabulary, would not be surprised at the disjunction between the putative liberty of our society and the experience many have as the victims of irresponsible power within it. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), he shows that despotism is an ever-present danger and a persistent threat to human flourishing everywhere and always. Even those fortunate to live outside the borders of a despotic government can still be victimised by despotic practices. In response, Montesquieu teaches that the unmasking of despotism must remain a central endeavour in social and political life.”

Alas, America is becoming a despotic country. When the government attempts to control firearms and prosecutes those that utilize firearms to protect their Natural Rights, they are engaging in despotic actions. When a government selectively allows one mob to riot and destroy personal property, as well as injure or kill others without prosecution while furiously prosecuting other groups (i.e., The 2020 riots that swept across America vs. the January 6th, 2021, Capitol riots), they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government issues mandates that are beyond temporary to meet an emergency without legislative approval, they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government utilizes its powers to denigrate and persecute those people who disagree with their actions, as I have Chirped on “02/23/22 The New McCarthyism”, they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government passively allows criminal actions to occur on our streets and does not prosecute the offenders, and indeed, frees them to continue their criminal actions, they are engaging in despotic actions and inactions. When government officials are behaving as if there were ‘rules for thee but not for me’, they are behaving as despots are wont to do.

When such a government engages in these despotic actions, they have forfeited the right to claim they are the protectors of the Natural Rights of their citizens. Unfortunately, this is what the government in America has been doing for the last several years. A despotism that is being conducted by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. As such, our government has become despotic. This situation is analogous to the pre-Revolutionary War period in American history when the English government in the American Colonies became despotic, which resulted in our Declaration of Independence. And this government despotism is not limited to America but can be seen in many European nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These nations were once the proud defenders of Liberty and Freedom and are now sliding into despotism along with America.

This despotism needs to end if we are to retain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Otherwise, we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of governmental authority. The hubris of a government that believes that they can rule a free people is astounding, as only a subjugated or subservient people can be ruled. To not resist these despotic actions and inactions is to submit to despotism and the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms. If such resistance requires a rebellion, then it is a moral rebellion as expressed in The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

02/23/22 The New McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism. The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. After the mid-1950s, McCarthyism began to decline, mainly due to Joseph McCarthy's gradual loss of public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false and sustained opposition from the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren on human rights grounds. The Warren Court made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several McCarthyist laws and directives and helped bring an end to McCarthyism.

We should all remember McCarthyism and its lessons. For if we do not, then:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 - George Santayana

Alas, we are repeating McCarthyism in today’s society, but a McCarthyism of the left against the right in America. The words and deeds of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and the ideas of Political Correctness, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and Identity Politics are manifestations of McCarthyism against the right.

It is as wrong today as it was then, and it needs to stop now. Unfortunately, the Progressives/Leftist and Democrat Party Leaders have little in their arsenal to offer Americans other than McCarthyism. This is just another reason that they should be turned out of power until they reform themselves.

02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential

Free Speech is essential to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, for free speech staves off the encroachments of would-be despots, dictators, and tyrants. However, today in America and the rest of the free world, free speech is under assault under the guise of limiting hate speech, politically incorrect speech, views that are deemed harmful or threatening, mis- dis- or mal-information, and a variety of other excuses.

This unprecedented assault is being undertaken by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. It utilizes the tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and a Herd Mentality to restrict free speech. We are living in one of the most extreme anti-free speech periods in our nation’s history. We have never seen the current coalition of political, media, business, and academic figures aligned to limit speech rights.

Jonathan Turley, the noted and respected professor at George Washington University Law School, has testified in a United States Congressional proceeding about the issues of free speech. His testimony on ‘Fanning The Flames: Disinformation and Extremism In The Media’ can be downloaded here. He also testified on ‘The Right of The People Peacefully To Assemble: Protecting Speech By Stopping Anarchist Violence’, which can be downloaded here. These testimonies are some of the most erudite and intellectual defenses of free speech and the issues and concerns about free speech. He has also written many columns about free speech, which I have collected in my “Three Scholars Understanding and Defending the Constitution”. His other Free Speech articles can be viewed here.

Unfortunately, it is not only our Free Speech rights that are under assault but our other Natural and Constitutional Rights are under assault. But without Free Speech, it is not possible to defend these other Natural and Constitutional Rights. Therefore, we must begin to defend these other rights by insisting upon the Right to Free Speech. Those that would constrict our Free Speech would eventually constrict our other rights, and we have started to see these constrictions in America. We should also remember the words of warning from our first President:

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
 - George Washington

02/21/22 Just Doing Their Job

As we watch the spectacle of the Canadian police applying force against the protesting truckers, we have heard many of the police and their defenders proclaim that they are just doing their duty, as their job and business is to enforce the laws and follow orders from their superiors. However, their duty is not only to human law but to God’s law, as God’s law always supersedes human law, and God’s law requires resistance to unjust laws. For those atheists or agnostics that do not believe in God, the term ‘Natural Law’ can be substituted for the term ‘God’s law’. Whenever your actions are contrary to God’s law, you forge a link in a chain of guilt and shame that envelopes you, and these links and your chain will govern your future actions to your detriment. These links and your chain are also examined by God in his judgment upon you when you meet your maker. In this, I am reminded of a snippet of dialog from a famous novel:

As Scrooge is confronted by the ghost of Marley all enveloped in the links and chains of his misdeeds, he rationalized that he and Marley were just going about their business; “But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this rationalization to himself. “Business!” cried Marley’s Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
 - Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

Therefore, it is not enough of a rationalization of just doing your job, as we all have a responsibility to obey God’s law above our responsibility to obey human law, for human law can be just or unjust. As such, one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, and conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ We, therefore, must listen to the dictates of our conscience before we take actions that may contravene God’s law. We all must ask if our actions and other persons' actions are in disobedience to God’s law, and if so, we all have the moral responsibility to not act upon these unjust human laws and to oppose those that would disobey God’s law. To not do so is to allow for injustice to reign supreme, which allows for despotism and tyranny to reign supreme.

We should also remember that history has taught us that when someone relies on just following the law or obeying the orders of superiors, it often leads to inhumanities, atrocities, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. These acts were perpetrated by persons who were just doing their jobs and obeying superiors' orders and often done through ignorance, incuriosity, or willful blindness as to the impacts of their actions. Rather than following the dictates of their conscience, they allowed themselves to be pawns of despots and tyrants. This is no valid reason or excuse for these actions as these actions are inexcusable. However, the perpetrators can repent by working to oppose these unjust laws and depose these despots and tyrants.

We must all oppose these unjust laws and depose these despots and tyrants, for we should all remember that:

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
 - Benjamin Franklin

02/20/22 Our Bedrock and Foundation

Thought for today on our "American Ideals and Ideas":

“The bedrock of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Constitution. Anything that contravenes this bedrock or foundation is anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated.”
 - Mark Dawson

A group of Canadian clergy sent an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this week rebuking him for invoking the Emergencies Act to quell the Freedom Convoy and for other actions they described as "tyrannical". It would behoove all freedom-loving people to read this letter as this letter, along with Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, this letter explains the moral justification for civil disobedience against unjust laws as I have written in my Chirp on, “02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws”. Although this letter is longer than most of my Chirps, given its importance, I have decided to reproduce it in its entirety as follows:

“TO: the Prime Minister and Federal Government,

We are writing to you as representative pastors of Christian congregations from across the nation and as law-abiding citizens who respect the God-defined role of civil government and uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the highest law of our land, which recognizes the supremacy of God over all human legislation. For the past two years, we have sought to respectfully and peaceably make known to all levels of government our profound concern about the indefinite suspension of civil liberties, coercive mandates and perpetual state interference in the life, freedom and worship of the church – freedoms guaranteed by both our inherited Common Law tradition and Charter. We have also prayed earnestly for our governing authorities, met with them, written letters and petitions, peacefully gathered for protest with other concerned citizens and in some cases filed lawsuits. We have used every lawful means at our disposal to be heard and taken seriously. Yet at every turn, we have been largely ignored, brushed aside, insulted and even told we in no way represent Canadians.

In recent weeks, the hugely popular truckers convoy containing many Christians (including pastors), has captured the imagination not only of this nation but other nations around the world, laying bare that what we have expressed and argued for months is indeed representative of the concerns of millions of ordinary Canadians who value peace, personal responsibility and liberty. The Ottawa protest has presented your government with a wonderful opportunity to meet with and speak to ordinary Canadians lawfully and peaceably requiring the restoration of their constitutional rights. However, in response to their singing, praying, dancing, candy floss, bouncy castles, speeches about the constitution and outpourings of patriotic love for the country, your government has not only refused to meet with these citizens to hear their concerns, you have insulted, denigrated and lied about them, further dividing a hurting and broken nation.

As ambassadors of Christ, whilst we respect your office as a public servant and honour the limited role of civil authority as a ministry of public justice, we do not hesitate to fulfill our responsibility as servants of the living God by unapologetically reminding you that Jesus Christ is Lord and King and the ruler of the kings of the earth. He sets up kings and pulls down the mighty from their thrones and none can stay his hand. In the words of the same scriptures engraved on the Peace Tower in Ottawa and written into our very national Coat of Arms:

‘Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. (Ps. 2: 10-12)’

Mr. Trudeau, with great respect, you are neither the king nor the ruler of Canada. Both you and your colleagues are public servants sent for a short time to Parliament at our behest as citizens to govern under God in terms of the Canadian Charter and to seek a harmony of public legal interest. You do not grant people rights and responsibilities that are theirs as God’s image-bearers and a free people. Since you do not grant them, you have no authority to remove them.

Your government does not grant people the right to their bodily integrity, the right to work or earn a living, the right to decide for their children or to be with their families or dying loved ones, the right to gather to worship and obey God, the right to travel in their own land or enter and leave. Civil government exists to protect these pre-political and fundamental freedoms, not bestow and remove them as if it can function in the place of God .As such, we as Christian pastors condemn in the strongest possible terms your unprecedented invoking of the Emergency Powers Act (1988) with the intent of bringing unaccountable state power to bear on peaceful citizens – "men women and children" – who have been stripped of their fundamental freedoms for two years and who have in many cases lost everything as a result of your government's mandates. There is no national emergency and to invoke one to crush peaceful political dissent is a totalitarian act of repression displaying weakness not strength. These tyrannical actions are exposing this government and people to the judgment of God, and we are deeply concerned that you do not appreciate the significance of God’s wrath upon a rebellious and lawless nation.

We implore you to step back from the brink, restore the constitutional freedoms of the people, respect the God-given rights of our citizenry and above all to humble yourself and take a knee before Christ the King lest you perish in the way. We urge you to repent of the sins of pride, rebellion against God, and bearing false witness. You have not displayed a brotherly care and love for these honest hard-working people who have tried to peacefully bring their very serious concerns to your attention.

Our hope and prayer for you and your government is that you will lift the emergency measures, end these lawless mandates, and enact justice for a people who elected you to that purpose.

'For He shall have dominion from sea to sea (Ps. 72:8).'”

02/19/22 Limited Forcible Resistance

As I have Chirped on the January 6th, 2020 Capitol “Insurrection” many times at here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, this “insurrection” was anything but an insurrection. In an article by Rob Natelson, What the Jan. 6 Capitol Incursion Really Was, he examines the January 6th “Insurrection” in a historical context. He states that “The Capitol incursion was wrong, but it was not an “insurrection.” It was a very different kind of event with deep roots in our Anglo-American heritage.” He explains that these deep roots as:

“The late Pauline Maier was a distinguished historian of colonial and Revolutionary America. She identified an Anglo-American tradition of “limited forcible resistance.” Although different kinds of actions fit this description, they all have four characteristics:

• Limited forcible resistance is not scattershot, like the looting propagated by leftist demonstrators. It’s focused on the source of political grievance. It is, Maier wrote, “remarkably single-minded and discriminating … [T]argets [are] characteristically related to grievances.”
• When the resistance includes riots or other disorder, it may cause significant property damage, but results in very few casualties. Usually more casualties are inflicted on the protesters than by them.
• Participants include not merely the mobile vulgus (mob or rabble) but community leaders who see themselves as protecting the constitutional order.
• When participants engage in disorder they do so only because they perceive that all legal means of redress have been foreclosed.”

He then goes on to explain how the Capital incursion fits into the definition of a “limited forcible resistance.” One of his conclusions was, “All of that having been said, it’s wrongheaded to classify the Jan. 6 riot as an “insurrection” rather than what it was: limited forcible resistance undertaken by people convinced they had no other remedy.”

Many of the insurrections were of a limited forcible resistance mob, while some were just Wackadoodles. Any political leader who believes this was an insurrection is simply politically pandering, or they believe resistance to their authority is an insurrection. This posturing and belief are dangerous to the body politic, as it does not illuminate the concerns of these “insurrectionists” and is being used to demonize those Americans who have concerns about the 2020 election irregularities, thus pitting one group of Americans against another. To simply dismiss these concerns is to dismiss a large percentage of Americans who believe that their votes were compromised. This dismissive attitude further divides Americans and disenchants many Americans about the legitimacy of our government.

This disenchantment is one of the seeds of civil unrest, which can grow to civil disobedience and potentially civil war. Therefore, these concerns need to be investigated and addressed properly for all Americans to be satisfied as to the legitimacy of the 2020 elections. The House select committee on the January 6th, 2020, Capitol “Insurrection” is not doing this, and indeed, is furthering the divisions and disenchants in America. Indeed, this committee bears a resemblance to the House Un-American Activities Committee of the mid-twentieth century, and McCarthyism, which should never again happen in America.

Two other articles by Rob Natelson, Weren’t the Capitol Hill Protesters “Mostly Peaceful?” and The Undeniable Irregularity That May Have Cost Trump the Election, also examine this “Insurrection” and its causes.

02/18/22 The Abortion Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States is considering a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade from Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center. Having had all parties submit their written opinions and having heard all oral arguments, they are currently in internal deliberations as to the resolution of this lawsuit.

As I have Chirped on, "09/15/21 An Unresolved National Issue of Natural Rights", there is much to be weighed in this decision. This decision should be weighed with profoundness and expeditiously, and it should be decided and issued prior to the election cycle of 2022. This will give the American people time to consider this decision and weigh it in their decision as to whom they wish to vote. It is important that they do so before they cast their ballots to help settle this issue in the court of public opinion.

Therefore, I would implore the Supreme Court to issue this decision as soon as possible. I would also implore the Supreme Court to not base its decision on narrow legal grounds but to address the issue on the 9th Amendment Rights of both the mother and the unborn child, the core issue of abortion, as this would provide a sound foundation for its Abortion Decision.

02/17/22 Public Education Responsibilities

The American people have always believed in the importance of education, and schooling for children is part and parcel of our society. However, nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. This is because our Founders believed that this was a State and local governments issue that was delegated to them by the Tenth Amendment. This is the way it was until the 1960s when the Federal government became alarmed about the quality and the inequity of education across States and local jurisdictions, as well as the inequity of racial discrimination in schooling resources.

Despite increased federal involvement in the funding and regulations upon public education since the 1960s, the quality of Public Education has not improved much, and in some cases, it has become worse. My article on "Public Education" discusses many of the issues and concerns regarding public education in today’s America. Two other Articles of mine, "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "Indoctrination versus Education", also address the issues of public education in today’s America.

The core issue on Education is what is the role and responsibility of the Federal government in education and the proper ways and means to fund and manage education. Our educational approach in America is to fund educational systems rather than fund the parents or legal guardians in the education of their children. This, by nature, is a top-down approach to education that is rife with bureaucracy and political and judicial meddling in education, which I believe is the core of the problems with Public Education in America.

In 21st century America, we have also seen more "Activists and Activism" in Administrators and Teachers for the purposes of molding children, and less subject matter teaching for the purposes of educating our children. This is leading to parental discontent and the public funding of controversial ideas in the classroom, which are abhorrent as:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors in sinful and tyrannical."
 - Thomas Jefferson

Consequently, we must resolve the core issues on Education to reform education to produce knowledgeable and rational children that can become contributing members of our society as adults.

02/16/22 Government Punitive Damages

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages award. Sometimes punitive damages can be excessive and abused, such as when a jury wishes to punish an individual, company, or organization that they disfavor or they believe has deep pockets and can afford to pay the damages, but such cases are rare but are becoming more frequent in modern America. Punitive damages are subjective by their very nature. Since their purpose is to punish, as opposed to compensation, opinions on how to accomplish this will vary widely among jurors. Regardless, research into punitive damages has revealed some common principles. The wealth of the defendant is positively correlated with large punitive damage awards, jurors either downplay or ignore jury instructions regarding punitive damages determinations, and jurors tend to punish defendants who have conducted a cost-benefit analysis and proceeded regardless of the damages inflicted.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) sharply limits punitive damages from being awarded against the Federal government. This means that damages that are intended to punish the wrongdoer are not allowed. Instead, only compensatory damages can be awarded in an FTCA case.

Given that the 21st century has seen a sharp increase of governmental actions against individuals, companies, or organizations, many times infringing on their Constitutional Rights or going beyond the bounds of the scope of their duties and responsibilities, this FTCA limitations precludes suing for punitive damages to deter these actions by the government. We have also seen law enforcement and regulators enforce or not enforce laws and regulations based upon "Adjective Justice", "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", and "Wokeness", as well as institute legal actions based on a political agenda rather than wrongdoing. This FTCA limitation precludes using punitive damages to ameliorate these government actions or inactions, and this is a core issue of the proper means and ways of restraining governmental overreach.

I believe that this is wrong and that if punitive damages can be utilized to punish an individual, company, or organization for deterring future inappropriate actions, they should be available to deter future improper government actions that inflict damages upon individuals, companies, or organizations. The punitive damages awarded when such improper governmental actions are so determined must be large enough to deter the government from future improper actions. Given the deep pockets of the government, these punitive damages awards must be very large and directed at the agencies that instituted the improper actions (such as reducing their budgets by the amount of the punitive damages).

Until this happens, we will continue to see more improper governmental actions that damage individuals, companies, or organizations that are harmful to society at large and are often an infringement on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

02/15/22 Governmental Consent Decrees

A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refers to such a type of settlement in the United States. The plaintiff and the defendant ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties. It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, or consent judgment. Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation. There are many advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree, as outlined in the Wikipedia section on ‘Effects’ of a Consent Decree.

The core issue is the scope of the consent decree. Does a consent decree require Congressional approval if its scope falls outside of the delegated powers of the Executive or Judicial branches of government? Many consent decrees require actions by the government and the other parties to the consent decree that seem to be the prerogatives of Congress to be legitimate under the Constitution.

As important and as useful as the tool as consent decrees are, they can also be abused in the hands of governmental bureaucrats. They are often utilized to advance a government policy not instituted by Congress, most often when an activist group sues the Federal government. Many times, governmental regulatory agencies utilize a consent decree to advance their own agenda outside the bounds assigned to them by Congress. And many times, Congress takes no action and the Executive Officers approve of these consent decrees, as they can hide behind the contentious policies of consent decrees rather than directly vote upon or implement these policies. And when this occurs, the result is often more Federal powers over the people of America without their consent. Sometimes these consent decrees fund activists’ groups as part of the financial settlement of the consent decree, which often begets more lawsuits and consent decrees.

Much of these types of consent decree abuses have occurred in the 21st century, as the Obama Administration discovered them as a means to implement policies not authorized by Congress, along with the issuance of Executive Orders as I have Chirp on, "07/28/19 Executive Orders". Although the Trump Administration utilized consent decrees, it did so in a less abusive manner. However, as the Biden Administration is staffed by Obama Administration personnel and wishes to advance these same types of policies not authorized by Congress, I expect we shall see more abusive consent decrees in the coming years. Therefore, we need to be wary of governmental consent decrees and carefully scrutinize them, as well as finding a means for Congressional approval of all governmental regulatory agencies’ consent decrees.

02/14/22 Income Redistribution

Much talk has been made about Income Redistribution for the purposes of equity, as I have defined in my "Terminology" webpage on "Equity and Equality". The core issue is by what right does the government have to take monies from some people who have earned it and give it to other persons who have not earned it. The government has the right to tax all persons to support the necessary and proper functions of government as defined in the Constitution, but is the redistribution of monies for the purposes of equity a proper function of government?

What has been forgotten is that income is earned and that it is only wealth that can be redistributed. This is why the IRS taxes earned income and has no category for taxing redistributed Income. The IRS does tax interest, dividends, and capital gains, but most of the monies utilized to obtain these incomes originated from earned income, which has already been taxed as earned income.

To distribute wealth requires that you take monies that someone has earned and give it to others that have not earned the income. This is often done in the name of “Social Justice” and for the reduction of poverty. Whenever someone or some group talks of income redistribution, you should recall the wisdom of the late great black economist Walter E. Williams who said:

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?
 - Walter E. Williams

“Here's Williams' roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“However, if we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“I believe in helping our fellow man in need. I believe that reaching into your own pockets to help someone in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need is despicable. And, or those of us who are Christians, I'm very sure that when God gave Moses the commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal, he did not mean ...unless you get a majority vote in Congress.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers.”
 - Walter E. Williams

Therefore, to redistribute income based on equity is a violation of our Natural and Constitutional rights and should never be permitted.

02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws

The framers of the Declaration of Independence fermented a rebellion in violation of English law. Consequently, as rebels, they were subject to arrest, prosecution, fines, imprisonment, and even hanging, as they had broken English law. In their words and deeds, they were criminals and were so labeled by the English government that ruled over the American colonies. The framers of the Declaration of Independence understood that laws could be just or unjust and that to oppose unjust laws was a moral duty of all persons. While their words and deeds were criminal under English law, they were just under Natural Law. They, therefore, defied unjust English law to oppose the despotism of the English government. Such is the case for all rebellions, in all places and times, that oppose unjust laws, as evidenced by the following quote:

“Rebellion is always an evil. It is always an offence against the law of a nation. It is not always a moral crime. […] What is hateful is not the rebellion, but the despotism which induces that rebellion. What is hateful are not the rebels, but the men who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; they are the men who, having the power to redress wrongs, refuse to listen to the petitioners who are sent to them; they are the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone.”
 - Prime Minister of Canada Wilfred Laurier, March 16, 1886

Therefore, it is not a crime to disobey an unjust law, and indeed, it is a moral responsibility to oppose an unjust law. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and spoke extensively about just and unjust laws, and social justice, in his  “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech as well as other speeches and letters, which I have extracted in my “Quotes of Martin Luther King Jr.” webpage. Martin Luther King Jr. considered this question in his powerful letter from a Birmingham Jail. As he so elegantly and persuasively stated in this letter, Civil Disobedience to an unjust law is obedience to God’s law and must take precedence over any man-made law and, indeed, it is one of God’s highest laws that all persons must observe. He was responding to fellow members of the clergy who opposed segregation but rejected civil disobedience, which involved breaking the law. His central point was that laws may be just or unjust. We have a duty to obey just laws and to oppose, even defy, unjust laws. We need to recognize that both kinds of laws exist and learn how to tell the difference. Of particular interest to this Chirp is the following quotes:

“One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

Therefore, the truckers’ protests in Canada, and the planned truckers’ protests in America, are the words and deeds of opposition to what they believe are unjust laws. The truckers’ issues and concerns need to be addressed by the government and not criminalized. Otherwise, it may morph into a Rebellion Against Unjust Laws. We should also that a motto suggested, but not used, for the Seal of the United States of America:

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
 - Benjamin Franklin

02/12/22 Death Taxes

By what right does the government have to confiscate the wealth of a person after they die? This is the core issue of inheritance taxes. They have the power to do so, but they do not have the right to do so. During the course of a person’s life, they accumulate wealth by hard work that generates earned income, earned income that is utilized for wise savings, and good investments, for which they pay interest, dividends, and capital gains taxes. They do this not only for themselves but for their families during and after their death. This motivates them to higher levels of achievement to accumulate more wealth, and this higher level of achievement benefits their customers and clients and, therefore, all of society. Or, as it has been said:

“Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers.”
 - Walter E. Williams

However, many of the inheritors of their wealth, such as farmers and small businesspersons, find it necessary to sell their benefactors real assets to pay the death tax. This deprives the heirs of a future source of earned income and the ability to continue to please their consumers. It may also demotivate the benefactors to higher levels of achievement as they determine the extra effort may not be worth the effort.

Given that the death tax is a tax upon the wealth that was already taxed during the accumulation of the wealth, and death taxes may deprive the beneficiaries of this wealth of utilizing these assets to generate more wealth, the death tax is immoral. Immoral as it is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, “You shan't covet your neighbor's house. You shan't covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” And coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor is the base motivation for the death tax.

Just because the government has the power to tax does not give them the right to tax anything they want to tax. When they do so, they are making the people the serfs of the government, and serfdom is not compatible with our American Ideals and Ideas.

02/11/22 Environmental Protection

I grew up in a time when America did not have environmental protection laws. I remember litter on our streets and highways, smog enveloping cities and towns, and polluted waterways throughout America. I have no wish to see any of this return to America, and I favored environmental protection laws and regulations to assure that this does not reoccur. However, it is not possible to have a pristine environment in a technologically advanced civilization. It is also not possible to protect all wildlife, wilderness, flora, and fauna. Humans are a consumer of natural resources to improve their lives and society, and waste is a byproduct of consumption. The mining, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of our consumption will always entail impacts upon our environment.

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was created to clean up our environment to the extent possible given technological and economic constraints. In this, they were quite successful on the major environmental problems we faced at the time of its creation. Yet, like all bureaucracies, they grew and extended their reach to more minute environmental concerns. In doing so, they impacted society in ways that were not anticipated nor economically constrained and often impacted the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans to conduct their lives as they see fit. This is the core issue that needs to be reexamined – what are the constraints of the EPA upon their involvement in the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans?

Many of the supporters of the EPA’s intervention do so in a religious-like fervor, as they wish to have a pristine environment with little or no impacts of humans upon the environment. This is not possible, nor desirable, as for humans to have a better life requires the consumption of natural resources and the impacts on the environment that it entails. They forget or do not wish to acknowledge that the advancement of humankind always entails impacts upon the environment. Their fervor would constrict or reduce the quality of life for humans to the detriment of all persons.

Congress, in the creation of environmental protection laws and its oversight of the EPA, as well as Presidents in the administration of the EPA laws and regulations, have not done well in consideration of the technological feasibility nor economic impacts of these laws and regulations. They have also not considered the impacts upon the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans to conduct their lives as they see fit. Too often, political considerations of appealing to environmental organizations and persons to garner support and votes have been their primary concern. We need to protect our environment for ourselves and future generations, but we also need to do so within technological and economic constraints, as well as not unduly impact the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans.

Consequently, we must be very careful in the powers we invest in the EPA and assure that they operate within the scope of their powers. Congress, Presidents, and the EPA should always keep in mind the technological constraints and economic impacts of their decisions, as well as their impacts upon the Liberty and Freedoms of all Americans when crafting and enforcing environmental laws and regulations.

02/10/22 Anti-Trust and Interstate Commerce

Since the end of the 19th century and during the 20th and 21st century, the Federal government has become more involved and regulatory in the affairs of American businesses. Much of the reasoning for this Federal government intervention in businesses was for the purposes of regulating monopolistic practices, consumer protections, social justice, and other activists’ purposes (as I have Chirped on. “10/25/21 Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists”). There is no doubt that the government should be involved in businesses for the protection of the health and safety of Americans and for protections against fraud on Americans. However, many of these laws and regulations have become so over-reaching, entangled, complex, burdensome, and sometimes at cross purposes as to make it very difficult for businesses to operate efficiently, not to mention increasing the overhead costs and for both businesses and the government to administer them. Consequently, the prices that businesses charge for their goods and services increase to cover these overhead costs.

As a result, our laws, rules, and regulations that impact business have become entangled and often contradictory to the point that businesses find it difficult to know and comply with all these laws, rules, and regulations without extensive legal counsel. It also makes it easier for anybody who feels aggrieved by a business action to bring a lawsuit and ensnared the business in legal actions that may take years to resolve, and which cost much monies in legal fees to resolve. There is also the unfortunate fact that many juries are sympathetic with the plaintiffs of these lawsuits and often decide on their feelings rather than the (often nebulous) law or regulation, and when they do so, they often award large compensations to the plaintiffs (see my Article, “Who Pays for Large Lawsuit Settlements?)”. All this impacts society, as businesses need to plan for government regulatory fines and possible legal actions, as well as plaintiff lawsuits, and consequently, they need to obtain additional insurance or set aside profits to pay for this. When this occurs, the business must increase the price of their goods or services to cover these costs, which ultimately the consumer pays for. And all of this is a drag on the economy of our society.

Then there is the core issue of the question of the Constitutionality of these laws and regulations? Congress and the Presidency have often utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the laws and regulations, and the Supreme Court has often tied themselves in legal knots to declare them Constitutional. This is especially true when they have regulated businesses for social justice and other activists’ purposes. Congresses, Presidents, and the Supreme Court have expanded the meaning of the words and terms in the Constitution to encompass more than what the founding fathers enumerated nor envisioned. In doing so, they are not utilizing the built-in minor ambiguities of the Constitution that are necessary to legislate and enforce laws for the common good but, indeed, are modifying the Constitution without passing a Constitutional Amendment that needs the will of the people to be enacted.

Monopolies, per se, are not intrinsically bad. It is the way they obtained or maintained their monopoly that they may be bad. If they use a strategy and tactics that constricts the free flow of the marketplace to achieve their goals, or they collude with other businesses to constrict the free flow of the marketplace, then they are bad. If the monopoly was obtained or is maintained by offering the consumer products and services that the consumer desires in a timely manner which the consumer can afford, then they are good.

The meaning of Interstate Commerce has also been so stretched by Congress, Presidencies, and Judicial interpretations of this term that practically all commerce can be considered Interstate Commerce. This has allowed the Federal government to intervene in the affairs of the business, with all the consequences that I mentioned in the second paragraph of this Chirp.

In addition, many of these laws, rules, and regulations were formulated and passed to fit businesses of the industrial age of America. With the progression into the information age in America, many of these laws, rules, and regulations are no longer applicable nor workable. It is, therefore, past time that we re-think these laws, rules, and regulations for our modern times, as well as bring them back into the constraints of the Constitution that preserves our Liberties and Freedom for all Americans and the businesses they own.

02/09/22 Health and Safety in the Workplace

With the recent Supreme Court decision that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not have the authority to institute vaccine mandates in the workplace, the question arises if OSHA has exceeded its authorities in other areas. No evidence exists that this is the case, but allegations of aggressive regulations and enforcement by OSHA have raised this question.

OSHA regulators need proper Congressional oversight to determine if they are exceeding their authority and if the OSHA regulations are reasonable and equitable. If this is the case, then the American people can be comfortable with OSHA not exceeding its duties and responsibilities. If OSHA does exceed its authorities, or it is inequitable in the formulation and enforcement of its regulations, then the American people should be very wary of OSHA.

However, accidents happen. American’s want and deserve a safe and healthy work environment, but it is not possible to have an accident-free workplace. Accidents will happen due to human error, happenstance, lack of foresight, carelessness, and negligence, especially in the manual labor businesses. American’s need to distinguish between the causes of accidents and take the appropriate responses to the accident. To expect an accident-free workplace is unrealistic and an impossible goal, as humans are fallible. When a workplace accident does occur, then workplace policies and procedures and perhaps OSHA regulations need to be updated, and possible legal actions should occur if the accident was preventable. Human error and happenstance are rarely preventable, while lack of foresight may sometimes be preventable. Carelessness and negligence, however, are almost always preventable. American’s must keep this in mind whenever they adjudge the cause of a workplace accident.

OSHA regulators need to keep the causes of accidents in mind and not be overaggressive in regulating businesses. Any overregulation has consequences to the economics of a business, as well as the freedoms of the owners to operate the business as they determine what is best for their business. It is this balance between government regulation, protections of workers' safety, and the freedom of operation of a business that is a core issue.

Compliance with OSHA regulations does have an economic impact on businesses. However, such economic impacts should be viewed as the cost of doing business in America if the OSHA regulations are formulated and enforced equitably across all businesses in America. The only question is do OSHA regulations put American businesses at a disadvantage with foreign competitors who do not have occupational safety and health regulations for their workers. When this occurs, it is the responsibility of Congress to examine this situation and to take actions to ameliorate this situation as appropriate. For Congress not to do so is the favor foreign businesses over American businesses. If foreign nations claim that this is an internal matter, then the response should be you may have that right, but if you exercise that right, then you have no right to participate in the American economy.

The safety and health of all workers is a moral and ethical concern that should be addressed by all businesses and governments worldwide. On balance, OSHA has been a positive force in America in protecting the safety and health of American workers, but the balance of government regulations, protections of workers' safety, and the freedom of operation of a business needs to be maintained. OSHA should also serve as a role model for other nations for the protection of the safety and health of their own workers.

02/08/22 Comity in the Workplace

The question for today’s Chirp is, do Constitutional Rights prevail outside of governmental actions and restrictions? Constitutional Rights such as:

• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom to peaceably assemble
• Freedom to petition the Government
• Freedom to keep and bear Arms

Many people claim that they do not apply except for government actions and restrictions, and they do not apply when they are a condition of employment. Therefore, the question is, do these Constitutional Rights trump employer prohibitions as a condition of employment? Imagine if an employer said that as a condition of employment, you could not be involved in outside employment activities of the following:

• Be a member of a religion, or practice religious actions, that they disapprove of,
• Speak out on any issue on which they disagree with you,
• Submit letters to the editor or make social posts on which they disagree with you,
• Be a member of an organization that they disapprove of,
• Be involved in any political actions on which they disapprove of,
• Own firearms.

And that if you did so, your employment would be terminated or that they would not employ your services. This also raises the question of what other Natural Rights may be prohibited by an employer. An employer has the right to restrict your speech and actions within the place of employment to assure comity in the workplace. However, they have no right to restrict your speech and actions that occur outside of your place of employment. To do so is to violate both your Natural and Constitutional Rights.

Much of this is done by an employer under the rhubarb of assuring that there is no ‘hostile work environment’ or ‘offensive co-workers’ in their workplace. However, to paraphrase a famous quote of Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is hostile or offensive, but who shall decide what is hostile or offensive.”

I believe that it is offensive to violate the Natural and Constitutional Rights of any person, and any workplace that does so is a hostile work environment. Should all employees who believe otherwise have their employment terminated? Many would respond that it is the employer that decides what is offensive or hostile. However, to solely leave this discretion to an employer is to make the employer a demigod and to institute despotism in the workplace. A Demagoguery and Despotism that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas".

An employer should only be interested in assuring comity in the workplace. Such comity is best assured by insisting upon polite and respectful speech in the workplace and no discussions of the outside political, social activism, or religious activities of its employees within the workplace. This is the best means to assure comity in the workplace and that there is no hostile work environment or offensive co-workers in their workplace.

02/07/22 The Core Issue

Many issues and concerns facing America are based on a core issue that is the foundation for the resolution of the issue or concern. Core issues that are not complex but are difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of the core issue. However, you cannot ignore the core issue, you cannot skirt the core issue, and you cannot compromise on a core issue because it is a core and thus a foundation for the resolution of the issue or concern.

The core issues are as I have written about in my Articles:

• A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution
• Entitlements
• Equity and Equality
• Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All
• Gun Control
• Judges, Not Lords
• Natural, Human, and Civil Rights
• The Abortion Question
• The Greater Good versus the Common Good
• To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders

Until you analyze and resolve the core issue, it is not possible to resolve the specific issue to any degree of satisfaction. And you cannot evade the core issue, for if you do so, you fall into the trap of:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

My next several Chirps are on topics that would appear to have little core issues. However, if you analyze the topic in more depth, you will discover a core issue staring back at you.

02/06/22 The Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was as revered and admired as George Washington was by his contemporaries. He was considered as one of the great and wise men of all history. As I am a Franklin-phile, in that I have read many books, magazines, and articles about Benjamin Franklin, I know much about his life and times. In reading about Benjamin Franklin, I have discovered many pearls of wisdom that I have tried to incorporate into my life. In my new Article, “The Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin”, I write about some of the most important things that I have read about and learned from the life of Benjamin Franklin:

• Franklin's Speech to the Constitutional Convention
• Franklin's Letter to Ezra Stiles
• Franklin’s Advice to Thomas Jefferson
• Benjamin Franklin on the Slave-Trade
• The Hutchinson Affair
• From George Washington: To B. Franklin
• Pearls of Franklin’s Wisdom

02/05/22 The Most Dangerous Persons in America

There has been much talk about ‘Our Democracy’ being in danger and the people who are endangering Our Democracy. Our Democracy is in danger, but not by the people that those who utter this term blame. The real dangers to America are those political leaders that do not embrace our "American Ideals and Ideas" and those that would encroach upon our Liberties and Freedoms, as I explained in my new Article, “The Rights That Structure Liberty and Freedom”.

In today's America, these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms are being done by the coercion and suppression of these Liberties and Freedoms by Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, as well as the words and deeds of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" as I have written in the Terminology" webpage.

In the forefront of these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms are the Democrat Party Leaders who embrace the ideology and ideas of Progressives/Leftists. Therefore, the most dangerous persons in America are President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Their words at deeds have demonstrated that they have no conception of the real meaning of our American ideals and ideas and of our Liberties and Freedoms. They seem more concerned about obtaining and retaining power and control over the American people than they are about preserving our Liberties and Freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers were aware of these Liberties and Freedoms and incorporated these rights into the Constitution to preserve and protect our Liberties and Freedoms. In this endeavor, they have been successful for over two centuries. However, our Liberties and Freedoms are not free. They must be cherished and maintained by the American people for them to persist, or has been said:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
 - Thomas Jefferson

Therefore, all Americans must be vigilant for these encroachments and resist them from being implemented in our society. We must turn out of office those ambitious politicians who would encroach upon our Liberties and Freedoms and replace them with politicians who wish to preserve our rights. To not do so is to allow for the destruction of America. We are at a turning point in American history based upon the decisions we will make today, and our decisions will impact the future of America in that, as the 16th President of the United States has stated:

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

02/04/22 Thou Shall Not Speak On …

On a recent television show, former Congressional Representative Trey Gowdy spoke of how he learned not to speak on the subjects of the Holocaust, Slavery, and Domestic Violence. He expressed that it always landed you into trouble and controversy when you mentioned these topics. In landing you into trouble and controversy I agree with him, but to not speak on these topics I politely and respectively disagree with him. If you speak upon these topics with facts, accuracy, honestly, and truthfully, as well as politely and respectfully, you should speak upon these topics. To not do so is to forget the lessons of history, which is dangerous, as:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

This topic was brought about by the Holocaust comments of Whoopie Goldberg on ‘The View’ television show in which she was accused of Anti-Semitism. I have carefully listened to her comments and apologies, and I do not believe that she is Anti-Semitic, but she was inarticulate and inartful in what she said, as is typical for the ladies on The View.

As explained in the Wikipedia article on Racism:

“Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.”

“While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g., shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial.”

Therefore, in modern parlance, being Jewish can be considered as being a member of a race. It was in this sense that Whoopie Goldberg was inarticulate and inartful. Her point, however, that the Holocaust was part of a larger event in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of other peoples is correct. While Anti-Semitism is abhorrent and should never be tolerated, nor should the Nazis atrocities against the Jewish people be forgotten, 12/15/24

1,800,000 Polish Civilians (excluding Jews)
1,300,000 Russian Civilians (excluding Jews)
   600,000 Serbs
   270,000 Disabled
   500,000 Romani 
   200,000 Freemasons
     25,000 Slovenes
     15,000 Homosexuals
       3,500 Spanish Republicans
       5,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses
 ------------

4,718,500 Non-Jewish Victims
6,098,000 European Jewish Victims
 ------------
10,816,500 Total Victims

These numbers bespeak of the toll of Anti-Semitism and Intolerance by the Nazis. Therefore, the lesson of history from Nazi’s atrocities is not only Anti-Semitism but of Intolerance for any race, ethnicity, religion, or any other factors that distinguish people. To gloss over or ignore this lesson of history is an injustice to the victims of the Holocaust and to the other Nazi victims, and it portends the possibility of repeating these mistakes of Anti-Semitism and Intolerance.

Consequently, discussing the subjects of the Holocaust, Slavery, and Domestic Violence is important and should not be proscribed. But it should only be done in a factual, accurate, honest, and truthful manner, as well as being done in a politeful and respectful manner. It may still land you in trouble and controversy, as some people thrive of generating troublemaking and controversy, but you will have nothing to apologize for and you will be informing the American public on a topic of importance.

02/03/22 Enlightenment Gone Wrong

In my History article on “Enlightenment”, I extoll the virtues of Enlightenment. However, Enlightenment sometimes gets it wrong. The most egregious example is what happened in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. This is counterposed by how Enlightenment got it right in the American Revolution. My new History Article, “Enlightenment Gone Wrong,” is an examination of how Enlightened thinking got it right and wrong in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

The American Revolution was based on the principles of John Locke's Political Philosophy, while The French Revolution was based on the principles of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy. The American Revolution founded a government of Liberty and Freedom that has lasted over two centuries, while The French Revolution quickly devolved into The Reign of Terror, followed by the rise of the authoritarian rule of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of human nature and the lust for power and the dangers of mob rule, and the need for a government that would reign in these passions to preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". The French Revolution had few checks and balances on the power of personages and no means to reign in the mob passions of its citizens. This was a major difference between the American government and the French government, a difference that led to The Reign of Terror in France.

I conclude this article by stating that the central concepts of John Locke's Political Philosophy must not only be the basis for the government but also needs to be internalized and faithfully adhered to by a government. If not, then a government is doomed to failure, as can be attested to by what happened in The French Revolution. We can, therefore, conclude that a successful government needs Locke’s Political Philosophy to endure. A successful government must also be based on the realities of human nature, for:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
 - Mark Dawson

Let us all think of what happened in The French Revolution and The Reign of Terror as a lesson of history. For if we do not ponder upon this lesson of history, then:

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
 - Edmund Burke

And we, in America, may be doomed to repeat it. The rise of Progressives/Leftists political thought in the 20th and 21st centuries and the adoption of their agenda by Democrat Party Leaders have led us to a more Jean-Jacques Rousseau political philosophy and thus a lessening of John Locke's Political Philosophy in America. This could be dangerous for America as unchecked power and mob rule inevitably end in political turmoil and economic repercussions to society. It also, sometimes, leads to a reign of terror. We, therefore, need to turn away from Rousseau’s political philosophy and reestablish John Locke's Political Philosophy for governance. To not do so is to continue down the slippery slope that could lead us to the dissolution of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

02/02/22 The Greater Good versus The Common Good

The term The Common Good has been replaced by the term The Greater Good in the minds of many Americans, and many Americans believe these terms are in the Constitution. However, the Constitution only speaks of the “general Welfare” in the Preamble and in Article I, Section. 8 of the Constitution: “… and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”, but the terms “Common Good” and the “Greater Good” do not appear in the Constitution. Consequently, as Article. I, Section. 8 enumerates the legislative powers of Congress; it thereby restricts the powers of the Federal government, as explained in my Article, “Limited and Enumerated Powers”.

While The Greater Good may seem innocuous and beneficial in practice, it can be very harmful. The logic of The Greater Good is that whatever does the most good for the most people is for The Greater Good. Using the logic of The Greater Good allows the government to implement any government policy or program that they determine is for the benefit of most Americans, even if it may be harmful to some Americans and, indeed, may violate the Natural and Constitutional rights of some Americans. The Common Good term restricts government actions to those that are enumerated and delineated in the Constitution that is beneficial for all the people while not favoring any groups of people, nor violate the Natural and Constitutional rights of any American. The Greater Good would also allow the government to intervene in any speech or actions by individuals, entities, or groups of people to restrict their words and deeds to what they determine is for The Greater Good, or at a minimum restrict those words and deeds they deem harmful to Americans.

Consequently, the term ‘The Greater Good’ allows for any actions by the government, while the term ‘The Common Good’ restricts government actions. Therefore, the term The Greater Good is utilized to circumvent or ignore the Constitutional restraints on government and is antithetic to “The Meaning to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution”. When the government pursues The Greater Good, it must by necessity become despotic to achieve The Greater Good.

The Greater Good term is utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to justify any actions that they deem necessary and proper to achieve The Greater Good. As Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Consequently, they believe that they can decide what The Greater Good is for all Americans. They believe that no "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" may take precedent over The Greater Good, as The Greater Good is more important than these rights. If The Greater Good is constrained by Natural and Human Rights, then it is no longer The Greater Good, and indeed, morphs into The Common Good. This morphing would, however, have fewer constrictions on government actions than what is enumerated and delineated in the Constitution. Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists often utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” to justify The Greater Good, but nothing can justify the infringement of our Natural and Human Rights, as these rights supersede any government actions.

The Common Good term is utilized by Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans to allow the government to institute policies and programs that are beneficial to any American that would utilize these government policies and programs, so long as these government actions are within the limited and enumerated powers of government.

If we continue to pursue The Greater Good, we should remember the wisdom of Thomas Sowell – “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?” If Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans were in power to decide what is best, I doubt that Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists would support their decisions as to what The Greater Good entails.

02/01/22 High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Article II. Section. 4. Of the United States Constitution states:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

When most people think about the term ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’, they are often confused or unknowing of the meaning of the modifier ‘High’. They also make the mistake of misconstruing the conjunction ‘and’, as the proper interpretation should be ‘High Crimes or High Misdemeanors’. The question is then, what do the terms ‘High Crimes’ and ‘High Misdemeanors’ mean. My new Article, “Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, examines this topic.

In this article, I conclude that I could support the impeachment and conviction of a President, Vice President, and all civil Officers for violating their Oath of Office under the interpretation of this clause as including abuse or dereliction of duty. However, it is only under the extraordinary circumstances that are so serious as to call into question the republican nature of our government or the dissolution of the balance of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of our government that impeachment and conviction are warranted. It is only when these issues arise that we need to consider the removal of a President and others by impeachment and conviction under the interpretation of abuse or dereliction of duty as “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

It is under these criteria that I believed that the two impeachments of President Trump were unwarranted. However, it is under these criteria that I believe that the impeachment and conviction of President Biden are warranted. With all the current problems in America under the Biden Administration, one problem stands out as impeachable – the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border.

President Biden has flouted the will of Congress by the laws that were passed regarding immigration, and he has substituted his own will regarding immigration. He has allowed illegal immigration of persons that have not been vetted for disease and criminal backgrounds, nor terrorist connections. He has enriched the criminal cartels in Mexico who exploit these illegal immigrants for money and other nefarious purposes. He has made it easier for illegal drugs to be smuggled into America. He has relocated these illegal immigrants under cover of darkness to States and localities ill-equipped to deal with these illegal immigrants, thus imposing a social and financial burden upon these States and localities to police and support these illegal immigrants. In doing so, he is changing the demographics in the next census, thus affecting Congressional districting. He has also opened the possibility of these illegal immigrants voting in State and local elections and the possibility of their voting in future Federal elections.

In all his actions and inactions, he has violated his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, breached the separation of powers between the branches of government, and not faithfully and equally enforced the laws. Consequently, he has abused his powers and is in dereliction of his duties.

It is imperative that this situation be corrected forthwith, for to not do so will forever change America in ways that are unconstitutional and without the approval nor consent of the American people. If President Biden is not removed for his actions and inactions, then it is also possible that future Presidents may determine that they can also act unconstitutionally and suffer little or no consequences.

I, therefore, call for the immediate impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Biden for his unconstitutional actions and inactions.

01/31/22 President Andrew Jackson as a Great American President

President Andrew Jackson was an American lawyer, soldier, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.

While there is much to dislike Andrew Jackson for, he was a seminal president as he turned the course of American history. Prior to his election as President, the United States was becoming an informal aristocracy. The previous presidents all came from a line of American Revolutionary War heroes or their descendants (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams), and many of the leading political figures of the times had familial connections to American Revolutionary War heroes. This was a New England and Southern family aristocratic social structure that had the reins of power in America.

The Presidency of Andrew Jackson was tumultuous and controversial, and Jackson's name has been associated with Jacksonian democracy of the shift and expansion of democracy as political power from established elites to ordinary voters based in political parties. "The Age of Jackson" shaped the national agenda and American politics for the next two decades after his presidency. His and his successors' controversial decisions led to the establishment of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States, which ended The Age of Jackson.

It is for these reasons that I believe that Andrew Jackson was a Great American President.

01/30/22 Three Great Statesman of the late 20th Century

I believe that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II should be ranked as the three great statesmen of the late 20th century. When these three people joined forces to combat the evils of the Soviet Union, they doomed the Soviet Union to the dustpan of history. Many forget that when they began their crusade the Soviet Union was on the ascendancy in the world. It was extending its reach across all parts of the globe and strangling all opposition to its power.

Ronald Reagan provided the military and economic might to oppose the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher provided the backbone of the NATO governments to stand with the United States in opposition to the Soviet Union. John Paul II provided the moral authority to oppose the Soviet Union.

Together, they were formidable and resolute in their determination to end the evils of the Soviet Union. They accomplished this end to the Soviet Union despite fierce opposition by both internal and external persons, organizations, and governments. They had the moral courage to stand firm in their beliefs of democracy and liberty for all the peoples of the world.

It is in their honor and memory that I have three bobbleheads in my office to remind myself that courage, democracy, and liberty are worth standing up for:

01/29/22 American Statesmen of the 20th Century

In my previous Chirp on, “01/28/22 A Statesman and a Politician”, I mentioned three American statesmen of the 20th century; Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. I, therefore, think it incumbent on me to explain why I believe that these persons were great statesmen.

President Theodore Roosevelt served at the turn of the 20th century, a time of great social unrest in America and the world. The conflicts between labor and management were intense, and the rest of the world was turning towards socialism or despotism to contain these conflicts. President Theodore Roosevelt found a way to navigate these conflicts so that they did not tear apart American society. By reigning in the industrial capitalists and providing relief to the workers, he avoided the social unrest that permeated the rest of the world while retaining our American ideals of democracy and liberty. At a time after the Spanish-American War when America could have become a world power, he restrained American imperial ambitions to its sphere of interests.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected when America was going through a Great Depression and served through the time when America was threatened by the evils of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan. The American people were desperate for economic relief during the Great Depression and lost hope that the government could provide this relief. The American people were also very isolationist and did not want to engage in any overseas conflicts. President Franklin D. Roosevelt provided short-term solutions to the economic and social problems of the Great Depression, which gave Americans hope for a better future. He also recognized the threats of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan and guided the United States towards assistance and eventual involvement to end the evils of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.

President Ronald Reagan was elected after the depravity of Watergate and the malaise of the Carter Administration, as well as the threats of world domination by the Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan turned the economy from stagflation into prosperity, and at the same time, he confronted the evils of the Soviet Union, which eventually resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union. He also reminded Americans of our Ideals and ideas and attempted to reinfuse these Ideals and Ideas into American governance.

All three of these Presidents crafted their economic and social policies to address the short-term problems in America while crafting their international policies based upon the ideals of democracy and liberty. In many cases, their economic and social policies have been converted into long-term policies that have impacted America, both positively and negatively. As in all cases of national economic and social policies, we must always be ready to improve, alter, or eliminate economic and social policies based on the contingencies of the current situation in America. These economic and social policies should not be set in stone but should be set based upon our "American Ideals and Ideas". Our international policies, however, should always be based on democracy and liberty, for if they are not, then they tarnish our American Ideals and Ideas and are often doomed to failure.

It is for these reasons that I believe that these three Presidents should be considered as American Statesmen of the 20th Century.

Today we are confronted by the problems of our economy, crime of the streets, illegal immigration, the COVID-19 Pandemic, government overreach into the private affairs of Americans, the fentanyl drug crisis of manufacturing in Southeast Asia and importation from Mexico, and the evils of Russia, China, and international terrorism. We also have seemed to have lost our American ideals and ideals in confronting these problems. We need a new American statesman for the 21st century to find and implement the solutions to these problems while preserving our American ideals and ideas. If not, we may descend into despotism and tyranny.

01/28/22 A Statesman and a Politician

"The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision."
- J. Rufus Fears

The late J. Rufus Fears, Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, left us some Words of Wisdom on the lessons of history that all Americans should ponder, as my Article “Liberty, Freedom, and Power” examines. He also left us some words of wisdom on the differences between a statesman and a politician. In a The Art of Manliness article By Brett and Kate McKay, they explain what Professor Fears meant by the qualities of a statesman:

A Bedrock of Principles

The statesman builds a platform on a foundation of firm, unchanging, fundamental truths that he believes at his very core comprises his overarching philosophy. In the face of changing times, opposition and challenges, this foundation will remain intact. A statesman may change the details of his policies and his methods, but only inasmuch as expedient tactics serve to further his bedrock principles in the long run.

A Moral Compass

A statesman does not govern by public opinion polls, but instead makes decisions by following his own moral compass that is rooted in a sense of absolute right and absolute wrong. He is not a relativist. When he believes something is wrong, he plainly says it is so and does everything in his power to fight against it. When something is right, he is willing to overcome any opposition to preserve and spread it.

The statesman is ambitious—he must be to obtain a position of power— but there are things he simply will and will not do to get to the top. He is a man of integrity; he speaks the truth. He leads by moral authority and represents all that is best in his countrymen.

A Vision

A statesman has a clear vision of what his country and his people can become. He knows where he wants to take them and what it will take to get there. Foresight is one of his most important qualities, because he must be able to recognize problems on the horizon and find solutions good for both the short term and long term. The statesman keeps in mind not only the here and now, but the world that future generations will inherit.

The Ability to Build a Consensus to Achieve that Vision

A politician may have a bedrock of principles, a moral compass and vision, but if he lacks the ability to build a consensus around them, his efforts to change policies, laws and the course of history will largely be in vain.

In enlisting others in government that serve with him to support his initiatives, he knows that their willingness to do so is based on the pressure they feel from their constituents to align themselves with the statesman’s vision. Thus, success ultimately hinges on his ability to convince his country’s citizens of the soundness of his philosophy.

To win their hearts, the statesman shuns media campaigns and instead harnesses the power of the written, and especially the spoken, word; he is a master orator. His lifelong study  of great books and the lessons of history allow him to speak to the people with intelligent, potent, well-reasoned arguments.

Instead of tailoring his rhetoric to the public mood, he speaks to the very best that exists within people, understanding that powerful rhetoric can articulate, bring forth and activate sometimes deeply buried ideals. His authority derives from his belief in what he says. He does not make emotions soar and burn with empty promises, but instead keeps his word and does what he says he will do.”

Unfortunately, in America today, we no longer have statesmen as we have lost these qualities to political gamesmanship. But this is not unusual in history. As society undergoes troubles or crises, they sometimes produce a statesman but must often produce a tyrant. We have been fortunate in America in that we have produced statesmen and not tyrants. Statesman such as our Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, as well as Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. While all these persons have their critics and shortcomings, they all rose to the occasion of the times and led America out of their troubles or crisis while retaining our deepest American ideals of democracy and liberty.

Let us hope that another American statesman arises out of our current troubles and crisis and that our American ideals of democracy and liberty are preserved.

01/27/22 Mask Mania

As the war between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated escalates, the side battle between the masked and the unmasked intensifies. And this side battle is getting uglier as many people begin to understand the science behind masks, become weary of wearing masks, and refuse to wear masks unless compelled to wear masks to obtain essential services and goods. This compelling of mask-wearing is being driven by fear of contagion and not by science.

Nearly all public health authorities claim that masks are absolutely necessary to save lives, as well as the need for social distancing to reduce contagion. But they have virtually no science to back up these claims. There is, however, abundant scientific evidence that masks are worthless in preventing contagion and have harmful psychological effects upon society.

As Medical Doctor and epidemiologist Vinay Prasad of the University of California at San Francisco commented on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's child masking recommendation in one sentence: "The CDC cannot 'follow the science' because there is no relevant science." And what about surgical masks? They are not designed to prevent the spread of viruses but to prevent medical personnel from accidentally infecting the open wounds of patients on the operating table, and to prevent body fluids from patients spraying up into the mouths and noses of the surgical team. Dr. Colin Axon, a COVID-19 advisor to the British government, made this point clear: Medics were "unable to comprehend" the minuscule elements involved: "A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometers, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 5,000 times the size."

The social impacts of wearing masks are also beginning to be felt, especially the impacts upon children. In July 2021, an article published under the auspices of the USC Center for Health Policy and Economics addressed the issue of the wearing of masks by children:

"Masking is a psychological stressor for children and disrupts learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate. In particular, children lose the experience of mimicking expressions, an essential tool of nonverbal communication. Positive emotions such as laughing and smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students takes a hit. Overall, it is likely that masking exacerbates the chances that a child will experience anxiety and depression, which are already at pandemic levels themselves."

This fear of contagion prevention by mask-wearing and social distancing is not rational, and our political and social leaders need to stop stoking this fear. But stoking fear is one of the tactics that despots utilize to gain control over people. Consequently, mask mandates and social distancing are not about contagion but are about control. A control and despotism that is anathema to our Liberties and Freedoms.

01/26/22 Tribes of America

Democrat Party Leaders have always been good a dividing Americans based upon Nationality, Ethnocentrism, Race, Sexuality, Political Orientation, etc. Today, however, they have narrowed Americans into two groups – the Racists and the Unvaccinated. They believe that everything that is wrong in America is the fault of Systemic Racism or the Unvaccinated, as I have written in my Articles, "Systemic Racism in America" and “Vaccine Mandates”. Everything they currently say or do is based upon allegations of systemic racism or the fault of the unvaccinated.

A divisiveness that pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans, as I have written in my Article, "Divisiveness in America". A divisiveness that is segregating America into tribes and fostering tribal warfare. A divisiveness that is not based upon "Rationality" and "Reasoning" but is emotionally based. A divisiveness that distracts Americans from the true problems in America as I have written in my Articles, "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms". A divisiveness based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" that if it continues will tear America apart.

Consequently, it is important for all Americans to oppose the current political goals and policy agendas of the Democrat Party to assure the continuation of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to prevent our downfall, as I have written in my Article, “Liberty, Freedom, and Power”. We are at a turning point in American history based upon the decisions we will make, and our decisions will impact the future of America in that as the 16th President of the United States has stated:

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

01/25/22 Liberties, Freedoms, and Power

J. Rufus Fears was Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, where he held the G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty. Jesse Rufus Fears was an American historian, scholar, educator, and author writing on the subjects of Ancient history, The History of Liberty, and classical studies. He is best known for his many lectures for the Teaching Company. He was born on March 7, 1945, and died on October 6, 2012. He left us some Words of Wisdom on the lessons of history that all Americans should ponder. My new Article, “Liberty, Freedom, and Power”, examines this topic and their apropos to the current events in America.

01/24/22 Military Service Requirements

Trey Gowdy, a former South Carolina Congressman, responded to a question from a CNN reporter about the ban of transgenders from joining the U.S. armed forces. As Trey typically does so very well, he nailed it rather succinctly:

Question:  How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgenders from joining the military?  Isn't that discrimination?

Trey Gowdy's Response:

• The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. 
• Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. he went on to explain:  By the way, poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished?  Drug addiction?
• Bad back?  Criminal history?  Low IQ?  Anxiety?  Phobias?  Hearing damage?  Six arms?  Hear voices in your head?  Self-identification as a Unicorn?  Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair?
• Can't run the required course in the required time?  Can't do the required number of push-ups?  Not really a morning person?  and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be legitimate reasons for denial.
• The Military has one job:  Winning War.  Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream?  That isn't Fair?  War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.
• YOU must change yourself to meet Military standards and not the other way around.
• I say again: You don't change the Military - you must change yourself.  The Military is not about being fair, it is about taking advantage of others and about winning.  The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues.  The Military needs to Win Wars and keep our Country safe - PERIOD!
• If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality...  Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors.

Any other questions?"

Consequently, "Wokeness" and "Social Engineering" have no place in the military. Let us end this nonsense in the military and make sure the military is prepared to win any conflict in which they are deployed.

01/23/22 The Problem with Lawyers

The problem with lawyers is that they think like lawyers. This can be understood and forgiven if you keep in mind their entire education, training, and experience is to think like lawyers. But thinking like lawyers in today’s society is more often about the letter of the law, without much consideration of the spirit of the law.

Many of our Founding Fathers were lawyers, yet they often gave consideration to the spirit of the law before they wrote the letter of the law. It was in the spirit of our "American Ideals and Ideas" that they incorporated into the letter of "The Declaration of Independence" and "The United States Constitution". They also often interpreted the letter of the law by the spirit in which it was written, especially when it regarded constitutional matters.

Unfortunately, in the latter half of the 20th century and continuing until today, the spirit of the law is often not a consideration. And this is how it should be for most legal matters. Some legal matters, however, need to be considered in the spirit of the law. This is most often true when dealing with constitutional issues and the role and responsibility of government in our society. The growth of government and bureaucracy has often been accomplished by ignoring the spirit of the law and focusing on the letter of the law.

The biggest offenders of this lack of focus on the spirit of the law have come from the persons most responsible for upholding the spirit of the law – The United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s primary role in our governance is to determine the Constitutionality of laws written by Congress and actions by the Executive Branch in enforcing these laws. In this, they are expected to exercise jurisprudence - the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do. Too often, they ignore the spirit of the law and focus on the letter of the law, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/22/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution”.

The Supreme Court jurists are not only appointed and confirmed for their extensive knowledge and experience of the letter of the law, but also for their jurisprudence in interpreting the spirit of the law based on our American Ideals and Ideas incorporated into the Constitution. By not doing so, they corrupt the Constitution by allowing governmental actions that are antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas expressed in the Constitution.

They often do this to avoid becoming involved in controversies that they deem are of a political nature, and sometimes this is true, but sometimes this is not true. It is best that the courts stay out of political matters, but it is difficult to distinguish between politics and constitutionality. This judgment between political and constitutional is where the Supreme Court must utilize its jurisprudence in interpreting the spirit of the law to determine if it is politics or constitutionality they are being asked to rule upon.

In the past several decades, the Supreme Court has not utilized this jurisprudence and has deemed many controversial issues as political rather than constitutional. They often evade the constitutional issue by ignoring the spirit of the law and focusing on the letter of the law. It has been said that they do this to uphold the integrity of the court and to preserve its standing with the American people. However, the Supreme Court should not skirt or decide any Constitutional issues solely for the reasons of being nonpolitical. They should also remember that the best way to uphold the integrity of the courts and their standing with the American people is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They should also remember the sage words of the 16th President of the United States:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

01/22/22 Rewriting the Constitution

Shortly after I wrote my Chirp on “01/21/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution”, the distinguished constitutional historian and scholar Rob Natelson began a new series of articles on ‘How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution’. As I have already linked to his series of articles on Defending our Constitution and Understanding the Constitution, I will begin to add the links to the Rewriting the Constitution articles as well.

The first two articles of this series are “How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution: 1937–1944, Part I: A government small and frugal” and “How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution: 1937–1944, Part II: The Stage is Set”. As always, with the works of Robert G. Natelson, these articles are well researched and scholarly but are brief and easily understood by the general public.

In addition to Rob Natelson, the other constitutional historian and scholar that I regularly follow is Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley’s articles are also well researched and scholarly but are brief and easily understood by the general public.

It would behoove all Americans interested in our Constitution to regularly read these constitutional scholars to gain a better understanding of the Constitution.

01/21/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution

The Bill of Rights, along with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, are some of the greatest protections of our Liberties, Freedoms, and Equalities under the Constitution. Yet, the Supreme Court seems to ignore or castrate some of these Amendments. In particular, the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth Amendments were and are ill-treated by the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Amendment has been routinely ignored throughout the history of Supreme Court rulings, while the tenth amendment is being routinely ignored in the latter half of the 20^th century and continues until today. The Fourteenth Amendment was eviscerated by the Supreme Court shortly after it was passed, an evisceration that continues to this day. The Ninth Amendment simply states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, while the Tenth Amendment simply states that “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.” The Fourteenth Amendment is more complex and more ungainly, as I shall discuss later in this Chirp.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule on the Ninth Amendment as there is no legal definition of these other rights. However, they are based upon Natural Rights, which are terribly difficult to define and thus to adjudicate. As difficult as they are to adjudicate, these Natural Rights are important to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of the individual. In some cases, they lie at the heart of the matter on the issues before the Supreme Court. Issues such as slavery, racism, discrimination, equalities, entitlements, and abortion, amongst others, have Natural Rights at their core. However, being difficult should not mean that they should not be addressed. Supreme Court Justices are not only appointed for their excellent legal background but also for their concerns with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do. The American people need a dispassionate analysis of any possible infringements to their Natural Rights to guide society. To expect Congress and the Presidency to provide a dispassionate analysis of Natural Rights is irrational, as these branches of government are about the political concerns of America. The Supreme Court needs to do this dispassionate analysis as a basis for their legal reasoning to guide the American people in their reasoning and responses to the core issues facing society. The failure of the Supreme Court to do so is to fail the American people.

The Tenth Amendment has been circumvented by the Federal government by assuming powers not delegated to them under the Constitution under "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to obtain these powers. They have done so in order to achieve a Democratic Constitution rather that a Republican Constitution as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". They have also attached conditions upon a State to receive Federal funding – a.k.a. a bribe (and these conditions are a bribe) that usurp State powers. To paraphrase The Bard – A bribe by any other name is still a bribe, and no matter how the Federal government couches the language, it is still a bribe. Bribery at any level of government corrupts the Federal and State government and encroaches on the rights of the people and the States over the power of the Federal government. Indeed, it expands the Federal governments' powers at the expense of the people and the States.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed in the wake of the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, while the 15th Amendment assured the right to vote for the ex-slaves. The 14th Amendment was to assure that all persons were treated equally by protecting the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by State (and hence Local) governments. The heart of the 14th Amendment is Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The difficulty is in defining what is meant by privileges or immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. This is where the Supreme Court stepped in and eviscerated the 14th Amendment due to opposition by southern politicians and political considerations by northern politicians. These three terms had a well-defined written meaning by the authors of this amendment, which were utilized in the discussions and adoption of this amendment. However, these meanings were controversial and not part of American jurisprudence prior to this amendment. The Supreme Court members of the time had many reservations and concerns about these meanings, so they, through their rulings on the 14th Amendment lawsuits, constricted the meanings of these terms to befit their reservations and concerns.

This was not good jurisprudence as the Supreme Court reinterpreted the will of Congress, thus changing the purposes of the Amendment. This led to much unequal treatment under the laws and violations of the fundamental rights of individuals. Indeed, much of the era of discrimination and racism between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement would not have been possible if the Supreme Court had utilized the original meaning of these terms as defined by the authors of this amendment.

A new book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit by Randy E. Barnett and Evan D. Bernick, explains the history and original meaning of these terms. It also makes a case for a reconsideration of the previous rulings of the Supreme Court to strengthen this amendment to further protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the government.

This reconsideration of the 14th Amendment, along with the considerations of 9th and 10th Amendment rights, needs to happen in current Supreme Court rulings considering the overreach of governmental actions that is occurring today. To not do so is to allow the government to encroach on the Liberties, Freedoms, and Natural Rights of all Americans.

01/20/22 Our Billy Madison’s

Upon watching President Biden, Vice-President Harris, and Press Secretary Psaki answer questions, I am reminded of some dialog from the movie ‘Billy Madison’:

After the Principle asked Billy Madison a question on the Industrial Revolution’s impact on the modern novel, he answered with nonsense. The principal clearly didn’t like Billy’s answer since he says, “Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.” Sandler then finishes the punchline by saying, “Okay, a simple 'wrong' would’ve done just fine.”

However, a simple 'wrong' is not a fine response to these three very important people. These three people are the leaders of our government, responsible for helping solve the important problems of our time. For such nonsense to come out of their mouths is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans. With their insanely idiotic statements, we should all tremble for what may happen to America in the next three years. Unfortunately, these are not the only three people in the Biden Administration who utter rambling, incoherent responses that could even be considered a rational thought. Watching many other Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists comments is also akin to the Billy Madison Principle’s observation. To which I say, “May God have mercy upon our souls.”

01/19/22 The American Theory of Government

What are the Duties and Responsibilities of the people of a country to the government, and what are the Duties and Responsibilities of the government to the people? This philosophical question has been pondered by philosophers for millennia, most especially by John Locke in his 1689/90 Two Treatises of Government. In my new Article, “The American Theory of Government”, I examine this topic as the Founding Fathers envisioned these responsibilities.

01/18/22 Words of Wisdom about History

J. Rufus Fears was Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, where he held the G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty. Jesse Rufus Fears was an American historian, scholar, educator, and author writing on the subjects of Ancient history, The History of Liberty, and classical studies. He is best known for his many lectures for the Teaching Company. He was born on March 7, 1945, and died on October 6, 2012. He left us some Words of Wisdom on the lesson of history that all Americans should ponder. They are:

10 Fundamental Lessons of History:

1. We do not learn from history.
2. Science and technology do not make us immune to the laws of history.
3. Freedom is not a universal value.
4. Power is the universal value.
5. The Middle East is the crucible of conflict and the graveyard of empires.
6. The United States shares the destinies of the great democracies, the republics, and the superpowers of the past.
7. Along with the lust for power, religion and spirituality are the most profound motivators in human history.
8. Great nations rise and fall because of human decisions made by individual leaders.
9. The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision.
10. Throughout its history, the United States has charted a unique role in history.

- J. Rufus Fears, The Wisdom of History – from The Great Courses

He also had two additional quotes that are apropos:

“We are no wiser than the Athenians of the 5th century B.C., no wiser than Sophocles for our science of today has shown us the overwhelming power of genes, of DNA.”

“I fear that we live in a historical age in which we believe that we are so wise that we no longer need the lessons of the past, perhaps most disturbingly of all that technology has put us beyond the lessons of the past.”

Despite our advancements in Morality, Ethics, Law, Science, and Technology, we are still governed by our Human Nature, formed by our genetic structure and guiding our thoughts and actions. We should also remember that:

“To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure.”
   - Mark Dawson

01/17/22 Vaccine Mandates – Part Deux

A recent Rasmussen poll on government actions to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic revealed that:

– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”

– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

The survey consisted of both telephone and online polling of 1,016 likely voters and was conducted on January 5, 2022, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

This attitude against the unvaccinated is being stoked by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists for political purposes, and indeed, for the purposes of their rulership over the American people. They are scapegoating the unvaccinated to achieve this rulership and impose their will upon the American people. This is reminiscent of how Adolf Hitler scapegoated the Jews, the Undesirables, and un-Germanic thought to obtain a dictatorship over Germany.

These percentages of Democratic voters are not only shocking as to their size but also to the disregard Democratic voters have for our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights". They also reveal that Democratic voters have no qualms about imposing despotism, and indeed tyranny, upon America. As such, these Democratic voters are not committed to our "American Ideals and Ideas" but are un-American in their disposition. God help us all if they manage to elect "Democrat Party Leaders" who will implement their policy predilections.

01/16/22 Vaccine Mandates

A longer but important Chirp, on the current status of our efforts to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the societal impacts of this effort.

In the book “The Case for Vaccine Mandates”, by Alan Dershowitz, he explains why he believes that Vaccine Mandates are a legitimate government action in certain cases. He does this by starting out his argument from a libertarian basis. In his ‘Introduction: A Libertarian Case for Vaccine Mandates’, section A: ‘A libertarian Case Derived from John Stuart Mill’, he utilizes the following quote:

“[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the past which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
 - John Stuart Mill

A folksier way of putting Mill’s doctrine is to say that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

In Section B. ‘Analysis of Hypotheticals’, Professor Dershowitz utilizes a “Socratic Methodology” that gives two hypothetical situations that he then utilizes to make his case:

“So, here are the two polar extreme Hypotheticals. The first posits a vaccine that cure cancer with a 100 percent certainty and with no risks or side effects. I would urge everybody to take it. I would want the government to make it available free. I would support incentives to encourage such medical treatment. I might even limit insurance and other benefits to those who refuse to take it. But I would not allow the government to compel any competent adult to take a vaccine that prevents a non-contagious disease from killing only individuals who decline to take it. They have the right to make decisions – even foolish ones – regarding their own bodies, lives, and health. As I put it in the context of smoking cigarettes: everyone has the right to inhale into their own lungs, but not to exhale into mine.

The second hypothetical is imagining a risk-free vaccine that in addition to helping the individual who received it, was also 100 percent effective in preventing the spread of a highly contagious and deadly disease to others (even those who were vaccinated and took additional precautions). I would support a governmental decision, arrived at democratically, that required everyone (with limited medical exceptions) to be vaccinated.”

These hypotheticals are important to discover some truths and to give direction to our decision-making on how to combat this disease. However, the reality of our current situation is between these two polar extremes. A reality that he does not discuss, as the facts of the reality are dynamic and fast-changing. A reality that has changed since he wrote this book. This reality is:

“Vaccines that were developed to prevent the contraction of this disease and lessen the spread of this highly contagious and deadly disease to others. Vaccine development which was done outside of the normal testing and verification procedures for medications. Vaccines in which the effectuality on the individual, the effectivity in combating the pandemic, and the risks of side effects are uncertain or unknown. These vaccines were then provided for free voluntary inoculations but are rapidly becoming mandated inoculations. Mandates for the purpose of blunting this pandemic which were instituted outside of normal democratic procedures, and which are being enforced in an invidious manner. Mandates that are being enforced by despotic government actions.”

Would Professor Dershowitz be supportive of these mandates if this situation was the actuality? I would suggest that under the John Stuart Mill Libertarian Doctrine that these mandates would be unacceptable.

We currently know that these vaccines do not fully prevent the transmission and contraction of this disease. However, for many persons, these vaccines reduce the severity of the impact of contracting this disease. We also now have therapeutics that assist in the treatment and recovery of this disease, but that government has not stressed nor provided therapeutics, nor have they considered herd immunity in their efforts to combat this disease. We also know that the risks of this disease seem to be mostly limited to persons that have comorbid factors in their medical history, and the contraction of this disease by persons without comorbid factors is small, and the impacts to them of this disease are less severe. We know that healthy adults under sixty-five years of age are less likely to have severe reactions to this disease when they contact this disease. We also know that children very rarely contract this disease and have much less severe reactions to this disease if they contract this disease. We also know that there can be complications when taking these vaccines by persons of all ages, although we do not know the full extent of these complications. We also have no information on what, if any, are the long-term impacts of taking these vaccines.

We do know that the impacts on our society and our economy to combat this disease have been severe and may be longstanding. Unemployment, business foreclosures, and government deficit spending to combat this disease and bolster the economy will be felt for at least the next decade. The social development abilities of our children, along with their educational skills, may be felt for generations. The divisiveness between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that has been sown by excessive rhetoric that promotes fear and loathing against the unvaccinated, for the purposes of intimidating the unvaccinated to become vaccinated, will linger. The distrust and suspicions of our government and its institutions due to confusing and contradictory information they provided about this disease, and the invidious enforcement of the mandates, may permeate our society for decades to come.

I, therefore, believe that the current science and the current events of the COVID-19 Pandemic are this reality. As such, no governmental nor employer mandates to impose this vaccination on an individual is acceptable. The decision to take this vaccination must reside with the individual and based on their circumstances and their risk and reward evaluation on taking the vaccination.

01/15/22 Enlightenment and Myside Bias

In my Articles, “Rationality” and "Reasoning", I explain the importance of applying both of these in your thinking. In my new Article, “Enlightenment”, I explain the importance of applying Enlightenment principles to today’s issues and concerns. The combination of Rationality, Reasoning, and Enlightenment to your thinking is the best means to advance the progress of humankind.

The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.

A new book examines the importance of applying Enlightenment principles to today’s issues and concerns. In what can be considered a companion book on Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, by Steven Pinker, he has authored a book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress on the importance of enlightened “Rationality” and "Reasoning" to solve today’s problems. The inside dust jacket to this book describes this book as:

“Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.

Far from being a naïve hope, the Enlightenment, we now know, has worked. But more than ever, it needs a vigorous defense. The Enlightenment project swims against currents of human nature--tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking--which demagogues are all too willing to exploit. Many commentators, committed to political, religious, or romantic ideologies, fight a rearguard action against it. The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.

With intellectual depth and literary flair, Enlightenment Now makes the case for reason, science, and humanism: the ideals we need to confront our problems and continue our progress.”

This book makes a very good case for the importance of reasoning and science, done in a humanist manner, to propel the progress of humankind. Yet, even the best can get it amiss, including the author of this book. Throughout this book, in several paragraphs and sentences, he occasionally reveals some of his own Myside bias that he defined in his aforementioned book on Rationality:

“Politically motivated numeracy and other forms of biased evaluations show that people reason their way into or out of a conclusion even when it offers them no personal advantage. It’s enough that the conclusion enhances the correctness or nobility of their political, religious, ethnic, or cultural tribe. It’s called, obviously enough, the Myside bias, and it commandeers every kind of reasoning, even logic. Recall that the validity of a syllogism depends on its form, not its content, but that people let their knowledge seep in and judge an argument valid if it ends in a conclusion they know is true or want to be true.”

His Myside bias is generally in the favoritism of Progressives’ positions and ideas over Conservatives’ positions and ideas, done in several different ways. I have, therefore, examined Myside bias in my new Article, “Myside Bias”, utilizing this book as an example.

01/14/22 Ignorance and Stupidity

Ignorance and Stupidity are a common lot of humankind, as, throughout history, this has been the norm for men and women of all categories. On occasion, some civilizations have slightly risen above ignorance and stupidity, but they then sink back into ignorance and stupidity. It wasn’t until The Age of Enlightenment that humankind has made steady progress against ignorance and stupidity.

Ignorance and stupidity are a tool of the powerful to obtain and maintain control of the masses. Ignorance and stupidity also allowed for the suppression of the Natural Rights of the individual by other persons, other peoples, and the powerful. All this ignorance and stupidity was detrimental to humankind and an impediment to the progress of humankind.

For the purposes of this article, I define ignorance and stupidity as:

• Ignorance - The lack of knowledge or education
• Stupidity - A poor ability to understand or to profit from experience

The following articles are a good explanation of how ignorance and stupidity operate:

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlo M. Cipolla as:

• Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
• The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
• A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
• Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
• A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

The Eight Degrees of Ignorance and Stupidity by Darren Smith as:

• First Degree Ignorance (not capable of understanding the facts or information presented to them)
  
• Second Degree Ignorance (capable of understanding the facts but is not aware of their existence)
  
• Third Degree Ignorance (not fully understanding the underlying reason, process, or cause for the fact or event)
• Fourth Degree Ignorance (willfully failing to attend to learning or intellectual growth)
  
• Fifth Degree (Stupidity)
• Sixth Degree (Unyielding Stupidity)
• Seventh Degree (Militant Stupidity)
• Eighth Degree (Self-Actualized Stupidity)

America has been blessed as our founders, and the general populace was not ignorant nor stupid. They founded this country on the ideas and ideology of The Age of Enlightenment. The general populace of the time was familiar with these ideas and ideologies from newspaper articles, pamphlets, and books that espoused these enlightened ideas and ideologies. Our Founders were not perfect in our founding, as the sin of slavery and the treatment of the American Indians attests, but they were better than any other country in trying to achieve these enlightened ideas and ideology. The descendants of our forefathers tried to improve and rectify our problems and build upon enlightened ideas and ideology, and all the while, the general populace tried to escape the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity.

Today, however, in America, we seem to be slipping back into the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity. And those leading the retreat into the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity are Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Led by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, our enlightened ideas and ideology are under attack by Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and the Social Engineering and Herd Mentality common in today’s American society.

This is not an evolution out of, but a devolution into, the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity. A devolution that leads to the violation of the Natural Rights of the individual, which then leads to despotism and then tyranny. Therefore, we need to call it out whenever we encounter ignorance and stupidity, fight against this ignorance and stupidity, and hold fast to enlightened ideas and ideology. If we fail to do this, then we will sink back into ignorance and stupidity, as so often has happened in the history of humankind.

01/13/22 The Ten Cannots and Seven National Crimes

In 1916, an outspoken advocate for Liberty, Christian minister William J. H. Boetcker, published a tract entitled “The Ten Cannots”. It fittingly contrasts the competing political and economic agendas in our modern era, of those advocating for Liberty versus those advocating for statist socialism:

1. “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”
2. “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”
3. “You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.”
4. “You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”
5. “You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.”
6. “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.”
7. “You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.”
8. “You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.”
9. “You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
10. “You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.”

Simply put, the central government cannot give to anybody what it does not first take from someone else. Boetcker also spoke of the "Seven National Crimes":

1. I don't think.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't care.
4. I am too busy.
5. I leave well enough alone.
6. I have no time to read and find out.
7. I am not interested.

Today’s Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have forgotten, or never knew, The Ten Cannots and they also practice the Seven National Crimes.

01/12/22 Voting Rights Advancement

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, formally known as For the People Act of 2021, is once again in the forefront. And once again it is being utilized as a reason to eliminate the Senate Filibuster as I have Chirped on, "12/22/21 The End of the Filibuster" and "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail and Political Gamesmanship". The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has all the issues and concerns of the For the People Act as I Chirped on, "02/17/21 Election Integrity", "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", and "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections". Don’t be fooled by a lofty name change, as this is yet another example of lofty words concealing dastardly deeds, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds”.

As in my Chirps on, "02/17/21 Election Integrity" and "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", and my Articles, "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", elections are too important to be left in the hands of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, who have a propensity to cheat and steal elections. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is the codification of cheating and stealing elections by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as my aforementioned Chirps and Article explain. In an article by Kurt Schlichter, “Hey Dems, We Got Your Election Reforms Right Here”, he proposes a “Voting Freedom Initiative” to prevent the cheating and the steaking of elections. His initiatives are:

1. Picture voter ID both to register and to vote. If you are too dumb to get an ID, you should be licking windows instead of casting ballots.
2. No same day registration. There’s no way to confirm your identity the same day you sign up.
3. One day voting, on Election Day. If it’s too much trouble to vote on Election Day, don’t.
4. In-person voting. If you are deployed with the military or in an iron lung, you can vote absentee. Everyone else shows up in-person. Only absentee ballots arriving by 5 pm on election day get counted.
5. No ballot harvesting. That nonsense ends.
6. Paper ballots only. We want an audit trail.
7. No ballots not counted within 12 hours of the polls closing get counted. We’re done with dumps and “found” ballots.
8. Every vote gets counted in public with lots of observers. Total transparency.
9. Large urban centers must report votes first. This makes it hard for Democrat pols to know how many ballots to find.
10. No changes to election laws or procedures within 180 days of the election. That gives time for us to litigate the scams.

While these Voting Freedom Initiatives may be difficult to implement, the issues of the cheating and the stealing of elections are far too important to go unaddressed.

01/11/22 Our Democracy

As I have written in my Chirp on, "05/08/20 Social Justice", when you place an adjective in front of the word “Justice,” you no longer have true Justice- you have favoritism (i.e., “Adjective Justice”). The same holds true for truth, as in ‘My Truth’ or ‘Your Truth’ rarely reveals ‘The Truth’. We now are placing adjectives in front of other words such as ‘Democratic’ in front of ‘Socialism’, and ‘Our’ in front of ‘Democracy’. Socialism is not democratic as it must be imposed by despotism, while ‘Our Democracy’ is not real democracy. In a new article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, he explains:

“But you shouldn’t confuse Our Democracy with real democracy. The initial modifier serves to debase the noun—much as “sub-human” means less than human or “social justice” rationalizes acts of individual injustice.”

This article clarifies the true meaning of ‘Our Democracy’ and how it is, in reality, undemocratic. He closes this article with:

“Our Democracy” really looks like “Their Oligarchy.” Or like some of those other “democracies” the left has erected over the years: The Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea comes readily to mind, as does the former (East) German Democratic Republic.

This is yet another example of lofty words concealing dastardly deeds, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds”. I would highly recommend that you read his article to clear the "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" that the perpetrators of the phrase ‘Our Democracy’ wish you to uncritically believe their meaning of this term.

01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds

Lofty words and dastardly deeds are an apt description of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. This has become readily apparent in President Biden’s Administration. The most glaring example is the ‘COVID-19’ and the ‘Unity’ rhetoric espoused during his campaign and at the start of his administration, compared to where we are today. President Biden campaigned on defeating the Coronavirus Pandemic and bringing all Americans together. He has done neither and, indeed, made the situation worse for both problems.

This has become so obvious to the American people that it needs no elaboration in this Chirp (although I have mentioned them in many of my Chirps and Articles). The continued deaths from COVID-19, and the Omicron variant infection planning and responses, make hallow his promise to defeat the virus. His extreme partisan legislative and spending agenda, along with his mandates and Executive Orders, have widened the divide between Americans. The phrase and chants of “Let’s Go Brandon” show the depth of this lack of unity in America.

My Chirps on, "02/21/20 Bring Us Together", "07/24/20 Bring Us Together", and "08/21/20 Bringing Us Together" examine the meaning of togetherness to President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders. Essentially, their meaning of unity is that the American people comply with their mandates and Executive Orders and support their political policies and goals. Otherwise, the American people who oppose them are to remain silent and submissive to their wants and desires. And the only way they can achieve this silence and submissiveness is through despotism. The hubris of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that believe that they can dictate to a free people is astounding, as only a subservient or subjugated people can be made to be silent and submissive.

In these and other actions, President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders resemble a Con Artist - A swindler who exploits the confidence of their victim in saying one thing but doing otherwise. And the American people are the victims of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders confidence game. But Americans are wising up to the con, as seen in the plummeting approval ratings for President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders. Let us hope that they continue to see this con and express their revulsion to being conned in the 2022 elections.

01/09/22 Evan Sayet Observations on Progressives

Evan Douglas Sayet (born October 29, 1960) is a writer, comedian, and conservative speaker. Born and raised in a New York, NY by a Jewish family, he attended the University of Rochester where he majored in Political Science and English Literature. Afterwards, he moved to Hollywood to be in the entertainment industry, and he has spent over twenty-five years writing television shows, screenplays, documentaries and more before segueing into the field of political commentary.

His observations on Progressives and Progressive Politicians are insightful, humorous, and piercing. I have, therefore, created a web page, Evan Sayet Observations on Progressive of some of my favorite sayings of his comments.

01/08/22 The Black Book of Communism

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by multiple authors was first published in France in 1997, and it touched off a storm of controversy that continues to rage today. Its conclusion was that Communism, in all its many forms, was morally no better than Nazism, and of the two totalitarian systems, the authors argued, Communists were far better at killing than at governing, as the world learned to its sorrow.

Famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalog and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience―in China under "the Great Helmsman" Mao Zedong, in Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" Ho Chi Minh, and in Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah the fruits were indeed bitter. In the USSR, the leadership of Vladimir, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, and Mikhail Gorbachev was an unending story of death, deprivation, and despotism against its citizens.

The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.

As the death toll mounted―as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on―the authors systematically show how and why wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century. As the book documents, the death toll was:

• U.S.S.R - 20 million deaths
• China - 65 million deaths
• Vietnam - 1 million deaths
• North Korea - 2 million deaths
• Cambodia - 2 million deaths
• Eastern Europe - 1 million deaths
• Latin America - 150 thousand deaths
• Africa - 1.7 million deaths
• Afghanistan - 1.5 million deaths

And these numbers are only best guesses as there was no documentation of the actual deaths, and it is possible the real numbers were greater (but not lesser) than the guestimates. As Communism in these countries has been responsible for the above deaths, would you say that Communism was “not that bad” for those murdered citizens? Not only did Communism bring forth these deaths, but it also brought forth destruction, disease, privation, and starvation for the people living under Communism, as well as the disregard of the Natural Rights of every person under its rule. To deny or equivocate these numbers, and to ignore the atrocious consequences of Communism, is the equivalent of and as despicable as being a Holocaust denialist.

As we should never forget the Holocaust of the Jews nor the Murders of the Undesirables under Nazism, so we should also never forget those that perished under the evils of Communism. We should also declare ‘Never Again’ to Communism and its Marxism and Socialism offshoots.

01/07/22 Words of Wisdom and Warning

Some words of wisdom and warning from President Abraham Lincoln that are apropos today:

On Jan. 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions." During that address, he said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

"Citizens," Lincoln also said in this address, "seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose."
 - Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln also stated:

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

The events of January 6th of last year were not an insurrection but a warning. A warning of the rising tide of discontent in America. A discontent brought forth by the despotic actions of government and the men who pervert the Constitution. The American people are awaking to the danger to our Liberties and Freedoms and to our Constitution by those that seek and weld power to direct our lives. Those people who would disregard or subvert the Constitution for their own political goals and policy agendas. And those people are Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Let us hope that we can counter this by the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, rather than having to resort to the ammo box, as I have written in my Article, “The Four Boxes of Liberty”.

01/06/22 Insurrection Day

It’s January 6th, the first anniversary of the notorious insurrection at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C... A day that will live in infamy, our Guy Fawkes Day, our Bastille Day, our Beer Hall Putsch, and our October Revolution. An insurrection of which I have written about in my Chirps on, "04/19/21 Insurrection", "06/03/21 Insurrectionists", "06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?", "07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?", "08/08/21 A True Insurrection", and "10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax".

If January 6th was an insurrection, it was most certainly the most enfeeble and incompetent insurrection in history. Very few people were involved in this ‘insurrection’, and none of them had weapons or explosive devices. The only person who died during this ‘insurrection’ was a protestor shot to death by a Capitol policeman, and most of the injuries sustained were the injuries to the ‘insurrectionist’. Minor damage was done to the Capitol building, and some property was looted or destroyed, for which the persons involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A few of the ‘insurrectionists’ have been arrested and detained on charges such as trespassing and destruction of property, for which they have not been released on bail nor allowed to publicly speak of their actions. A detention that, according to some reports, appears to be of a cruel and unusual nature. This detention also appears to be a violation of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitutional Rights. A detention in which the courts seem to be indifferent or complicitous. The Justice Department is continuing its investigation, but a number of people who were videoed instigating the ‘insurrectionist’ have not been captured nor detained. Indeed, it appears that they are no longer being pursued by the FBI, as there are allegations that these people have FBI ties that could be embarrassing to the FBI and may be detrimental to the prosecution of the 'insurrectionist'.

By a vote in the House of Representatives, a House Committee was formed to investigate this insurrection. A House committee that was to be of a certain number and representation appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Republican Minority Leader. A House Committee that never had this number and was appointed solely by the Speaker of the House. In doing so, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi negated the will of the House of Representatives and thus created an unlawful committee.

Yet, this 'insurrection' rhetoric is being proclaimed throughout the land today. Rhetoric based on a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the events of January 6th, rather than a recital of the actual events that occurred on January 6th. Rhetoric that is for the purposes of politics rather than for the purpose of enlightenment. The purposes of politics that are explained in an article in Imprimis, “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”, by Roger Kimball, the Editor, and Publisher of The New Criterion, that examines the events and politics of this 'insurrection':

“Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

There was, however, a real insurrection on January 6th. It was an insurrection against our Constitutional protections against government overreach that is occurring within the Justice Department, the House of Representatives, and the Courts. The actions by the Justice Department, the House of Representatives, and the Courts are contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and a violation of our Constitutional Rights. This is the insurrection of January 6th that all Americans should be wary of and concerned about.

01/05/22 Liberty and Tyranny

I have recently discovered a website, “The Patriot Post”, that focuses on Liberty as defined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Their mission is as they have stated: “The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!”

When you sign-up for a free subscription to The Patriot Post, you can download a free copy of their pamphlet, ‘The Patriot's Primer on American Liberty. This is an excellent primer pamphlet that is an “indispensable pocket resource on Liberty, “endowed by [our] Creator,” is to provide a foundational understanding of Liberty, so that today’s generation of Americans can more effectively “Support and Defend” the unalienable Rights of Mankind as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution.”

One sentence, in particular, caught my eye as it focuses on the core issue between "Progressives/Leftists" and "Constitutional Conservatives" when debating their policy goals and political agendas:

“. .. the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny is the contest to determine who endows Liberty. Is Liberty the inherent right of all people, or is it awarded by presidents, legislatures, and judges? The importance of this foundational question cannot be overemphasized.”
 - The Patriot's Primer on American Liberty

Our Liberties and Freedoms cannot long endure unless We, the People, reaffirm what was well understood by our Founders — that Liberty is “endowed by [our] Creator” and is, thus, “unalienable.” Thus, as Jefferson wrote, our “liberties are the gift of God” and not the gift of government.

Today’s Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders act as if the government may circumscribe our Natural Rights of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the Government, and the freedom to keep and bear arms, along with other freedoms as espoused in the Constitution. They forget that these are Natural Rights that government may not violate nor ignore, but they act as if they can change the meaning of these terms to suit their goals. Consequently, by their doing so, these Natural Rights are no longer relevant and may be limited by law. They, therefore, treat these Natural Rights as given by the government and, consequently, may be annulled or bounded by the government.

We, therefore, must be steadfast in our advocacy for Natural Rights, and we must return to the principles of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, or we shall devolve into despotism then into tyranny.

01/04/22 The Great Forgetting

In an article by Rob Natelson, The Great Forgetting, he examines the Founder’s meaning of the words and terms utilized in the writing of The Constitution of the United States with the following foreword:

“The Constitution was created in a special legal environment. The Founders were raised with a particular educational canon. They also had certain common experiences. During the 19th century, important details about those matters began to slip away. Constitutional law forgot them.

In other words, information crucial to understanding 18th century words was lost during the 19th century. I call this phenomenon “The Great Forgetting.”

This article stresses my perspective that we must judge history by the historical context of the words and terms and the political, social, cultural, and economic setting for a particular idea or event, as I have written in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”. This article highlights some of the problems that arose because the words and terms the founders utilized were forgotten or unknown by succeeding generations. This Great Forgetting often led to a misinterpretation of the Constitution’s true meaning and, hence, a corruption of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

This article, as with his other articles on Defending and Understanding the Constitution, along with his articles on The Values in the Declaration of Independence and The Values in the Constitution, are excellent guides to the Founder’s true meaning of the Constitution. He is also the author of the book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant”, which I believe is one of the finest books on understanding what our Founding Fathers intended in creating the Constitution.

01/03/22 America Is Not Just a Place

America is not just a place but a belief in American Ideals and Ideas and the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. To be un-American is to not believe and uphold these ideals and principles.

This is best exemplified in the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

1. Support the Constitution;
2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
5. A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
   B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
   C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

To become an American is to commit yourself to this Oath of Allegiance. To be an American is to commit to these ideals, ideas, and principles. Ergo, if you believe in internationalism or are a Citizen of the World, then you cannot be an American. As you must decide, as Hamlet asked, ‘To Be, or Not to Be’, you must decide to be an American or not to be an American – there cannot be both. And to not to be an American is to put your internationalism and world citizenship ahead of your Americanism. Otherwise, you will become entangled in a Non-Sequitur from which there is no escape other than to decide to be or not to be an American.

01/02/22 American Ideals and Ideas

I have often written in my Articles and Chirps about our American ideals and ideas. But what are these American ideals and ideas? The answer is that The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals. I have touched upon these American ideals and ideas in many of my Chirps and a few Articles. However, these articles and Chirps do not do full justice to our American ideals and ideas. I have, therefore, created a reference article, "American Ideals and Ideas", that is a coalescence of several of my Chirps and Articles dealing with our American Ideals and Ideas.

01/01/22 Happy New Year

There is much to be unhappy in America, as my previous Chip on “12/31/21 Reflections Upon the Year” expressed. At the same time, there are glimmers of hope for the new year. Americans are beginning to recognize the despotisms of the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and are beginning to say NO MORE! Even these aforementioned bad actors are beginning to realize this, as they have been backtracking and dissembling about their prior actions and stances. They are also very worried about the upcoming 2022 elections and a possible red wave of Republicans being elected to office.

This is the main reason to be happy for the coming year - a return to sanity and the reaffirmation of our American Ideals and Ideas. Let all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas grow and continue in their defiance to these bad actors and actions. And let them vote in large numbers so that we may return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

12/31/21 Reflections Upon the Year

Many things have occurred this year that merit reflection, which I have tried to do in my Chirps and Articles. The deepest reflection that I have about this year is the rise in despotism in America. The despotism of one group of Americans trying to force its will upon the rest of Americans. The despotism of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, Whether through governmental mandates and Executive Orders, social ostracism, free speech constrictions, physical harassments, verbal scapegoating, employment pressures and dismissals, educational indoctrinations, as well as other intimidations they wish to make all Americans bend to their will and be subservient to their dictates through threats of persecutions, punishments, or violence.

These behaviors by these actors all occur without being roundly condemned as antithetic to American Ideals and Ideas, and they are a slippery slope to despotism then tyranny. This is the most distressing aspect of their actions. If Americans cannot remember and stand up for our Ideals and Ideas, then we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of these un-American actors.

For more of the ills that beset America in the last year I would direct you to Dennis Prager’s column, “The (Crappy) Year We Just Lived Through”.

12/30/21 Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. They also believe that when they are opposing Conservatives and Republicans, they are doing battle against wickedness and fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. In this battle, they believe that they are morally justified to fight their opponent’s wickedness by utilizing untruths, injustices, and the un-American ways to defeat their opposition.

The tactics that they often utilize are to make assertions that are to be accepted as truths to buttress their arguments. However, Assertions also contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Therefore, assertions must always be supported by “Rationality” and "Reasoning" based on facts.

Facts and truth are essential, for without accurate facts and proper Rationality and Reasoning, it is impossible to ascertain the truth. Without truth as a basis for political goals and policy agendas, much time, money, and efforts will be expended on governmental efforts that are doomed to fail, as failure is what is inevitable if you do not base governmental decisions on truths.

When Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders assertions are challenged, they exhibit an attitude that they are correct and that their challenger must prove them wrong. Ergo, they are asking their challenger to prove a negative. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who makes an assertion. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. Also, as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.", the proper retort to this challenge to prove a negative is to require that they prove their assertion; otherwise, their assertion must be dismissed.

The Burden of Proof must be based upon Rationality and Reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and, as I have often stated, "Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn't make it true."

They also parrot the expression of the moment by Progressives and Leftists, an expression that serves as a vacuous container for unthoughtfulness or irrationality. An expression of the moment that is often concocted to "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" their opponents in an attempt to stifle any challenge to their assertions. An expression of the moment meaning that is often the antithesis to the expression of the moment terminology. It makes one wonder if this parroting of the expression of the moment is because they are bird-brained.

Progressives and Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders also claim to support justice in American, but often their support for justice involves a double standard of justice, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards". They, consequently, are not in support of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" but are espousing unjustness in America. You cannot be for justice in America if you have a double standard and condone unjust words and deeds.

Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' un-American ways are a result of their not believing in our American Ideals and Ideas, as I have written in my article, "American Ideals and Ideas". Many Americans do not know or have forgotten the ideals and ideas upon which our country was founded, or as I have said, “The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals.”. However, these ideals and ideas have several interpretations and meanings that often are contradictory or contentious and fraught with misunderstandings of the founders’ intentions. The Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to justify their un-American ways of achieving their goals.

It is for these reasons that I think that Progressives and Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing untruths, injustices, and the un-American ways to defeat their opposition. Therefore, in doing so, they are not fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way but for the exact opposite.

12/29/21 Negotiation and Compromise

With the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against Senator Joe Manchin for his decision to not vote for the Build Back Better legislation, they have bemoaned that he did not negotiate in good faith and was unwilling to compromise. However, negotiation and compromise have a particular meaning to Democrat Party leaders.

As Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. They, therefore, cannot negotiate and compromise nor exhibit bipartisanship with anyone that differs from their policies, as they believe that their policies are what best for all Americans. The Democrat Party has thus exhibited that no true compromise or bipartisanship is to be allowed, and their attitude toward legislation appears to be that if it does contain all that they want, then the opposition must negotiate and compromise within themselves to adopt their position.

Negotiation and compromising with them is often a matter of them cajoling or threatening the opposition to concede to their positions. Private badgering and public verbal haranguing and harassment of the opposition are the tools of the trade of their negotiations. Any changes that they agree to are often merely language artifices or accounting gimmicks to make their legislation more palatable to the opposition, rather than substantive changes to the legislation.

Consequently, the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are analogous to those of children when they do not get their way. And this is what they are – children incapable of dealing with the vicissitudes of politics. Crybabies they are, and crybabies they shall remain until the American electorate spanks them and forces them to become more adult-like in their approach to negotiation and compromise, as well as in the crafting of legislation.

12/28/21 Backwards, Not Forwards

With the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against Senator Joe Manchin for his decision to not vote for the Build Back Better legislation, they have often claimed that he is not helping America move forward. This complaint has the inherent presumption that their political goals and policies are moving America forward. But are their political goals and policies a forward movement for America? It all depends on what you define as forward for America. My own definition is that which enhances our American Ideals and Ideas, as I have Chirp on, "07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas", and preserves our Natural and Constitutional Rights as in my Article, "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". Under this definition, the Democrats and Progressive political goals and policies are not a forward movement, but a backward movement for the reasons I stated in my Chirp on “12/27/21 Destroying the Village – Part Deux”.

In this, I am reminded of a scene from the movie Inherit the Wind (1960), in which the defense attorney, Drummond, rails (against) the law on the banning of the teaching of evolution:

“DRUMMOND (Turns to BRADY, in righteous anger) I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at BRADY, then to various members of the audience and the JUDGE) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!

JUDGE Colonel Drummond!

DRUMMOND (Striding to the JUDGE’s bench. This speech builds to a crescendo at the end.) Can’t you understand that if you take a law like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it? (Turns to the crowd in the gallery and begins addressing them. The crowd has grown strangely quiet during all of this as they listen. BRADY looks worriedly.) And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man! If you can do one, you can do the other! Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. (Strides slowly back to the JUDGE’S bench) And soon, Your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating we’ll be marching backward – BACKWARD - to the glorious ages of that sixteenth century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind! (DRUMMOND turns with disgust back to the defense table as he continues to pack his bag.)

JUDGE (In an angry, but shocked tone) I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.

DRUMMOND Your Honor has the right to hope!”

The Democrats and Progressive political goals and policies are wicked as they do not advance our American Ideals and Ideas and preserve our Natural and Constitutional Rights. On the contrary, they move us back to the time when governments dictated to their citizens, and governments were not of the people, by the people, and for the people, but imposed by a ruling class. We also see the Democrats and Progressive turning Americans against each other by Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality, and by scapegoating and persecuting groups of Americans based on their personal beliefs and decisions.

This is not forwarding of America, but a marching backward to a time when the individual was subordinate and subject to the tyranny of the majority or to their ruler's will. For myself, I choose not to hope that America rights itself but to fight against those that would take us backward – the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

12/27/21 Destroying the Village – Part Deux

In what is considered one of his iconic dispatches, published on 7 February 1968, Peter Arnett wrote about the Vietnam war of the Battle of Bến Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong." The quotation was gradually altered in subsequent publications, eventually becoming more familiar, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." The accuracy of the original quotation and its source has often been called into question. Arnett never revealed his source, except to say that it was one of four officers he interviewed that day. US Army Major Phil Cannella, the senior officer present at Bến Tre, suggested that the quotation might have been a distortion of something he said to Arnett. The New Republic at the time attributed the quotation to US Air Force Major Chester L. Brown. In Walter Cronkite's 1971 book, Eye on the World, Arnett reasserted that the quotation was something "one American major said to me in a moment of revelation."

Today we are seeing, hearing, and reading that any opposition to Democrat political policies and their agendas is a “Threat to Democracy”, which are usually followed by solutions that are undemocratic. Their proposals to ‘save’ democracy include:

• Allowing illegal immigration to change the demographics of America and thus Congressional Districting.
• Allowing non-citizens to vote in order to swing elections in their favor.
• Attempts to enact Gun Control for the purpose of eliminating mass murders, shooting sprees, crime in the streets, and domestic violence, which have no effect on these problems but does increase government control over the people of America.
• Criminal Investigations and prosecutions that are based upon suspicions or politics rather than evidence, which weaponizes our Law Enforcement by the targeted enforcement of the Laws based on Political Correctness and Political Party affiliation.
• Ending the Senate Filibuster to implement the tyranny of the majority.
• Giving statehood to Washington D.C. to potentially add two Democrat Senators to tip the balance of power in the Senate in their favor.
• Packing the Supreme Court to assure decisions for which they agree.
• Restricting Speech to eliminate supposed hatefulness, untruths, or misinformation amongst other labels, but is in reality for the purpose of silencing their opposition.
• Selective Enforcement of the Laws based on Identity Politics and Equity and Equality to disadvantage those groups of Americans that oppose their policies.
• Treating angry protests at civic meetings as domestic terrorism to intimidate into silence those that oppose their policies.
• Widespread IRS tracking and auditing of citizens' financial activities in an attempt to increase tax revenues through the fear of an IRS investigation and audit.

Not to mention numerous other violations of our Natural and Constitutional Rights, as I have outlined in my Chirp on "10/13/21 A Declaration of Liberty". And all these solutions would require despotism to implement, a despotism that is antithetic to democracy.

Therefore, the solutions that they propose will destroy democracy in order to save democracy, and thus leaving in the rubble a despotic and not a democratic America.

12/26/21 ASSUME - Making an ASS out of yoU and ME

In an article by Jim Geraghty, Biden’s Many, Many Wrong Assumptions, he outlined the many assumptions of President Biden and his administration made upon entering office. Some of his points, as well as some of my points, on Biden’s assumptions, are:

• He assumed that China and Russia were not threats to American interests, but only competitors that would abide by the rules of international commerce and who were interested in peaceful co-existence with the other nations of the world.
• He assumed that enforcing vaccine mandates would be easy and constitutional.
• He assumed that excessive federal spending would only have positive economic effects and no negative impacts on the economy, and this spending would not commence an inflationary cycle in America.
• He assumed that he had much more persuasiveness and charm on Capitol Hill and with the American people than he actually had.
• He assumed that his election was a mandate for the reversal of the Trump policies and for the advancement of radical democratic socialist policies.
• He assumed that his restrictions on energy exploitation and development in America would have no impact on energy costs and jobs within America.
• He assumed that more lenient treatment of criminals would ameliorate their criminal actions and provide more social justice for the criminals, as well as more harmoniousness in black neighborhoods and America.
• He assumed that passing an infrastructure bill would make Americans feel better about the state of the economy.
• He assumed that talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants would not attract new waves of migrants to the southern border and that there was nothing significant about a sudden surge of more migrants in the late winter after he took office.
• He assumed that the Afghan government was stronger and more stable than it was and that the Taliban were weaker than they were.
• He assumed that the Iranians would be eager and serious to get back to the negotiating table about their country’s nuclear program and that North Korea would not continue its nuclear program and ballistic missile development.
• He assumed that there was one unified “science” for him to follow in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic — instead of realizing that bright and well-meaning doctors and public-health officials sometimes disagree with one another.

In these assumptions, he has made an ass out of you and me (ASSUME). However, these assumptions are not only the assumptions of President Biden and his administration but also of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Assumptions that are often based on delusions about human nature, incorrect motivations of persons and groups, and no ill effects of governmental actions on the economy and society of America.

These delusions, as I have pointed out in many of my Chirps and Articles, are harmful to America and Americans. The combinations of these assumptions, and the depths of these delusions, portends a dark and gloomy American future. As Thomas Paine published in the article ‘The American Crisis’ during the Revolutionary War:

“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

As trying as these times are, we have it within ourselves to overcome these assumptions and their adherents. The only thing necessary to overcome these assumptions and adherents is to remember our American Ideals and Ideas and to preserve our Declaration of Independence and Constitutional principles. If we so persevere, then America can once again become the ‘Shining City on a Hill’ rather than a dark and gloomy place.

12/25/21 Hubble's Grand Tour of the Outer Solar System

From its vantage point high above Earth’s atmosphere, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has completed this year's grand tour of the outer solar system – returning crisp images that complement current and past observations from interplanetary spacecraft. This is the realm of the giant planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune – extending as far as 30 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

This is but one example of the advancement of the greatest scientific invention, the telescope, as I Chirped on, “12/24/21 The Greatest Scientific Inventions” These images are both striking and beautiful, and I would encourage all to view them.

12/24/21 The Greatest Scientific Inventions

There are many inventions that have changed the world. This Chirp is about the greatest scientific Inventions that changed the scientific world. These inventions changed the course of scientific history and brought about modern science. They are the telescope (around 1608), the microscope (around 1620), and standard and precision measurement instruments (starting in the 16th century).

The invention of the telescope allowed humankind to peer into the depths of the heavens. Until the age of the telescope, most people believed that the Heavens and the Earth were different from each other. The Heavens were thought to be perfect and unchangeable, while the Earth was imperfect and constantly changing. After Galileo disproved this distinction and Newton formulated his Law of Universal Gravitation, it was no longer possible to have a distinction between the Heavens and Earth, thus greatly advanced science in the understanding of the functioning of our Universe.

The invention of the microscope had the same effect as the telescope, as it allowed scientists to see things much smaller than the capabilities of the human eye. Much of the original discoveries were in the ability to see microscopic life and how it interacted with macroscopic life. This led to great advances in medicine and disease control, which greatly reduced the medical suffering of the people. Along with the telescope, this led to a better understanding of the natural processes of our world.

Standard and precision measurement instruments for scientific research are the core of scientific experiments and observations. A measuring instrument is a device to measure a physical quantity. In the physical sciences, quality assurance, and engineering, measurement is the activity of obtaining and comparing physical quantities of real-world objects and events. Established standard objects and events are used as units, and the process of measurement gives a number relating to the item under study and the referenced unit of measurement. Measuring instruments, and formal test methods which define the instrument's use, are the means by which these relations of numbers are obtained. All measuring instruments are subject to varying degrees of instrument error and measurement uncertainty. These instruments may range from simple objects such as rulers and stopwatches to electron microscopes and particle accelerators. Virtual instrumentation is widely used in the development of modern measuring instruments.

The invention of the basic measurement instruments of the thermometer, graduation rulers, Vernier scales, weighing scales, graduated cylinders, and accurate clocks and stopwatches changed the nature of scientific inquiry. Prior to the invention of these items, it was impossible to measure with any accuracy the basic properties of matter and the interval of changes to matter. Once you could measure these things, it was possible to determine scientific laws and formulate scientific theories.

These three inventions allowed brought about modern science and the benefits of modern science. They greatly added to our knowledge base and allowed us to harness nature for the benefit of humankind. Without these inventions, we would probably still be living as the people of the Middle Ages lived.

12/23/21 A Duel of Swords or a Duel of Pistols

As I explained in my Chirp on "09/07/19 Form Over Substance", in today’s political “debates”, and especially debates on television, there is a tendency to adjudge the debate winner on form over substance. The content of the debate is often overshadowed by the style of the debater, to the detriment of the audience, the debaters, and to the topic of the debate. A good debater requires supportive facts and figures to be available at a moment’s notice to counter their opponent. A good thinker, however, relies on thorough “Rationality” and "Reasoning" based on Empirical Evidence, which is more difficult to recollect and/or to explain in a debate. This puts the good thinker at a disadvantage to a good debater in a debate. A great debater is both a first-class thinker and a first-class debater, but these individuals are few and far between. In the situation of a debate between a debater and a thinker, the good debater is often seen as the “winner’ of the debate, even though their argument may be defective or without merit. Meanwhile, the good thinkers’ argument is largely ignored in a debate, as there is insufficient time to be effectual in explaining their thinking.

A good debater often relies on the crux of the subject, while a good thinker relies on the substance of the subject, as I explained in my Chirp on, "05/15/20 Gettysburg Address in Words and in Crux". After reading this Chirp, I think that we can all agree that the words and reasoning have a much more significant intellectual and emotional impact than the crux of the words. It is for this reason that I prefer to discuss my words and reasoning rather than go to the crux of the matter.

Consequently, a good thinker may not be a good debater, and a good debater may not be a good thinker. I am, myself, afflicted with this problem as I believe I have good thoughts, but I also believe that I am a poor debater. It is for this reason that I often do not engage in debates. I do, however, engage in discussions in which both sides have ample time to challenge facts and figures and effectually explain their arguments.

This situation is analogous between a duel of swords or a duel of pistols. A duel of swords provides much action and excitement, while a duel of pistols is calmer but is a more tension-filled event until after the pistols are fired. The sword fighter’s skill of lunges and thrusts, and blocks and parry, will lead them to victory, but it is a victory of technique. The pistol fighters rely on calmness and a deliberativeness to achieve victory, a victory of substantialness. A victory is a victory, but a victory of technique is less satisfying and less meaningful than a victory of substantialness. Of course, if the reason for the duel was shallow, then the victory in the duel is also shallow.

When debating social policy or government legislation, a victory of substantialness is required to achieve a more positive outcome for society. Consequently, you should never adjudge victory in a political debate based on technique but rather adjudge the victory on substantialness. And victory should always be adjudged by which party has demonstrated better “Rationality” and "Reasoning".

12/22/21 The End of the Filibuster

The Democrats have often been for or against the Filibuster in the United States Senate, depending on whether they were in or out of control of the Senate, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards". As I have Chirp on, "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship", the Senate Filibuster can be used or misused depending upon the circumstances. As the Democrats have been unable to nullify or modify the Senate Filibuster, they have started to utilize another tactic to neuter the Senate Filibuster – The Reconciliation Process.

The Senate Democrats are trying to utilize the Reconciliation process to pass legislation that could not be passed through the normal and customary procedures of the Senate. The Reconciliation process allows the Senate majority to sidestep the filibuster and pass bills that affect spending, revenue, or the federal debt ceiling. There are limits on how it can be used, though. One is that, at maximum, three bills can be passed a year using the Reconciliation process. Another is the Byrd Rule, which states that certain kinds of provisions are “extraneous” and therefore cannot be passed under Reconciliation. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for Reconciliation—in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of 10 years); or
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Whenever the Senate attempts to utilize the Reconciliation process, the Senate Parliamentarian must rule on the appropriateness of the legislation to the Byrd Rule to include this legislation in the Reconciliation process. The Senator or Senators who wish to inappropriately use the Reconciliation process often use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify their actions. However, the Parliamentarian just as often rejects their attempts as not meeting the Byrd Rule standard for inclusion in the Reconciliation process.

The most recent example is of the Senate Democrats trying to pass Immigration Reform through the Reconciliation process. As the proposed Immigration Reform legislation would not pass a Senate Filibuster, they attempted to include this legislation in a Reconciliation measure under consideration. The Senate Parliamentarian rejected this attempt as not appropriate under the Byrd Rule, and the wails and protestations from the Senate Democrats and President Biden and his administration have been piercing. There is even talk about overturning the Senate Parliamentarians' decision and even changing the Byrd Rule in the future. If such a change to the Byrd Rule were to occur, it would effectively end the Senate Filibuster.

If this were to occur, then the Senate would then operate on the basis of majority rule, with little or no concerns for the rights of the minority. Whether this is a good or bad thing is open to much debate, with much of the debate depending on whether a party is in or out of power in the Senate and the legislation in contention, as I have discussed in Chirp on, "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship".

Whenever anyone proposes the elimination or modification of the Senate Filibuster, they should be asked if they would think the same if the shoe were on the other foot. The other foot being that if they needed the Senate Filibuster to stop or amend legislation that they thought was wrong or harmful. I suspect that they would want to keep the Senate Filibuster if it was needed by themselves to achieve their goals. The word for such duplicitousness is hypocrisy, which is what needs to be eliminated in the Senate rather than the elimination of the Senate Filibuster.

12/21/21 Regulatory Capture

Regulatory Capture explains how governmental regulatory agencies actually operate in the real world, rather than how they were supposed to operate when they were authorized:

“Regulatory Capture is an economic theory that says regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating. The result is that an agency, charged with acting in the public interest, instead acts in ways that benefit incumbent firms in the industry it is supposed to be regulating.”

“Regulated industries devote large budgets to influencing regulators at federal, state, and local levels. By contrast, individual citizens spend only limited resources to advocate for their own rights. This is an extension of the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of regulation, public policy, and collective action in general, described by economist Mancur Olsen.”

“In many cases, the regulators themselves come from the pool of industry experts and employees, in part due to the complex and specialized knowledge needed to regulate an industry, and may also then return to work in the industry after their government service. This is known as the revolving door between government and special interests. In some cases, industry leaders trade the promise of future jobs for regulatory consideration, making revolving doors criminally corrupt.”

“Regulatory agencies that come to be controlled by the industries they are charged with regulating are known as captured agencies, and agency capture occurs when that governmental body operates essentially as an advocate for the industries it regulates. Such cases may not be directly corrupt, as there is no quid pro quo; rather, the regulators simply begin thinking like the industries they regulate, due to heavy lobbying.”

We are beginning to see this process unfold in the current Facebook.com actions to address the concerns of their censoring some content, mostly content from conservative posts or posts with which they disagree with the content (i.e., content that they label hateful, untruths, or misinformation amongst other labels). Facebook has started a media campaign in which they have ads in the "Mainstream Media" that appear to be news media interviews with their employees involved in this censuring activity within Facebook. In these ads, their employees make an appeal for governmental regulations that would supposedly assist them in making better and more fair criteria for their censorship under regulations from the Federal government.

Many of the other "Social Media" companies have also expressed an interest in government regulations for their censorship activities. Don’t be fooled by Facebook’s ad campaign and the other Social Media's advocacy for government regulations. While I genuinely believe they want government regulation, it is not for the purposes of better and more fair criteria for their censorship. They wish to engage in regulatory Capture of the government agency that would be responsible for creating these regulations and for instituting their criteria for censorship as government regulations. Thus, they would be deflecting attention from themselves and onto the government agency they have captured.

And always remember that any government control or censorship of speech is unconstitutional, as well as a slippery slope to despotism.

12/20/21 Feeding the Crocodile

As Winston Churchill once famously said about the appeasement of Adolf Hitler prior to World War II:

"Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely."

And feeding the crocodile is what "Modern Big Business" has been doing lately. In their rush of Virtue Signaling, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Cancel Culture, they have been feeding the crocodile in an attempt to stave off criticisms and actions by "Progressives/Leftists". This feeding has been done by making large donations to "Activists and Activism’ organizations. Now, the crocodile is starting to feed on them. When destructive mobs and violent gangs were content to rob, loot, and destroy the property of small businesses in the inner-city neighborhoods, they did not protest these actions and instead voiced their support by either their silence or by mealy-mouthed words about these actions of the mob and gangs. They also started to make contributions to the organizations that either were engaged or supportive of these mob or gang actions in an attempt to stave off these mob and gang actions against their businesses.

When the mob and gangs turned their attention to upscale businesses in affluent neighborhoods, these same feeders of the crocodile have then asked for Federal assistance to curb these mob and gang actions. This request for Federal assistance is pure hypocrisy and only driven by their own self-interest.

If they want assistance in controlling mob and gang actions, then they should be appealing to local and state law enforcement who are responsible for controlling mob and gang violence. They should also be making contributions to those small businesses and neighborhoods that were victims of the mob and gang violence. It would also be helpful if they supported political candidates that are for law enforcement rather than for political candidates that support the mobs and gangs (which are mostly Democrat Party candidates whom they currently support).

As to their request for Federal assistance, I would respond – You made your bed, and now you should sleep in it, as well as go pound sand.

12/19/21 Changing the Rules

Today, the Philadelphia Eagles Football team will not play the Washington Football Team, even though this contest has been scheduled for many months. The reason given by the NFL for this rescheduling is that it was necessary as the Washington Football Team has so many players that are inactive due to the NFL’s COVID-19 restrictions that they could not field a competitive football team for this game. The NFL has also changed its COVID-19 protocols so that they are less restrictive so that more players could be activated to play on game day and hence have more competitive games. This change to the COVID-19 protocols also calls into question their commitment to player safety. The reason that the Washington Football Team has so many players inactive due to the COVID-19 restrictions is that they were less proactive in preventing COVID-19 exposures than the Philadelphia Eagles Football team, which only has a few players that are inactive due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Washington Football Team has 23 reported players on the reserve/COVID-19 list, while the Philadelphia Eagles Football team has only two players on the reserve/COVID-19 list.

In effect, the NFL is punishing the Philadelphia Eagles Football team for being proactive against COVID-19 while rewarding the Washington Football Team for being less proactive against COVID-19. It is punishing the Philadelphia Eagles Football team because the following game against the New York Giants will occur after a short week for the Philadelphia Eagles Football team to recover and rest from the aches and pains of the Washington Football Team rescheduled game. The Philadelphia Eagles will also have less time to prepare for the New York Giants contest, which gives the New York Giants a competitive advantage. It also increases the chances of Philadelphia Eagles players being injured in the New York Giants game as they had insufficient time to rest and recover for the New York Giants contest. All of this has also impacted the NFL playoffs, as the Philadelphia Eagles and the Washington Football Team are jockeying for a playoff spot, which may be affected because of this rescheduling.

All of this exemplifies the current attitude of "Progressives/Leftists". An attitude that if you don’t like the results, then you should change the rules of the game, even in the middle of the game, to change the results to achieve a more fair and equitable result. But fairness and equitable are in the eye of the beholder and often do not take into account "The Law of Unintended Consequences" as a result of changing the rules of the game.

As the NFL and its players are widely known for their support of progressive causes, it should be no surprise that they have adopted this attitude in their own actions. An attitude that corrupts the integrity of the football season results and calls into question the fairness of the NFL. It also adds to the coffers of the NFL, as now they have an additional prime time game during the week that could generate more revenue for the NFL. As such, one wonders as to the reason for this scheduling change are more money or more competitiveness, but I believe it is more of the former rather than the latter.

12/18/21 American Military Leadership – Part III

Victor Davis Hanson, In his book, The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, defines great military leadership as the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them to a noble cause for the wars they fought. They did this by utilizing unconventional military strategy and techniques, with a concern of their soldiers’ and sailors’ safety and minimization of casualties, while attempting to expeditiously end the war and achieve their noble cause. In my opinion, Generals George Washington, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton are the great American Generals, while Admiral Nimitz was the greatest American Admiral. General Douglas MacArthur, on the other hand, was not so great. As such, I have written an article about each of these generals and Admiral Nimitz, and my thoughts about their greatness and not so greatness:

• General George Washington
• General William Tecumseh Sherman with comments on General Ulysses S. Grant
• General George S. Patton with comments on Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradly, and Courtney Hodges
• General Douglas MacArthur
• Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

12/17/21 American Military Leadership – Part II

In his book The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, Victor Davis Hanson makes no mention of General George Washington of the American Revolutionary War, nor General John J. Pershing of World War I as great generals. This is because while Washington was a greater leader, his generalship was often lacking. After all, he did lose more battles than he won. However, I believe that General Washington should be considered as a great general under Victor Davis Hanson’s criteria.

Like the great Ancient Greek Theban general Epaminondas in Victor Davis Hanson’s book, General Washington led ordinary citizens in unconventional warfare against the British, inspired his troops for the noble cause for which they fought and to keep fighting, and thus achieved victory for this noble cause.

His military strategy was to fight limited battles rather than conventional battles, as he knew that his Army would be defeated, captured, and destroyed in conventional battles. He, therefore, adopted a strategy of engaging in a limited fight until the point of defeat or unacceptable casualties, then to retreat to live to fight another day. While this did wear down the British and eventually win the war for American Independence, his greatness was not in generalship but in his leadership to hold the colonial army together until victory was accomplished.

General Washington persevered despite many hardships and deprivations of his Army. Food, munitions, and other supplies were always in short supply. Accommodations for his troops between battles were often wretched, cold, or non-existent. Many a night, the troops slept on cold, hard ground with inadequate tenting and only a small campfire for heat. Political infighting within the Continental Congress only made matters worse. There was also political jockeying for appointments and promotions of officers in his Army, as well as his troops often being untrained, undisciplined, and rambunctious. There was also the problem of his troop’s enlistments expiring during the course of the war, and many of his troops would go back home when their enlistments were over, thus depriving him of manpower to conduct battles.

General Washington also many times fought with his troops and exposed himself to the dangers of battle, just as Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton did when they led their troops. He also suffered many of the hardships and deprivations that his troops suffered. And he persevered until the American Revolution was won, and thereby General Washington changed the course of World History and advanced the cause of Liberty and Freedom to all humankind. 

As such, therefore, I believe that General Washington deserves to be considered a great general under Victor Davis Hanson’s criteria.

General Pershing recognized that tank warfare, and infantry mobility was the key to winning WWI, which he employed very effectively thanks to the exploits of his junior officers, most especially Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton. He also resisted British and French attempts to incorporate American troops into their battle lines, thus avoiding the quagmire, horrors, and casualties of trench warfare and mass frontal assaults against the Germans. While he did not win the war, he was instrumental in achieving an Armistice until a Peace Treaty was signed. An Armistice and Peace Treaty that sowed the seeds of the death, destruction, disease, and horrors of WWII in Europe and the Pacific. If he had won the war, and established a peace that would have prevented WWII, then he would be worthy of consideration as a great liberator.

I also believe that Admiral Chester W. Nimitz should be considered the greatest Admiral in American history. Through his decisive offensive actions at the start of World War II in the Pacific and his strategy and tactics of Leapfrogging naval battles and submarine warfare against Japanese maritime shipping, Admiral Nimitz shortened the war and demonstrated concerns for the safety and minimization of casualties while attempting to expeditiously end the war. And he did this by doing what he thought best despite the reservations of others. Therefore, Admiral Nimitz should be considered one of the best admirals in U.S. Navy history and, indeed, one of the greatest admirals in all naval history. This is also why he is my favorite American admiral.

Today, we have had near great generals in General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and General David Petraeus of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. However, today's American military is permeated with bureaucracy and administrative intervention that is focused on conventional military strategy and techniques to fight a war and are often beholden to the Military-Industrial Complex in their decision-making. They also are more political and concerned with Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and "Social Engineering" rather than creating the deadliest and most efficient military possible. Any independent thinking and criticism within today’s military ranks are met with derision and/or charges of insubordination, which often ends the military career of the person voicing criticism, if not outright dismissal or discharge of the dissenter from the military.

12/16/21 American Military Leadership – Part I

America has produced some great generals and admirals throughout its history. Generals such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradly, Courtney Hodges, Douglas MacArthur, and George S. Patton of World War II, John J. Pershing of World War II, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, and General Robert E. Lee of the American Civil War, and George Washington of the American Revolutionary War are some of these great generals. In current American history, we have had near great generals in Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and David Petraeus of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. We have also had great Fleet Admirals of the U.S. Navy in World War II in William D. Leahy, Ernest King, Chester W. Nimitz, and William Halsey Jr.

In the book The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny by Victor Davis Hanson, he defines great military leadership as the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them to a noble cause for the wars they fought. Most often, this noble cause is for the freedom of oppressed persons under the enemy’s control. A great military leader also fights with the concern of their soldier’s safety and minimization of casualties while attempting to expeditiously end the war and achieve their noble cause.

My three favorite American generals are George Washington, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton, with a sneaking admiration of Ulysses S. Grant. As such, I have written History Articles about these three generals. I have included my comments about why General Grant does not rise to greatness and why General Lee should not even be considered a great general in my article on William Tecumseh Sherman. I have also written a History Article to explain why Douglas MacArthur is not a favorite general of mine, nor is he a great general.

I do not consider Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradly, and Courtney Hodges of World War II as preeminent generals of America as they had some shortcomings that exclude them as my favorites. All these generals utilized conventional military strategy and techniques to fight World War II, and as a result, the war was prolonged and, therefore, additional hundreds of thousands of troop casualties and millions of innocents lives in the death camps occurred. They were also often too cautious and too administrative/bureaucratic, as well as too political in their decision-making when boldness and apolitical decisions would have better served in expeditiously ending the war. They also lacked the military leadership as to the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them for the noble cause for which they fought.

Tomorrow's Chirp will examine other American generals that Victor Davis Hanson did not include in his book.

12/15/21 America's Trust in Mass Media

The Gallup Poll on America's Trust in Mass Media by Political Party reveals no surprises, but it is revealing as to the extent that Americans do not trust the "Mainstream Media" and "Modern Journalism":

I suspect that these results are a factor of the more you engage in “Rationality” and "Reasoning", the less likely you are to trust Mass Media, which also says much of the intelligence of Americans by Political Party.

12/14/21 Rationality and Reasoning

In my Chirps and Articles have often written about being rational and reasonable. While I have written an article on "Reasoning", I have not written about Rationality. This is a difficult topic to write upon, as rationality can be a nebulous term and have different meanings to different people. However, my new Article, “Rationality”, attempts to define Rationality and my utilization of Rationality in my Chirps and Articles.

12/13/21 The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration is a document signed by over 15,000 infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, and over 45,000 medical practitioners, that states that they have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommends an approach that they call Focused Protection.

The premise of the Declaration lies on two scientific facts. First, while anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in COVID-19 mortality between the oldest and youngest. Children have lower mortality from COVID-19 than from the annual influenza. For people under the age of 70, the infection survival rate is 99.95%. We now have good evidence on the relative risk posed by the incidence of chronic conditions, so we know that among common conditions, age is the single most important risk factor. For instance, a 65-year-old obese individual has about the same COVID-19 mortality risk conditional upon infection as a 70-year-old non-obese individual.

Second, the harms of the lockdown are manifold and devastating, including plummeting childhood vaccination rates, worse cardiovascular disease outcomes, less cancer screening, and deteriorating mental health, to name a few. The social isolation induced by lockdown has led to a sharp rise in opioid and drug-related overdoses, similar to the “deaths of despair” that occurred in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession. Social isolation of the elderly has contributed to a sharp rise in dementia-related deaths around the country. For children, the cessation of in-person schooling since the spring has led to “catastrophic” learning losses, with severe projected adverse consequences for affected students’ life spans. According to a CDC estimate, one in four young adults seriously considered suicide this past June. Among 25 to 44-year olds, the CDC reports a 26% increase in excess all-cause mortality relative to past years, though fewer than 5% of 2020 deaths have been due to COVID-19.

The Great Barrington Declaration also has answers to many Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19:

Lockdowns And Collateral Damage

• How do you define lockdowns?
• Do lockdowns have a successful history against infectious diseases?
• Are governments still using lockdowns?
• What are the physical health impacts of lockdowns?
• What are the mental health impacts of lockdowns?
• What are the harms from closing schools to in-person instruction?
• How do lockdowns specifically harm the working class?
• How do lockdowns harm the developing world?

Covid-19 Risk

• How Dangerous is the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease?
• With schools closed, how can you say that the mortality risk to children is low?
• Why are so many people afraid of COVID-19?

Protecting The Old and Other High-Risk Groups

• How can one separate younger and older generations to ensure that the latter are not infected by the former?
• Don’t the current age-wide lockdown strategies properly protect the old?
• How do we protect the elderly in nursing homes and other care settings?
• How do we protect older people living at home?
• How do we protect older people still in the work force?
• How do we protect older people in multigenerational homes?
• How about younger people with risk factors?
• For how long must high-risk individuals be careful and/or self-isolate?
• How can older people know when to be extra careful?

Herd Immunity

• What is herd immunity?
• Do you believe in herd immunity?
• Is the Great Barrington Declaration advocating a ‘herd immunity strategy’?
• Does the Great Barrington Declaration advocate for “Letting the virus run free”?
• For COVID-19, what percent of the population needs to be immune to have herd immunity?
• What are the current levels of immunity against COVID-19? Is it enough for herd immunity?
• Should people deliberately get infected to generate herd immunity?

Standard Public Health Practice

• Isn’t Focused Protection too risky an experiment?
• How were prior pandemics dealt with?
• Have contact tracing, testing and isolation been successful against infectious diseases?
• Is it not better to pursue a ZeroCOVID strategy like New Zealand and South Korea?
• What is the role of vaccines in focused protection?

This may surprise some persons who know of this Declaration, its FAQs, and its recommendation for Focused Protection, given the unfortunate caricature of the Declaration, where some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy” that aims to maximize infections among the young or as a laissez-faire approach to let the virus rip through society. On the contrary, they believe that everyone should take basic precautions to avoid spreading the disease and that no one should intentionally expose themselves to COVID-19 infection. Since zero COVID is impossible, herd immunity is the endpoint of this epidemic regardless of whether we choose lockdowns or focused protection to address it.

I would encourage all to read this Declaration and the supporting FAQs, as it is a basis for “Rationality” and "Reasoning" on our COVID-19 responses.

12/12/21 Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma

As nouns, the difference between tenet and doctrine is that tenet is an opinion, belief, or principle held to be true by someone or especially an organization, while doctrine is a belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.

Doctrine comes from the Latin "doctrina" for "teaching", and still retains that meaning of a principle, position or policy that is taught (see indoctrinate). Dogma comes from Greek "dokein" for "to seem good, think" through Latin "dogmatos" for "that which one thinks is true". And tenet simply comes from the Latin "tenere" for "to hold", as in something (an idea or belief) which is held. Contextually, doctrine and dogma are used interchangeably, and all are listed as synonyms for each other, but, if we haven't already learned that by now, it bears repeating that there are no true synonyms.

In my article on Religiosity, I explain my thoughts on this topic. These thoughts have led me to my personal Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma that I try to apply to my life.

Given the above definitions, my tenets are:

• I Believe in the Electro-Magnetic Force, the Strong Force, the Weak Force, and in Gravity
• I Believe in Entropy and Evolution
• I Believe in God as the creator of the Universe and the source of moral authority:

1. Before the beginning, there was God.
2. And God was all there was, is, and could be.
3. And God was conscience, intelligent, and all-knowing.
4. And God was bored as it knew all there is, and was, and what will be.
5. And God decided to create a universe, a universe of matter and energy, and dark matter and dark energy. A universe of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and thermodynamics.
6. And this Universe would evolve so that galaxies, stars, and planets would form, and life could be created and evolve on the planets.
7. And this life would also evolve so that conscience intelligent life would come forth.
8. And God gave this conscience intelligent life the knowledge of good from evil, right from wrong, truth from falsehood, creative from destructive, reasonable from emotional, love from hate, wisdom from folly, and beauty from ugliness.
9. And God gave this conscience intelligent life free choice so that it could decide how to behave based on this knowledge.
10. And God would observe their behavior and be entertained by it.
11. When the conscience intelligent life died, God would absorb their consciousness’ into its own, and God would know all the conscience intelligence life knew.
12. After the conscience intelligent life died, God would judge them based on their words, deeds, and thoughts and punish or reward their consciousness as appropriate.

My doctrine is my interpretation of “The Ten Commandments” as:

1. You shall have no other gods but me.
2. You shall remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
3. You shall not make any graven images of anyone or anything.
4. You shall not utilize the name of the Lord thy God to justify immoral acts.
5. You shall respect your father and your mother.
6. You shall not unjustly take the life of another person.
7. You shall not have sexual relations with the spouse of another person.
8. You shall not steal, loot, nor destroy the property of another person.
9. You shall not lie about nor give false testimony against any person.
10. You shall not covet anything of any other person.

And my dogma is:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

"It is much more important to do good than to feel good."

"Knowing why is often more important than knowing how."

"Nothing is as good as it appears, or as bad as it seems. But on rare occasions, it can be better, or worse."

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."

"To understand well, you must read; and read well, often, and on subjects on which you are unfamiliar."

"True Courage is doing the right thing, at the right time, regardless of personal consequences."

"Try to think philosophically, but always act pragmatically."

"You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room."

"You'll never get confused if you simply tell the truth. Then you don't have to remember what you have said, and you never forget what you have said. And you won't get in trouble for telling a lie if you have told the truth."

I attempt to adhere to these Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma in my life, but given that I am human, I occasionally fall short in my efforts. That is why I firmly believe, as I have written in one of my Pearls of Wisdom - "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine".

12/11/21 The Irrationality of Progressives/Leftists

As I have often written in my Chirps and Articles dealing with "Progressives/Leftists", they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. And always being correct, they believe that their opponents are not only wrong and stupid but that their opponents must be evil as they are morally good. It also demonstrates their narcissistic belief in their own superiority.

As to their being better educated, in today’s world of "Indoctrination versus Education", this simply means that they are more indoctrinated in Progressives and Leftists Ideals and Ideas, and consequently less capable of “Rationality” and "Reasoning".

While many Progressives and Leftists profess a belief in God, they are committed to secularism in government, and many of them are atheists or agnostics. They, therefore, do not base their policies and agendas on religion or morality but on an internal sense of righteousness. As a result:

"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything."
 - Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to G. K. Chesterton)

And Progressives and Leftists will believe anything that fits their narrative and discount anything that does not fit their narrative. When Progressives and Leftists are confronted by facts and circumstances that contravene their narrative, they often resort to irrationality to explain away this contravention of their narrative. Hence, anything that happens that does not fit their narrative must undergo "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning, "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to explain away this contravention or to shoehorn the contravention into their narrative. And sometimes they simply ignore the contraventions and pretend they do not exist. All of which is an exercise in irrationality.

In many cases, they manufacture irrationalities to support their narrative. The Steele Dossier, the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Impeachments of President Trump, the January 6th ‘Insurrection’, as well as many allegations and assertions against persons and incidents in the recent past are manufactured to fit the Progressives and Leftists narrative. And most often, this is done before the facts are established (i.e., Jumping to Conclusions), and anytime that you Jump to Conclusions, you are being irrational. If, after they discover the facts and truths that do not fit their narrative, they do not apologize and correct their falsehoods but engage in more irrationality to justify their previous irrationality. This is not only divisive and destructive to America, but it also demonstrates their narcissistic belief in themselves.

Irrationality will lead you to conclusions that support political and policy agendas that are not in the best interests of America and Americans. These conclusions are not based upon truths as:

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."
 - Mark Dawson

Progressives' and Leftists' narratives often deny the truths of human nature to support their narrative. As a result, any political and policy agendas implemented on this denial of human nature is doomed, as:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
 - Mark Dawson

Therefore, the Irrationality of Progressives/Leftists is harmful to America and Americans.

12/10/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight – Part II

In my Chirp on "11/28/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight", I point out that the situation in Ukraine could escalate and pose a danger to peace and possible war in Europe. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in Europe? And if we believe that this is a precursor, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression? And if we do act against Russia, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

One of the loudest voices for minimal action is Tucker Carlson, while many in government are arguing for more proactive and even military actions by America in the Ukraine situation. I generally agree with Tucker Carlson that America should be wary of getting involved in Ukraine, but I am concerned that his argumentation has some assertions that, if they turn out to be false, could have detrimental consequences for America.

As I have stated many times in my Chirps and Articles, Assertions often contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Some of Tucker Carlson’s assertions about the situation in Ukraine, and my notes on these assertions are:

• Vladimir Putin has no intention of invading Western Europe.
  (Note – Tucker says nothing of Vladimir Putin’s intentions of invading Eastern Europe.)
• Vladimir Putin just wants to keep his western borders secure.
  (Note – This was said of the reasons for the Soviet Union domination and control of Eastern Europe, which is not a valid reason for the aggression against any country.)
• The United States would gain precisely nothing from taking over Ukraine.
  (Note – I agree with Tucker that there is nothing to be gained, but the United States does not want to take over Ukraine, it only wants to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine.)
• Vladimir Putin doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO as I would become a satellite country.
  (Note – NATO countries are not satellites of any other country – they are independent states.)
• NATO currently exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin.
  (Note – I thought NATO currently exists to primarily torment America.)
• NATO wishes to take over Ukraine.
  (Note – Rather than Ukraine wanting to join NATO to protect itself against Russian aggression.)
• A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base.
  (Note - Sevastopol Naval Base existed in Ukraine’s Crimean region prior to Russia seizing control of Crimea, and it was protected by the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet between Ukraine and Russia, which could have been extended or additionally protected by an international treaty if necessary.)
• We are driving Russia deeper into the arms of the government of China.
  (Note – We don’t need to drive Russia into the arms of China. They seem quite happy to do this themselves as a means to extend their influence across the world.)

If any one of these assertions is incorrect, then the conclusions that Tucker Carlson reaches would be wrong. History has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predetermine the motivations and goals of aggressors and that when you misjudge an aggressive leaders’ intentions, you often pay the penalty for your misjudgments. In modern history, we have the examples of the misjudgments of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte that led to war in Europe. Many of his assertions about the intentions of Vladimir Putin were also made about the intentions of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte, with disastrous consequences. I would therefore ask Tucker Carlson, as in the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers, that he:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

I would also ask that he ponder the possibility that he is wrong in these assertions and that, therefore, we could be blundering into another armed conflict in Europe.

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations. I also believe that our current and past government leaders do not have the wisdom to make a judgment on the intentions of Vladimir Putin. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe to protect its direct interests in Europe, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European people.

12/09/21 The Hierarchy of Rights

In my article, “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”, I examine the differences and hierarchy of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights. Many people conflate these rights and give each of them equal importance. However, this is not correct, as each is different, and each has more or less importance to the other.

As is typical for most people discussing Natural Rights (myself included), they conflate the ideas of natural law and natural rights into the term Natural Rights. Though these two ideas are closely related, they are not the same. Natural law is inherent and fundamental in a society of sentient beings that wish to survive and thrive in their interactions with each other. Natural rights are those rights derived from natural law which establish a zone of liberty and freedom for an individual that no other person, group of persons or government can violate. The issues and concerns of Philosophers, Theologians, Legal scholars, and others involved in this epistemology are to determine what are the natural laws, and what are the natural rights derived from these natural laws. A fine legal article (but easily readable and understandable by non-lawyers) is A Law Professor’s Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights by Randy E. Barnett, which defines and explains the ideas of natural law and natural rights.

When I utilize the term ‘Natural Rights’ (with beginning capitalization), I am deliberately conflating the ideas of natural law and natural rights for convenience purposes. In my opinion, Natural Rights are endowed by Nature or Nature’s God by the fact of being conceived, born, and living and dying as a human person. Natural Rights are also inviolate and cannot be abrogated nor annulled by any person, group, society, or government. Human Rights are those rights bestowed upon a person by society or government. Once bestowed, they cannot be revoked except by overwhelming agreement of the persons who have these Human Rights. Civil Rights are those rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, including especially the fundamental liberties, freedoms, and privileges of Natural and Human Rights. Any Civil Rights acts of a legislature, including the right to legal, social, and economic equality may be altered, abolished, or added as the government sees fit as necessary to protect our Human and Natural Rights, but Civil Rights cannot abrogate, constrain, or alter our Natural and Human Rights.

Consequently, all rights must originate from Natural Rights, while Human Rights are special protections for basic Natural Rights within a government jurisdiction, and Civil Rights may come and go as needed to protect our Natural and Human Rights. Therefore, ‘There Are No Human Rights without Natural Rights, and no Civil Rights but for the protection of our Natural and Human Rights’.

12/08/21 The Disinformation and Misinformation of the Media

The willful avoidance of facts and deliberate obscuring of what happened in the Waukesha, Wisconsin massacre (as outlined in the article, “Waukesha: The Shame of the Media” by Newt Gingrich), in the Kyle Rittenhouse reporting (as outlined in the article, “10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked” by Miranda Devine), and in the Ahmaud Arbery and the Jussie Smollett’s trials, and other disinformation and misinformation reporting of "Modern Journalism", is practiced because it apparently violates the established media’s narrative of inherent white racism and black victimization. The propaganda media’s answer has been to simply avoid the facts and focus on reporting, which can at best be described as inadequate and at worst be described as maliciously dishonest and misleading.,

As in my Chirp on, "11/22/21 The Atrociousness of Mainstream Media Reporting and Commentary", modern journalism has drifted from reporting the facts and truths in America to the advocacy of ‘change’, ‘reform’, and ‘transformation’ based on "Progressives/Leftists" Ideals and Ideas, and their support of Democrat Party politicians and their agenda. They believe that this is proper journalism, as it advances the Noble Lie as I have Chirped on, "11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies". They do so because of their American hatred viewpoint, as I have Chirped on, "11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?".

This Disinformation and Misinformation is doing great harm to the body politic, for without proper and correct information, it is not possible for the American electorate to cast their ballots in an informed, rational, and reasonable manner as I have explained in my Articles, “Rationality” and "Reasoning". It is also leading us to a degradation of "A Civil Society", a coarsening of "Dialog and Debate", and the American public to believe in "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

Hopefully, the American public is beginning to recognize this Disinformation and Misinformation as seen in the declining viewership and readership of the "Mainstream Media". And, hopefully, this will be seen in the voting of the American electorate in the next few elections.

12/07/21 The Soul of Our Political Parties

After recently having read The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny by Victor Davis Hanson, I began to consider the soul of our modern political parties. To do this, we should ignore the words and deeds of both the Democrat and Republican Parties prior to the 21st century and concentrate on the 21st-century words and deeds of the parties. If we do this, we can see some distinct differences in the modern souls between the parties. The modern soul of the Democrat party was formulated and solidified in the first decade of the 21st century, while the soul of the Republican party was formulated in the second decade of the 21st century and is now being solidified in the third decade of the 21st century.

The modern soul of the Democrat Party was formulated on the excessive ideologies and ideas of "Progressives/Leftists" in response to the election of President Bush in 2000, which were solidified in the election of President Obama in 2008, then further cemented in the election of President Biden in 2020.

The modern soul of the Republican Party began to formulate with the rise of the Tea Party Movement in 2009, an American conservative political movement within the Republican Party that coalesced against President Barack Obama's agenda and held a series of public protests against President Obama and moderate Republican Party leaders. This soul solidified with the election of President Trump in 2016.

My new Article, “The Soul of Our Political Parties”, examines these modern souls of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

12/06/21 The 25th Constitutional Amendment Issues and Concerns

Much has been said and written about the inadequacies and unworkability of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution as to the temporary removal or reinstatement of the President if they are unable, or able, to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President. In this, I agree that the current 25th Amendment is inadequate and unworkable. Therefore, I would propose we replace the current 25th Amendment with the following:

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or by their death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the Vice President and the Secretary of State transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their joint written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then with the jointly written affirmation within twenty-four hours of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the acting President and the Secretary of State transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their joint written declaration that no inability of the President currently exists, then within twenty-four hours of a jointly written affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the President is fit to resume their office the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of their office.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that they are able to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then with the jointly written affirmation within twenty-four hours of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of the office of President.

If the President disagrees with the joint affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then they may transmit a written appeal of this joint affirmation to the parliamentarian of both Houses of Congress, who shall set forth and advance Congressional action in their respective chambers under Section 4 of this Amendment.

If no joint written affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives is obtained within twenty-four hours of the transmittal by the Vice President and the Secretary of State, or by the President, of the inability or ability of President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then Section 4 of this Amendment is to be applied.

Section 4.

If the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are unable to jointly agree upon the inability or ability of President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, or upon an appeal by the President of their joint affirmation, then Congress shall within three days, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session, decide the inability or ability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President. If Congress determines, by a three-fifths vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.  If Congress determines, by a three-fifths vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, that the President is fit to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of their office.

I believe that this wording is adequate and workable and will assure a smooth transition of power when the President is unable then becomes fit to discharge the powers and duties of their office. I also believe that this procedure will help assure the security and authenticity of our Democratic Republic.

12/05/21 Much Ado About Nothing

There has been much talk about the removal of a President or Vice President, especially Vice President Kamala Harris. I would remind Americans, and especially Democrats and Progressives/Leftists, that there are only four ways to remove a President or Vice President under the Constitution. They are:

1. Resignation
2. Impeachment and Conviction
3. Physical or Mental Incapacity
4. Death by natural causes, accidental causes, or assassination

With the current rumors about Vice President Kamala Harris's removal, I would like to address these four ways in regard to her removal.

1. Resignations most often occur through scandal or revulsion to a President or Vice President's words or deeds. In modern American history, this occurred with the resignations of President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.
   
   No such scandal or revulsion exists for Vice President Harris, and she has little motivation to resign except political pressure from her Democrat Party leadership. Given the possibility of President Biden being unable to serve his full term and her becoming President, or her becoming the Democrat heir apparent in the next presidential election, her motivation to stay in office is too great to force her into resignation.
   
   
2. Impeachment and Conviction are difficult to accomplish for a President or Vice President, as seen by the two impeachment actions against President Donald Trump. While they did impeach President Trump in the House of Representatives, they were unable to obtain a conviction in the Senate, as I have written about extensively in my articles on “The Impeachment of President Trump”.
   
   Although the American people and Democrat Party leader may dislike Vice President Harris or believe that she is incompetent or a drag on the Democrat Party election hopes, these are not impeachable offenses under the Article II Section 4 Constitutional standard of:
   
   
   “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
   
   
   In addition, it takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives to vote for Impeachment, but Article I Section 3 of the Constitution states that in a Senate trial:
   
   
   “And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
   
   
   I would doubt that two-thirds of the Senate would vote for conviction, especially as the Republicans are happy to see her in office as an example of the incompetency and ineffectiveness of the Biden administration.
   To try to remove Vice President Harris through Impeachment and Conviction is purely political gamesmanship and makes a mockery of our Constitution.
   
   
3. Vice President Harris appears to be a physically and mentally healthy adult, especially as compared to President Biden, and the Physical or Mental Incapacity provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution is not applicable, especially since those provisions only deal with the office of the Presidency. Therefore, this avenue of removal is moot when it comes to the office of the Vice Presidency.
   
   
4. Vice President Harris appears to be a healthy and vigorous adult, and I would not expect that she would die from natural causes. Given the protections she is afforded by the Secret Service, I would not expect her to die of accidental cause, although it is possible. That only leaves assassination as the only sure method of her death, something that I hope and pray never occurs to a President or Vice President, or any elected or appointed official, but unfortunately has occurred in American history.

Some have suggested that the Electoral College reconvene and revote. But this is not possible as the Electoral College ceased to exist when they transmitted their votes to the United States Secretary of State. As such, their vote is final and not subject to a revote. If by some incomprehensible means, they would reconvene and revote, it would open up the can-of-worms, including that they could also revote for the office of the presidency. What an utter mess this would create to our republic is unfathomable.

Consequently, any talk about the removal of Vice President Kamala Harris from office is simply ‘Much Ado About Nothing.’

12/04/21 A Brief Guide to Leftist Destruction

“To understand the modern world, perhaps the most important rule one needs to know is this: Everything the Left touches it ruins.” So begins a new article A Brief Guide to Leftist Destruction by Dennis Prager.

As I have written in my "Terminology" webpage; Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality", are all Leftists Ideologies and Ideas, and they are all destructive to America. Leftists Ideologies and Ideas that are antithetical to Natural and Human Rights. And this is being accomplished with as described in my Chirp on, “12/03/21 The Real Terrorists in America”.

Dennis Prager’s article is the best overview of the Leftists destruction of:

1. Art.
2. Music.
3. Journalism.
4. Colleges and universities.
5. High schools and elementary schools.
6. Happiness.
7. The family.
8. Women.
9. Childhood.
10. Black life.
11. Black-white relations.
12. The military.
13. Late-night television.
14. Superman.
15. Free speech.
16. Sports.

I would encourage all to read this article to discover the extent of this destruction of America.

12/03/21 The Real Terrorists in America

We are all worried that international terrorists will strike America and cause much damage, death, and injuries. We are also worried about domestic terrorists harming America. Fortunately, our Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies have done a pretty good job in preventing these attacks. But these terroristic activities worries have been triggered by physical attacks upon America. There is, however, a more insidious and dangerous attack upon America. These attacks are upon our American Ideals and Ideas and the persons who hold to these Ideals and Ideas. These attacks are mental attacks upon these Americans and are meant to intimidate, silence, and punish those Americans who cherish our American Ideals and Ideas.

When you are publicly shamed and harassed or threatened with bodily or property harm and the potential loss of your business or employment when you express your First Amendment rights in support of our American Ideals and Ideas, you are being terrorized. And this terrorism is an assault on our Natural and Constitutional rights, and it is a threat to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

These terrorist activities range from verbal assaults to mob violence from "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", to the "Mainstream Media" and the "Mainstream Cultural Media" false and inaccurate depictions of America and Americans, to "Modern Education" Indoctrination versus Education, to  "Modern Big Business" hiring, promotion, and firing policies, and now to governmental actions against those persons who express contrary words and deeds to Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality".

Most insidious is the politicization and weaponization of government law enforcement and our justice system. When the government surveils its citizens who express disagreement with current government policies, when a government institutes prosecutions against dissidents on trumped-up or insignificant charges, when the justice system bends to mob demands and violence, when the government issues mandates contrary to the Natural Rights of a person, and when bureaucrats harass businesses, employees, and persons, and when all of this incurs significant financial expenditures to fight the charges and the reputational harm to those people so inflicted, they are terrorizing its citizens.

Equally insidious is the current politicization of our military forces. Our Founding Fathers were very aware that a standing army that is politized often turns into a repressive force against its citizens, subject to the will of entrenched authorities and bureaucrats whose primary concern is their own power and prestige, rather than the defense of our nation and of the preservation of our Liberties and Freedoms.

When non-governmental entities such as political or social commentators, Progressives/Leftists, or Activists/Activism engage in verbal assaults or actions to harm persons or groups of persons with whom they disagree, or engage in mob actions of violence, they are also attempting to terrorize persons into submission to their viewpoints. They are also utilizing the strategy and tactics of Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies, as I Chirped on “11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies”. In all of this, they are going beyond the bounds of "A Civil Society" by pitting groups of Americans against each other and sowing the seeds of distrust, fear, and hatred between groups. They are also demonstrating their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct, and therefore the other side must be iniquitous.

All of these actions are meant to intimidate, silence, and punish Americans who would disagree with current government policies, political or social commentator viewpoints, Activists/Activism agendas, or Progressives/Leftists positions. And all these actions are a form of terrorism by the government, political or social commentators, Activists/Activism, or Progressives/Leftists. Therefore, the real terrorists in America are now the Progressives/Leftists, the Democrat Party leaders who support them, political or social commentators, Activists/Activism, the Mainstream Media, the Mainstream Cultural Media, and Modern Big Business, for they are terrorizing us for exercising our Natural and Constitutional rights.

12/02/21 Walter E. Williams Remembrance

On December 2, 2020, Walter Edward Williams, an American economist, commentator, and academic, passed away. As a black man raised in the ghetto of Philadelphia, PA, he provided keen insights into the political and economic issues confronting the minorities in America. His thoughts and commentaries were instrumental in the formulation of my ideas and political philosophy. The eulogies posted in The National Review do far more justice to him than I could ever hope to provide. I, and many other Americans, will sorely miss his perspectives on America. Four of his books are well worth the read, as the topics he discusses are still apropos in America today:

• American Contempt for Liberty by Walter E. Williams
• Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks by Walter E. Williams
• Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays by Walter E. Williams
• More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well by Walter E. Williams

For more on these books, I would direct you to my Book It review, “12/01/21 Notable Conservative Thought”.

12/01/21 Systemic Racism in America

At the turn of the 20th century, America was a bigoted and discriminatory place for Niggers, Chinks, Mackerel Snappers, and Micks, later in the century to included Kikes, Polacks, Wops, Spics, and Japs, as defined in the  List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity and List of religious slurs on Wikipedia. I deliberately utilized these offensive and pejorative words to accentuate the essence of American bigotry and discrimination of the time. We were, in those times, a systemic (affecting an entire system) discriminatory nation of Jim Crow Laws, Separate but Equal institutions, public facilities access and usage, employment and promotion practices, Entertainment and Sports personages, etc., all fueled by an undercurrent of white European and Protestant superiority, as well as a reaction to an influx of immigrants from other nations, ethnicities, races, and religions.

Many claim that America is the most racist country in the world. This may be true, but I think not, as America has made great strides in eliminating systemic racism, as well as eliminating racism in the hearts and minds of most Americans. There is also the fact that America is the most diverse nation in the world and in history, except perhaps the Ancient Romans, and therefore racial tensions are greater in America than in the rest of the world. As the rest of the world is less racially diverse, racial tensions in those countries are not a significant factor in their society.

My new article, “Systemic Racism in America”, examines the past and present state of racism in America.

11/30/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part II

The press must be free to publish what they consider newsworthy. However, they should not be free to publish defamation, slander, and libel and ruin the reputation of a person. I believe that the Supreme Court must reexamine Times v. Sullivan decision and come to a better decision in order to retain "A Civil Society". I believe that we must distinguish between three groups of persons regarding defamation, slander, and libel by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media; Public Officials, Public Figures, and Private Citizens. The difficulty is, of course, legally defining the members of these three groups of persons.

Public Officials should be fairly easy to legally define, as they would be elected or appointed officials of government, or any civil servant who becomes embroiled in controversial governmental actions as a result of their governmental decision (an example would be the case of Lois Lerner). The problem is the distinction between a Public Figure and a Private Citizen. In general, a public figure is someone who knowingly and willingly becomes involved in the advocacy of societal issues and concerns, while a Private Citizen is someone who exercises their Free Speech Rights to comment on societal issues and concerns. Nor should any private citizen who has had no intention of becoming a public figure become a public figure as a result of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media decision to make them a public figure. Any dispute as to the status of a person as a public figure or private citizen should be a decision for the judicial system to distinguish.

I would include as a public figure a person who has committed a criminal act or involved in civil litigation, but for the fact that the government finds little difficulty in charging private citizens as engaged in criminal or civil litigation that have little merit or that are politically motivated (as in the case of the Covington Kids and Nicholas Sandmann, the Duke Lacrosse Players, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.). This would be an attempt by the government to make a private citizen a public figure so as to allow the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media to engage in defamation, slander, and libel to bolster their public case against the individual.

Public Officials should be able to institute a lawsuit on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel, subject to a high standard of proof of actual malice. Public Figures should be able to institute a lawsuit on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel, subject to a standard of a lack of due diligence to uncover the facts. Private Citizens should be able to sue on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel at their discretion.

Exercising your Free Speech and other First Amendment rights does not make you a Public Figure; it makes you a concerned citizen of America. A concerned citizen of America who should not be worried about becoming a target of defamation, slander, and libel by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media. If we cannot alleviate these fears, then Free speech would only be exercised by the hooligans of our society, as intelligent and reasonable persons would not want to subject themselves to defamation, slander, and libel and the resulting debasement of their good character.

11/29/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part I

Since the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Times v. Sullivan, a critical case in the civil rights movement, is that citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize government officials. The court ruled that freedom of the press protects statements about the conduct of politicians. It found that public officials who sue for libel must meet a high standard of proof: showing those statements are made with actual malice, as explained in the Wikipedia article, “Freedom of the press in the United States”.

With the 1964 Supreme Court Times v. Sullivan decision, it has become exceeding difficult for government officials to sue news organizations, even if news stories are sometimes caustic, as Supreme Court Justice Brennan said in the Sullivan decision, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.”

However, with subsequent rulings, they have expanded the definition of public officials to public figures. Public figures are any person who becomes involved in words and deeds on issues and concerns affecting our society. And recently, it has included persons who are thrust into the public eye by "Modern Journalism", whether or not they so choose to be public figures (as in the case of the Covington Kids and Nicholas Sandmann, the Duke Lacrosse Players, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.). This slippery slope means that any American who exercises their Freedom of Speech or publicly assembles, or petitions the government for a redress of grievances could become a public figure. And thus, becoming a public figure, they are open to any criticisms aimed at them by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media. Criticisms that often include defamation, slander, and libel, which they believe they can make with impunity under the definition of a public figure.

My article "Slander and Libel in America" examines this issue in more detail. My other article on "Social Media and Free Speech" examines the defamation, slander, and libel that occurs by "Social Media" and in the posts on social media.

I, myself, may be considered as a public figure for publishing these Chirps and Articles on the Internet. Does this mean I should be subject to defamation, slander, and libel by those who disagree with me in the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media? I do not believe so, but I believe that I should be subject to critique as opposed to criticism as I have written in my Chirps, “Criticism vs. Critique”. But I believe that I should have legal recourse against any person or entity that engages in defamation, slander, and libel against myself in an effort to preserve and protect my good reputation.  If, however, I wrote and published a book, or went on a speaking tour, or was a panelist in a public forum that discussed public issues, I believe that I can be considered a public figure.

My next Chirp on, “11/30/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part II”. Examines what we should do about defamation, slander, and libel of Public Officials, Public Figures, and Private Citizens.

11/28/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight - Part I

No one should want to fight a war, especially a war that has no direct impact on yourself. However, not only should you consider fighting a war that has a direct impact, but you should also consider fighting a war that does not have a direct impact but may eventually engulf yourself. Such indirect wars are hard to justify but even harder to determine if there could be a justification. The last half-century has seen America become involved in conflicts that did not have a direct impact on America and even may have had a dubious indirect impact on America. These indirect wars have made America wary of engaging in indirect wars, and justly so. However, this wariness should not be determinative in going to war, but it should be a precaution about engaging in indirect impact wars.

The history of the beginnings of World War II is illuminative of this dilemma. Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Europe, we saw Germany take many aggressive actions in Europe as follows:

• Re-occupation of the Rhineland in March 1936
• Annexation of Austria in March 1938
• Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia Occupied in September 1938
• Invasion and occupation Czechoslovakia in March 1939
• Invasion of Poland in September 1939
• Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939
• Denmark and Norway invaded and occupied in April 1940
• Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France were invaded and occupied in May 1940
• Yugoslavia and Greece were invaded and occupied in April 1941
• Russia invasion in June 1941

Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Asia, we saw Japan take many aggressive actions in Asia as follows:

• Japan invaded Manchuria in September 1931
• The Second Sino-Japanese War started in July 1937
• The Japanese invasion of French Indochina in September 1940

During this time, America was in the Great Depression and had an isolationist sentiment. Indeed, they wanted no part in another European war after World War I. There was an activist peace movement in America that had rallies to not enter the current European conflict. It was not until the Lend-Lease policy, which was enacted March 11, 1941 (formally titled ‘An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States’), that America began a limited involvement in the European conflict. The Lend-Lease policy was a program under which the United States supplied the United Kingdom (and British Commonwealth), Free France, the Republic of China, and later the Soviet Union and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and 1945.  Also, at this time, Americans essentially ignored the Japanese actions in Asia, while the American government attempted to curb Imperial Japanese actions through diplomacy and economic action. They did this by placing an oil embargo against Japan, which only made Imperial Japan more aggressive in obtaining Southeast Asia oil supplies.

As a result of the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent American Declaration of War on Japan, and Germany’s Declaration of War on America as an ally of Japan, America finally entered into the war in the Pacific and Europe. A war that resulted in millions of deaths, vast destruction, and huge expenditures of America's treasury. It is impossible to speculate if WWII could have been averted if America had engaged in a confrontation with Germany and Japan before the outbreak of war, but we do know that nonintervention by America did nothing to alleviate a war.

What we can learn from this history is that unless unprovoked aggression by nations is confronted and stymied, these aggressive nations will continue with their aggressions. A lesson that history from ancient to modern times has taught us many times.

The reason for this Chirp is that we are facing a similar situation today. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. Their reasoning and actions were very reminiscent of the NAZI takeover of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia prior to WWII. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine. We also, today, have China making very bellicose statements against Taiwan and other neighboring nations, much like Imperial Japan threatened China prior to WWII, which was followed by the aggressive actions of Imperial Japan against Manchuria China. Russia and China have recently announced both nations have signed a road map for closer military ties, and they have been strengthening their joint military training activities at sea, in the air, and on land this year. This is very reminiscent of the pact between Germany and Japan prior to WWII.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia and threats from China a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in their respective regions of the world? And if we believe they are precursors, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression and Chinese belligerence? And if we do act against Russia and China, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations or China will start aggressive actions in Asia. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe and the start of China's aggression in Asia. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe and Asia to protect its direct interests in Europe and Asia, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European and Asiatic people.

11/27/21 The Hypocrisy of Progressives and Leftists

Recently, video journalist Johnny Harris and Binyamin Appelbaum, who is the lead writer on business and economics for the Editorial Board of The New York Times, analyzed states where Democrats have all the power. They examine why famously liberal states — such as New York, California, and Washington — struggle to advance the progressive policies despite little to no Republican opposition. A video they recently posted reveals and explains their findings.

They focused on three core initiatives of the Democratic Party platform: affordable housing, economic equality, and educational opportunity. And in the end, they discovered that "liberal hypocrisy," not Republican opposition, "is fueling American inequality" and that things are actually much worse in blue states than they are in red.

"In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states," the journalists noted in a written report accompanying the video. "It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding, and economic inequality is increasing most quickly."

"Blue states are the problem," Applebaum, who covers economics and business for the Times, exclaimed.

"Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem," he added.

At one point, Harris noted that "affluent liberals tend to be really good at showing up at the marches and talking about how they love equality, [and] at putting signs in their lawns saying, 'All are welcome here.'"

"But by their actions," he continued, "What they are actually saying is, 'Yes, we believe in these ideals, just not in my backyard.'"

This is the hypocrisy of deeds versus words. To Conservatives and Republicans, these findings are not startling, as they have known for decades that the zeal of Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party leaders for their agendas increases with the square of the distance between themselves and the impacts of their agendas. But hypocrisy and shame are of little concern to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", as the only thing that matters to them is to obtain and retail power to implement their agendas for America.

11/26/21 The Silence of Racism and Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society

With the recent conviction of three white men in the murder of a black man, Ahmaud Arbery, the silence is deafening about our Racist and Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society that we heard in the Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict. The jury in the Ahmaud Arbery trial was composed of one black juror and 11 white jurors. All those politicians, journalists, and commentators who decried the Rittenhouse verdict and condemned America as being racists and patriarchal have remained mum about America in the Arbery verdict.

The reason for the silence is that the Arbery verdict does not support their narrative of a Racist, Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society, and indeed, contradicted their narrative. This reveals that they are not interested in reporting or commenting on the facts and truths of America. Indeed, they are only interested in pushing their (false) narrative about America to institute the changes in America that they desire. In doing so, they are fracturing and dividing Americans and pitting one group of Americans against another. In doing so, they are inciting mob passions and violence in America.

But to institute change in America, based upon a (false) narrative, is to invite calamity upon America. A calamity that will not make America better but will make America much worse. Therefore, we can conclude that when these politicians, journalists, and commentators speak or write about America, they are not being truthful but being political, and we should condemn and ignore their (false) narrative.

11/25/21 Thanksgiving of Hope

There are many reasons for me to be thankful in my personal life this past year. However, as they are personal, they need not, nor should not, be elaborated in the Chirp. This Chirp is the reason to be thankful for what has been happening in America in the last year.

There are many reasons to be concerned about what has happened to America in the last year. The border is a broken disaster, the economy is flailing, the employment situation is a withering mess, our foreign policy is in shambles, the supply chain is in crisis, oil and gasoline are in short supply, inflation continues unabated, and race relations are more polarized.  Many Americans are heartsick and despondent about the current and future prospects of America.  

But there is much to be hopeful of, as the American people are waking up to the root causes of these problems. These root causes are "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms" and "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems", which were engendered by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" policies and agendas.

The Biden administration and the Democrat Congress policies and agendas are the root causes for the current problems in America, and the American people are waking up to this. As such, they are turning against these policies and agendas and hopefully against Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Therefore, there is hope that by next year's Thanksgiving, we will have a Republican Congress to resist these policies and agendas, followed by a Republican Presidency two years afterward to solve these problems in America.

All we have to do is survive the next three years, which will be difficult, but afterward, there is hope for America’s future once the American people recognize that the policies and agendas of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are the wrong course for America to take.

11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies

The ‘Noble Lie’ is a falsehood knowingly propagated by an elite or powerful to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

The ‘Big Lie’ is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

The ‘Repeated Lie’ are the Noble and Big Lies that are repeated so frequently, and so widely, that the populace accepts the lie as the truth, and does not even consider their falsehood, and indeed, rejects the facts and truth that contradict the lie.

Politicians have often lied and repeated these lies for electioneering purposes and to advance their agenda, believing that they are noble for doing so. But these are self-serving lies driven by a thirst for power and narcissism. They also demonstrate that the politicians lack of trust in Americans to understand and deal with the facts and the truths of the facts. However, rarely do they rise to the level of Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies.

In the 21st century, however, we are seeing these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies propagated by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, aided and abetted by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and a "Herd Mentality".

In the beginning of the 21st century we saw small scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies directed at President Bush, while during President Obama’s administration we saw small scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies in support of President Obama. However, with the election of President Trump we saw large scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies directed at President Trump. With the election of President Biden, we are seeing large scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies in support of President Biden. And many of these large-scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies are emanating from President Biden and his appointed officials, usually to mislead or deceive the American people. These large-scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies of President Biden and his appointed officials are being propagated by the aforementioned supporters of Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders.

Indeed, these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies have become the strategy and tactics for which the Progressives/Leftists, and the Democrat Party Leaders are advancing their agenda. Whenever Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies are utilized to advance an agenda you can be assured that the end result does not bode well for a society. Indeed, modern history has shown the dire consequences when the Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies take hold of a society. The French Revolution, The Communist Revolution in Russian, The Nazism Revolution in Germany, The Fascist Revolution in Italy, The Communist Revolution in China, and various revolutions in Central and South America, as well as in Asia, that are all examples of what happens when the Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies grip a society.

Usually, the end result of these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies is the imposition of despotism upon a people. A despotism in which the Natural Rights of individuals are violated, and there is the loss of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Consequently, these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies must be resisted and challenged to assure the future of our American Ideals and Ideas.

11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?

"Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" profess to love America at the same time they disparage America. Their words and deeds demonstrate that they believe that America is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted. They also believe that America is an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society" based on white supremacism. These are not the words and deeds of someone who loves America but are, indeed, someone who despises America.

When you love someone or some entity, you defend and cherish that person or entity, while at the same time, you try to improve the person or entity and not fundamentally transform that person or entity. To fundamentally transform someone or some entity requires that you impose your will on a person or entity, and this is often and usually implemented via punitive actions or despotism.

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders do this by cloaking themselves in moral righteousness and intellectual superiority; however, they are demonstrating their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, the other side must be iniquitous, and this iniquitousness must be confronted and stamped out by any means necessary to eliminate it from our society. However, this is not moral righteousness and intellectual superiority but disdainfulness and narcissism.

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, in their attempts to obtain and retain the power to end this iniquitousness and institute their vision of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", and their vision of a just America of "Equity and Equality", often sow "Divisiveness in America" through "Improper Dialog & Debate” and "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". This results in an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society". Again, these are not the words and deeds of persons who love America but are the actions of arrogant and egomaniac persons.

Most of these Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are avowed secularists, and many are agnostic or atheistic. In this, they forget the words of one of our most esteemed Funding Fathers:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
  - John Adams

This lack of religiosity provides little foundation for their beliefs and often leads to moral relativism. A moral relativism that is a house built of shifting sand that changes shape and moves with the winds of popular opinion. A popular opinion that does not account for the Natural Rights of the individual but instead seeks the false safety and security of "Socialism is Acceptable" and "Entitlements".

Most Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often judge America’s past by today's moral standards, and therefore they adjudge America negatively. They have forgotten, or do not know, that “The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons” and that morality has always been evolving throughout the history of civilization. Any society or nation throughout history will be found wanting if judged by today’s moral standards. Yet Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often refer to American history negatively to bolster their opinions. At the same time, they forget how America has contributed to the advancement of moral standards for the benefit of all humankind. This leaves them with feelings of remorse about America, which is easily transformed into flagellation or hatred of America, which is what we see in the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds.

America has many problems, issues, and concerns but does not require a fundamental transformation but improvements. These problems, issues, and concerns need to be factually addressed and not rhetorically addressed. And this rhetoric is often based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and the belief that we have an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society". But the main problem in America is "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms".

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds are, in fact, the actions of persons who believe in a utopian ideal of America and the disparagement of America for not meeting that utopian ideal. However, history is repeat with societies attempting to implement a utopian ideal that resulted in anarchy, violence, economic deprivation, and the eventual collapse of the society. In recent history, we have seen The French Revolution, The Communist Revolution in Russian, The Nazism Revolution in Germany, The Fascist Revolution in Italy, The Communist Revolution in China, and various revolutions in Central and South America, as well as in Asia, that are all examples of the collapse of a society attempting to institute a utopian ideal. And these collapses often resulted in mass deaths and much destruction of the people and property of these societies.

This, therefore, is the primary reason that is the answer to the question of ‘Why Do They Hate America?’.

11/22/21 The Atrociousness of Mainstream Media Reporting and Commentary

Since writing my Chirp on “11/20/21 The Seven Deadly Sins of Kyle Rittenhouse”, I have read an article in the New York Post, “10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked” by Miranda Devine, that details the false and misleading information that was said or written about Kyle Rittenhouse in the Mainstream Media:

1. He killed two black BLM protesters.
2. He crossed state lines.
3. Rittenhouse took an AR-15 across state lines.
4. The gun was illegal.
5. Rittenhouse’s mother drove him across state lines to the riot.
6. He was an “active shooter” who took his gun to a riot looking for trouble.
7. Rittenhouse is a “white supremacist,” as then-candidate Joe Biden labeled him in a tweet showing the teenager’s photograph.
8. He “flashed white power signs” with Proud Boys.
9. He wore surgical gloves “to cover his fingerprints.”
10. Judge Bruce Schroeder is a “Trumpy” racist biased toward the defense.

 You should read this article and weep for America, especially if their other reporting and commentary are this atrocious (which it is).

But this is nothing new for the Mainstream Media, especially in the last five years of all the willful lies and omissions in the media’s coverage of the Steele dossier and the Russian Collusion Delusion, the January 6th, 2021 ‘Insurrection’ and Officer Brian Sicknick death, the Covington kids and Nicholas Sandmann smears, the Jussie Smollett’s lies, the Wuhan laboratory gain of function research and the resulting COVID-19 Pandemic and responses, Hunter Biden’s laptop and his foreign nation dealings, and so on. But nothing beats the evil propaganda peddled about Kyle Rittenhouse and demonstrates the atrociousness of "Modern Journalism" reporting and commentary. And all of this is based upon a false narrative about American society that the "Mainstream Media" and Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media holds dear.

In the 20th century, and progressively worse in the 21st century, modern journalism has drifted from reporting the facts and truths in America to the advocacy of ‘change’, ‘reform’, and ‘transformation’ based on "Progressives/Leftists" Ideals and Ideas, and their support of Democrat Party politicians and their agenda.

As a result of this reporting and commentary, America has become a bitter partisan nation based on the Mainstream Media skewered view and narrative of America, a view and narrative that is incorrect and harmful to American society, and indeed, is hateful of America. In my next Chirp on, “11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?”, I will examine why the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as their adherents in the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, so hate America that they believe that the ‘Noble Lies’ they propagate is justifiable, rather than speaking the truth of America.

11/21/21 The Harm to American Society as a Result of Kenosha

The first harm to America was to the truth. Many journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders jumped to a false narrative based on a paucity of facts. A narrative based on their preconceived notions of American society. A narrative that inflamed passions and led to the riots. A narrative that attempted to demonize Kyle Rittenhouse and disparage those who opposed the riots (mostly conservative middle-class Americans). And even after the facts and evidence were revealed, the false narrative continued to be pushed by many journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders.

The next harm was to the residents of Kenosha, Wisconsin, in their persons and property. The destruction and looting that accompanied the riots will have a long-term harmful effect not only on those directly affected but also on the community that will no longer have access to the goods and services of those directly affected. It will also have a long-term effect on the psyche of the residents, as they can no longer be assured of living safely and without harm in Kenosha. They may also decide to leave the environs of Kenosha, thus decreasing the population and businesses in Kenosha and the resulting economic losses to Kenosha.

The harm that State and local officials inflicted on the residents of Kenosha in not allowing law enforcement to control and detain the rioters was an attack on the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Equality of the Law’. It is also a violation of their sworn duty to preserve and protect the citizens of their State and localities. There seemed to be one set of laws for the rioters and another set of laws for everyone else (i.e., a two-tiered justice system). It would be interesting to know how many of the rioters were arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted for the crimes they committed and the nature of the crimes they were charged with. To date, I have not been able to determine these numbers or charges, which is disquieting.

The next harm was to our system of justice. The mob and others demanded the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse before the facts were uncovered. A demand of which the prosecutors submitted without doing their due diligence to determine the facts and evidence before bringing the charges. Prosecutors who succumbed to these demands instead of standing for truth and justice, which is their sworn duty. The prosecutors who, in one instance, violated Kyle Rittenhouse Constitutional Rights, as well as committing several violations of criminal law proceedings. When the judge made several rulings that disfavored the prosecution, many Progressives/Leftists and political and social commentators began to disparage the judge calling into question the legitimacy of the trial and the fairness of our judicial system. Such miscues by a judge, if they occur, are the providence of the Appellate Courts to determine the veracity of the judges’ miscues and to take corrective action if necessary, and not the demands of the mob nor shrill cries of the pundits.

And finally, it has harmed America itself from the journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders continually disparaged America and Americans as a racist and a white supremacist society, and by pitting groups of Americans against each other and sowing the seeds of distrust, fear, and hatred between groups. They did this by continuing to push the false narrative while ignoring the facts and the evidence presented at the trial. This was all done by utilizing Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning and Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors as I examined in my Article, "Dialog and Debate", as well as sowing "Divisiveness in America" by the language they used.

Given that there was intense pressure outside the courtroom to find Kyle Rittenhouse guilty of at least one charge, it can be inferred that the jury carefully examined the facts and evidence to reach their verdict. Thank heaven that the judge and jurors were able to put aside this narrative, and the outside pressures, to reach a rational verdict.

11/20/21 The Seven Deadly Sins of Kyle Rittenhouse

With the recent verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I think it is appropriate for me to comment on the events, the commentary, and the trial and the verdict.

The Kenosha Wisconsin riots were a reaction in the aftermath of a police shooting of Jacob Blake by a white police officer. Jacob Blake, who is Black, was involved in a domestic disturbance in Kenosha in August 2020. The shooting left Blake paralyzed from the waist down and sparked several nights of riots. State prosecutors decided not to file charges against the police officer earlier this year after a video showed that Blake, who was wanted on a felony warrant, was armed with a knife.

The U.S. Department of Justice launched its own investigation days after the shooting. The agency announced that a team of prosecutors from its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney’s office in Milwaukee reviewed police reports, witness statements, dispatch logs, and videos of the incident and determined there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the police officer willfully used excessive force or violated Blake’s federal rights.

During the course of the riots, in which local and state enforcement agencies made little effort to suppress the riots, a 17-year-old white male, Kyle Rittenhouse, went to Kenosha, where his father lived to provide aid and assistance to the property owners at the center of the riots.

In the course of this aid and assistance, several rioters verbally abused and physically attacked Kyle Rittenhouse after chasing him down as he was running toward the police. Kyle Rittenhouse, who was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot three white rioters who attacked him, killing two of them and seriously injuring the other rioter. He was arrested, and charged, and put on trial of five felony counts.

The commentary from the "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", as well as the "Mainstream Media" and the "Mainstream Cultural Media", were all disparagements of Kyle Rittenhouse along the lines of his:

1. Crossing State lines with a weapon.
2. Cleaning up graffiti on the personal and governmental property which the mob defaced.
3. Providing first aid to all.
4. Putting out fires started by the mob.
5. Running to police when attacked by the mob.
6. Pointing and shooting his weapon at violent mob members who threaten him.
7. Being a white supremacist for shooting three white men.

To which I would respond:

1. The 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to within State boundaries but applies to all States and Territories under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. American history is rife with people carrying arms across state lines, such as volunteers did in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the pioneers of the American West did. People today travel and move across State lines while in possession of their firearms.
2. The mob has no right to deface or destroy any property, no matter what they believe is the righteousness of their cause. Righteousness requires that you respect the Natural Rights of others and demonstrate the justice of your cause within the boundaries of peaceful civil disobedience. Otherwise, you cannot be righteous but are indeed unrighteous.
3. The horror of providing aid and comfort to any other persons than the violent protestors is too inconceivable to describe. It is also too ridiculous to comment upon.
4. Helping to put out fires of any sort is a civic duty when a government entity is unable, for any reason, to do so, as It helps to preserve the personal property of others. Personal property that is a Natural Right to obtain, retain, and be disposed of by the owner at their discretion and no other person's actions.
5. Running to the police when you are threatened or in danger is the appropriate and correct thing to do in these circumstances. Placing yourself under the protection of the law to preserve your life, safety, and property is befitting our American dedication to the Natural Rights of all persons. Only when the law is unavailable to secure our life, safety, and property is it appropriate for an individual to take action to protect their person and property.
6. His firearm was not utilized until weapons were directed at himself (a Gun, a Knife, and a blunt instrument – the Skateboard). A skateboard is a blunt instrument, such as a baseball bat, a 2x4 lumber, a pipe, a pot or pan, and many other items when wielded for violent purposes. These blunt instruments can inflict serious injury or death upon the intended victim. Utilizing a weapon to protect yourself against bodily harm and perhaps death is self-defense and justifiable.
7. The accusation of being a white supremacist by killing whites is so absurd upon its face that it hardly needs a response, but a response is needed to demonstrate the absurdity of those making this claim. White supremacy is a state of mind that is a prejudice that members of the white race are superior to members of other races and that it is justifiable to take actions to violate the Natural Rights of other races. No evidence, presented in court, or the court of public opinion, showed that Kyle Rittenhouse had this state of mind, nor did his actions demonstrate any racial animosity.

At his trial, Kyle Rittenhouse pleaded self-defense as justification for the shootings. The prosecutors at the trial did a dreadful job of presenting their case, and in one instance, violated Kyle Rittenhouse Constitutional Rights, as well as committing several violations of criminal law proceedings. The prosecutors also may outrageous statements such as everyone takes a beating implying that Kyle Rittenhouse should have taken a beating by the rioters, a beating in which he may have been grievously harmed and possibly died from the beating. The prosecutors also stated when you come armed to a confrontation, and you give up your right to self-defense. The right to self-defense is a Natural Right and, as such, is inviolate and can never be given up if you or your family faces bodily harm or death. There were many other things that the prosecutor said that have no basis in the facts of this case and no basis in law or morality.

After jurors deliberated for a total of 26 hours and found Rittenhouse not guilty on five counts, including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. His actions of attending a riot may be stupidity, but they are not actions of criminality, and they may not be stupid but patriotic. Patriotic in that if you stand up to mob violence and exercise your Natural Rights and insist on Equal Justice and the Rule of Law and Order in your community, State, and Federal government, you are being patriotic to American Ideals and Ideas.

My next Chirp will examine the harm to American society as a result of what happened during and after the riots in Kenosha.

11/19/21 Powers Specifically Denied to the Federal Government

The Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution were passed to protect the basic Natural Rights of Americans. As such, they are prohibitions against actions by the government upon persons. During the Constitution Convention and the public debate on its adoption, two groups formed as to the inclusion of Natural Rights into the Constitution. One group thought that as the Constitution limited the scope of the Federal Government, and as this scope did not intrude on Natural Rights, that it was not necessary to delimit these rights into the Constitution. The other group thought as they had just fought a war to protect these Natural Rights and that these rights should be explicitly protected within the Constitution. In order to pass the Constitution, it was agreed that it should be passed as is and that one of the first efforts of the new government would be to incorporate these Natural Rights, via Amendments, into the Constitution. After the Constitution was adopted, it fell to James Madison to accept hundreds of proposals for these amendments and consolidate them into a small set of proposals. James Madison winnowed them and rewrote them into 12 Amendments, 10 of which were adopted as The Bill of Rights. However, these were not the only prohibitions upon government actions in the Constitution. Indeed, Article I. Section. 9. of the Constitution is entirely dedicated to prohibitions upon the government:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. [superseded by the 16th Amendment]

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

These prohibitions were mainly to protect the States from Federal Government abuses that could occur if all the States were not treated equally. However, the missing piece in the Constitution was protecting the people of a State from State government actions that would infringe upon their Natural Rights. This missing piece was addressed by the passage of the 14th Amendment. Some say it’s the most important amendment because it empowered the federal government to protect people from state government abuse of their Natural Rights. Two new articles by Rob Natelson, “Understanding the Constitution: The 14th Amendment: Part I” and “Understanding the Constitution: The 14th Amendment: Part II”, examines the protections of the 14th Amendment, and they are well worth the read.

11/18/21 Fascist Corporatism

In my Chirp on, "10/15/20 Stakeholder Capitalism is a Form of Socialism on a Small Scale", I wrote that one of the notions being bandied about by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" is the concept of Stakeholders Capitalism. As Deborah D'Souza has written in her article, “Stakeholder Capitalism” in Investopedia, the main concepts of Stakeholders Capitalism are:

“Stakeholder capitalism is a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders and local communities. Under this system, a company's purpose is to create long-term value and not to maximize profits and enhance shareholder value at the cost of other stakeholder groups.

Supporters of stakeholder capitalism believe that serving the interests of all stakeholders, as opposed to only shareholders, is essential to the long-term success and health of any business. Notably, they make the case for stakeholder capitalism being a sensible business decision in addition to being an ethical choice.”

A very good article that critiques this concept is “The Dangers of ‘Stakeholder Capitalism” By Andrew Stuttaford of National Review, as he states:

“In effect, its advocates are insisting that corporate money and power should be conscripted to force through a social and political agenda — without the bother of going through the ballot box.”

In my web browsing reading, I came across the article in Wikipedia, “Fascist Italy (1922–1943)”, that mentioned the following:

“Mussolini and the Fascist Party promised Italians a new economic system known as corporatism, an outgrowth of socialism into a new economic system where the means of production were nominally left in the hands of the civil sector but directed and controlled by the State. In 1935, a passage from the Doctrine of Fascism read:”

“The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.”

Stakeholder Capitalism allows its proponents to feel good about their intentions, but it often does more harm than good. Or as has been said:

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

It also raises the question of:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

We also should all remember that Fascism is best expressed by the quotes of its leading proponent:

“The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.”
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
“We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.”
 - Benito Mussolini

This Corporatism of Fascist Italy is not too different from the goals of Stakeholder Capitalism. The underlying beliefs of fascism are not too different from the believers of Stakeholder Capitalism. Which makes one wonder who the Fascists in America really are?

11/17/21 The Age of Enlightenment and Critical Theory

In my Chirp on “11/16/21 The Danger of Critical Race Theory”, I mention that Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory philosophy that is incompatible with the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.

The Enlightenment and the Age of Enlightenment led to the ascension of the Natural Rights of mankind, which resulted in the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" we have in America, as well as the rise of democracy in the world. Critical Theory is a danger to the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded, as it places peoples into groups, and frames the world in terms of us versus them, and pits the two against each other.

Critical Theorists often have an attitude of self-righteousness and correctness, which is common amongst academics, especially the more esoteric academic subjects. Just as "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, so do Critical Theorists believe they are always correct. Perhaps this explains the commonalities between the social policies of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the Critical Theorists, and their pitting of groups of Americans against each other that occurs more fervently today.

The only good of Critical Theory is that it forces other social theorists to more deeply examine their own theories to come to a more reasonable and more accurate conclusion. Critical Theory provides no real-world solutions to the problems it addresses but often provides real-world conflicts between people. Therefore, whenever a word is placed between “Critical’ and ‘Theory’ (such as Critical Race Theory), you can safely presume that it is hogwash.

I would encourage all to read my new Article, “The Age of Enlightenment and Critical Theory”, which examines these theories and their incompatibilities, and the tragic consequences of Critical Theory.

11/16/21 The Danger of Critical Race Theory

In my Chirp on “11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy”, I explained that the ‘education of students does not include Critical Race Theory (CRT), but the ‘pedagogy’ of teaching does include CRT. In this Chirp, I touched upon the consequences of CRT in public education; however, there are also several real dangers to CRT in public education. The dangers are to the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. CRT is a branch of Critical Theory philosophy, a philosophy that helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century, such as Marxism and Nazism, amongst others, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, CRT teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

Marc Thiessen has brought up these issues of consequences and dangers in multiple columns for the Washington Post. The entire November 11, 2021 column of his, "The danger of critical race theory," is a worthwhile read. This column is based on an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) podcast, “WTH is critical race theory? How a philosophy that inspired Marxism, Nazism, and Jim Crow is making its way into our schools, and what we can do.” and transcribed as a pdf file. This podcast is a discussion moderated by Danielle Pletka of AEI, with Marc Thiessen, an American conservative author, political appointee, and weekly columnist for The Washington Post, and Allen Guelzo, the noted historian:

“Allen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is an American historian who serves as Senior Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities and Director of the Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University. He formerly was a professor of History at Gettysburg College.

Rachel A. Shelden wrote in 2013 that for two decades, Guelzo "has been at the forefront of Civil War-era scholarship. In particular, he has focused his analytical efforts on the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln, publishing books covering the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the origins of the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln's presidential leadership, among others.”

Professor Guelzo is one of my favorite historians, and I have read and recommended many of his books. I have always found Professor Guelzo to be reasonable, analytical, and perceptive, and I have always taken very seriously what he has written and stated. I would suggest you review this podcast or pdf to think about the implications of CRT in our public schools. For what he has to say is very ominous to the future of America if CRT thinking becomes widespread in America.

11/15/21 Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?

“Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.”

So begins a new Imprimis article by John R. Lott, Jr., “Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?”. In this article he contrasts Voter ID laws in Europe to American Voter ID laws. Spoiler alert – American Voter ID laws fall far short of European Voter ID Laws, and there is less election fraud and more voting in European elections. He ends his article by writing:

“Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.”

Mollie Hemingway has also written a book,  “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that examines the voting irregularities that occurred in the 2020 elections. The Amazon review of this book states:

“Stunned by the turbulence of the 2020 election, millions of Americans are asking the forbidden question: what really happened?

It was a devastating triple punch. Capping their four-year campaign to destroy the Trump presidency, the media portrayed a Democratic victory as necessary and inevitable. Big Tech, wielding unprecedented powers, vaporized dissent and erased damning reports about the Biden family's corruption. And Democratic operatives, exploiting a public health crisis, shamelessly manipulated the voting process itself. Silenced and subjected, the American people lost their faith in the system.

RIGGED is the definitive account of the 2020 election. Based on Mollie Hemingway's exclusive interviews with campaign officials, reporters, Supreme Court justices, and President Trump himself, it exposes the fraud and cynicism behind the Democrats' historic power-grab.

Rewriting history is a specialty of the radical left, now in control of America's political and cultural heights. But they will have to contend with the determination, insight, and eloquence of Mollie Hemingway. RIGGED is a reminder for weary patriots that truth is still the most powerful weapon. The stakes for our democracy have never been higher.”

I have also written two articles on American voting, "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", and in my Chirps on "02/17/21 Election Integrity", "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections", and "07/27/21 Rigged", that examines these issues. It is past time that we assure election integrity and that those legally eligible to vote can legally vote, and those not eligible to vote cannot register nor vote in elections, and that we curb election fraud by proper election and Voter ID laws that assure election integrity.

11/14/21 Funding Students Instead of Systems

The Democrat Party has often claimed that they are the party of ‘Education’. But the 2021 election in Virginia has shown this to be false. The Democrat Party is actually the party of the ‘Education System’. An Education System that is run by teachers’ unions, bureaucrats, and politicians that are primarily interested in their own priorities rather than the student interests’ priorities. An Education System that is focused on "Progressives/Leftists" ideals and ideas, and "Democrat Party Leaders" control of the Education System. An Education System that is more concerned with "Indoctrination versus Education" and what a student should think rather than how a student should think. An Education System that is more concerned with a student’s self-esteem rather than a student’s self-achievement.

It is past time that we should stop funding the Education System and begin to fund Students Education. The current Education System has too many systemic problems to be reformed, as I have examined in my Article, "Public Education". And the only way that this Education System can be successfully reformed is to fund the students’ parents to allow them to send their child to a school of their choice. School Choice focuses the parents’ attention on providing a quality education for their children, and therefore focuses a school’s attention on providing a quality education for the student.

The Federal and State Departments of Education and the Local School Boards should only be concerned with infrastructure and education materials funding and the certification of teachers and a school to meet academic requirements. These academic requirements are outlined in my Public Education article topics of “Core Proficiencies K-8” and ”High School Subjects”. In addition, all curriculum material, textbooks, instructional materials, and recommended reading of the school or teacher must be available to the general public for their review and comments. The general public must also be advised as to the pedagogy employed, as discussed in my chirp on “11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy”, that is utilized to instruct the student. Perhaps a publicly available weekly lesson plan from the teacher that lists all the educational topics and materials and the pedagogy to be utilized during the week will satisfy this requirement.

An article by Corey A. DeAngelis of the Cato Institute, “Fund Students Instead of Systems”, examines the recent efforts to change educational funding, and more information can be obtained from the American Federation for Children and The Heritage Foundation Education websites.

11/13/21 The Values of Americas Founding

I have often spoken about our American Ideals and Ideas, Many Americans do not know or have forgotten the ideals and ideas upon which our country was founded, or as I have said, “The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals.”. These ideals and ideas are based on the values in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. However, these ideals and ideas, and their values, have several interpretations and meanings that often are contradictory or contentious and fraught with misunderstandings of the founders’ intentions.

The Declaration’s values surface in every part of the document. The preamble evidences respect for the opinions of mankind, not just in America and Britain, but throughout the world. The grievances against the Crown presuppose certain values being violated. However, most of the Declaration’s foundational values are in its statement of general philosophy. It’s this part of the document that sets forth the American common creed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The values of the Constitution are:

• Protection of Natural Rights and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".
• Self-Governance of a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people", for the common good, as explained in my article, "Greater Good versus the Common Good".
• A republic, as examined in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".
• A division of powers between the Federal, State, and Local governments.
• A division of duties and responsibilities in the Federal government between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government.
• Fiduciary Standards for all branches of government and all governmental actions.

Two new articles by Rob Natelson, “The Values in the Declaration of Independence” and “The Values in the Constitution” examine these values and our founders’ intentions for implementing America's ideals and ideas, and they are well worth the read.

11/12/21 A Bakers Dozen Plus Nineteen

As I mentioned in my previous Chirps on “11/10/21 The More Things Change” and “11/11/21 Words and Deeds of Politicians”, the intentions and deeds of politicians are much more important than the words of politicians. This has been demonstrated by the votes of the House of Representatives on the Infrastructure bill. Despite the lofty words in support of the Infrastructure Bill, this bill is more human or social infrastructure spending, a category of infrastructure spending that never existed prior to this bill, than that of traditional infrastructure spending. Human or social infrastructure that authorizes spending on the goals of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, which was accomplished without the involvement of Conservatives or Republicans. Human or social spending that will not have to undergo the scrutiny of a separate bill to determine their need, practicability, and funding, let alone their economic and social impacts on America. This human or social Infrastructure spending was included in this bill to avoid having the Democrat politicians vote separately on these human or social policies, which may have incurred the wrath of their voters if they had been voted upon separately.

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, a figure in dispute due to the way in which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores legislation that the House submits to the CBO, was supported by a Bakers Dozen (13) of House Republicans and 19 Republicans in the Senate. While I support improving and building traditional infrastructure, this bill does much more than that. Most of this bill is spending on items that are not traditional infrastructure but on human or social policies masquerading as infrastructure. These human or social policies in the Infrastructure Bill make some fundamental changes to the fabric of our society and, as such, should be separate bills that should be debated and passed on their merits and faults. The words of the Republicans that voted for this bill focus on traditional infrastructure spending but ignore the human or social policy spending. Consequently, the deeds of this bill, in terms of the traditional infrastructure spending versus the human or social policies spending, in balance are more harmful to America from the human or social policies spending that far outweighs the good of the traditional infrastructure spending.

As such, the Republicans who voted for this bill are not in concordance with their Republican constituents’ ideals and ideas but are, in fact, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), or persons who would trade their vote for the short-term political advantage of the traditional infrastructure spending. Therefore, it is only appropriate that they should be demoted from any positions of responsibility on the House and Senate committees on which they serve. It is also appropriate that they be challenged in their primaries and not receive any financial or other support from the Republican party constituents in the primaries. To the screams of imposing orthodoxy, I would reply that on the big-ticket issues that impact all Americans, such orthodoxy is required to counter the Democrat Party orthodoxy that would impose their human or social policies upon America. I would also reply that human or social policies need to be separate bills that Congress would debate and have a recorded vote on the bill and that the American people would have a voice during such debates and could base their future votes for the politicians based upon their vote for or against the bill.

Here is the list of the House Republicans who voted for the Infrastructure Bill:

• Adam Kinzinger of Illinois
• Andrew Garbarino of New York
• Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio
• Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
• Chris Smith of New Jersey
• David McKinley of West Virginia
• Don Bacon of Nebraska
• Don Young of Alaska
• Fred Upton of Michigan
• Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey
• John Katko of New York
• Nicole Malliotakis of New York
• Tom Reed of New York

Here is the list of the Senate Republicans who voted for the Infrastructure Bill:

• Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
• Chuck Grassley, Iowa
• Dan Sullivan, Alaska
• Deb Fischer, Nebraska
• James Risch, Idaho
• John Hoeven, North Dakota
• Kevin Cramer, North Dakota
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
• Mike Crapo, Idaho
• Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
• Mitt Romney, Utah
• Richard Burr, North Carolina
• Rob Portman, Ohio
• Roger Wicker, Mississippi
• Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
• Susan Collins, Maine
• Thom Tillis, North Carolina 

All Republican voters should remember these names in their next election and vote accordingly.

11/11/21 Words and Deeds of Politicians

As I mentioned in my previous Chirp on “11/10/21 The More Things Change”, it is the underlying issue of political power and that political viewpoints remain the same between Democrats and Republicans. As to the issue of political power, they are the same in their desire to obtain and retain political power, and the differences are in the means utilized to achieve their goals. The Democrats mostly rely on idealistic emotional appeals to the voters, while the Republicans have the more difficult task of convincing voters based on reasoning. And both utilize improper "Dialog & Debate" and faulty "Reasoning" to mask their deeds.

Too often in today’s society, we pay particular attention to what a politician says and gloss over what a politician does. It has become more important for a politician to communicate acceptably than to implement properly, and our judgment of a politician is often almost entirely based on what they say. But what a politician says is not harmful (except emotionally), but what a politician does can have positive or negative repercussions to all aspects of society. Therefore, we must pay more attention to the deeds of a politician and become more accepting of a politician if the deeds have positive repercussions and more rejecting of a politician if their deeds have negative repercussions. Of course, if both the words and deeds of a politician have positive consequences, we should praise the politician and elevate them into positions of more responsibility within society. Politicians must be held accountable for not only their words but their deeds, for to ignore or discount one or the other in judging our politicians can be very harmful to society. Perhaps we should remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin – “Well done is better than well said.”

Alas, words and deeds are two different things, especially in politics. Therefore, you must examine the deeds to determine the goals of politicians. And your examination of the deeds must be based upon “With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" or you will arrive at an incorrect conclusion. And you should always be wary of statistics, especially when utilized by politicians and activists, as I have discussed in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". You should also keep in mind "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", as politicians often misrepresent these falsehoods depending on their propensities.

As usual with Thomas Sowell, his book “Dismantling America” looks beyond the words of politicians and into their deeds. Utilizing proper facts, statistics, and reasoning, he exposes the actual deeds of politicians. I would encourage all to read this book, as it does a superlative job of describing the deeds behind the words.

11/10/21 The More Things Change

As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr is often quoted, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” This is especially true in politics, as while the surface issues in politics may change, the underlying issues driving the politics are the same. It is not the surface issue of the Democrat Party versus the Republican Party - which does change, but the underlying issue of political power and those political viewpoints that remains the same. And the Democrats and the Republicans are often congruent on the issue of political power and divergent on their political viewpoints.

As to the issue of political power, they are the same in their desire to obtain and retain political power, and the differences are in the means utilized to achieve their goals. As to the issue of political viewpoints, they differ on the question of the role of government intervention in the affairs of society. The viewpoints of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders portend a different society than what we have traditionally had in America. It is the difference between our founding pragmatic ideals and ideas and a new foundation based on idealistic goals of adjective justice and equity, as I have written in the "Terminology" webpage on "Adjective Justice" and "Equity and Equality". This new foundation requires "Social Engineering" to achieve the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" to accomplish their idealistic goals, which requires that they dismantle our current traditions and institutions and replace them with their own ideals and ideas.

In a book by Thomas Sowell, “Dismantling America”, published over ten years ago, this book is a collection of his columns about the changes that are being undertaken by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to reshape America to fit their ideals and ideas. He also examines the underlying issues, and the facts of the underlying issues, that are often ignored or glossed over by politicians of all stripes that conceal these changes:

“These wide-ranging essays -- on many individual political, economic, cultural, and legal issues that have as a recurring, underlying theme the decline of the values and institutions that have sustained and advanced American society for more than two centuries. This decline has been more than an erosion. It has, in many cases, been a deliberate dismantling of American values and institutions by people convinced that their superior wisdom and virtue must over-ride both the traditions of the country and the will of the people.

Whether these essays (originally published as syndicated newspaper columns) are individually about financial bailouts, illegal immigrants, gay marriage, national security, or the Duke University rape case, the underlying concern is about what these very different kinds of things say about the general direction of American society.

This larger and longer-lasting question is whether the particular issues discussed reflect a degeneration or dismantling of the America that we once knew and expected to pass on to our children and grandchildren. There are people determined that this country's values, history, laws, traditions and role in the world are fundamentally wrong and must be changed. Such people will not stop dismantling America unless they get stopped -- and the next election may be the last time to stop them, before they take the country beyond the point of no return.”

Reading this decade-old book about occurrences at the beginning of the Obama Administration is like reading about occurrences in the current Biden Administration (i.e., ‘American Rescue Plan Act’, ‘The Infrastructure Bill’, and the ‘Build Back Better Plan’). If you substitute President Obama with President Biden, and the Obama Administration with the Biden Administration in this book, you can see the sameness of the underlying viewpoints of President Obama and President Biden and their attempts to dismantle America and change the foundation of American Ideals and Ideas from our Founding Fathers vision.

I would encourage all to read this book, as it does a superlative job of describing the why of what is happening behind the scenes of our current political gamesmanship. It is also a warning of what may occur in America if the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders prevail in achieving their idealistic goals of adjective justice and equity.

11/09/21 Tax the Rich

Like clockwork, whenever Democrats gain control of Congress or the Presidency, Democrat politicians attempt to increase spending and taxes utilizing the platitudes of ‘Tax the Rich’ and ‘Make Them Pay Their Fair Share’, and to the disparagement of ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory. An Article of mine, “Tax the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share”, examines this issue and the implications of taxing the rich. Those that utilize these phrases rarely understand this issue and its implications, and this article examine these issues and concerns. I have not written an article on ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory, as there is no such economic theory. Trickle-down was a caricature invented for political purposes to disparage those that believed that less taxes on the rich would generate more tax revenue and economic growth in the private sector.

I am a big believer in the truth; as the Bible states, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Therefore, you should examine the facts and discover the truth before you utter these phrases. A short essay by Thomas Sowell, “Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich”, can be downloaded and read to discover the truth. This essay unscrambles gross misconceptions that have made rational debates about tax policies virtually impossible for decades. I would recommend you read this essay to review the facts and discover the truth, which will set you free.

11/08/21 The Dismal Science

Economics was long ago called "The dismal science" and for a very good reason. It was a derogatory alternative name for economics coined by the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century because it poured cold water on all sorts of wonderful sounding ideas. In modern economics, it is dismal because of the extensive utilization of mathematics, especially statistics and probabilities, that make it very difficult for the general public to understand economics, or as a Nobel Award-winning economist has said:

“Whether one is a conservative or a radical, a protectionist or a free trader, a cosmopolitan or a nationalist, a churchman or a heathen, it is useful to know the causes and consequences of economic phenomena.”
 - George J. Stigler

It is also important to understand the economic details (i.e., the empirical data) of any situation, for:

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils."
 - Mark Dawson

This is especially true when trying to understand governmental legislation and policies, for they have direct, indirect, and consequential impacts on our society. And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

As I have Chirped on, “07/19/21 The Party of Anti-Economics”, this lack of understanding of economics seems to inflict many more Democrats than Republicans, as I have also written about in my Article, “A World of Words versus the World as It Is”. This is because politicians operate in contravention to the first lesson of economics:

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
 - Thomas Sowell

The noted economist and commentator Thomas Sowell has written a book “Basic Economics – A Commonsense Guide to the Economy”, which is a citizen's guide to economics, written for those who want to understand how the economy works but have no interest in jargon or equations. Although this is a hefty book, it is a readable book for the general public. Therefore, I would highly recommend this book if you desire to gain a greater understanding of economics.

11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy

Many "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" claim that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is not taught in Public Education. In this claim, they are partially correct. While there may not be any formal ‘education’ in CRT, there are ‘pedagogy’ methods and practices of CRT ideology. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between ‘education’ and ‘pedagogy’ as follows:

“01. Education:

Education is the process of imparting knowledge, values, skills, values, beliefs, habits and attitudes, which can be beneficial to an individual.

Education is the process through which a society passes on the knowledge, values and skills from one generation to another.

Education is the process of facilitating learning in schools or school-like environments as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization.

The objective of education is learning, not teaching.

2. Pedagogy:

Pedagogy refers to the “interactions between teachers, students, and the learning environment and the learning tasks.” Meaning is to say, how teachers and students relate together as well as the instructional approaches implemented in the classroom.

Pedagogy is the study of teaching methods, including the aims of education and the ways in which such goals may be achieved. The field relies heavily on educational psychology, which encompasses scientific theories of learning, and to some extent on the philosophy of education, which considers the aims and value of education from a philosophical perspective.

Pedagogy refers more broadly to the theory and practice of education, and how this influences the growth of learners.

Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.

In short, "Education" is how we learn & "Pedagogy" is how we teach.”
 - Samir G Pandya

Given the above definition, if we look at some of the recommended reading books and instructional materials and the teachers’ interactions with the students in public education, we can discern a CRT ideological pedagogy basis in the teaching of the students. Unitizing the same distinction of education and pedagogy, we can also determine that there is much anti-American history teaching in public education and very little teaching of the contributions of America for the betterment of humankind. As a result, our students are being educated on what to think rather than how to think, and this is the basis for the current uproar about CRT teaching in our public schools.

Consequently, American students have been indoctrinated with a viewpoint of self-loathing for America, which they carry forward into their adult lives. A self-loathing of an underlying feeling that America is just not good: not good enough, not good at this, not good at that, not good at, or for not much good of anything. It can be subtle and long-term, as those American students that have been impacted may habitually negatively compare America to other countries, constantly finding fault with America and putting America down, with no real awareness that there is anything amiss. Or they may listen intently to a critical inner voice that scolds and berates America, telling them how embarrassing, stupid, or insensitive Americans are; and they are refusing to challenge these feelings about America and Americans even while they suffer from America self-loathing. A self-loathing that is harmful to the psychological health of the student.

A pedagogy that is Insidious and results in "Indoctrination versus Education", and the other issues as I have written in my Chirps on "02/07/20 What to Think and Not How to Think" and "03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?", and in my Article on "Public Education. This Insidiousness has led many persons in America to believe in "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", which leads to divisiveness in America.

This pedagogy and the resulting self-loathing viewpoint influence their political choices and votes, which determines the direction of our society. A direction that is antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas that may result in the destruction of our society, or at the very least to the detriment of our Freedoms and Liberties as I have Chirp on, "07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas".

Therefore, do not believe the half-truth that there is no CRT teaching in American Public Schools, as the whole truth reveals that the ideology of CRT permeates the pedagogy of many teachers and school districts in America, especially teachers and school districts under the control or influence of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leadership.

Addendum - After writing this Chirp I came across an article, “We’re Educators. Critical Race Theory Is, in Fact, in the Schools” by Daniel Buck  & Anthony Kinnett, that further elaborates on this topic, as well as an article by Larry O'Connor, “CRT Isn't in the Curriculum, It's the Language of the Curriculum”, does a good job of explaining how CRT is in the pedagogy of modern public education.

11/06/21 Proposed Federal Election Law

In place of the current Congressional proposals to legislate Federal elections in the States, which I believe are unconstitutional, I would propose the following legislation, which I believe is Constitutional and would assure the integrity of Federal elections:

“Whereas certain practices and actions by State and Local Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of governments have called into question the integrity of Federal Elections, the following shall be the restrictions of The Times, Places and Manner of holding Federal Elections for Senators and Representatives under the United States Constitution and its Amendments, and the appointment of electors for President under the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

No person shall be eligible to cast a federal election ballot unless they are a citizen of the United States. State and local registrar officials shall undertake due diligence to determine the citizenship of the voter as proscribed by federal statute as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States. No State Legislations, or Governors or their Executive Officers, nor any Federal, State, or local Court shall change the election laws, rules, and regulations within forty-five (45) days of a Federal election. All newly eligible voters must register to vote at an authorized registrar’s office prior to sixty (60) days of a federal election day. All registered voters must be legal residents of the State and election district for sixty (60) days prior to registering or casting a vote. Any person who attempts to cast a ballot or casts a ballot that is not legally eligible to vote will be subject to federal prosecution and upon a guilty verdict will be subject to a penalty of three to six months imprisonment and a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars nor less than one thousand dollars.

The day of a federal election shall be a national holiday, and State and local governments shall also observe this national holiday. Businesses will be encouraged (by way of tax credits or other financial remuneration) to allow time off for their employees to vote on a federal election day.

No casting of ballots, except absentee ballots, will occur prior to the day of a federal election except for serving members of the United States Armed Forces. The United States Armed Forces shall establish such methods and procedures as required to allow service members to legally vote in their election district, with such ballots being received at the local election registrar office prior to election day. Absentee ballots are to be defined as those eligible voters who will not physically be present within their election district on the day of the election, or those persons too ill or infirmed to vote at their polling station, and such absentee ballots must be requested by the absentee voter. The United States Postal Service, nor any other delivery service, shall be utilized for the casting of ballots, except absentee ballots, and all such absentee ballots must be sent and received by the United States Postal Service via certified mail. All Absentee Ballots must be received at the designated postal address for such Absentee Ballots prior to election day to be legally counted. All such absentee ballots shall be verified by the signature on the ballot as compared to the signature on the voter rolls before the ballots are counted.

All ballots for Federal elections must occur at the legally designated polling stations on the designated day of the Federal election. All ballots cast in a federal election must be verified by signature or photo identification against the registered voter rolls. Six (6) months prior to a federal election, the registered voter rolls shall be purged of deceased or nonresident voters, as reported to the Social Security Administration by a Statement of Death by Funeral Director or a United States Postal Service by a Permanent Change of Address Form. Such notifications will be provided by the Federal government to the State election office nine (9) months prior to a Federal election, which shall be distributed to the local election registrar officials within thirty (30) days of receipt by the State election office.

The Presidential electors from within each State shall not be legally bound to another State’s electors. The Presidential electors from each Congressional district shall only be legally bound to the Presidential candidate that received a majority vote of the Congressional district from which they were elected, and the electors for the Statewide electors shall only be legally bound to the Presidential candidate that received a majority vote of the State. Such bindings shall only be for the purposes of the first round of the Electoral College vote. Subsequent rounds of the Electoral College vote, if needed, the Electors' vote shall be at the discretion of the Elector.

This legislation shall be effective on the first day of January 2024 and for all subsequent federal elections thereafter.”

11/05/21 A Disgrace to our Constitution

In the 21st century, the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court have become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and, therefore, a disgrace to our Constitution. This has not been a sudden change, as it was a gradual disgrace during the 20th century, but it has accelerated to break-neck speed in the last two decades. It is a disgrace because each elected or appointed official in our government takes an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and they have not been doing so. Instead, they have been accumulating more power unto themselves or to the branch of government under which they serve.

Our Founding Fathers were quite aware that power uncheck would accumulate more unchecked power, to the detriment of Liberty and Freedom. Therefore, they drafted a constitution of limited and enumerated powers of the Federal government and a system of checks and balances of power in the Federal government to preserve our individual Liberties and Freedoms. The growth of the Federal government beyond its enumerated and limited powers by tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution to justify this growth and the shifting of duties and responsibilities of one branch of government to another branch in the 20th and 21st century have diluted or compromised our Constitution.

This dilution or compromise has been brought about by a gradual despotism under the justification of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Alas, once despotism is established, it tightens its grip and becomes more despotic until it devolves into tyranny. The Congress and the Presidency have been the driving force in this accumulation of power. However, the Supreme Court has acquiesced and sometimes supported this accumulation of power. The Supreme Court has also assumed more powers than was intended by our Founding Fathers, and they are becoming more Lords than Judges as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

The Supreme Court, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, was supposed to be a check upon the accumulation of powers by Congress and the Presidency. This was to be accomplished by the Supreme Court having the power of negation of unconstitutional laws, illegitimate regulations, and improper enforcement of said laws for the purposes of keeping in check the powers of Congress and the Presidency. However, the Supreme Court has more frequently been issuing positive rulings requiring Congress and the Presidency to enact laws and regulations and methods of enforcement of said laws, rather than negating unconstitutional laws, regulations, and enforcements. This is an accumulation of powers unto themselves not envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Indeed, our Founding Fathers were very concerned by activist judges, as they had experienced the misuse and deleterious effects of magisterial power prior to the American Revolution, which was one of the major issues that led to the American Revolution.

The Supreme Court has been avoiding these issues of the accumulation of powers by the Federal government by not accepting cases or issuing ambiguous rulings on these issues by utilizing their own tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution. They have also been avoiding the issues of the infringement of our Natural and Constitutional Rights by this accumulation of power by the Federal government. They are, therefore, in dereliction of their duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing so, they are incurring the animosity of many Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas and, therefore, they are disgracing the Supreme Court.

11/04/21 Let’s Go Brandon

As one who rarely resorts to profanity, as I explained in my Pearls of Wisdom - "Do Not Swear", there are exceptions. And “Let’s Go Brandon” is a worthy exception.

If you've heard people chanting, "Let's go, Brandon!" or seen someone with a shirt or hat sporting the seemingly jovial message lately, you might be wondering who Brandon is and why so many people are rooting for him. In this case, the phrase isn't actually about supporting a guy named Brandon. Instead, it's a euphemism that many people in conservative circles are using in place of saying, "F*** Joe Biden."

The origins of the meme go back to Oct. 2, when race car driver Brandon Brown won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race and was being interviewed by NBC reporter Kelli Stavast. In the background, many in the crowd can be heard chanting, "F*** Joe Biden," though Stavast says, "You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!' " in her broadcast. It remains unclear if Stavast misheard what the crowd was saying or if she purposely tried to change the message.

Given the damage that President Biden and his administration have done to America in ten short months, this expression is the exception, especially since it is a mild euphemism. With the latest elections of Republicans winning in Democrat Virginia, and a narrow Republican loss in heavily Democrat New Jersey, and other unexpected Republican wins, the majority of voters seem to agree with this euphemism.

Despite what the political pundits may say to minimize the Democratic Party's losses in the last election, this was the American peoples' reflection of the Presidency of Joe Biden and the "Progressives/Leftists" ideas and the "Democrat Party Leaders" ideology.

Now is the time to move forward onto the 2022 mid-term elections, and the slogan for these elections should be “Let’s Go Brandon” to put an end to what I described in my Chirp on "10/24/21 Death by a Thousand Cuts”.

11/03/21 The World Turned Upside Down

According to American legend, the British army band under Lord Cornwallis played the tune “The World Turned Upside Down” when they surrendered after the Siege of Yorktown (1781). Customarily, the British army would have played an American or French tune in tribute to the victors, but General Washington refused them the honours of war and insisted that they play "a British or German march." Although American history textbooks continue to propagate the legend, the story may have been apocryphal as it first appears in the historical record a century after the surrender.

And, indeed, the old world was turned upside down by the new world. Monarchy, aristocracy, and upper/lower class distinctions of the old world were being replaced by Meritocracy, the Middle Class, the ability to rise above your birth. Liberty and Freedom had replaced Despotism and Servitude. Or, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Today, in America, we should all be playing the tune “The World Turned Upside Down”, for the American Ideals and Ideas are being turned upside down. Led by Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, our ideals of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are under attack by Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" common in today’s American society. And they are succeeding! Meritocracy, the Middle Class, the ability to rise above your birth are being replaced by Elitism, Tribalism, and Globalization, and they are destroying the Ideals and ideas of America, as I have Chirped on, “07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas”.

A new book by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America”, looks at this transformation and its impacts on America. Having just read this book, I would have posted a review of this book in this Chirp. However, as there is a review of this book by Michael Cozzi, “The Dying Citizen”, that is so excellent, I thought it would be better to redirect you to his article rather than create a review of my own. As Mr. Cozzi states about this book that it: “is a prescient account of how the American conceptualization of citizenship has been eroded by progressive ideologues and those who wish to undermine the original intent of the Framers. He focuses on the categories of pre-citizens and post-citizens”.

I would also encourage you to read the Introduction to this book, which is viewable by clicking the ‘Look inside’ hyperlink of the Amazon web page for this book. This introduction is perhaps the finest introduction to a book that I have encountered in my readings, as it succinctly highlights the content of the book.

This book, along with Thomas Sowell’s book “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles”, which I Chirped on “08/09/21 A Conflict of Visions”, are the two books that provide an excellent explanation of the ideological differences that exist in America today.

11/02/21 Disparate Visions and Divisions in America

Two of the most notable conservatives of the late 20th century and early 21st century, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer, started their adult life on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist, while Charles Krauthammer worked and wrote for liberal politicians and organizations. Both had a change of mind for what Thomas Sowell attributed ‘facts’ and to which Charles Krauthammer attributed ‘evidence’.

In the case of Thomas Sowell, after a rough and tumble early life, he attended college in his late twenties and studied economics and mathematics. Born in North Carolina, Sowell grew up in Harlem, New York. Due to financial issues and deteriorated home conditions, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and later served in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Upon returning to the United States, Sowell enrolled at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude in 1958. He received a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959 and earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

It was in college that Sowell learned the importance of Facts, Reasoning, and Critical Thinking. When he applied all three of these faculties, his independent thinking, and his street life experience to examining society, he determined that his earlier convictions were ill-placed and wrong. When he was asked in an interview what changed his thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Facts’, explaining that correct and proper facts were the basis for all reasoning to reach an accurate conclusion.

In the case of Charles Krauthammer, he was medically educated and certified as a psychiatrist. While in his first year studying medicine at Harvard Medical School, Krauthammer became permanently paralyzed from the waist down after suffering a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at cervical spinal nerve 5. After spending 14 months recovering in a hospital, he returned to medical school, graduating to become a psychiatrist involved in the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III in 1980. He joined the Carter administration in 1978 as a director of psychiatric research, eventually becoming the speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale in 1980.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

When asked in an interview what changed his political thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Evidence’. He explained that his medical training taught him to follow the evidence to reach a correct medical diagnosis and treatment. When he followed the evidence on American society's ills, his diagnosis was contrary to Liberal ideology and ideas. He thereafter began writing and speaking with a more conservative mind, as he believed that conservatism was the correct treatment for the ills of America.

Both of these men utilized their knowledge and experience to achieve a level of wisdom that I have written about in my Article, "Knowledgeable - From Information to Wisdom", that is and was of the highest order. Therefore, we can be certain that if you objectively look and the facts and evidence, it will lead you to the conclusion that "Progressives/Leftists" ideology and ideas are not supportable.

Any book written by Thomas Sowell is well worth the read, but for a grasp of his intellectual biography, I would recommend the book “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” by Jason L Riley, as well as his selections from his many writings in “The Thomas Sowell Reader. Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. All four books are illuminative of these great men’s thinking and are well worth the read.

11/01/21 A Moral Compass

There are many politicians in America, but almost no statesmen in America. The best distinguishment between the two is:

"The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision."
- J. Rufus Fears

To be a statesman, you must have all four qualities, while to be a politician only requires a combination of less than four of these qualities. And anything less than all four qualities can lead to bad politics and sometimes downright evil. Many evil leaders in history had principles, visions, and a consensus but lacked a moral compass which led them to do great harm. This has been especially true in the 20th century.

Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ho Chí Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and many other despots and dictators of the 20th century lacked a moral compass but had principles, visions, and consensus that led them to power to the devastation of their people, and sometimes to the world.

There is only one moral compass that prevents these devastations, a moral compass directed to the respect and dignity of the individual person by acknowledging and upholding their Natural Rights. Whenever you trample a person’s Natural Rights, you are treading down the road to despotism and eventual tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this and established a Constitution of the United States in which the Federal government had enumerated and limited powers and a balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government to preserve our Natural Rights. In doing so, they showed themselves to be statesmen more than politicians.

Unfortunately, we in America have been treading down this road to despotism for the last century. The growth of the Federal government beyond its enumerated and limited powers by tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution to justify this growth, and the shifting of duties and responsibilities of one branch of government to another branch, and the hoards of administrators and bureaucrats to regulate what Americans can do (and now say) under their Natural Rights have diluted or compromised our Natural Rights. This dilution has been brought about by a gradual despotism under the justification of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Alas, once despotism is established, it tightens its grip and becomes more despotic until it devolves into tyranny.

With the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions, the crisis at the southern border, and our exorbitant spending and taxes, we are at a precipice of losing our Natural Rights in America. A drop-off of this precipice that will end America as it was founded, and that we may never be able to recover our American Ideals and Ideas. Our decisions on how to proceed will determine if, as President Abraham Lincoln said in another time in American history when he faced a precipice, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth”.

10/31/21 The Wisdom of History

In many of my Chirps and Articles I speak of history, but not as a dry discourse of facts, quotes, and people, but of the importance of knowing and understanding history. It is important to not only know history but to understand history. Many know history, but few understand history, for understanding history means that you can apply the lessons of history to make decisions for today and plans for tomorrow. Understanding history allows you to analyze current events in the light of historical events and to determine possible outcomes of current events.

It is the conceit of modern history that human nature has evolved for the better as our enlightened morals and economic prosperity has increased. To this, I would reply that The Ten Commandments of ancient history have not evolved and are still applicable in today’s morality, and economic prosperity is not a guarantee and can disappear from natural and man-made calamities.

Another conceit of modern history is that advances in science and technology make previous history meaningless in the modern world. Science and technology are powerful tools in the hands of humans, but human nature will utilize any tools that are available to advance the base desires of human nature. Our base human desires have not changed throughout history, and Science and technology have only altered the means to achieve base human desires.

We also often learn the wrong lessons from history. As there are a great number of lessons from history, it is often difficult to determine if these lessons are correct or incorrect and what the fundamental lessons of history are. In a Great Courses: Wisdom of History – Professor J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D. (a course I highly recommend), speaks of the ten fundamental lessons of history:

    “10 fundamental lessons of history:

1. We do not learn from history.
2. Science and technology do not make us immune to the laws of history.
3. Freedom is not a universal value.
4. Power is the universal value.
5. The Middle East is the crucible of conflict and the graveyard of empires.
6. The United States shares the destinies of the great democracies, the republics, and the superpowers of the past.
7. Along with the lust for power, religion and spirituality are the most profound motivators in human history.
8. Great nations rise and fall because of human decisions made by individual leaders.
9. The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision.
10. Throughout its history, the United States has charted a unique role in history.”

Even historians can get the lessons of history wrong, as most historians have extensive knowledge of their history subject field but may have little knowledge of other history subjects. To learn the lessons of history also requires a broad range of knowledge of history, along with knowledge of other topics such as economics, sociology, governmental theory, and philosophy. They also need the wisdom to apply their knowledge, as I have written in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom".

Beware the politician who espouses history, for they often have an incomplete or incorrect knowledge of history which does not lead them to The Wisdom of History. They also tend to misconstrue or selectively utilize history for their own purposes. It is also important that we remember two of the most famous quotes about the importance of history:

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  - Edmund Burke

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

10/30/21 The Right of Revolution

America was founded on an armed and violent revolution. However, this revolution was not the first or last step in this revolution. Preceding this revolution was attempts to reconcile the differences between the Colonists and the British Parliament and Monarchy, and following this revolution was the founding of our government to enshrine to ideals of this revolution. This Revolution was not just a war but was a revolution of the relationship between a government and the people, and the governmental respect for the Natural Rights of the people, and based upon "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", or as was said:

“What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.”
  - John Adams

The Revolutionary War was based upon the Natural Right to Revolution in “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government” as stated in The Declaration of Independence. For a concise overview and analysis of this Right of Revolution, I would recommend the article “The Right of Revolution in the American Founding” by Kevin Portteus.

It is important for the American people to understand our founding to understand our American Ideals and Ideas. As such, they should be familiar with the following documents that explain the thinking behind our revolution:

1. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress
2. A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms
3. The Declaration of Independence
4. The United States Constitution
5. The Bill of Rights

As our current Public Education does such a poor job of teaching our history and our ideals I would suggest that you become better acquainted with these documents. Understanding these documents will also lead you to a better understanding of the deep division in today’s American society. The divisions between the forces of limited and enumerated government and the forces of expanded and interventionism government, and between the preservation of our Natural Rights versus the imposition of Societal Rights.

10/29/21 The Degradation of the Individual

As I mentioned in my Chirp on “10/28/21 The Three C’s”, we, in America, have drifted away from individualism into collectivism. Whenever we think collectively, we often do so at the expense of the individual by violating the Natural Rights of the individual. Whenever anyone or any entity violates our Natural Rights, it is a degradation of each individual human being. Whether it is an individual, organization, business, or government that violates our Natural Rights, it is a debasement of the individual and is unjustifiable.

This debasement is the result of the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" that currently exists in America.

The degradation of each individual human being comes in the form of restrictions and requirements imposed by Presidents, Governors, and Mayors, or their executive officers, upon the people that direct the words and deeds of the people, usually in an emergency situation, but now more frequently in the course of their everyday lives. When these restrictions and requirements are imposed through mandates, they are especially odious. Odious as they were not formulated and passed by the normal legislative process, and they are often difficult and time-consuming to challenge by normal legal recourses. As such, the representatives of the people have had no part in their creation and no ability to determine the negative impacts of the restrictions and requirements, nor the possible violations of our Natural and Constitutional Rights.

As I have mentioned in my Chirp on “10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience”, when a conflict arises between the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests, only a compelling interest of Society can override Natural Rights. This compelling societal interest is in the harm to the safety and security of individuals and society in an emergency. Such Natural Rights violations must be of limited scope and duration, and if it is not limited in scope and duration, then it is not an emergency. It then becomes subjugation, and our leaders become rulers, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". The hubris of a government that believes that it can rule a free people is astounding, as only subjugated or subservient people can be ruled.

When the government encourages or coerces businesses, organizations, and individuals to enforce their restrictions and requirements, these entities are violating the Natural Rights of the individual. It is an abasement of the individual and as unjustifiable as if the government were to enforce these restrictions and requirements. As I stated in the aforementioned Chirp on Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience, it is the duty and responsibility for Americans to disobey these restrictions and requirements from all entities to preserve our Natural Rights and, therefore, our Liberties and Freedoms. It is also the duty and responsibility of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court to overturn these restrictions and requirements, as they are Unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The failure to disobey and overturn these unjust restrictions and requirements is a pathway to despotism and the subjugation of the American people.

10/28/21 The Three C’s

I recently came across the phrase that America was founded on three ideas - Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom. While this is true in general, it is also very easy to read too much into this phrase. But as a general principle, it is applicable if the general principle for each is:

Constitutionalism - A democratic republic system of government with a written constitution that enumerates the powers of government to protect the Natural Rights of the individuals within the boundaries of the nation. The colonists and first generation of Americans understood that without a written constitution, the law of the land could be misapplied or ignored to the privilege of some and to the disadvantage to the individual.

Capitalism - An economic system based on private ownership of property in which the exchange of said property is a mutual agreement of the individuals involved in the exchange. The Colonists and first generation of Americans believed that the free flow of the marketplace would allow the individual to utilize their skills and abilities, intellect, and hard work to achieve their individual goals and to rise above the economic circumstances of their birth.

Christendom - The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia) is not so much the religion or theology of Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, or Orthodox, but of the worth and dignity of each individual as a child of God. Many of the early settlers of America migrated to North America to escape the conformity of the Anglican and Catholic religions, and most of the Colonists and the first generation of Americans were of a Protestant denomination.

In America, these were the general principle that we were founded upon. Despite, at times, having fallen short of these general principles, we have recognized our shortcomings and have attempted to rectify them. Through periods of civil unrest and a Civil War, these general principles were what animated American patriots. The unifying principle of Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom was in the belief of the dignity and importance of the individual person and the protection of their Natural Rights.

And so, it was, for most of our history. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have drifted away from these general principles of individualism to a more collectivist viewpoint of society as exemplified by the rise of ‘Identity Politics’. No longer is the individual the pivot of concern for societal and governmental actions, and indeed, the individual is often secondary to the interest of special groups. In doing so, the Natural Rights of the individual have been replaced by societal interests to the detriment of the individual, and our Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom are being destroyed.

This destruction is the result of the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" that currently exists in America.

All of this must come to an end if we are to preserve and protect our American Ideals and Ideas of the general principles of Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom.

10/27/21 The Philosopher President

Abraham Lincoln was known as a great political leader and President who guided America through the anti-slavery debates, the Civil War, and the abolition of slavery. His wit and wisdom were renowned throughout the ages. Much of his wit was in his storytelling and quotes, of which I have collected a few on my webpage, My Favorite Quotes of Abraham Lincoln, and many more can be found on the Wikiquote webpage of Abraham Lincoln. His wisdom, however, came from his deep philosophical understanding of the underlying meaning of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Much of his wisdom is apropos to today’s issues that divide America if you substitute slavery for the current topic of dispute.  I have collected some of his more famous writings and speeches in my Documents, Letters, and Speeches web page as follows:

• Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech
• Lincoln's A House Divided Speech
• Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
• Lincoln's Message to Congress in Special Session
• Lincoln's Proclamation of Thanksgiving
• Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
• Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

Reading these writings and speeches in today’s context can assist you in understanding the philosophical basis of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States.

For more information on Abraham Lincoln’s thinking, I would recommend the book Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas by Allen C. Guelzo, a distinguished historian and professor of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War period of American history whose other books I would also recommend.

10/26/21 Book It

I have thoroughly revised my Book It webpage to include more information about the books I have recommended, as well as the reasoning for the recommendation. I hope that you will take the time to read my Book It webpage, and you will become sufficiently interested in my recommended books that you will purchase these books, or at least borrow these books from your library, and hopefully read these books.

10/25/21 Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists

Since the social activism of the 1960s and onwards, the Liberals, Progressives, and Leftists, social justice warriors, and other activists have undertaken many crusades to reform and make America better.  All of this was undertaken for the good of Americans and America, and sometimes for the good of the world (i.e.., Environmentalism and Global Climate Change). They have self-anointed themselves as more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, and therefore they are, of course, always correct and in a better position to determine what is best for America and Americans. In doing so, they have uncritically and selectively relied on expert opinion from academics and the intelligentsia as to the problems and solutions within America. However, they have not remembered:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

When the best is determined by the few and implemented by the government, it often degenerates into despotism of governmental actions and a ruling class of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes, how do they achieve and maintain their goals and policies? In America, we have disparate differences of opinion and ideology that divide us. Trying to understand these differences is difficult, as they are based on the closely held viewpoints of human nature and the role of government in society.

As Dr. Sowell, the distinguished economist, and social commentator, examines in three books of his that the differences of opinion and ideology in America stem from; “The Quest for Cosmic Justice”, “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles”, and “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. These three books by Thomas Sowell should be considered a trilogy and should be read in order to have a fuller understanding of the disparate visions that divide us in America. Although these books were written more than a decade ago, the issues and concerns that he illuminates are even more apropos today. For more on these books, I would direct you to my Article, “Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists”.

The latest book by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America”, is another attempt to explain the disparate ideologies in America. In an excellent review of this book by Michael Cozzi, “The Dying Citizen”, he states that this book: “is a prescient account of how the American conceptualization of citizenship has been eroded by progressive ideologues and those who wish to undermine the original intent of the Framers. He focuses on the categories of pre-citizens and post-citizens”.

These four books are an excellent explanation of the ideological differences that exist in America today and are well worth the read to understand the deep divisions in America. The Unconstrained Visions, The Vision of the Anointed, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and The Dying Citizen are a hallmark of the Liberals, Progressives, and Leftists, social justice warriors, and other activists, and are the tactics of the Democrat Party to pass legislation and increase funding for these policies. They also utilize the stratagem of improper "Dialog & Debate" to achieve their goals, and all of this leads to the erosion of "A Civil Society" and "Divisiveness in America".

10/24/21 Death by a Thousand Cuts

Lingchi (Chinese), translated variously as the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing, and also known as death by a thousand cuts, was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly 900 until it was banned in 1905. It was also used in Vietnam and Korea. In this form of execution, a knife was used to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, eventually resulting in death.

Death of a thousand cuts is what is happening to our Liberties and Freedoms in America. For years the "Progressives/Leftists" and the "Democrat Party Leaders" have everywhere pressured, cajoled, browbeat, and bullied those that would oppose their political goals and policy agendas through the tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good. Now they have started to prosecute those voices that oppose their policies and agendas. They claim that their activities are all legal, and some of them may be legal, but they forget or did not know that "The Law is Not All", as some laws are unjust and require civil disobedience as I have Chirped on, “10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience”.

From the parents who protest the public education of their children, to the persons who defend their lives, safety, and property with firearms, to the illegal surveillance and perjury traps on Americans, to the IRS Audits of political dissidents and to IRS delays in certifications of conservative organizations, to the non-investigations of voting irregularities, to the imprisonment without trial of the January 6th ‘Insurrectionists’, and to a host of other actions contrary to our Constitutional Bill of Rights as I examined in my Chirp on, “07/23/21 The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights”. By labeling their opponents ‘Domestic Terrorists’ rather than the ‘Loyal Opposition’, they hope to inure the American public to the violation of their Natural and Constitutional Rights. Meanwhile, violent mob protests that result in injuries, death, and the destruction of personal property are supported, not prosecuted, and indeed praised if they are in support of the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders policies and goals. Government officials who lie under oath and mislead the American public are not prosecuted and are often rewarded with lucrative book contracts and paid commentary on the mainstream media. Politically connected individuals and family members who commit criminal actions are not prosecuted if they are supportive of the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders policies and goals. And all of this makes a mockery of ‘Equal Justice for All’.

These are not isolated incidents but are meant to intimidate the American people into silence and submission and impose an oligarchic (Democrat Party) rule in America. These Death of a Thousand Cuts are destroying our American Ideals and Ideas, and if they are not resisted and quashed, then we will become a subjugated people.

10/23/21 A Tale of Two Revolutions

The end of the 18th century saw two revolutions of historical significance, The American Revolution (1765-1791) and The French Revolution (1789-1799), which was followed by the reign of Napoléon Bonaparte as First Consul (1799-1804) then Emperor (1804-1815), and which included the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

The American Revolution was a violent ideological and political revolution that occurred in colonial North America between 1765 and 1791. The Americans in the Thirteen Colonies formed independent states that defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), gaining independence from the British Crown and establishing the United States of America, and creating a constitution that was the first liberal democratic republic in history. The American Revolution was more than the Revolutionary War. It started with the protests of the Stamp Act of 1765, then protests against other Parliament and Monarchical acts that eventually led to the "The Declaration of Independence" and the Revolutionary War (which ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which recognized American independence). The American Revolution continued until the creation and adoption of the "The United States Constitution" and "The Bill of Rights", which enshrined the principles of the American Revolution into American government. A Constitution that has lasted for over two hundred years to the benefit of Americans, albeit with periods of great social and economic changes, and a Civil War, and periods of Civil unrest. It was a revolution of the relationship between a government and the people, and the governmental respect for the Natural Rights of the people, and based upon "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", or as was said:

“What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.”
  - John Adams

The French Revolution was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates-General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy, while phrases like Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution, and inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. Its values and the institutions it created dominate French politics to this day. It also led to The Reign of Terror as a means to harness revolutionary fervor but quickly degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances. It began when the Convention set price controls over a wide range of goods, with the death penalty for hoarders, and a week later, 'revolutionary groups' were established to enforce them. Shortly thereafter, the Law of Suspects ordered the arrest of suspected "enemies of freedom", initiating what became known as the "Terror". According to archival records, from September 1793 to July 1794, some 16,600 people were executed on charges of counter-revolutionary activity; another 40,000 may have been summarily executed or died awaiting trial.

Napoléon Bonaparte (born Napoleone di Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), usually referred to as simply Napoleon in English was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the Revolutionary Wars. He was the de facto leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804. He also initiated The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) that were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions. It produced a period of French domination over most of continental Europe. The wars stemmed from the unresolved disputes associated with the French Revolution and its resultant conflict. The wars are often categorized into five conflicts, each termed after the coalition that fought Napoleon: the Third Coalition (1805), the Fourth (1806–07), the Fifth (1809), the Sixth (1813–14), and the Seventh (1815). These wars resulted in about a million French soldiers becoming casualties (wounded, invalided, or killed), a higher proportion than in the First World War. The European total may have reached 5,000,000 military deaths, including disease. For decades after the Napoleonic Wars, French society was beset with political and economic problems because of the wars, all to the detriment of its people.

The question is, why did the American Revolution succeed while the French Revolution failed? In my opinion, it was because the American Revolution was based on "A Civil Society" and "A Just Government and a Just Society" driven by “The rule of law, not men”, while the French Revolution became uncivil and unjust and was governed by “The rule of men, not law”. The French Revolutionaries took it upon themselves to become rulers and not leaders, as I examined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They were so sure of the righteousness and correctness of their opinions that they enforced, through violence, their opinions upon the French people. These French Revolutionaries had a vision and believed themselves to be anointed to lead the French people to a new and better society. Or, as Thomas Sowell has said in his book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”:

“Where the American government deliberately create a government of elaborate checks and balances, to constrain the evils inherent in human beings, the French revolution concentrated vast powers in its leadership, so as to allow those who were presumably wise and benevolent to effect sweeping changes with little hinderance. Condorcet, as an intellectual supporter of the French revolution, could see no reason for the American system of checks and balances, in which society was to be “justled between opposing powers” or to be held back by the “inertia” of its constitution. Indeed, even after the revolutionaries turned against him and threw him into prison, Condorcet still seemed not to understand the reason for limitations on government power.”
 - Thomas Sowell

Condorcet died in prison, either by suicide or murder, for which he was imprisoned for criticizing the French Constitution of 1793. Terrorism through despotism, imprisonment, and the guillotine were the tools of the French Revolutionaries to impose the vision of the anointed upon the French people. Today, in America, we see this same type of vision and anointment in "Progressives/Leftists", "Democrat Party Leaders", and the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media who support this vision, and praise, glorify, or honor the anointed. We are also beginning to see despotism, investigations, prosecutions, and imprisonment of those persons who would oppose the visions of the anointed.

President Biden and his administration seem to be predisposed to rule by Executive Orders rather than the passage and enforcement of the laws as passed by Congress. Coercion, intimidation, and threats to achieve their objectives seem to be the methods chosen to implement their political goals and policy agendas, as I have Chirped over the last several months.

Hopefully, the groundswell of opposition that we are seeing in America will correct these actions of the visions of the anointed and their imposition by government mandates through Executive Orders, and we will return to our American Ideas and Ideals. Otherwise, we may face our own reign of terror and the end of the American Revolution experiment of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” – Abraham Lincoln.

10/22/21 The Answer to Why Not?

“Some men see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?’"
 - Robert Kennedy

However noble, visionary, and uplifting this quote is for many social justice warriors, they never seem to answer the ‘Why’ and ‘Why not’ questions in this quote. The ‘Why?’ is very difficult to answer, as there are many various reasons and circumstances that need to be examined to answer ‘Why?’. The ‘Why not?’ is easier to answer, as the prescriptions for social justice often encounter the same problems of economics, sociology, politics, and at the very root causes of the issues of human nature and individual individualism.

However, we can answer the ‘Why not?’ to each social justice prescription generically. Whenever a social justice prescription is pronounced, it should be confronted with several questions and statements to evaluate the efficacy of the prescription. These are:

“The three questions that will destroy most of the arguments of the left:
   1. Compared to what?
   2. At what cost?
   3. What hard evidence do you have?”
  - Thomas Sowell

"Life is like a double entry ledger. For everything that happens, there are both positives and negatives, especially for anything that you say or do."
 - Mark Dawson

Therefore, you must compare the prescription to the current situation, determine the economics of the prescription, and be skeptical of and question the empirical data that led to the prescription. You also need to create not only a financial balance sheet but also a societal balance sheet to weigh the costs and benefits of the prescription. You also need to think about "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and its potential positive and negative consequences.

After doing so, you must then adjudge whether the prescription runs contrary to human nature or individualism, for:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure."
 - Mark Dawson

After doing so, in many if not most cases, the social justice prescriptions would be found to be deficient, and they may be found to cause more harm than good, if not outright impracticable and doomed to failure.

10/21/21 Illegal Immigration is Unconstitutional

The unconstitutional case for President Biden and his administration not enforcing immigration and other laws on the southern borders is not as readily apparent as many think. As Rob Natelson has stated in his new article, Immigration: How Biden Is Violating the Constitution”:

“Critics of President Joe Biden’s non-defense of the southern border have emphasized his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3).

This is a good point, but it has some weaknesses.”

He then proceeds to illuminate and inform the real unconstitutional basis for allowing illegal immigration. I would highly recommend that you read this article to understand the Unconstitutionality of President Biden and his administration's actions on the southern border and how we can deal with these actions.

10/20/21 A Broken Country

In a new article by Larry O'Connor, “Biden Can't Fix What He Shattered”, he explains that:

“This country, in many respects, is broken. Wait... that's not entirely accurate. It sounds too passive. It sounds like it was an accident or something.

This country has been broken. And Joe Biden broke it.

• The border is a broken disaster.
• The economy is flailing.
• The employment situation is a withering mess.
• Our foreign policy is in shambles.
• The supply chain is in crisis.
• Inflation continues unabated.

That's the bad news. Now, for the worse news.

Biden is incapable of fixing any of this.”

He then states that President Biden is incapable of doing this “Not because he doesn't have the skills or power to do so, it's because he doesn't have the character, will, or humility to do so“. I also wonder if some of this is deliberate as to increase governmental power, and the taxes and spending that he (incorrectly) believes is necessary and proper to correct these problems.

In either case, we have become A Broken Country with no plan or end in sight to repair our country. God help us all ... literally.

10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax

For many years I have been an avid reader of Imprimis, a free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College that is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political, and educational issues. The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered at Hillsdale College events. First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over six million subscribers.

A new article in Imprimis, “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”, by Roger Kimball, the Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion, examines this topic:

“Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

Imprimis articles are always rational and reasonable, and they are an excellent source of truthful information about current events. I would recommend that you explore the back issues of Imprimis to obtain factual and truthful information on a variety of topics.

10/18/21 Scholarship is Passé in America

Profound scholarly knowledge and intelligence based on "Reasoning“ is unfashionable today, especially in academia. Instead, we have Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality as the basis of scholarship. In academia, this is not scholarship but propagandism, and they are not educating their students but indoctrinating them. True scholarship is not only knowledge and intelligence but the wisdom obtained through their scholarship, as I have examined in my “Pearls of Wisdom” on “A Wise Person”.

The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields were often immune from this scholarly decline, but they have now started down this road. The other fields of academia are now in the full throes of this decline. Much of this decline is because we have forgotten history, or reinterpreted history, to meet our preconceived notions. Whenever you base your scholarship on a preconceived notion, you sacrifice scholarship, and you often must ignore or distort facts to fit your preconceived notion. But only facts as a basis count in scholarship for:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 - New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

and

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
 - John Adams

Today, however, many scholars treat facts as malleable and open to interpretation. These scholars often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" and "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" to fit their preconceived notions to arrive at their desired result. In doing so, their ideas are often so absurd that it fits the criteria of:

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

But you should not believe absurd ideas without evidence that the facts and "Reasoning" are correct. To do otherwise leads you down a path to disappointment and delusion. This is especially true for the academics of the social sciences (Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology), for many of the academics in social science wish to change the world for the better rather than discover the truths of the world.

Therefore, you should be careful as to what you read and hear from academics, as they may not be scholarly or wise. It is almost a hopeless task to determine which academics are scholarly and wise, but I have a few that I trust to provide scholarly information. They are:

Historians Victor Davis Hansen, Allen C. Guelzo, and James M. McPherson; Economists Thomas Sowell, and the late Walter E. Williams and departed Milton Friedman, Constitutional Scholars Rob Natelson, Michael Stokes Paulson, Randy E. Barnett, Jonathan Turley, and Alan Dershowitz; and scholarly Commentators Dennis Prager, William J. Bennett, Michael Barone, and the departed Charles Krauthammer are scholars of the highest order. I have also recommended some books by these scholars on my “Book It” web page.

10/17/21 A Touch of Humor

Once in a while, we just have to stand back in awe of our government.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S Dept. of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of free meals and food stamps ever - to over 46 million people.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.”

This ends today's lesson.

* * * * *

The King wanted to go fishing, and he asked the royal weather forecaster the forecast for the next few hours. The palace meteorologist assured him that there was no chance of rain. So, the King and the Queen went fishing. On the way, he met a man with a fishing pole riding on a donkey, and he asked the man if the fish were biting.

The fisherman said, "Your Majesty, you should return to the palace! In just a short time I expect a huge rainstorm."

The King replied: "I hold the palace meteorologist in high regard. He is an educated and experienced professional. Besides, I pay him very high wages. He gave me a very different forecast. I trust him."

So, the King continued on his way. However, in a short time, torrential rain fell from the sky. The King and Queen were totally soaked. Furious, the King returned to the palace and gave the order to fire the meteorologist.

Then he summoned the fisherman and offered him the prestigious position of royal forecaster.

The fisherman said, "Your Majesty, I do not know anything about forecasting. I obtained my information from my donkey. If I see my donkey's ears drooping, it means with certainty that it will rain.”

So, the King hired the donkey.

And so began the practice of hiring dumb asses to work in influential positions of government. And thus, the symbol of the Democrat party was born. This practice is unbroken to this day.

10/16/21 Facts and Evidence

Two of the most notable conservatives of the late 20th century and early 21st century, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer, started their adult life on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist, while Charles Krauthammer worked and wrote for liberal politicians and organizations. Both had a change of mind for what Thomas Sowell attributed ‘facts’ and to which Charles Krauthammer attributed ‘evidence’.

In the case of Thomas Sowell, after a rough and tumble early life, he attended college in his late twenties and studied economics and mathematics. Born in North Carolina, Sowell grew up in Harlem, New York. Due to financial issues and deteriorated home conditions, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and later served in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Upon returning to the United States, Sowell enrolled at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude in 1958. He received a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959 and earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

It was in college that Sowell learned the importance of Facts, Reasoning, and Critical Thinking. When he applied all three of these faculties, his independent thinking, and his street life experience to examining society, he determined that his earlier convictions were ill-placed and wrong. When he was asked in an interview what changed his thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Facts’, explaining that correct and proper facts were the basis for all reasoning to reach an accurate conclusion.

In the case of Charles Krauthammer, he was medically educated and certified as a psychiatrist. While in his first year studying medicine at Harvard Medical School, Krauthammer became permanently paralyzed from the waist down after suffering a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at cervical spinal nerve 5. After spending 14 months recovering in a hospital, he returned to medical school, graduating to become a psychiatrist involved in the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III in 1980. He joined the Carter administration in 1978 as a director of psychiatric research, eventually becoming the speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale in 1980.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

When asked in an interview what changed his political thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Evidence’. He explained that his medical training taught him to follow the evidence to reach a correct medical diagnosis and treatment. When he followed the evidence on American society's ills, his diagnosis was contrary to Liberal ideology and ideas. He thereafter began writing and speaking with a more conservative mind, as he believed that conservatism was the correct treatment for the ills of America.

Both of these men utilized their knowledge and experience to achieve a level of wisdom that I have written about in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom", that is and was of the highest order. Therefore, we can be certain that if you objectively look and the facts and evidence, it will lead you to the conclusion that "Progressives/Leftists" ideology and ideas are not supportable.

Any book written by Thomas Sowell is well worth the read, but for a grasp of his intellectual biography, I would recommend the book “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” by Jason L Riley, as well as his selections from his many writings in “The Thomas Sowell Reader. His book “Basic Economics – A Commonsense Guide to the Economy” is a citizen's guide to economics, written for those who want to understand how the economy works but have no interest in jargon or equations. Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. All five books are illuminative of these great men’s thinking and are well worth the read.

10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts

In my writings, I have often commented upon utilizing the proper facts to reason. But what are proper or improper facts? Proper facts are facts that are correct and complete – which can be difficult to define. Therefore, I have extracted quotes about facts that may help you to better understand proper and improper facts:

" Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
  -  New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

"Assertions are not facts, as they often contain Presumptions and Assumptions; Improper Facts, Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the problems of Unintended Consequences that may be inherent in any assertion."
 - Mark Dawson

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
  - John Adams

“Facts do not "speak for themselves." They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theory or visions are mere isolated curiosities.”
 - Thomas Sowell

"I'd rather be factually correct than politically correct."
- Mark Dawson

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics" (1954)

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn't make it true."
   - Mark Dawson

“Incorrect facts, incomplete facts, improper facts, ignored facts, irrelevant facts, misinterpreted facts, misstated facts, misunderstood facts, unknown facts, and sloganeering replacement for facts are widespread and believed in today’s world.”
 - Mark Dawson

“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.”
 - Mark Twain

This is why, whenever I write or speak, I try to not be wrong as I have Chirp on, "11/09/19 To Be Right or Not to Be Wrong". Being not wrong in the sense that I try to utilize the proper facts and proper reasoning as in the section "With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" of my "Dialog & Debate" article, as well as my "Reasoning" article. For to ascertain the truth, you should remember:

“There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning.”
 - Mark Dawson

10/13/21 A Declaration of Liberty

Cliff Nichols has written an article, “Who in America is Entitled to Call Who an Insurrectionist These Days?” in which he states:

“… a just government must be one restrained by, in compliance with and obedient to both the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended, and to the venerable Rule of Law upon which it was founded.

But, alas, that is not the case presently before the people of the United States.

For the truth is that the government presently vested with power unlawfully seized by means of fraud and other chicanery—amounting to domestic insurrection—has exercised that recently acquired power to put in place a train of abuses and usurpations that have only evinced a common design to institutionalize a tyranny that is unfit to rule a free people.

To prove this, let the following facts and circumstances be submitted openly to a candid world:

1. The regime has weaponized our federal courts—including the Supreme Court— and the various branches of federal law enforcement — including the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice — to:

   • Persecute the regime’s political enemies for imagined crimes while stigmatizing many of them as domestic terrorists and extremists;

   • Turn a blind eye to even the most blatant crimes committed by those sympathetic to the regime’s politics, causes and ideologies;

   • Ignore and refuse to investigate any of the alleged voting irregularities of the 2020 election that have been sworn to have occurred under penalty of perjury by hundreds, if not thousands, of affiants in a multitude of states; and

   • Ignore and indeed refuse to provide any judicial review of any evidence that election laws in a multitude of states were altered in 2020 for the benefit of the regime in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

2. The regime has weaponized a virus to spread a pandemic of fear among the population that has served the regime as a false flag used to distract the public’s attention away from its election chicanery.

3. The regime has weaponized so-called social justice ideologies like cancel culture to untether this nation from its true history for the purpose of erasing both our culture’s virtues and our advancements as a society to overcome and remedy our cultural defects.

4. In turn, this anti-American Marxist regime has weaponized the historical vacuum created by cancel culture ideology to enable it to use critical race theory to cement in place a fabricated tale of American history based on false allegations that there exists systemically race-based capitalist oppression by all whites of all racial minorities.

5. In turn, this fabricated anti-American historical narrative, based on identity politics, has been weaponized by the regime to create out of thin air a poisonous, racially divided social atmosphere which they are using to promote the public’s pursuit of their own false promise that only a socialist society based on so-called “social justice” notions like equity and diversity will usher us toward a utopian state that will be able to cure the very racial divisions that this illegitimate regime is working so hard today to both create and fulminate by promoting, encouraging, supporting and defending:

   • Marxist anarchists going by names like ANTIFA and BLM that threaten citizens with the violence of mob rule;

   • Defunding, dismantling and demoralizing local law enforcement officers and their departments across America while also attempting to seize our weapons to lower the public’s defenses against such mob rule and the diktats of the regime; an

   • Opening our borders to be invaded by hordes of un-vetted immigrants in violation of our nation’s immigration laws, to dilute the voter base of patriotic Americans while exhausting the funds and resources of their communities.

6. To advance its anti-American agenda, the regime has enlisted the cooperation of its sympathizers in the media and big tech/social media companies to disseminate its propaganda while at the same time also censoring and silencing those who would wish to voice their opposition to the regime’s agenda.

Therefore, to restore domestic tranquility, the undersigned hereby demand that all now serving in the federal government shall forthwith do all that is necessary and appropriate to:

• Terminate all government infringements upon any and all of the self-evident unalienable rights that are derived by all the people not from any government, but from their Creator, as set forth above;

• Reaffirm, without reservation, that the Rule of Law and the Constitution, as amended, are and shall be the foundations upon which the government of this nation shall conduct its lawful business, both now and in the future, to ensure the continued liberty of the people; and  etc....

If the foregoing demands are not met, the undersigned hereby declare that they will be required to absolve themselves from any allegiance to the regime defying these principles, and with firm reliance on guidance by divine Providence, they hereby commit themselves to do all that is necessary and lawful to return a government to America that in both word and deed is completely committed to protecting for all individuals their God-given rights to freely pursue and enjoy their lives … and their liberty.”

This, along with my "A New Declaration of Independence", makes a compelling case for the unconstitutionality of President Biden and his administration actions.

10/11/21 Updated New Declaration of Independence

Give all the assaults to our Liberties and Freedoms by President Biden and his administration, as well as the Democrat Party controlled Congress as I have documented in many of my current Chirps, I though it necessary to update my "A New Declaration of Independence" article to include these assaults. This New Declaration of Independence has also been reorganized, edited, and amended for clarity purposes. In reading the ’Particulars’ of this New Declaration of Independence one can understand the feelings of succession that are rising in America, as I have Chirped on, “10/10/21 Succession”. One can also understand the urgency of correcting these particulars to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, and to reinstitute our American Ideals and Ideas.

10/10/21 Succession

The national divide has gotten so deep that even the brilliant Roger Simon has broached the subject of succession: “I never thought I’d be writing about secession or anything close. Not in a million years.” So begins a new article by Professor Rob Natelson - “Avoiding Secession Through an Amendments Convention”.

In this article, he states that historically much “Secession movements are responses to national policies imposed over strong objections from particular regions of the country” and “As with previous secession movements, modern secession sentiment derives from regional dissatisfaction with national policy.” He proposes that rather than succession, we should attempt to decentralize Federal power, as our Founding Fathers envisioned our republic:

“The Founders understood the advantages of decentralization. That’s why they created a federal, rather than a unitary, government. History had shown that free republics endure only if they govern small territories. Republics occupying large areas degenerated into despotism, because holding together regions with disparate interests and cultures requires a strong man or military oligarchy. An obvious example was the Roman Republic, which couldn’t adapt to territorial expansion and therefore degenerated into autocracy. Another example is Russia today.”

The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and the Soviet Empire are also more modern examples of despotism that was required to maintain an empire. A despotism that failed and resulted in World War I and the end of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, and the eventual collapse of the British and Soviet Empires after World War II.

His solution is to force Congress to call a Constitution Convention to address this issue. His article explains the history of Article V of the Constitution permits two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments and how this may come about. He concludes his article with:

“We have everything to gain from a convention of states and nothing to lose (claims that an amendments convention is uncontrollable or could be controlled by Congress are myths without historical or legal basis). Accordingly, we have a moral and legal obligation to employ that constitutional tool before splitting up the country.”

The issues that drive the feeling for succession need to be resolved to quell calls for succession, as well as create a more unified America. A more unified America that resolves the issues that I have stated in the ‘Particulars’ section of my Article, “A New Declaration of Independence”. If we do not do so than intense Civil Strife, and a possible Civil War, may be required to produce a unified America based on our American Ideals and Ideas. Or perhaps succession may be required to end the divisiveness in America.

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor, is a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, CO, and a senior adviser to the Convention of States movement. His research articles on the Constitution’s meaning have been cited repeatedly by justices and parties in the Supreme Court. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”

10/09/21 Regulating Big Tech

As I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?", the government need to longer be censors as "Social Media" has become the modern day censors for the "Progressives/Leftists" dogma. Anyone who would disagree with their political opinions or viewpoints, political opinions and viewpoints that have a decidedly progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party orientation, is either suspended, suppressed, de-monetized, or labeled as misinformation, along with other methods to restrict the viewing of their comments.

This censorship has serious consequences for our society, as Free Speech is the lubricant for the retention of our Liberties and Freedoms, not to mention that it skewers our elections as the electors do not have all the information that they need to be informed voters. The question is then how we can correct this situation without violating the rights of Social Media companies?

A new article by Kurt Schlichter, "Regulate Big Tech the Right Way – Unleash the Lawyers", proposes an answer to this question. He proposes ‘A Big Tech Control Act’ that would rectify this situation by:

"A Big Tech Control Act would set out a series of rights every citizen has in their social media presence against the large social media companies – the right to speak within the nearly limitless bounds of the First Amendment, the right to fair terms of service, the right to due process before any action is taken to limit their use of the platform, the right to control their data (and to have it protected), the right to full transparency of algorithms that control how an individual’s social media reach is controlled, and other rights that ensure every citizen can speak without fear."

"A Big Tech Control Act shall be broadly and liberally construed in favor of expanding and protecting the right of every American citizen to freely exercise his or her rights of free expression.”

" A Big Tech Control Act, it would include the right to go into court – with priority, so cases do not languish – to enjoin violations of these rights, to recover actual damages (the Act would recognize that social media presence has real monetary value), to win civil penalties or punitive damages, and to collect attorney’s fees."

This Big Tech Control Act would alleviate the need for government regulation of Social Media companies, as government regulation could easily be corrupted to serve the interest of Social Media companies as he explains in this article. As Social Media companies and their officers and employees are one of the largest contributors to the Democrat Party elections, and Progressives/Leftists causes, it seems unlikely that this Big Tech Control Act could be legislated in the current Congress and signed into law by the President.

However, this suggestion should be considered by future voters, and Congresses and the Presidency, to ensure that Free Speech is retained by individual Americans to assure our Liberties and Freedoms.

10/08/21 Are We Segregating?

One of the defining Supreme Court decisions was 1954’s “Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka”. This was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision's 14 pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II (349 U.S. 294 (1955)) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

This decision also set the predicate that all ‘separate but equal’ discriminations in the United States were Unconstitutional, thus legally ending segregation and discrimination in the United States. The Civil Rights movement was galvanized by this decision and began its crusade to end racism and discrimination in all aspects of American society, resulting in several Civil Rights Acts that ended institutionalized discrimination. Although largely successful in changing American societies' perspectives and activities on racism and discrimination, there are, and always will be, vestiges of racism in any society as racism seems to be inherent in human nature.

And this inherent human nature of racism seems to be again rearing its ugly head in America. But not in the form of White Supremacy but in the form of White Discrimination. As I have written in my "Terminology" webpage; Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" have all contributed to this White Discrimination. Much of this White Discrimination is manifested by Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media.

The believers in ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘The 1619 Project’, along with Antifa and Black Lives Matter, are some of the most prominent and vocal proponents of White Discrimination. The Democrat Party utilizes Identity Politics to pit racial groups against whites as a means of garnering votes. Modern Education has set aside dormitories and study spaces that exclude white people. Different criteria for people of color in educational grading and higher education acceptance and enrollment have been established. Hiring and promotions in business have been based on racial factors rather than merit. Governmental programs and assistance have been targeted at non-white persons. Entertainment and Sports awards now have categories that exclude white persons.

White Guilt and accusations of White Privilege are utilized to stigmatize all white people as a means to lessen their moral authority to comment on racial issues and to institute Reverse Discrimination. And all of the above is contrary to Martin Luther King jr.’s ideals as espoused in his “I Have a Dream” speech:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’“

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

“I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’”

The Democrat Party Leaders and their constituents accept this as necessary and proper to rectify past racism and discrimination. Regrettably, this means that in the present white persons who do not believe in racism or discrimination are forced to be victims of White Discrimination. This leads to the sins of the father being vested upon the son, as I have written about in my Article, “Sins of the Fathers and of Youth”. Vesting the sins of the father upon the son is immoral and should never be tolerated by those that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All forms of discrimination, including White Segregation and Discrimination, are contrary to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated in America.

10/07/21 The Fear of Despotism

Recent words and deeds of President Biden and his administration reveal the despotic nature of the Biden Administration. Their utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", shaming, badmouthing those that disagree with them, or accusations of bad character or ill intentions of their opponents appears to be preferred means to achieve their goals, rather than persuasion and convincing Americans to voluntarily adopt their ‘suggestions’. And if that does not work, they take despotic actions through threats of governmental intimidation or punishment to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. All these words and deeds are an assault on our Natural and Constitutional Rights and demonstrate that President Biden and his administration prefer to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

From the COVID-19 Vaccine Coercions and Mandates, the FBI announcement of the monitoring of School Board Meetings, the proposal that financial institutions report to the IRS any transaction over $600, the various Gun Control Executive Orders, to no bail and long confinement before judicial proceedings for the January 6th rioters, amongst a host of other speech and actions they have utilized threats of despotic governmental actions. Threats and actions that can lead to the reputational or financial ruin of Americans and possible fines and/or imprisonment for the individuals that they target. Although they may not undertake these actions, they want you to be afraid that they may target you if you exercise your Natural and Constitutional Rights.

Most disconcerting is their attempts to limit or shut down the Free Speech and Petitioning Rights of those that oppose their political goals and policy agendas. They are trying to label anyone who vigorously opposes them as ‘Domestic Terrorists’, and then threaten to arrest and prosecute them for exercising their First and Second Amendment Rights of:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

They have also threatened our fourth amendment rights as I have chirped on “10/06/21 Probable Cause”. They have tried to justify these actions because of the acrimonious, acerbic, hostile, and vehemence of those persons who strongly disagree with their political goals and policy agendas. They should remember, however, that:

“Acrimonious disagreement is not terrorism, nor is acerbic argument a crime.”
 - Gregg Jarrett

and

“The First Amendment protects speech unless it unambiguously calls for the use of force that the speaker clearly intends, under circumstances in which the likelihood of violence is real and imminent. Even actual "threats of violence" are not actionable unless they meet this high threshold.”
- Andrew McCarthy

They should also remember their Oath of Office to ‘Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States’ requires that they preserve and protect the Constitutional and Natural Rights of all Americans, and not just those Americans that agree with them.

10/06/21 Probable Cause

One of the great protections of our Natural Rights is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment ensures our privacy from government intrusion unless there is probable cause to allegations of criminal activities of a person. This probable cause must be established in a Court of Law under a Judge’s review before the government can intrude upon our privacy, only they can only intrude on our privacy under the auspices of a search warrant. This protection makes it more difficult for the government to root out criminal activity, especially before it occurs, but the government should not have an easy path to violate our Constitutional Rights.

The Patriot Act was the first salvo in circumventing our Fourth Amendment rights. While The Patriot Act intentions were good, its implementation left much to be desired, as I have examined in my Political Issues Observation on “The Patriot Act”. Since that time, there has been other legislation that has encroached upon our Fourth Amendment rights, all in the name of safety or law enforcement.

There is a new proposal aimed at curbing tax evasion that is part of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package under consideration by Congress. A proposal that I believe blatantly violates our privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. This proposal, which is being pushed by the Biden administration, would require banks and other financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) any deposits or withdrawals totaling more than $600 annually to or from all business and personal accounts. President Biden is also proposing to double the size of the IRS by hiring nearly 87,000 new workers over the next decade, with a corresponding doubling of the budget for the IRS.

With the Patriot Act, the government keeps track of our phone messages, e-mail, and text messages, and with this proposal, they would keep track of our financial transactions. And all of this is being done without probable cause and search warrants. The defenders of these government actions retort that the government cannot search this collected information without a warrant, but in practice, we have seen that this does not always occur or occurs without proper safeguards to our Fourth Amendment rights (such as in the withholding of exculpatory evidence or sometimes false testimony). In addition, the IRS Proposal allows them to search this information prior to probable cause to determine if tax evasion has occurred. This is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment as it presumes illegality before probable cause (a.k.a. A Fishing Expedition) that requires no warrants to protect our privacy rights. There is also a presumption of guilt until proven innocent when the IRS notices something suspicious in these financial transactions.

This proposal needs to be resisted at all costs, and if it becomes law, it needs to be challenged as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Also, the Patriot Act, and other laws that allow the government to snoop upon the people, need to be changed to protect our Fourth Amendment Rights. To not do so is to make the government spies upon the personal affairs of the people, which is an encroachment upon our Liberties and Freedoms.

10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience

In an article by Paul Adams, a professor emeritus of social work at the University of Hawai‘i, and was professor and associate dean of academic affairs at Case Western Reserve University, the article “If There Is No Truth, There Is No Injustice” puts forward:

“Can there be injustice if there is no truth?

Martin Luther King Jr. considered this question in his powerful Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963). He was responding to fellow members of the clergy who opposed segregation but rejected civil disobedience, which involved breaking the law. His central point was that laws may be just or unjust. We have a duty to obey just laws and to oppose, even defy, unjust laws. We need to recognize that both kinds exist and learn how to tell the difference.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and spoke extensively about just and unjust laws, and social justice, in his  “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech as well as other speeches and letters, which I have extracted in my “Quotes of Martin Luther King Jr.” webpage. Of particular interest to this Chirp is the following quotes:

“One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

Therefore, it is the preservation of Natural Rights that makes a law just and the violation of Natural Rights that makes a law unjust. There is always a tension between the Natural Rights of individuals and the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests. The Natural Rights between individuals are a matter of civil disputes to be decided by law, but the Natural Rights of individuals and societal interests are Constitutional issues, as the Constitution was formulated to constrict government to preserve Natural Rights. When a conflict arises between the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests, only a compelling interest of Society can override Natural Rights, and that compelling societal interest is the harm to the safety and security of individuals and society in an emergency, and such Natural Rights violations must be of limited scope and duration.

This brings us to the question of the governmental actions to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic – were these actions just or unjust in relation to a compelling interest of Society, and were they limited in scope and duration? At the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the restrictions they imposed may have been just if these restrictions were supported by a cogent scientific basis. As the science at the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic was unclear, they may have been justified. However, as the science became clearer and as a vaccine was developed, the scientific basis for these restrictions no longer supported a compelling societal interest to infringe upon our Natural Rights.

As the science revealed that the COVID-19 virus was spread as an aerosol and that the masks that people used were ineffective against aerosols, and the dangers of the COVID-19 virus were mostly limited to the elderly and specific groups of persons, the violations of our Natural Rights were no longer a compelling interest of society. With the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine, those that chose to take that vaccine were in no danger to their health from those that chose not to take the vaccine or those that have natural immunity. Therefore, there is no compelling societal interest to force the unvaccinated person or those that have a natural immunity to take the vaccine. Indeed, as I have Chirped on, "09/24/21 Have We Learned Nothing", it is immoral and unethical to force an individual to undergo a medical procedure without their ‘informed consent. Consequently, the current government restrictions and requirements of COVID-19, especially the governmental coercion to take the COVID-19 vaccine, are unjust.

Therefore, as Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, these restrictions and requirements being unjust ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws’. It is, therefore, the duty and responsibility for Americans to disobey these restrictions and requirements to preserve our Natural Rights and our Liberties and Freedoms. It is also the duty and responsibility of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court to overturn these restrictions and requirements as they are Unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Natural Right to not undergo a medical procedure is one of the rights ‘retained by the people’. Therefore, Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court would be in violation of their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States if they did not overturn these COVID-19 restrictions and requirements.

The failure of the Supreme Court to not even consider lawsuits challenging these COVID-19 restrictions and requirements is especially egregious. By not doing so, they are eviscerating the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. This is not surprising, however, as I have written in my Article, "The Failures of the Supreme Court", as they have often not ruled on Ninth Amendment Natural Rights issues, or they have ruled incorrectly not based on Ninth Amendment Natural Rights issues such as Dread Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade.

When the Supreme Court does not rule or rules incorrectly, the consequences for America are too often destructive to American society. It has resulted in Civil War, Institutionalized Racism, and Civil Strife in America, and often government overreach of their enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the case of the COVID-19 restrictions and requirements, it may result in the destruction of our essential Liberties and Freedoms and the imposition of despotism in America.

10/04/21 Why You Should Quit Social Media

For years, people have accused social media, and particularly image-driven sites like Instagram, of being bad for young people, particularly young women. It turns that Instagram’s owner, Facebook, agrees:

“Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.”

This was one of the findings of internal Instagram researchers, which was included in a presentation slide posted to Facebook’s internal messaging board in March 2020. Teen girls aren’t the only ones affected, as Facebook’s 2019 research report found that 14 percent of boys in the US had said that Instagram made them feel bad about themselves. The following year, they found that 40 percent of teen boys experienced negative social comparisons. This, the researchers have concluded, is a problem specific to Instagram.

Does quitting social media make you an unemployable Luddite? Computer scientist Dr. Cal Newport doesn't think so. In this eye-opening TED talk, “Why you should quit social media”, he debunks three objections commonly offered up as a rationale for keeping that all-important Facebook account.

While I have a Facebook account, I have not utilized it for many years. I do not have a Twitter or Instagram account, as I view them as vapid and a waste of bandwidth as they provide little or no intellectual content. As for my social needs, I prefer face-to-face or cell phone voice contact, with an occasional text message, as it is so much more rewarding.

10/03/21 To Say and To Do

If there is one truism about politicians running and being elected to office in America today, it is this:

“A major difference between a Democrat and a Republican candidate is that the Democrat candidate will say one thing on the election trail while doing another thing while in office, while the Republican candidate will say one thing on the election trail while doing nothing about what they said while in office.”
 - Mark Dawson

Democrat politicians know that that in marginal Democrat or Republican districts, their Progressive ideology may risk the moderates not voting for them, while Republican politicians in marginal Republican or Democrat districts fear that the Conservative ideology may risk the moderates not voting for them. Democrat politicians know that they can act Progressive while holding office and not be criticized by "Modern Journalism", which will not impact the moderate votes when they are running for reelection. Republican politicians live in fear that "Modern Journalism" will severely criticize them when holding office, which tempers their actions in office so as to not lose moderate votes when running for reelection. With America being evenly split between Progressives and Conservatives, or Democrats and Republicans, it is, therefore, in these marginal districts that the party in power is determined.

In addition, with the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media holding and expressing Progressives and Leftists" ideas, it is more difficult to persuade moderates to vote for Republican candidates. With Democrat candidates making mostly emotional appeals to the voters, while Republican candidates making mostly intellectual appeals to the voters, it is more difficult for Republicans to break through to moderates and convince them to vote for their candidate, as I have written in the section "Think vs. Feel - or - Emotions are Easy, Thinking is Hard" of my "Dialog & Debate" article.

It is even more difficult for Republicans to appeal to moderates as our modern public education is more "Indoctrination versus Education" in "Progressives/Leftists" ideology. Modern public education is also not teaching American History and Civics accurately or dispassionately, as I have written about in my many “History Articles” webpages. Thus, modern public education leads to misunderstandings of our American Ideals and Ideas, which leads to the voters not making informed decisions of which candidate best supports these American Ideals and Ideas.

As a result of the above issues, Americans do not have a comprehension of the "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" in America, nor "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and, therefore, cannot properly choose a candidate who will work to resolve these problems and correct these falsehoods. Facts and truth are essential, for without accurate facts and proper "Reasoning", it is impossible to ascertain the truth. Without truth as a basis for political goals and policy agendas, much time, money, and efforts will be expended on governmental efforts that are doomed to fail, as failure is what is inevitable if you do not base governmental decisions on truths. And without truth being espoused by all the candidates, we cannot resolve the issues and concerns facing America, and we will continue to have candidates who say one thing on the campaign trail and do or not do another thing while in office.

This leads to divisiveness in America rather than "A Civil Society", as each side has a different perspective of America based on misinformation and a lack of understanding of each sides perspective, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution" and my Chirp on, “08/09/21 A Conflict of Visions”. And without an understanding of each side's perspective and proper "Dialog and Debate", we will not be able to understand nor resolve these divisions in America.

10/01/21 The Noble Lie

The “Noble Lie” is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in his dialogue the Republic. In religion, pious fiction is a narrative that is presented as true by the author but is considered by others to be fictional, albeit produced with altruistic motivation. The term is sometimes used pejoratively to suggest that the author of the narrative was deliberately misleading readers for selfish or deceitful reasons. In politics, a Noble Lie is often done for the purpose of advancing a perceived greater good, as I have written in my Article, "Greater Good versus the Common Good".

In politics, the noble lie often leads to devastating and destructive consequences. Politicians often utilize the Noble Lie to obtain or retain power to institute their political goals and policy agendas, often for the benefaction of "Identity Politics". This is often done to the detriment of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of others and at a cost to the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Politicians have also used the Noble Lie to galvanize their people into war with other nations or peoples. In politics, there is nothing ‘noble’ about a Noble Lie, as it is misleading or deceiving your constituents or the public, which always leads to unattended negative consequences, as I have written in my Article, "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

However, the biggest casualty of the Noble Lie is the facts and the truth, for without accurate facts and proper "Reasoning," it is impossible to ascertain the truth. Without truth as a basis for political goals and policy agendas, much time, money, and efforts will be expended on governmental efforts that are doomed to fail, as failure is what is inevitable if you do not base governmental decisions on truths.

In America, the Noble Lies are often based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". And, In America, the biggest Noble Liars are the "Progressives/Leftists", the "Democrat Party Leaders", "Modern Journalism", the "Mainstream Cultural Media", the "Mainstream Media", "Modern Big Business", Modern Education, and "Social Media". An array of forces that, if unopposed, will eventually lead to the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/30/21 Defending the Indefensible

From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to voting reform and illegal immigration, to the state of our economy, and to a host of other issues the responses by President Biden, his administration, and the Democrat Party in Congress have been to defend these actions by outright lying, as I have Chirped on “08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving”. And the lead liar is White House Press Secretary Jen Paski.

In NAZI Germany, the lead liar was Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda. His successful lying allowed the Nazis to obtain and retain power and commit some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in human history. Successful lying always leads to bad consequences and often unintended consequences, and successful lying by people in power leads to tragic consequences for the Natural and Human rights of individuals within the power of the liars.

These lies by Jen Paski and the Biden administration are not ‘spin’ nor ‘dissembling’ but outright deception. And their lies take the forms of Cover-ups, Defamation, Disinformation, Half-truths, Lying by Omission, Minimization, and Paternalistic Deception, amongst other forms of lying. And this deception is not possible without "Modern Journalism" cooperation. By not questioning and confronting these deceptions, modern journalism is complicit in these deceptions. Deceptions that are misleading the American people and are dangerous to our Liberties and Freedoms.

Consequently, Jen Paski has become our Minister of Propaganda, and the Biden Administration is on a path to undermine our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/29/21 Fast and Furious Part Deux

As I have written in my previous Chirp, “09/28/21 Fast and Furious”, the Biden Administration has lurched in succession from one crisis to another of their own making. This lurching has had the effect of deflecting attention from the previous crisis as modern journalism and Americans tend to focus on one issue at a time, thus pushing the previous issue into the background and eventual obscurity.

But each crisis has had a negative impact on the health, safety, and security of Americans. Their responses to these crises have also impacted our Liberties and Freedoms, as they then propose solutions or take actions that would impose their political goals and policy agendas on America. This can readily be seen in their budget and spending legislation that is more special interest and social engineering than the legitimate and enumerated governmental duties and responsibilities.

This has happened so regularly that it makes one wonder if it is part of their plan to remake America, rather than deflecting attention from their incompetence or taking advantage of the problems of their own making. I suspect it is both, as their incompetence provides the excuse and opportunity to institute their goals. Either way, they are deceptive or outright lying to the American people, as I have Chirped on “08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving”. In this, they are being assisted by "Modern Journalism" lack of coverage of their incompetence or by challenging their deceptions.

This also bespeaks the words and deeds of persons who wish to rule Americans rather than lead Americans, as I have written about in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".  And all these words and deeds are a challenge to our Liberties and Freedoms and our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/28/21 Fast and Furious

From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to voting reform and illegal immigration, to the state of our economy, and to a host of other issues the responses by President Biden, his administration, and the Democrat Party in Congress have become Fast and Furious, and also have become assaults on our Liberties and Freedoms.

Instead of slow and steady deliberative actions, which our Constitution was crafted to assure our Liberties and Freedoms, we have seen an attempt to circumvent our Constitutional protections in the name of security, health, law enforcement, or for the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Much of these Fast and Furious actions appeal to mob passions to immediately do something. However, the Founding Fathers knew that the passions of the mob could disregard the Natural Rights of the individual, and they, therefore, crafted the Constitution to slow things down so that passions would subside and cooler heads could prevail.

President Biden, his administration, and the Democrat Party in Congress do not seem to recognize these Constitutional safeguards, and they are deliberately inflaming the passions of the mob to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. In doing so, they disregard facts and truths, and they outright lie as I have Chirped on, “08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving”.

These are the words and deeds of persons who wish to rule Americans rather than lead Americans, as I have written about in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They are also altering the rules and procedures of the House of Representatives and the Senate to allow them to speed passage of their political goals and policy agendas without due deliberation nor consideration by those that would oppose their goals and agendas. And these are the speech and actions of candidates and elected representatives that are not fit to be the leaders of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom and our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/27/21 Biden's Afghanistan Fiasco are Surreal

In an article by former U.S. ambassador Ron Johnson, “Just 3 weeks later, true horrors of Biden's Afghanistan fiasco are surreal” he pointed out the unmitigated series of costly failures accompanied by dishonesty, deceit and deception at the highest levels of the United States government. They are:

• Abandoning Bagram Air Base and the decision to relinquish the security of Kabul to the Taliban, cost the lives of US service members.
• The promise to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan until the last Americans were out was broken.
• Biden’s denial that his top advisers warned against a complete U.S. military withdrawal is not accurate.
• President Biden told the American people that "over-the-horizon" strikes would allow the U.S. to "strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground."
• The American people have been misled regarding the reaction of our allies.
• The Biden administration made public commitments to help Afghan allies who had helped the U.S. during the war, but the Department of State actually blocked support.
• The administration’s "ridged vetting process" of Afghan evacuees is failing.
• The claim that $84 million of left-behind weapons and military equipment does not represent a strategic threat to the U.S. or our allies is false.
• The Biden administration is proposing $64 million more in aid to Afghanistan that will most certainly go directly into the hands of terrorists.

Ronald Johnson served in Afghanistan. He served for 20 years in the U.S. military, retiring as a Special Forces colonel, followed by over 20 years as an operations officer at the Central Intelligence Agency. He was appointed U.S. ambassador to El Salvador by President Trump.

President Biden, and his administration have done this without apology or taking responsibility, as I have Chirped on, “09/26/21 I’m Sorry and I’m Responsible”. Therefore, Americans must keep this in mind at the next election and not vote for Democrat Party candidates to force them to be sorry and responsible.

09/26/21 I’m Sorry and I’m Responsible

No, I’m not – as this Chirp is not about something I said or did. This Chirp is about those who say I’m Sorry and I’m Responsible and don’t really mean it. For if you mean it, you feel remorse and guilt. You also undertake accountability and try to make amends. For those in a leadership position, accountability may mean that you resign your position of authority, and for all, amends means rectifying the harm for which you are sorry or responsible. It also means that you have learned from your mistakes and will not repeat them.

This learning from your mistakes should not be limited to the actual mistake but to the attitudes and thought processes that led to the mistake. If you do not change your attitude or thought process, then you are doomed to make the same mistake in another form. In which case, you would constantly be apologizing or taking responsibility. Therefore, if you do not change your attitude or thought process, you cannot really be sorry or responsible, and you will continue to do harm. To be truly sorry and responsible is to undertake a change of attitude and thought process so that you do not make the same mistakes in the future.

Unfortunately, this change of attitude or thought processes is rarely done by our elected and appointed officials. They utilize ‘I’m Sorry’ to try to wipe the slate clean so that they can start making the same mistakes over again. They claim that they are responsible, but they almost never resign and instead blame ‘unforeseen’ circumstances or look to scapegoat others for their mistakes. And these reactions are not the outlook of leaders, for leaders always take the blame for problems by subordinates and give credit to subordinates for successes.

From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to voting reform and illegal immigration, to the state of our economy, and to a host of other issues President Biden and his administration try to shift blame (usually to former President Trump or his associates), and they are never sorry or take true responsibility.

If they are not sorry or take responsibility, then it is up to the American people to hold them accountable. The best way to accomplish this is to vote them out of office. Therefore, Americans must keep this in mind at the next election and not vote for Democrat Party candidates to force them to be sorry and responsible.

09/25/21 Americans as Wussies

As I have written in my Chirps on “09/10/21 Aussies as Wussies” and “09/23/21 The Aussies Are Not Wussies”, the great democratic republics of America, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have become a nation of wussies. Not only in their responses to government edicts and orders regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic but in their responses to other government intrusions upon their Natural Rights. The history of Western Civilization has been one of striving to obtain Natural Rights and the dignity and worth of the individual human being. Governments have been created and fallen in this endeavor. The twentieth century was a great test for democratic republics against Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Dictatorships, and Authoritarianism. We passed this test, and democratic republics that respect the Natural Rights of their people seemed to be the wave of the future of humankind.

The twenty-first century is posing another test to democratic republics. The test is if we can maintain our Natural Rights in the face of terrorism, the demands for security, safety, health, and equity, and the efforts of anti-capitalism and pro-socialism. Many of my Chirps and some of my Articles have dealt with the demands for security, safety, health, and equity, while terrorism is addressed as a topic in my Observation on International Issues. As to anti-capitalism and pro-socialism, I have written about this topic in my Article, "Socialism is Acceptable".

The question is why America has become wussies given that we were a nation founded on Natural Rights, as I have Chip on "07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution", and as a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom? Part of the answer is in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". The other part of the answer is that Americans have always been a divided people on the meaning of Liberty and Freedom.

This division can best be demonstrated by the major crises in American history. During the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, commented about our divisions. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same division could be said for the American people's support of the Civil War and their sentiments prior to our entrance into World War II. Should we have not fought the American Revolution, the Civil War, or World War II as they did not have majority support? Absolutely not – as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. Fighting wars that were initially not supported by a majority, but are just wars, is also acceptable without initial majority support.

So, it should be for those that are resisting governmental actions that disregarded or abrogated our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural and Constitutional rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural and Constitutional Rights even if they do not have majority support. To not stand up and fight for our Natural and Constitutional rights makes you a wussy. For those that would respond that most of the American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservations of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to our American ideals.

Today, in America, President Biden, his administration, and the Democrat Party in Congress are assaulting our Natural and Constitutional Rights under various guises, as I have written in my previous Chirps. It is well past time that Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans stand up and resist these encroachments to our rights. Otherwise, we will no longer be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but we will become a nation of wussies.

09/24/21 Have We Learned Nothing

The twentieth century saw many natural rights abuses, including medical abuses.  Electroshock Therapy, Eugenics, Forced Sterilization, Lobotomies, NAZI Medical Experimentations, The Tuskegee Study, and many other medical procedures were tried on uncooperative or unsuspecting persons. There were many excuses for doing so, such as helping cure the individual, finding cures for others so inflicted, advancing medicine for the good of humankind, etc., none of which recognized the Natural Rights of the persons subject to the medical procedures. With the advancements of medical science in the late twentieth century, the moral and ethical dilemmas of medical procedures needed to be addressed.

The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) of UNESCO is a body composed of 36 independent experts from all regions and different disciplines (mainly medicine, genetics, law, and philosophy) that follows progress in the life sciences and its applications in order to ensure respect for human dignity and human rights. It was created in 1993 by Dr. Federico Mayor Zaragoza, General Director of UNESCO at that time. It has been prominent in developing Declarations regarding norms of bioethics that are regarded as soft law but are nonetheless influential in shaping the deliberations, for example, of research ethics committees (or Institutional review board) and health policy. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights was issued by the IBC, which declares inviolable the principle of “informed consent” regarding all medical policies. The Nuremberg Code’s definition of informed consent is as requiring a person to be “situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force … or other … constraint or coercion.”

While none of these have been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association, they provide the philosophical basis for discussion on the ethics of medical experiments and procedures and hence on the Natural Rights of those involved in these medical procedures.

This brings us to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the vaccines developed to combat the Pandemic. As I have Chirped on, “09/19/21 Epidemics, Pandemics, and Endemics Oh My!”, the current Biden Administrations' plan for universal vaccination for COVID-19 is a violation of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights and the Nuremberg Code. Being required by one’s employer to take an injection on the pain of losing one’s livelihood cannot by any reasonable measure be considered “voluntary” or unconstrained. A government that requires an employer to enforce these injections under pain of fines is equivalent to governmental coercion. The framers of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights make clear that “human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected” in all public health legislation and that “the interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”

Too often in history, tyrants, dictators, and despots have utilized an ‘emergency’ to enforce their will and subjugate their peoples, all to the detriment of Natural Rights. True emergencies often require limited (in scope and duration) measures to combat the emergency, which infringes on Natural Rights. But these Natural Rights must be reinstated in an expeditious manner, or we have the situation that I described in my Chirp on, "08/27/21 The Fall of Western Principles".

Today, the COVID-19 Pandemic and now Epidemic (as I have Chirped on “ 09/19/21 Epidemics, Pandemics, and Endemics Oh My!”) has been the ‘emergency’ that has allowed the abrogation of our Liberties and Freedoms by the government. It is well past time that we restore our Liberties and Freedoms and resist these government orders and edicts. Otherwise, we may never recover our Liberties and Freedoms.

09/23/21 The Aussies Are Not Wussies

In my Chirp on “09/10/21 Aussies as Wussies”, I lamented that the Aussies will become Wussies in their reactions to government mandates on COVID-19 and that they will join the club of the nations of wussies of America, Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.

With the recent protests and riots by thousands of Australians against government restrictions and edicts and the violent Australian government response, we are seeing the Australian people standing up for their Liberties and Freedoms. These protests and riots are what I believe is justifiable, as I have Chirped on, “08/01/21 Justifiable Insurrection". Let us hope that they can resolve this issue as peaceably as possible, but let us also hope that they can restore their Liberties and Freedoms in this resolution.

Consequently, if the Australians do restore their Liberties and Freedoms, the Aussies will have become the land of the free and the home of the brave. Otherwise, they will become the land of the despots.

09/22/21 R.E.S.P.E.C.T

One of my “Pearls of Wisdom” is to “Always Be Polite and Respectful” as this is part of the ‘Golden Rule’ of ‘Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you’. However, being respectful does not mean you respect another but is a reflection on your character and not a statement of approval or disapproval of the other person. Respect needs to be earned by the words and deeds of a person, while disrespect of another is gained by their words or deeds. Consequently, respect is not an entitlement but a reward.

You must remember that your own speech and actions are what earn you respect from others. Therefore, you should always carefully choose your words and deeds lease you not be worthy of respect from others, and you will be more respectful of yourself if you do so. Respect is gained by both your speech and your actions, as you cannot have one or the other to gain the full respect of others. Indeed, if you only have one of these qualities (words or deeds), you cannot gain the full respect of another, or their respect for you is misplaced. Those that only utilize one of words or deeds to adjudge the character of a person to determine their respect for a person are doomed to be disappointed in the persons that they respect.

It is also easy to lose the respect of another by a single word or deed. Years of gaining respect can be lost through a single word or deed. Therefore, eternal vigilance is the price we pay to retain respect. You should remember to mean what you say and say what you mean; otherwise, others will lose respect for you when they discover your insincerity. You should also remember to keep your promises as people cannot respect you if you cannot keep your word.

Hence my quote:

“Respect is something that must be earned through words and deeds, while disrespect is something that is attained by words or deeds”.
 - Mark Dawson

If you have lost respect for a friend or colleague, you should also remember my  Pearls of Wisdom on “To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine” and “Be the Better Person” and to practice forgiveness if it is appropriate.

09/21/21 Bullies and Brownshirts

The reactions of many Progressives, commentators, journalists, and Democrat politicians to the COVID-19 various restrictions, decrees, and vaccinations are illuminative of their true nature. They are generally in support of these restrictions, decrees, and mandatory vaccinations, and they are generally vitriolic to those who would disagree with them. This vitriol is common for any person or group that would disagree with them but has become extreme on the issues of COVID-19. So vitriolic that they have become Bullies and Brownshirts.

Bullies, as they are deliberately intimidating or cruel to those who would disagree with them, trying to shame and browbeat those that disagree with them to cower them into submission to their viewpoint. Rational and Reasonable disagreement is not to be allowed nor even to be initiated. Shouting over and disrupting the speech of those that disagree with them are acceptable responses to Rational and Reasonable disagreement. Today, the "Mainstream Media" seem intent upon being bullies, and they are trying to bully Americans that disagree with their "Progressives/Leftists" viewpoints. Their utilization of pejoratives to describe their opponents leads to nothing but, as I explained in my Article, "Divisiveness in America". And these are the actions of bullies and those who would rather rule people than lead people, as I have examined in my other Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Brownshirts, formally known as ‘Sturmabteilung”, were the Nazi Party's original paramilitary wing. It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Roter Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and especially Jews.

The Progressives, commentators, journalists, and Democrat politicians who are bullies are empowering their followers to become Brownshirts to achieve their goals. This can be seen in the mob actions that are encouraged by their words and deeds. It is no coincidence that these mobs are in support of their political goals and policy agendas. The one mob action of the January 6th, 2021 ‘Insurrection’, on the other side of their political goal and agenda, was mostly spontaneous and contrary to President Trump’s admonition to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." To claim that other parts of his speech may have encouraged violence is debatable, but they make no such claims for the other parts of their speech that encourage violence. The bipartisan condemnation of the events of the January 6th, 2021 ‘Insurrection’ was immediate and unequivocal, while there is no unequivocal bipartisan condemnation of the speech that results in the mob actions in support of the Progressives, commentators, journalists, and Democrat politicians bullying speech.

Bullies and Brownshirts are not interested in rational and reasonable "Dialog and Debate" on the issues confronting America. They are only interested in intimidating their opponents into silence for the purposes of American’s submission to their political goals and policy agendas. They have no interest in our First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Peaceable Assembly, Free Press, Religious Freedom, Petitioning the Government, as well as our concept of representative democracy in America. They are only interested in political power to achieve their goals, and they have no compunctions against utilizing mob rule to achieve these goals and to rule over Americans. They, the bullying Progressives, commentators, journalists, and Democrat politicians and their brownshirt supporters are, consequently, antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/20/21 The Adults Are Back in Charge

After the election and inauguration of President Biden, many Progressives, commentators, journalists, and Democrat politicians proclaimed that ‘The adults are back in charge’. From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to voting reform and illegal immigration, to the state of our economy, to the British Parliament condemnation of President Joe Biden and the French recalling their Ambassador, and to a host of other issues the question then becomes: ‘If these are the results of the adults being in charge what would happen if the children were in charge?’

We now know the answer to that question. The above problems show what happens when children are in charge. President Biden and his administration are a bunch of children making decisions based on false assumptions, wishful thinking, and Human Nature based on an idealistic viewpoint of human nature, just as children make decisions. But this is generally true of all "Progressives/Leftists", as they are imbued with false assumptions, wishful thinking, and ignoring actual Human Nature. Their childish thinking and decision-making are dangerous to America and Americans and to our American Ideals and Ideas as I have Chirped on, "07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas".

Their emotional outbursts, and their anger and frustration, of anything that is not Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, are other examples of their childishness and demonstrate their unfitness to lead America. They also bespeak a propensity to be rulers rather than leaders, as examined in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". In my previous two Chirps, “08/23/21 Their Lips are Moving” and “08/24/21 What Penalty?”, their words and deeds have been one of rulership and not leadership. Their congenital lying and lack of accountability can only be maintained by rulership, and their reactions are of children when confronted by uncomfortable facts and truths.

On Jan. 27, 1838, Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "the perpetuation of our political institutions." During that address, he said: “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

We now know who its author and finisher are – the Democrat Party and Progressives/Leftists with their childish thinking and decision making. They must decisively be turned out of office and have no political power over us, or destruction will be our lot.

09/19/21 Epidemics, Pandemics, and Endemics Oh My!

After eighteen months of the COVID-19 infectious disease we are at the point of asking what is the current status of this disease - is it an Epidemic, Pandemic, or an Endemic? This question is important as it determines how we should treat this disease in our society. First, however, a few definitions are in order:

• Epidemic - A widespread outbreak of an infectious disease; many people are infected at the same time.
• Pandemic - An epidemic that is geographically widespread, occurring throughout a region or even throughout the world.
• Endemic - Of or relating to a disease (or anything resembling a disease) constantly present to a greater or lesser extent in a particular locality.

With the development of the COVID-19 vaccine and the inoculations of most people in America, as well as the spread of Natural Immunity, we can safely say that we are no longer in a pandemic. The possibility of variant does not qualify as a pandemic, and the fear that it may become a pandemic is groundless until it appears and becomes an epidemic. Normal precautions against a COVID-19 variant, such as the yearly Influenza precautions, are justifiable, but Pandemic precautions for a possible variant are unnecessary and are harmful to our health, our economy, our society, and our Liberties and Freedoms.

If the COVID-19 vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated need no protection against unvaccinated persons. Also, those who have acquired natural immunization do not need to be vaccinated as they cannot contract nor spread COVID-19. These scientific facts should be kept in mind whenever we institute a policy to deal with any endemic. Our policy should be one of local containment and vaccinations whenever and wherever a COVID-19 variant may occur and not overreacting out of fear of a pandemic. This is how we dealt in the past with Pandemics that have morphed in Endemics, as we did with the 1917 Spanish Flu. Yearly inoculations for the expected flu variant are a normal occurrence in America, and Americans have the Liberty and Freedom to choose to or not choose to receive these vaccinations. We should therefore expect that there may be a cycle of COVID-19 variants and that we should deal with them as we do with influenza variants.

Speaking from the East Room of the White House recently, President Joe Biden announced his administration's latest expansive and overreaching plan to combat Wuhan coronavirus. "We are going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers," he continued. "This is not about freedom or personal choice. It's about protecting those around you." Ronald Klain, the White House chief of staff, faced criticism on social media Thursday after he retweeted a post that seemed to praise the Biden administration for pulling off the "ultimate work-around" for a national COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Klain retweeted MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, who posted, "OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations."

This statement is so obviously false on its face that the only correct response to it is to remember:

"I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers- that of laughter."
 - Charles L. Black

But laughter is not the only response we should give this statement, as President Biden and Ronald Klain’s statement is an assault on our American Ideals and Ideas. Working around the Constitutional rights of a person is not acceptable in America. If we work around the Constitution, then the Constitution becomes meaningless, and our Liberties and Freedoms are negated. These statements demonstrate that President Biden, and those who support his policy, have no wish to lead American but only to rule America, as I have examined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

To choose to take or not take any medication, or undergo any medical procedure, is about freedom of personal choice. If your decision has no impact on the health and safety of others, then it is your personal decision and not a government's decision. Even if it has an impact on the health and safety of others, the government's reactions need to be constrained to immediate circumstances. To not constrain the government's reactions to immediate circumstances is to allow for the rule of government over a person. We should also remember a famous Supreme Court opinion that addressed this issue:

“[I]nspection laws … form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the general government: all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation.” [emphasis added]
 - Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

President Biden’s statement and other statements that he and his administration have made regarding the enforcement of his COVID-19 constrictions and policies are therefore unconstitutional and despotic - dominance through threat of punishment and violence, and he and his administration are becoming despots. Congress also has no authority to intervene in COVID-19 constrictions as ‘No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress ‘. The Governor’s, Mayor’s, and other state and local officials that issue COVID-19 restrictions that are not ‘subject to State legislation’ are also unconstitutional.

Even if the President, Governor’s, Mayor’s, and other state and local officials believe that what they are doing is best for America and Americans, there can be no best if you violate our American Ideals and Ideas. And you should always remember:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

Providing thorough and accurate information to the American people for them to decide for themselves is always the best policy. Then the American people, enacting legislation through their elected representatives operating under Constitutional constraints, become the best deciders in America.

09/18/21 Equal Protection of the Law with COVID Edicts and Orders

Equal Protection of the Law refers to the idea that a government may not unequally apply the application of its governing laws that would favor or disfavor an individual or groups of individuals. This doctrine requires that all governments must treat an individual or group in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Equal protection forces the government to govern impartially -to not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights. I have more fully examined this topic in my Article, "The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and The Equal Protection of The Law Doctrine.

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection as it states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” [emphasis added]

The ‘without due process of law ‘clause has been interpreted by the courts to require Equal Protection of the Law as well as Due Process of the Law – as you cannot have one without the other. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires States to practice equal protection and due process of the law. The 14th Amendment states in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [emphasis added]

We, in America, have seen unequal protections of the law regarding COVID Edicts and Orders. From not enforcing these Edicts and Orders during the mob protests of 2020, to the southern border illegal immigrants being untested and unvaccinated, to the immigration of Afghanistan refugees that have not been tested nor vaccinated, to the craving out of special exemptions for various groups of people, and to the non-enforcement of the politically connected or powerful, we have seen unequal protection of the law, subject to the whims of those issuing the COVID Edicts and Orders.

These unequal protections of the law, therefore, make these COVID Edicts and Orders unconstitutional. There are many other reasons that these COVID Edicts and Orders may be unconstitutional, such as they were not passed by Congress or the State Legislators amongst other constitutional issues, but the unequal protections of these COVID Edicts and Orders is sufficient to declare them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court must stand for the Equal Protection of the Law Doctrine, or our Liberties and Freedoms are subject to the whims of government authorities acting as despots. If the Supreme Court cannot put an end to these unconstitutional actions, then the American people should disregard these COVID Edicts and Orders and actively oppose them to retain their Liberties and Freedoms.

09/17/21 Marriage in America

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family members through marriage). The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one-woman and one-man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Most of these early marriages were done for the purposes of political power and alliances or for economic reasons, and marriage had little to do with love or with religion. Consequently, marriage is not a Natural Right but a Civil compact.

The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. Again, this demonstrates that marriage is not a Natural Right but a Civil compact.

In America, the reason for government involvement in marriage is to establish a legal and economic framework for a man and a woman to reproduce and to raise children, with those children to be the next contributing members of society. In the event of something happening to the marriage, such as divorce, abandonment, death, physical or mental cruelty, etc., the government needed to have the legal means to protect the children of that marriage to the best of its abilities. Therefore, marriage is not a Natural nor Constitutional Right but a contractual issue between two parties. As the Constitution has no enumerated powers regarding marriage, the issues regarding marriage are reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution – “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”.

Thus, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the Federal government have no power under the Constitution to intervene in the marriage laws of the States, other than the 14th Amendment Section 1 protections of

 “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [emphasis added]

When the Supreme Court ruled on homosexual marriage, it had no jurisdiction under the Constitution nor the Natural Rights foundations of our government. In doing so, it was not upholding the Constitution but violating the Constitution. When the Supreme Court rules outside of its jurisdiction, they become Lords, not Judges, as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", and Lords are antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas. Those that would respond that it is a Federal matter of “The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and The Equal Protection of The Law Doctrine”, I would retort that they do not understand this clause or doctrine, as I have examined in the aforementioned hyperlinked article.

I have no problem with a State extending its marriage laws to include homosexual marriage, as it is their right to do so as they see fit. I do, however, have a very large problem of the Federal government intervening in a state’s prerogatives with no Constitutional or Natural Rights basis, as this is an Unconstitutional action and an encroachment on our Liberties and Freedoms.

For more of my thoughts on this subject, I would direct you to my article, “Homosexuality Nature and Homosexual Marriage”, which examines the Natural and Legal rights of marriage in modern America, and more specifically, homosexual and other forms of marriage.

09/15/21 An Unresolved National Issue of Natural Rights

The law is not all as I have written in my Article, "The Law is Not All, for the law must have a foundation to build upon. If there is no foundation for the law, then the law is only the dictates of the masses or the decrees of despots. In America, this foundation is the ideas of the Constitution, which itself was founded on the ideals of The Declaration of Independence as I have written in my Chip on "07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution". Also, as I have written in my Article, "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", in America, we have a hierarchy of importance to this foundation as I have examined in my Article, “A Hierarchy of Rights”. When a Law (or Court ruling) is in opposition to these ideals and ideas, it is a national issue and not a state issue, and as a nation, we must bring the law and court rulings back into compliance with these ideals and ideas. To not do so is to make a law or court ruling with no foundation.

Abortion has been one of these issues of national importance ever since the time of the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade of 1973. Abortion is a question of the Natural Rights of the unborn child vs. the Human Rights of the mother, as I have examined in my Articles:

• The Abortion Question - An examination of the Human Rights of an unborn child and the issues and concerns regarding abortion.
• The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery - An examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War.

To retreat to the comfortable position that it is a state's right to decide the abortion question is to retreat to a place where one State may allow abortions while another State may restrict abortions. This leads to, as Abraham Lincoln expressed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” Natural Rights are the rights of all regardless of where you may reside. Consequently, the abortion question is a national question, and national questions are resolved by Congress or the Supreme Court.

Whether they are the Natural or Human Rights of either the mother or the unborn child, they are rights that need to be protected rights. Unfortunately, however, in Roe v. Wade, the rights of the unborn child were not considered, as can be seen from a quote from that decision:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
 - Roe v. Wade

When the Supreme Court of the United States opens its next term in October, the court will consider a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade from Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center. As science and medicine have advanced considerably since the almost fifty years since the Roe v. Wade decision, as well as the further considerations of the philosophical, moral, and ethical questions of abortion, the difficult question of when life begins must now be considered in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center decision. As this is a question of the Natural Rights of the unborn child, it is a national issue that needs to be resolved.

The national issue of Abortion cannot be resolved by legislation from Congress as Congress is hopelessly deadlocked over this issue, and any legislation that they pass can be overturned, modified, or replaced by future Congresses. The issue of Natural Rights of the unborn child cannot, nor should not, be violable to Congressional whims or public opinion but must become settled rights. A Constitutional Amendment could achieve this, but the passage of this amendment is a forlorn hope as the people of America are deadlocked on the Abortion issue and often do not consider the Natural Rights issues of abortion.

The Supreme Court, therefore, must step up to its obligations to settle Constitutional and Natural Rights issues, as these are foundational issues of the law and must be resolved to retain our American ideals and ideas. Or, as it has been said:

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

For the Supreme Court to retreat behind legal sophistry or stare decisis to avoid settling the question of the Natural Rights of the unborn child or the Human Rights of the mother is not acceptable, as it leads to a violation of Natural or Human Rights and civil unrest. A civil unrest that may lead to a civil war to resolve this issue, much like a civil war resolved the issue of slavery.

09/12/21 Valid Arguments

Politicians, pundits, commentators, and people of all stripes love to argue with each other. When doing so, they often forget that facts and reasoning are essential to any argument. And the facts must be agreed upon before an argument to be valid. Regarding facts, we should remember that:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
 - John Adams

and

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
  -  New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

Therefore, whenever someone says ‘My Truth’ in an argument, they are contravening the facts, for truths are based on facts and not on your own perceptions of the facts. Consequently, whenever someone utilizes ‘My Truth’ in their argument, they are automatically invalidating their argument as ‘Truth’ and ‘My Truth’ are oxymorons.

They also forget that a valid argument can only be correct if it has valid reasoning. And valid reasoning requires correct Formal and Informal Logic and no Logical Fallacies nor Cognitive Biases. I have often mentioned these items in my Chirps and Articles, and I have examined them in more depth in my Article on "Reasoning". Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content, where that content is made explicit, while Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argumentation (e.g., ad hominem attacks, slippery slopes, circular arguments, appeal to force, etc.). A cognitive bias, on the other hand, is a genuine deficiency or limitation in our thinking — a flaw in judgment that arises from errors of memory, social attribution, and miscalculations (such as statistical errors or a false sense of probability). It is important to distinguish between Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases as each is its own discipline, and errors within each type can invalidate an argument.

There are many Formal and Informal Logic Errors, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases, so many that it takes an undergraduate study to understand them all. Many fine books (and not so fine books) have been written on these subjects, and even the introductory book can be extensive and difficult to comprehend. As such, for those who only wish to have an introduction to these subjects, it can be difficult to obtain such an introduction. However, three fine websites have short, readable, and understandable introductions to the most common Formal and Informal Logic Errors, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases. These websites are:

• The Basic of Philosophy - Logic
• Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi
• The 12 Cognitive Biases That Prevent You from Being Rational by George Dvorsky

I would suggest that you review these web pages for a brief flavor of Formal and Informal Logic Errors, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases.

09/11/21 Speculations of Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), a.k.a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) are in the news with the recent release of the governments' knowledge on ‘Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)’, or the new preferred term ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs)’. Much speculation has arisen that these objects are visitations from extraterrestrial intelligent life. And much of this speculation is CRAP (Completely Ridiculous Alien Piffle), as Michael Shermer explains in his Scientific American article. In my articles, Intelligent Life in the Universe” and “Evolution to Intelligent Life”, I examine the possibilities probabilities of Intelligent Life. While in my Article, “Science vs. Science-Fiction”, I explain some of the difficulties of interstellar space travel, and why the ‘Science’ in Science-Fiction is often not possible.

Such speculations of extraterrestrial intelligent life should be tempered by my thoughts in these articles. It should also be remembered that science cannot explain all things, as our scientific knowledge is far from complete. As Michael Shermer ends his aforementioned article:

“In all fields of science there is a residue of anomalies unexplained by the dominant theory. That does not mean the prevailing theory is wrong or that alternative theories are right. It just means that more work needs to be done to bring those anomalies into the accepted paradigm. In the meantime, it is okay to live with the uncertainty that not everything has an explanation.”

The explanations of UAPs needs to be undertaken for scientific purpose, and the possibility that they are foreign technology that could pose a national threat, and not for the purpose of confirming Extraterrestrial Intelligence as many would wish for.

09/10/21 Aussies as Wussies

Who would have thought that the Aussies would have turned into Wussies? Thousands of people took to the streets of Sydney and other Australian cities on Saturday to protest lockdown restrictions amid another surge in cases, and police made several arrests after crowds broke through barriers and threw plastic bottles and plants. New South Wales Police said it recognized and supported the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly, but the protest was a breach of public health orders. "The priority for NSW Police is always the safety of the wider community," a police statement said.

But those thousands should have been tens of thousands in every major city of Australia. The proud history of individualism and independence of the Australian people is in pearl. To place public health orders of such a scale as the Australia government has done over the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly is to infringe upon the Freedoms and Liberties that Australian have so prized throughout their history. The government should fall, and new elections should be held to reinstitute Freedom and Liberty with Natural Rights as the primary principles of the Australian government. And they should remember that:

“The will of the majority does not override the Natural Rights of the individual.”
- Mark Dawson

If they do not do this than Crocodile Dundee should be ashamed of his countrymen. For to not do this the Aussies will become Wussies, and they will join the club of the nations of wussies of America, Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand.

09/09/21 Wishful Thinking Perspective

From the crisis at the southern border to the debacle of Afghanistan some words best describe the actions of President Biden and his administration:

• Inept - Generally incompetent and ineffectual.
• Incompetent - Someone who is not competent to take effective action.
• Ineffectual - Not producing an intended effect.
• Incapable - (followed by 'of') lacking capacity or ability.
• Dangerous - Causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm.

All these words portend an America in which our security, safety, health, and Liberties and Freedoms are in peril.

The removal of President Biden from office is not a solution, as I expect that a President Harris would also be defined by these words. This is because "Democrat Party Leaders" and "Progressives/Leftists" do not recognize the world as it is, but the world as they wish it to be.  And as the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists hold the reins of power, a change in leadership does not mean a change in perspective.

Democrat Party leaders and Progressives/Leftists perspective is one of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking on foreign relations, enemies and adversaries’ intentions and determinations, illegal immigration impacts, economics, Coronavirus Pandemic responses, safety in our streets, as well as a host of other issues the actions of President Biden and his administration is based on wishful thinking.

However, this wishful thinking perspective is not restricted to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists but are held by many Americans. Americans are by nature optimistic and hopeful for a better future. They are also interested in solving problems in an expeditious manner as possible. They, therefore, tend to support politicians who promise them quick solutions. But quick solutions are rarely quality solutions, and quick solutions often encounter "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that are often dangerous to the body politic.

One of the reasons our Founding Fathers created a Republic, rather that a Democracy, was to temper the passions and immoderation of the people by electing and appointing sober, conscientious, and rational persons to avoid problems in the formation and implementation of public policy. However, when these elected and appointed persons are Inept, Incompetent, Ineffectual, and Incapable, they become Dangerous to our Republic. And this is where we are today because of President Biden and his administration, and the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists holding the reins of power and acting on their wishful thinking perspective.

09/08/21 Military Success

Military success is determined by winning, and not only winning skirmishes and battles but by winning the war. When the military does not focus on winning a war, then it is a failure. Promotion within the ranks of the military should be based on military success. And the support of the American people for the military should be based on military success. Alas, much of this is no longer true.

Today, the fostering of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality, seem to be the determining factors of military success. And all these factors lead to a degradation of the true nature of military success. By focusing on these factors it often diverts attention from our military preparedness to achieve military success.

We also have the problem of ill-defined missions to achieve military success. We forget that the primary purpose of the military is to inflict casualties on the enemy and destroy their means to conduct war. Any other mission than this is not a military mission and should not be conducted by the military, as they are ill-suited to this ill-defined mission. Many of these ill-defined missions are based on changing the hearts, minds, and social systems of the enemy, which cannot be measured and may be impossible to achieve. These ill-defined missions also lead to mendaciousness in the progress of a war. Progress needs to be defined by the achievement of military success, not by ill-defined mission success. When you measure military success by ill-defined mission success, you are not making military progress, and as ill-defined missions have no well-defined criteria for success, you cannot measure progress. The debacle in Afghanistan is what happens when you focus on ill-defined mission success rather than on military success.

The current rules of engagement for military personnel are also a factor in the degradation of the true nature of military success. These rules of engagement are more concerned with reducing collateral damage to civilians and property than winning. War is hell, and when an enemy hides behind civilians or mingles in civilian villages and towns, then collateral damage is inevitable to achieve military success. Nobody likes collateral damage, but collateral damage is often necessary to win. And collateral damage is one of the reasons that a nation should be wary of war or put an end to war.

It is time for us to put an end to any military actions that do not focus on military success. If you are going to fight a war, then fight the war to win and prepare to win a war. Fight as hard and ferociously as necessary to win and win as quickly as possible. This is the only criteria for military success and to reduce military casualties and collateral damage. Otherwise, you cannot expect to achieve military success.

09/07/21 Theater of the Dangerous

In my Chirp on “08/28/21 Theater of the Absurd”, I commented on the House Commission investigation on the January 6th ‘Insurrection’ as absurd. This House Commission is now evolving from absurd to dangerous. With their plan to subpoena communications of House members that may have had communications from any suspected ‘insurrectionist’ or any House member that has commented on the absurdity of this investigation, they are becoming dangerous to our democracy.

Dangerous to our democracy as any person can communicate to any elected representative on any subject, topic, issue, or concern, and the elected representative may respond as appropriate. If these communications were open to Congressional review, and possible public scrutiny from leaks or revelations, then the public may be less forthcoming in their communications to their elected representatives. This would de facto constrict their Free Speech Rights and limit their Redress of Grievances Rights through fear of retribution or retaliation by those that disagree with them.

It would also hamper our elected representatives in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. The political gamesmanship that would occur with the revelation of their communications would fuel the bitter partisanship in America. Congressional investigations could become witch hunts against the minority party representatives in which guilt by association (i.e., communication) would be practiced. This is also antithetical to our American ideals of investigating criminal actions and not persons. Only if there is veracity to the allegations of wrongdoing by a representative should their communications be open to investigation. To do otherwise is to violate the privacy rights of both the representative and the constituent that communicate with each other. A constituent and a representative have the expectation of privacy in their communications, and this privacy should be respected by all. This is different than when you post something on "Social Media", as you have no expectation of privacy, and indeed, do not want privacy on Social Media.

This points out the need for the privacy protection of your web surfing, e-mail messages, voice communications, and text messaging, such as we have for postal communications. These voice and text messages are your private communications to another and should not be available for any other party, both governmental and commercial, for perusal purposes. Indeed, the issue of privacy in modern electronic communications and databases needs to be examined and legislated to assure our Liberties and Freedoms.

The proposed subpoenaing of Congressional Representative communications is, therefore, an assault on our Democracy and must never come to fruition. The very thought of the "Democrat Party Leaders" to do so is another example of how they do not respect our American ideas and ideals. It also demonstrates that they are unfit to lead a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom.

09/06/21 Capitalists Day

Labor Day is a federal holiday in the United States celebrated on the first Monday in September in any given year (i.e., a single day from September 1 through September 7) to honor and recognize the American labor movement and the works and contributions of laborers to the development and achievements of the United States. It is the Monday of the long weekend known as Labor Day Weekend. It is fitting and proper that we recognize the contributions of labor in the development of America.

It would also be fitting and proper to recognize the contribution of Capitalists in the development of America. For without Capitalists who invest their time and monies to create and enlarge businesses and employ labor, we would not have a prosperous America and little to celebrate on Labor Day. Capitalists provide the goods and services at an affordable price in a timely manner that all Americans need and want in their lives. They have also been instrumental in the advancement of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, as Capitalism requires the Rule of Law in contracts and property to flourish. As Capitalists risk their own monies to succeed and often fail at a great personal cost to themselves, we should recognize their efforts in both their successes and failures.

Capitalists often work very long and hard hours to succeed, and often at a sacrifice to the personal and family life. I would, therefore, propose that the first Monday in May be ‘Capitalist Day’ to celebrate their efforts and sacrifices. As such, I have updated my proposed “U.S. Holidays” article to include ‘Capitalists Day’.

09/05/21 Online Product Reviews

I do not contribute to personal online reviews of products and services. I do not trust personal online reviews of products and services. And neither should you. The reasons can be summarized as ‘The village idiot versus the village master’, as we have no idea if the personal reviewer is the village idiot or the village master.

Personal reviews of art, music, and movies are very subjective of the reviewer’s tastes, while reviewing books objectively is questionable of the knowledge and experience of the reviewer and subjective of the biases and the perspectives of the reviewer. This is often true of reviews that deal with political, legal, sociological, and history books. There is also the question of the reviewer or author of a book to recognize improper “Reasoning”, shortcomings, or factual errors within the book. Many times, a personal reviewer, and often times a professional reviewer of a book, has a depth of knowledge or experience that allows them to fill in the blanks’ or ‘make associations’ that a less knowledgeable reader may not have. Therefore, be wary when a reviewer recommends a book as a good introduction to the subject of the book.

Personal reviews of products also call into question the abilities of the reviewer to understand the instructions and operate the product (although many instructions are not very good). There is also the fact that most reviews were motivated by a great like or dislike of the product or service of the reviewer rather than an objective opinion of the product or service.

However, personal reviews can be utilized to obtain a general sense of the product or service. A great many likes, or a great many dislikes, can alert you to the goodness or badness of the product or service. Personal reviews can also alert you to the benefits or pitfalls of the product or service. Consequently, only use personal product reviews as a guide, not as a definitive. If the product or service is attractive, then further research should be done. Look to professional reviews of the product or service to obtain a more objective review of the product or service before any purchase of a product or service. However, professional reviews also suffer from some of these problems, as well as the possible financial interest of the reviewer.

As always, remember “Buyer Beware” when utilizing both a personal and professional product review.

09/04/21 Awards and Prizes

Awards and prizes should be about accomplishments. Today, however, they are often about who speaks, writes, or takes actions with the greatest "Political Correctness" or "Identity Politics". This is especially true for the works of literature, entertainment, the arts, journalism and somewhat true for sports and the sciences. It is almost always true for statesmen or politicians who receive awards or prizes. This is because the award or prize committee or voters are primarily composed of "Progressives/Leftists", who will countenance no diversity of words or deeds that conflict with their ideology. Therefore, there is no diversity of thought amongst the winners of these awards or prizes. This is especially true for the more prominent and recognized awards or prizes.

Consequently, if you should decide to spend your monies or make decisions based on these awards or prizes, you should expect that you will only hear one side of the issue, the Progressive side. This is a shame as there are many excellent works that deserve awards or prizes from the other side of an issue, the Conservative side. This is also an example of the Cultural Wars that are occurring in America. The Cultural Wars that is supported by, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage, the  Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media.

It is also dangerous to our American Ideals and Ideas, as the progressive side often is antithetic to these ideals and ideas. To have the American people ill-informed by these awards or prizes is a disservice by these award or prize committees or voters, not to mention that it is a disservice to the concept of awards and prizes based upon accomplishment.

09/03/21 Science and History Shows on Television

Having been sheltered in my house for the past year due to the Coronavirus Pandemic, my medical problems, and my retirement, I have had the opportunity to watch many television shows about my favorite topics – Science and History. As I am quite familiar with Science and History (but by no means an expert in these topics), I believe I can bring a perspective on the content and quality of these shows.

My first observation is that a vast majority of these shows are aimed at an audience that has very little knowledge of the subject manner. If you are knowledgeable about the subject matter, then you will not gain much new information about the subject matter. You may pick up a few odds and ends that you did not know or see visuals that you are unfamiliar with, but the quantity of new information you gain on the subject matter will be rather small.

It is the quality of these shows with which I have the biggest complaint. Many of these shows emphasize facts while not providing context. And many of the facts are disputable when you understand the context. And many of these shows utilize supposition rather than deductive reasoning in presenting the subject matter. Most distressing is the creep of "Political Correctness" of the topics and content within these shows. Very rarely do the opposing viewpoints on science or history are given exposure or credence, and when they do so, the opposing viewpoints are often given short shrift and in a dismissive manner.

Many science shows are not actually science, as many are pseudoscience or science speculation. Science shows that deal with phenomena, as I have written in my article, “Intelligent Life, UFOs, and Pseudoscience,” are such shows. These types of ‘science’ shows leave you with more questions than answers, guide you to an unsupported conclusion, and lead you to a state of belief unsupported by the science.

Many history shows present a perspective on history that supports the conclusions of the producers and writers while not presenting an alternative conclusion. Facts are tailored to fit the conclusion, and contravening facts are not presented or dismissed.

Many Science and History shows abound in incorrect Formal or Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, and Cognitive Biases, as I have written in my article “Reasoning”. In many cases, I watch these shows to exercise my critical thinking skills to discover the reasoning problems within these shows.

Therefore, when viewing these shows, you should be aware that many of these shows lack depth, may contain factual errors and are biased to the viewpoints of the producers and writers. If you consider them more for their entertainment value rather than for their knowledgeable value and maintain a skeptical mind, then these shows can be somewhat informative. Always remember that these shows should be a starting point in your search for knowledge, and if the topic interest you, then you should delve more deeply into the topic. While there are many science and history shows of quality, there are much more science and history shows that are dubious.

09/02/21 You Can’t Win, You Can’t Break Even, and You Can’t Quit the Game

You Can’t Win, You Can’t Break Even, and You Can’t Quit the Game is an apt description of the Laws of Thermodynamics as explained for non-scientists on the webpage of HIGHBROW:

“The physicist C.P. Snow (who was also a writer) stated that a person who was not a scientist and didn’t know about thermodynamics was similar to a scientist who never studied Shakespeare. This famous statement was stated to show that it was important for non-scientists to learn about thermodynamics and be familiar with the significance of the field.

Thermodynamics examines how energy works in a given system, whether it is an engine or the core of the earth. Thermodynamics can be boiled down to group of fundamental laws. Snow wittily summarized the laws as follows: “You can’t win,” “You can’t break even,” and “You can’t quit the game.”

In stating that you cannot win, Snow explains that since the matter cannot be lost, you can’t achieve one ideal without changing something else (i.e., E=mc²). Additionally, Snow suggests that for an engine to do any work, heat must be given. However, in all except expertly closed systems, an amount of heat is invariably lost in the process, which serves as an introduction to the second law.

Snow then states you can’t break even. Here he suggests that because of increasing entropy, it is impossible to go back to a past state of energy. Energy that is packed into one place will diffuse to a place that has lower concentration.

And for the third law, “You can’t quit the game,” this refers to absolute zero. This number represents the smallest plausible temperature, which is zero Kelvin or -273.15 degrees Celsius and -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit. Once a system arrives at absolute zero, all molecules stop moving, kinetic energy can’t exist, and entropy reaches the lowest value it will ever have. However, in the world, as we experience it, you cannot get to absolute zero (but some experts have tried to get close).”

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to all energy systems in the Universe. Consequently, on any discussion involving an energy system, you must be cognizant of the Laws of Thermodynamics to have a rational discussion. As I have explained in the section on “Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy” in my Science Article “The Fundamental Properties and Constants of the Universe”, this is especially evident when discussing space travel.

As I have explained in my Science Article “Science vs. Science-Fiction”, whenever anyone starts discussing UFO’s or UAP’s you must think of how “Energy” and “The Immensity of Space and Time” and the other issues in this article would apply if these UFO’s or UAP’s were a result of alien civilizations visiting Earth. When you start to consider the scientific and technological issues of interstellar travel, you begin to realize the immense problems of interstellar travel. These science and technology problems are so great that interstellar travel seems highly unlikely. If you retort that perhaps things from Science Fiction like Warp Drive, Hyperspace, Subspace, Worm Holes, etc., could be utilized for interstellar travel, I would remind you that these are fictional terms and not scientific terms.

Perhaps, someday in the far future, we may discover some things about the Fundamental Properties of the Universe that would allow for these Science Fiction methods of propulsion. But this seems unlikely, as the advancement of science to date has led us to a good understanding of the limitations of the universal properties of the Universe.

09/01/21 Does Infinity Exist?

Is there such a thing as infinity? The human mind is incapable of understanding infinity, but the human mind can account for infinity. For instance, the distances between galaxies in our Universe cannot be fully comprehended but can be measured. The time from the creation of the Universe (The Big Bang) cannot be fully comprehended but can be measured. This also holds true for the very smallest aspects of length and time in our Universe. In mathematics, infinity is important and treated as real in that it must be accounted for in many mathematical theorems. It is in the Universe that we confront the limits of infinity. These limits are in the very small and very large aspects of the Universe.

In regard to the limits of the very small, you must consider “The Fundamental Properties and Constants of the Universe” to make a determination. A physical constant, sometimes a fundamental physical constant or universal constant, is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and has a constant value in time. It is contrasted with a mathematical constant, which has a fixed numerical value but does not directly involve any physical measurement. “Planck Units” refers to quantities of space, time, energy, and other units that are similar in magnitude to corresponding Planck units. Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are a system of natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (the choice of which is inherently arbitrary), but rather on only the properties of free space. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.

The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid and quantum effects dominate. This is the 'quantum of length', the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. This is roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. Within the framework of the laws of physics, as we understand them today, we can only say that the Universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.

Therefore, the concept of infinity does not hold for the very smallest aspects of our Universe. But does it hold for the very largest aspects of our Universe?

As we know, the Universe had a starting time (i.e., The Big Bang) that occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago. As such, time did not exist before The Big Bang. As the Universe had a starting time and began to expand at the start, then the Universe has a limited size based on the time it began and the acceleration of the expansion since the beginning of The Big Bang. Current scientific estimates put the diameter of the Universe at approximately 92 billion light-years. Therefore, our current Universe is not infinite.

But will our Universe be infinite in the future? We know that eventually, “Entropy” increases and that eventually, the Universe will dissolve into nothingness, and time and the energy/matter will no longer exist. Therefore, time and distances have an endpoint when Entropy ends, which is approximately 1–100 trillion years from now, depending on which of the several models of the Universe you utilize for your calculations.

Consequently, infinity is not a property of the Universe, as the Universe has a beginning and an ending in both time and space.

08/31/21 Destroying America

President Biden has an economic recovery plan and an accompanying slogan that he wants America to ‘Build Back Better’. An economic recovery plan that has more social policy than economics, as is typical for Democrat Party governmental spending. And as usual, President Biden, Democrat Party Leaders, and their supporters claim that his plan is what is best for America’s future. As always, however, the real question about his plan is:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

As is usual for "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. And as usual for their social policy and political agendas legislation, they are ignoring the economics and economic impacts of their legislation, as well as "The Law of Unintended Consequences" of what they decide is best. In doing so, they are endangering America as we know it. Given their propensity for criticizing and blaming America for racism, injustice, inequity, patriarchalism, along with a host of other pejoratives (as in my Article "Divisiveness in America"), the question about their building back better is will they destroy America before they build back better?

A recent article by Terry Paulson, “Does Biden Want to Destroy America?” examines this question of destruction, and he refers to the statement of another, ‘If President Biden wanted to destroy this country, would he do anything differently than what he has been doing? By looking at some of his policies and decisions in his first seven months, it could be argued that President Biden and his administration seem committed to destroying America as a beacon of freedom, law and order, and opportunity.” Mr. Paulson then further elaborates on the particulars of that statement with the following points:

• If you want to destroy America, open our Southern border to all who want to come in.
• If you want to destroy America, do everything you can to end our energy independence.
• If you want to destroy America, stoke the fires of racial hatred in an already divided country.
• If you want to destroy America, allow crime on the streets to go unpunished.
• If you want to destroy America, keep calling for lockdowns and strict mask guidelines.
• If you want to destroy America, allow Congress to pass reckless deficit spending creating government dependence and rampant Inflation.
• If you want to destroy America, establish the federal control of elections.
• If you want to destroy America, project military weakness and failed leadership in times of crisis.

As can be seen from the above list, the Biden Administration has taken actions that will lead to the destruction of America as we know it and the principles it was founded upon. And out of this destruction and rebuilding can only arise a despotic government to institute its social policies and political agendas.

Therefore, a more accurate slogan for the Biden Administrations' economic recovery plan would be ‘Destroy America then Build Back Better’. And make no mistake about it, the Biden Administration, the Democrat Party, and Progressives/Leftists are destroying America, whether they intend to or not.

08/30/21 The Unanswered Questions

With the fall of Afghanistan, there are many unanswered questions as to our involvement in Afghanistan. Questions of the scope, strategy, and tactics of achieving our goals, questions of the efficacy of the people who formulated and implemented the policy, questions of the economics of our involvement, questions of the impacts to foreign relations, questions about the human costs (both American and others) of our involvement in Afghanistan, and many other questions. There is also the question of accountability, as I have chirped on, “08/25/21 What Penalty?” These questions must be fully investigated and answered, not only for historical purposes but to assist us in creating policy in the future.

However, the most pressing current questions are about the manner of our withdrawal. Biden will only focus on the question nobody is actually asking: Why did we leave Afghanistan? Literally, nobody is asking this. We are asking why did we leave Afghanistan in this way? These fundamental questions are:

1. Why did we abandon the Bagram airfield before our Americans and their Afghan allies were evacuated?
2. Why did we evacuate our military before every civilian and our Afghan allies were evacuated?
3. Why didn't we destroy or dismantle military equipment lest it falls into the hands of the Taliban?

An article by Larry O'Connor, “The Coward-in-Chief Refuses to Answer Key Questions on Afghanistan”, examines these questions and the failures of the Biden Administration on these questions. These questions must be answered forthwith, as they have serious worldwide impacts on current and near-term events.

08/29/21 Applying Today’s Standards to Yesterday’s Societies

The governmental, sociological, philosophical, religious, moral, ethical, legal, economic, scientific, and technological aspects of each society are the forces that shape the society. The fine arts, literature, and music do not shape society but instead reflect and influence society. Therefore, you must have a knowledge of all these aspects to make a judgment on any society, for without such knowledge, your judgment would be incomplete and probably incorrect. This is especially true when you are judging a historical society, as it is extremely difficult to have a thorough knowledge of all the aspects of a historical society.

In my History Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”, I expound a perspective on how to view history and make judgments on civilizations and personages. Another History Article of mine, “United States History Perspective”, is my viewpoint on United States History, focusing on the many turning points in U.S. history that changed our country and how Americans strove to improve our society. If you keep this perspective of our history and remember our turning points, you can more fairly judge our history.

By applying today’s standards to yesterday’s events, the society of yesterday will always fall short of today’s standards. Today’s standards have evolved over the centuries and millennia to incorporate the knowledge and experience of yesteryear, too hopefully, improve today’s society. Therefore, today’s society is the best that can be achieved based on the knowledge and experience of the past, with the expectation that the improvements of today’s society will be incorporated into a future society that will be better than today’s society. And if the future society judge’s today’s society, they would find us wanting by their standards.

In judging our history, we can ascertain that America, with all its faults, has been a history of striving to obtain our ideals of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. While we have not always obtained these ideals, we have, and hopefully will continue to have, the motivation and will to obtain these ideals. To judge American history by current morality or a standard of perfection is not appropriate as:

"Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best."
 - Mark Dawson

08/28/21 Theater of the Absurd

Recently, Reuters reported that the events of the January 6, 2021 ‘Insurrection’ at the U.S. Capitol were not "the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result," according to officials quoted in an exclusive Reuters report. More specifically, sources report to Reuters that the "FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump." More to the point, Reuters reports that "the FBI has so far found no evidence that he [President Trump] or people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence, according to the four current and former law enforcement officials".

If this is true, what is the House Commission on the January 6th ‘Insurrection’ investigating? The answer is that it is not investigating anything; it is simply a political theater of the absurd. An absurdity for the purposes of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" of President Trump and his supporters for electioneering purposes. It has also been reported that this House Commission plans on subpoenaing the communication records of several (Republican) House members to determine if they were in any way involved. If this is true, then this House Commission will become dangerous to democracy, as Congressperson’s communications should not be subject to public scrutiny until there is some veracity to the allegations of criminal activities. Otherwise, these communications simply become political fodder for electioneering purposes and potential intimidation for political power purposes. It is also antithetical to our Judicial system ethos that we investigate criminal actions rather than people.

As I have Chirped on "04/19/21 Insurrection", ‘There is also no doubt that as an ‘insurrection’, it was one of the feeblest attempts of an insurrection in history’. Yet this event has created a partisan commission that will achieve nothing but biased rhetoric and divisiveness in America. Meanwhile, from the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to voting reform and illegal immigration, to the state of our economy, and to a host of other issues there seems to be little action but many words, and no Congressional investigations, of these serious problems.

This is yet another reason that the American people have such a low opinion of Congress and hold government in such derision. And it is this derision that may lead to an actual insurrection, as I have Chirped on, “08/08/21 A True Insurrection”.

08/27/21 The Fall of Western Principles

In America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, we have seen a precipitous decline in Liberty and Freedom because of the fears of the COVID-19 Pandemic. But this decline has been in progress for several decades, not just the last year and a half. The last year and a half are only a culmination that has revealed the scope of this problem. And this problem did not occur in long strides but at a slow, steady pace. This problem did not occur with intentional due deliberation and with the approval of the populace, but with the rise of progressive governmental ideology and the belief that "Socialism is Acceptable". And this rise stands in stark contrast to the rise of the Western principles of the Natural Rights of Man in the last two millennia.

A fine article, “The Pitiful Fall of Western Principle” by Pat McGeehan, has encapsulated this problem, with three points that I would extract that are a core of this problem:

“Underneath the rubric of the coronavirus pandemic, for the last year and a half, practically every state across the country has been subjected to arbitrary one-man rule, whereby nearly all state governments throughout the union—red or blue—have been wholly subsumed beneath apparent wannabe dictatorships.”

and

“… governors across the country took it upon themselves to systematically reshape the very underpinnings of American government. Going far beyond slight violations like small alterations to the laws by their own accord, this abuse of power was so pervasive, it extended to the creation of entire new laws on a whim, decreeing them at will, and repealing any of them altogether.”

and

“… toward the accomplishment of some vague and undefinable value whereby the ends will always tend to justify the means. Because of this highly subjective nature of the utilitarian creed, it should come as no surprise that such an ambiguous idea has been very useful to validate the actions of virtually every tyrant throughout history.”

However, the root cause of this problem is not only that as Sir John Dalberg-Acton has said - “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, but that American public education has not taught the Western principles of the Natural Rights of Man, provided a Civic Education as to how these rights are preserved, and corrupted our American (and Western) History to cast a pall over these principles, civics, and history.

My Articles on "Public Education" and “Indoctrination versus Education”, and my Chirp on "03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?" examines this situation and proposes a solution to resolve this problem of a proper public education, with the goal of reinstituting “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society”.

Until we can educate, and reeducate, the American people on the Natural Rights of Man and the proper Civics as to how these rights are preserved, as well as an honest and truthful American History, it may not be possible for us to avert The Fall of Western Principles. If not, we will continue on this precipitous decline in Liberty and Freedom into authoritarianism and despotic rulership in America.

08/26/21 To Be Rulers

In my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", I examine the difference between leading and ruling a people. A free people cannot be ruled, as rulership constrict Liberty and Freedom and can only be accomplished through authoritative government, and an authoritative government does not ensure "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Authoritative government is also not ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ but ‘Government of the rulers, by the rulers, for the rulers’.

President Biden and his administration, as well as "Democrat Party Leaders" in Congress, as well as many (mostly Democrat) State and Local governments, have demonstrated that they are not leaders but rulers, as I have examined in the aforementioned Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". In my previous two Chirps, “08/23/21 Their Lips are Moving” and “08/24/21 What Penalty?”, their words and deeds have been one of rulership and not leadership. Their congenital lying and lack of accountability can only be maintained by rulership. The attempts of the Democrat Congress to pass the 2021H.R. 1 and 2021 S. 1, and different variations of this legislation, that would federalize elections is an attempt to solidify their rulership, as I have Chirped on, “03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections" and “03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections”.

This rulership can only be maintained by Democrats by means of rulership. Consequently, the Democrats wish to be rulers and not leaders. America was not formulated to be ruled but to be led by the will of the people. Therefore, to support the Democrat political agenda is to be ruled and not led, and it is antithetical to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not restricted to America but seems to inflict other Western Democracies, as I shall examine in my next chirp on, “08/26/21 The Fall of Western Principles”.

08/25/21 What Penalty?

As I mentioned in my previous Chirp on, “08/23/21 Their Lips are Moving”, The Biden Administration has faced many exigencies from the beginning of their administration. From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration impacts, and to the ailing state of our economy, these exigencies are often the result of poor policy decisions by President Biden and the Biden Administration.

It is a sad fact in America that when our leaders make poor policy decisions, they are not held accountable for these decisions. In Washington D.C., if you get it wrong, you get a promotion, as long as you express  Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Wokeness, and Identity Politics, which means, of course, that you are a "Progressives/Leftists" or Democrat Party Leader. Aided and abetted by "Modern Journalism", "Social Media", "Modern Big Business", and Modern Education, the unreported, misreported, and sometimes the suppression of negative information on the policy advisors leads to the shielding of the person or persons that are responsible for these bad policy decisions. A shield that does not allow for accountability and removal of the policymakers who made these poor decisions.

Thus, these poor policymakers remain in power and are sometimes promoted in power to make further poor policy decisions. Until we begin to hold these poor policymakers accountable by their removal from positions of power, we will continue to see the negative impacts of these poor policy decisions.

08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving

It has often been said you can tell if some people are lying if their lips are moving, as many people are such congenital liars that they cannot help themselves but lie. Unfortunately, we see this congenital lying by President Biden and many members of his administration. From the crisis at our southern border to the fall of Afghanistan, to the truth of the threats of Russia, China, and Terrorism, to the Coronavirus Pandemic science, origination, and responses, to the increase of crime in our streets, to their comments on voting reform and illegal immigration impacts, to the state of our economy, and to a host of other issues we have seen an unending stream of lies. These lies go beyond the normal  "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", or "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" of politicians, as they are outright lying. Some members of his administration are outright contradicting other members as well as the President himself, and sometimes within hours of the lying by President Biden.

They have lowered the bar on the political discourse of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" to not only include Trump supporters but to anyone who would disagree or oppose their policies. And these ‘Three D’s’ are all based on lies.

"Modern Journalism", "Social Media", and "Modern Big Business" are all accomplices to this lying, as I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?".

Lying is often a strong word to use, as sometimes they are just mistakes or confusion. However, the sheer number and scope of these lies demonstrate that they are not mistakes nor confusion but deliberate attempts to mislead the American public. A misleading that does serious harm to the body politic. This lying further polarizes Americans and sows the seeds of distrust in government. It has harmed our foreign relationships and our position of leadership in the free world. It prevents us from bipartisan solutions to the issues and concerns facing America, and it perpetuates the "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

If the American people were truthfully informed about this lying, then we could correct this situation. But without truthful information, the American people are divided, and this situation cannot be rectified.

08/23/21 New Articles

I have extracted and edited two topics in my Articles and Observations into a separate webpage as follows:

“Slander and Libel in America” - In the 21st century, we have entered into the era of social media and 24-hour news cycles. We also have government elected politicians and appointed officials utilizing social media and journalism to make assertions and allegations throughout the day and every day of the year. Assertions and allegations that often lack veracity as well as evidence. This revised and edited article examines the issues and concerns of this topic, as it is a replacement for my previous article, “Slander & Libel on Social Media and Journalism”.

“Jumping to Conclusions Through Ignorance” - This article comprises some stories from my life about this topic. And when I speak of ‘ignorance,’ I am not utilizing this term in a pejorative manner, but I simply mean the lack of knowledge. And this Jumping to Conclusions Through Ignorance often leads you to the wrong conclusions.

08/22/21 A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

The following picture says it all about the fall of Afghanistan:

08/21/21 New Articles

I have extracted and edited two topics in my Chirps and Observations into two separate webpages, as these topics are often utilized throughout me website. These new articles are:

“Pet Peeves” - This article is about my pet peeves, in alphabetical order, about current American society. They deal with attitudes that many Americans hold, and how we have forgotten intellectual acuity and substituted emotional reactions as a basis for our actions.

“Terminology and Phrases” - Throughout my Articles and Chirps I often utilize terms and phrases that I believe that should be defined and elucidated. This webpage is a brief list of the terms and phrases I most often utilize.

08/20/21 Thoughts, Words, and Deeds

You cannot control what others think, say, or do. You can only control what you think, say, or do. And suffering emotional hurt from another’s words and deeds is part of life and living, and you should always remember that others may be emotionally hurt by your words and deeds. Therefore, stop trying to control what others think, say, or do, and exercise control of what you think, say, or do. A sign of maturity is self-control, while the lack of self-control is a sign of immaturity. Therefore, you should grow up and control yourself and leave others to grow up and control themselves. Control over another’s thoughts, words, and deeds is only an illusion as people yearn to be free to think, speak, and act as they please. And when control is imposed on others, it is only maintained by force or threats of force.

As regards Free Speech, where in the world did people get the notion that they can restrict Free Speech just because the speech offends them? Are the would-be restrictors oblivious to the fact that the Constitution expressly protects freedom of speech while offering not one word about freedom from offense? We must remember that there is no Free Speech unless there is Free Speech for all, and the best means to counter Free Speech that you disagree with is to exercise your Free Speech in opposition to others Free Speech.

As to Free Speech on College and Universities campuses, I would direct you to my “Pet Peeve” on “Micro-Aggression and Safe-Zones” and the fine article, “Dear Students: You Have No Right Not to Be Offended” by Rob Jenkins, which examines this issue.  

08/19/21 The Fall of Afghanistan

I have refrained from Chirping on the fall of Afghanistan because it is so staggering in its incompetence and so horrendous in its consequences that a Chirp cannot do justice to this event. The Fall of Afghanistan, along with the crisis at our southern border, demonstrates the unfitness of the Biden Administration to govern our nation. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the Biden Administration as even if Vice-President Harris became President, she would continue with the policies of the Biden Administration. Not to mention that she has also demonstrated her incompetence in the southern border crisis and her dealings with foreign leaders on this crisis.

Along with the other ineptness of the Biden Administration in the COVID-19 Pandemic, and in the economy, and in taxes and spending as well as deficits and the debt, we in America are fated to stagger from one crisis to another for the remaining term of the Biden Administration. May God have mercy upon us, for we can expect no better from the Biden Administration.

The only person who may be comforted by the incompetence of President Biden and his Administration is former President Jimmy Carter. Thanks to the ineptitude of President Biden and his administration, ex-President Jimmy Carter and his administration will now no longer be known as the worst Presidency and administration since the end of World War II.

08/18/21 The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) and Skin in the Game (SIG)

I have extracted from my Observation on these terms, and expounded upon these terms, a new Article, “The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) and Skin in the Game (SIG)”. These terms are often descriptive of academic or journalist prognosticators, although they are not limited to these professions but are pervasive throughout the intelligentsia. Whenever you listen or read anything from ‘Experts’ or ‘Commentators’ you should try to determine if they are IYI or have SIG before you make a determination of their "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom", and their conclusions.

08/17/21 Herd Mentality

I have added the term "Herd Mentality" to the "Terminology" webpage. Herd Mentality is the tendency of the people in a group to think and behave in ways that conform with others in the group rather than as individuals. Also known as mob mentality and pack mentality, and lesser-known as gang mentality, it describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional rather than rational basis. When individuals are affected by mob or pack mentality, they often make different decisions than they would have made individually.

“Herd Mentality” is best driven by fear and often irrational fear. Herd Mentality allows for the lemmings to run off a cliff (which, by the way, is untrue of lemmings). The rhetoric and exertions of  Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality are based on the anticipated reactions of the herd. And herd mentality is the modus operandi for "Progressives/Leftists" to stir up passions and achieve their goals. It is also the tactics of the Democrat Party to galvanize their voters and win elections and to pass legislation or issue governmental orders that they could not achieve without a herd reaction.

08/16/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Trois – Communicating or Visiting with Intelligent Life

In my previous two Chirps, “08/14/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Un – The Rise of Intelligent Life” and “08/15/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Deux – The Timeline of Intelligent Life”, I examined the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life, and if extraterrestrial intelligent life arose in our galaxy in the same timeframe as our own intelligent life. If such a possibility occurred, would it be possible for them or us to communicate or visit each other? 

Given the immense distances between stars and the limitations of the speed of light, such communications may take several decades to travel between the two stars. A two-way conversation between extraterrestrial intelligent life would therefore be almost impossible to maintain and may even be impossible to understand. Translating from one human language to another is fraught with problems, as anyone who has learned to read, write, and speak a second language is aware. Even when the languages are similar, there is a multitude of problems. When learning dissimilar languages, i.e., English and Mandarin, the problems are of a greater magnitude. It is possible for humans to do this, as we are all human and have many commonalities that assist us in this translation. Now imagine trying to learn an alien language in which there are few commonalities.

As to travel between these extraterrestrial civilizations, the immense distances between these extraterrestrial civilizations are also prohibitive. Given the energy required, as well as the scientific, technological, and ecological factors required to make the trip, such a trip would be extremely difficult. Even the sci-fi speculation of such things as warp drive, wormholes, subspace, and other exotic means of transportation would be an immense scientific and technological feat and could put us out of that 100-year time frame. And we must also keep in mind the problems of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity when making this trip. In my Science Article, “Science vs. Science Fiction”, I examine the issues of Energy Requirements, The Immensity of Space and Time, That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen, and the Miscellaneous Science-Fiction Issues as it pertains to space travel.

You should also be careful of wanting to communicate or meet extraterrestrial civilizations. Human history has many sad examples of when a more advanced society meeting a less advanced society. It has often been the case that the less advanced society suffers tremendously, if not being obliterated.  

With the recent release of the governments' knowledge on ‘Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)’, or my preferred term ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs)’, much speculation has arisen that these objects are visitations from extraterrestrial intelligent life. But such speculations should be tempered by my thoughts on this and my previous two Chirps.

There is no doubt that these sightings are unidentified, that they are aerial (as opposed to land or sea), and that they are a phenomenon, but are they visitations from extraterrestrial intelligent life? When analyzing UAPs, you must keep in mind the Philosophical Occam's razor:

"Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions."

or:

"The simplest explanation, that fits all the known facts, is most often the correct explanation."

To presume that these UAP’s are visitations from extraterrestrial intelligent life is to violate this razor. There is no question that we should investigate these sightings to determine their true nature. But these UAP’s are more likely to be natural and of a nature that we do not have knowledge about. To jump to the conclusion that they are visitations from an extraterrestrial intelligent life is a leap too great for any rational person to make. Flights of fantasy are wonderful human imaginations, but flights of fantasy are not a way to scientifically investigate these phenomena. Let us rein in the speculation and determine the truth of these phenomena.

08/15/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Deux – The Timeline of Intelligent Life

In my previous Chirp on “08/14/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Un – The Rise of Intelligent Life”, I examined the possibilities and probabilities of intelligent life in our Universe. Given the enormous time scale of the universe and the creation of a terrestrial planet where intelligent life arose, the question of is there intelligent life in our universe or galaxy that coexists with our own intelligent life?

Given the above, the enormous time scale for the creation of a terrestrial planet where intelligent life arose, it seems highly unlikely that extraterrestrial intelligence in our galaxy occurred in the same time frame as ourselves. Therefore, the real question is not the number of extraterrestrial civilizations but the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in their current state of evolutionary, scientific, and technological development that would have a mutual interest in communications or visitations.

Given that the evolution of intelligent humans occurred in fits and starts, and the progress of civilization of homo sapiens was uneven, it seems unlikely that extraterrestrial civilizations proceeded in the same timeline and pace as humans. If extraterrestrial civilizations evolved, they are more likely to be ahead or behind the evolutionary, scientific, and technological development of human civilization. Therefore, to have two or more extraterrestrial civilizations at the same stage of development at the same time is highly unlikely.

If you think about where human civilization was at the beginning of the 20th century versus where we are at the beginning of the 21st century, we will probably have little interest in communicating with an earlier 20th-century civilization and probably no interest in communicating with a pre-20th-century civilization. After all, they had no radio or television, no air or space flight, automobiles were newfangled and scarce, electrification and the utilization of fossil fuels was just beginning, industrialization was just starting, and labor was a crude and brute force process. And where will we be at the end of the 21st century? Anyone living today would probably not recognize our civilization at the end of the 21st century due to our rapid advancement of science and technology. And other advanced extraterrestrial intelligent life would probably have the same attitude about communicating or visiting us.

Given the above, I believe that extraterrestrial civilizations that coexist in the same timeframe as ourselves are a possibility but are not very probable. If there were extraterrestrial civilizations that exist in the same 100-year time frame, it might even be impossible for us ever communicating with them, let alone visit them as I examine in my next Chirp “08/16/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Trois – Communicating or Visiting with Intelligent Life”.

08/14/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Un – The Rise of Intelligent Life

In my Science Articles, “Intelligent Life in the Universe”,  “The Probability of the Evolution of Life and Intelligent Life”, and “The Fire of Mankind”, I examine the possibilities and probabilities of intelligent life in our universe. A brief outline of the factors needed to produce intelligent life is:

1. The Planetary System must be in the right goldilocks galactic location in the right kind of galaxy.
2. A Planetary Nebula with sufficient mass to collapse into a star and with the heavy element’s requisite for life.
3. The Planetary System with the right arrangement of planets in the planetary system, i.e., terrestrial planets close in and gas giants further out.
4. A terrestrial planet of the right size and gravity and a goldilocks stable orbit around the star.
5. A terrestrial planet with the proper rotational axis and diurnal period of the planet.
6. A terrestrial planet with a Magnetosphere to deflect extraterrestrial radiation.
7. A terrestrial planet with the proper atmosphere conducive to life, i.e., sufficient nitrogen and not too much or too little oxygen and carbon dioxide, and only trace amounts of other gases.
8. A terrestrial planet with large quantities of surface water.
9. A terrestrial planet in which the Planetary Nebula molecular chains are seeded on the planet and which has terrestrial triggers for microbial life to form.
10. A terrestrial planet where asteroid and meteor bombardment does not massively destroy life or evaporate surface water.
11. A terrestrial planet with a large moon that exerts tidal forces on the water and mantel of the planet.
12. A terrestrial planet with plate tectonics for continents to form and geothermal energy and heavy elements to be released from the core of the planet.
13. A terrestrial planet with Insufficient volcanic activity and other geological or meteorological forces destructive to life or the evaporation of surface water.
14. One or more evolutionary triggers for complex life to form.
15. A complex life form with dexterous fingers and opposing thumbs to manipulate objects.
16. The rise of a bipedal species with dexterous toes for bipedal balance control.
17. An enhanced multiple sensory system that are not predominated by one sensory system.
18. The loss of fear and the control over fire.
19. The rise of cooking of food.

When all these criteria factors are met, then intelligent life is possible and indeed probable. However, if any one of these criteria is not met, then intelligent life is less possible and more improbable. If multiple criteria are not met, then the possibility and probability of intelligent life are almost zero. Consequently, although there are a vast number of stars with planetary systems in our Milky Way galaxy, the number of stars and planetary systems that meet this criterion is considerably less but still very large.

In my opinion, it is step eleven (a large moon that exerts tidal forces) that has a very low probability of occurring. Our moon is unique in the Solar System for the size/mass ratio to its planet. All the other moons in the Solar System have a low size/mass compared to their planet. Therefore, their moons have little tidal forces on their planet, and with little tidal forces, step twelve (plate tectonics) is unlikely to occur.

The Origin of the Moon is usually explained by a Mars-sized body striking the Earth, making a debris ring that eventually collected into a single natural satellite, the Moon, but there are a number of variations on this giant-impact hypothesis, as well as alternative explanations, and research continues into how the Moon came to be. The standard giant-impact hypothesis suggests that a Mars-sized body, called Theia, impacted the proto-Earth, creating a large debris ring around Earth, which then accreted to form the Moon. This collision also resulted in the 23.5° tilted axis of the Earth, thus causing the seasons.

Outer space is vast, even on the scale of the Solar System. To have two such massive bodies collide, such as Earth and Theia, has a low probability. In addition, if Theia had insufficient mass or too large a mass, this collision would not have occurred in a manner that produces a large moon. Also, the angle of the collision could not be too large or too small; otherwise, the creation of an Earth-Moon system with a large moon would not occur. And the result of such a collision that created the proper rotational axis and diurnal period of the planet (step five) also has a low probability. Therefore, the creation of an Earth-Moon system with a large moon seems unlikely to occur in our galaxy, except in rare cases.

Consequently, without step eleven (a large moon that exerts tidal forces) occurring, it is quite improbable that steps twelve through nineteen occurs. We can therefore conclude that the rise of intelligent life in our galaxy occurs infrequently. My next Chirp on “08/15/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Deux – The Timeline of Intelligent Life” examines the question of is their intelligent life in our universe or galaxy that coexists with our own intelligent life?

08/13/21 Standing Armies versus Regular Armies

Our Founding Fathers distinguished between ‘Standing Armies’ and ‘Regular Armies’ in that Standing Armies were posted in and around towns and cities for the purposes of governmental control of the citizens, while Regular Armies were posted in forts and were to be utilized only for the protection of the citizens from foreign invasions or war on foreign enemies.

This was very important to our Founding Fathers, as they experienced the impacts of a Standing Army in the colonies. Standing Armies were utilized to suppress the rights of the people and quell (peaceful) protests against government actions. It was important enough that the addressed this issue in the Constitution; “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” to assure that only one elected civilian person would control the Army, and for Congress “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” with limited funds, scope, and oversight of the Army. This was further reinforced by the adoption of the third Amendment to the Constitution “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Thus, they distinguished between a Standing Army and a Regular Army. Standing Armies were under the control and discretion of their Generals, Governor’s, Lords, or King, while a Regular Army was under the control of an elected President. Standing Armies were not constrained by civilian oversight and funding, but Regular Armies were so constrained.

Today we have the forms of such constraints, but the question is, do we have the substance of such constraints? For the purposes of the remainder of this Chirp, I will be broadening the scope from the Army to the Military.

Our military seems to operate under its own impetuous by means of bureaucratic rules and regulations that have a life of their own. Bureaucratic rules and regulations that deflect, dilute, or delay the President’s directions or orders to conform within their predilections. In addition, The military-industrial complex (MIC) is the relationship between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest that influences public policy. Together, the bureaucratic and the military-industrial complex seem to control the military, rather than Congress and the President, who too often accede to this control. The military also seems to be more interested in its own growth and increasing its power, as well as social engineering, "Political Correctness", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", and "Identity Politics" than defeating our enemies. With many senior military offices retiring to important positions within the military defense industry, or as commentators in the "Mainstream Media", one wonders how much of their later military career has one eye toward their future employment.

Congress and the President have a vested interest in the military via campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex and supporting the military for the purposes of electioneering. Therefore, today, the military seems to be its own force with limited constraints. If this course continues, then we may see a change in the character of the military that allows for a change from a Regular Military to a Standing Military.  And a Standing Military is anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas.

08/12/21 Social Engineering

I have added the term "Social Engineering" to the "Terminology" webpage. Social engineering (political science) is a top-down effort to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale—most often undertaken by governments, but also carried out by media, academia, or private groups—in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population. Social engineering can also be understood philosophically as a deterministic phenomenon where the intentions and goals of the architects of the new social construct are realized. Some social engineers use the scientific method to analyze and understand social systems in order to design the appropriate methods to achieve the desired results in human subjects.

“Social Engineering” requires social control to implement its desired results. And social control requires an authoritative government to impose its mandates. Social Engineering also utilizes the techniques of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, and is often accomplished with the support of  Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media to achieve its goals. It is often driven by an unconstrained vision of America, as explained In the book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell. However, this unconstrained vision is not a vision, but a delusion, and as such, has no chance of success as I have Chirped on, “08/09/21 A Conflict of Visions”. And an authoritative government is antithetical to our Liberties and Freedoms and anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas.

08/11/21 Other People’s Money (OPM) and Other Person’s Impacts (OPI)

It is very easy for Congress to tax and spend Other Peoples Money. It is just as easy for Congress and the Executive Branch to create laws, rules, and regulations that have impacts on other people and not themselves. And this OPM and OPI seems to be the modus operandi of our current government actions, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”.

Too often, when government creates these laws, rules, and regulations, they exempt themselves, their friends, and their supporters from the impacts of these laws, rules, regulations (and sometimes taxes) and only consider the positive impacts while glossing over the negative impacts of these laws, rules, and regulations. They almost always never consider the "The Law of Unintended Consequences" in passing these laws, rules, and regulations.

The current proposed Infrastructure legislation is the perfect example of this and is so full of OPM and OPI as to make it impossible to elaborate in this Chirp. The other problem with this legislation is that it not only spends and taxes OPM, but that it spends and taxes future generations OPM by increasing the National Debt. And these future debt payments will impact future OPI.

This proposed Infrastructure legislation is also a perfect example of trying to pass legislation without sufficient time to review the proposed legislation. This is done to blunt any criticism of the OPM and OPI that is contained in the legislation. Not only does this not allow sufficient time for the members of Congress to review the legislation, but it does not allow the public to understand what is in the legislation so that they may express their views on the proposed legislation to their elected representatives. Consequently, it does not allow for ‘disinfection’ by ‘sunshine’ to expose any pernicious OPM and OPI or any possible unintended consequences of the legislation. It is also another example of unrelated spending within legislation, as I have Chirped on, "03/04/21 The Pork is Back!".

To claim that this legislation is bipartisan is insufficient grounds to support this legislation. Just because legislation is bipartisan does not lessen nor justify OPM and OPI and unrelated spending. This legislation, and the other legislation, that has OPM and OPI and unrelated spending increases the National Deficit and Debt is a disgrace and potentially (and probably) portends an economic calamity in the future. We must reign in this OPM and OPI legislation or suffer consequences that have and will impact our future Liberties and Freedoms, as examined in the article, “A Deficit of Clear Thinking About Loss of Freedom” by Richard M. Ebeling.

08/10/21 O Brave New World

“O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.”
— William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, ll. 203–206

Shakespeare's use of the phrase is intended ironically, as the speaker (Miranda) is failing to recognize the evil nature of the island's visitors because of her innocence. Indeed, the next speaker replies to Miranda's innocent observation with the statement, "They are new to thee..."

Three books of modern English literature and a ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ storyline examine this brave new world and its consequences. My new Article, “O Brave New World”, examines these books and this storyline, and how the "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" policies are drifting us toward these results.

08/09/21 A Conflict of Visions

In A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell, the distinguished economist, and social commentator, explains that there are basically two visions on how to achieve a more equitable society; the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. While there are many variations of how to achieve this goal by each vision, each variation has a basis in either the constrained vision or the unconstrained vision. The proponents of each vision rarely understand the basis of the vision of the other, and as a result, the two sides often talk past each other because their visions and understandings differ.

Both visions are concerned with the betterment of society and humankind. However, the constrained vision hopes to accomplish this goal by assuring an equitable process that allows everyone to achieve their individual needs, while the unconstrained vision hopes to accomplish this by assuring an equitable outcome for everyone to achieve their needs. The constrained vision accepts human nature as it is and attempts to utilize human nature to better the process of achieving a better society, while the unconstrained vision believes that human nature can be molded and perfected to achieve a better society.

The constrained vision restrains governmental actions and sets boundaries of marketplace activities to allow each individual to make their own decisions within the restraints and bounds, while the unconstrained vision requires the government to make (many) unrestricted governmental actions and direct marketplace decisions for the good of all, as I have explained in my Article, "Greater Good versus the Common Good". The constrained vision believes that no person or groups of persons have the knowledge or wisdom to direct the economy or should have governmental control of the economy or society, while the unconstrained vision believes that an intellectual and moral person or persons can make better economic decisions for the individual and should have governmental control of society to institute their decisions. The constrained vision believes in a republican constitutional interpretation, while the unconstrained vision believes in a democratic constitutional interpretation, as I have explained in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

These two different visions lead to two different modus operandi of society and government. Equality, Power, and Justice mean two different things in each vision. When one side speaks of these terms, the other side does not understand their side's meaning, and the other side often interprets them with their own meaning of these terms. Thus, the two sides often talk past each other by not having a common meaning and understanding of these terms.

I would encourage everyone to read this book to understand both visions and the motivations that drive each vision. As the New York Times Book review has stated about this book – “Extraordinary on several counts… There is nothing tendentious or one-sided about his argument… He makes his case fairly, lucidly, and persuasively.”

I believe that the unconstrained ideology is not a vision but a delusion, as six million years of evolution has molded human nature, and a few decades or centuries of remolding cannot change this evolution of human nature. In addition, our society and economy are so large, and the interactions between their components are so complex and varied that it is not possible for a person or persons to be able to predict the consequences of their decisions. And all such decisions are subject to "The Law of Unintended Consequences". The hubris and arrogance of those that believe they can do so is so astounding that it calls into question their intelligence and wisdom.

The history of the 20th century has also demonstrated the tragic consequences of trying to mold human nature and direct the economy. Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and other socialistic forms of governance were all based on an unconstrained vision with a remolding of its citizens and directing economic decisions. And this unconstrained vision brought forth despotism, death, disease, destruction, economic depression, and misery to those humans that lived under this (unconstrained) delusion.

In today’s society, the "Progressives/Leftists" operate under the unconstrained vision, while the "Constitutional Conservatives" have a constrained vision. The Democrat Party represents this unconstrained vision, while the Republican Party (mostly) represents the constrained vision. And this is a basis for the bitter partisanship we see in American government, as each vision is mutually exclusive to the other vision.

In my new Article, “O Brave New World”, I examine three books, ‘Brave New World’, ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’. and ‘Animal Farm’ as well as a ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ storyline on ‘The Borg’, that can show the tragic end results of the unconstrained vision, and how we in America are drifting toward this unconstrained vision.

08/08/21 A True Insurrection

The Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, has often been described as an ‘Insurrection’ as I have Chirped on, “04/19/21 Insurrection” and has resulted in the consequence as I Chirped on, "06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?" and "07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?". As feeble as this ‘Insurrection’ was, a not so feeble and quieter insurrection is occurring in Washington D.C...  A slew of Executive Orders that have a dubious constitutional basis, the COVID-19 mandates, the non-enforcement of our immigration laws, the ignoring of Constitutional issues by the Supreme Court, and the supineness of Congress to these actions is all an insurrection against the Constitution.

Our Constitution was drafted to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms by creating a ‘Limited and Enumerated’ government, reined in by the ‘Checks and Balances’ of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. When these things no longer occur, then our Constitution collapses, and we have a transmogrification into another form of governance.

When Congress exceeds its ‘Limited and Enumerated’ lawmaking powers and the Supreme Court defers to this excess; when Congress delegates its duties and responsibilities to the Executive Branch in the creation of rules and regulations; when the Executive branch issues Executive orders beyond its Constitutional powers or ignores or reshape laws passed by Congress; when the Supreme Court will not undertake nor rule on contentious constitutional issues; and when each branch of government takes no actions to prevent these excesses of the other branch, then each branch of the Federal government is not exercising the ‘Checks and Balances’ needed to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. When the American people allow this to happen, they are allowing for the erosions of their Liberties and Freedoms.

The history of 20th and 21st century America has seen this slow transmogrification of America, but the last several months have seen the rapid transmogrification of America. One particular incidence has been highly illuminative and egregious. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) issued a Tenant Eviction Moratoria, the Supreme Court ruled that this moratorium was unconstitutional, and shortly thereafter, the CDC extended the moratoria in a blatant exercise of raw power without a constitutional basis. The Supreme Court should have immediately reconvened and vacated this moratorium, members of Congress should have been outspoken and threaten action against the CDC, and the President should have immediately withdrawn this moratorium. As Rob Natelson has stated in his article, “Tenant Eviction Moratoria Are More Than Unconstitutional; They’re Insurrectionary”, “State and federal tenant eviction moratoria go beyond “unconstitutional.” They’re a direct assault on the constitutional order itself. They represent insurrection from above.”, and “These orders, federal and state, and not merely unconstitutional. They are fundamentally anti-constitutional. They are at war with a fundamental reason the Constitution was adopted. The framers never would have drafted a constitution permitting eviction moratoria. And if they had, the American people never would have ratified it.” Consequently, this moratorium and the non-reactions by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government is a governmental insurrection against the Constitution.

Another insurrection against the Constitution is the arbitrary mandates that were imposed by Governors’ and local officials to control the COVID-19 Pandemic and force involuntary vaccinations by both government and businesses as I have Chirped on, “07/29/21 Proof of Immunity”. Not only were these mandates medically dubious, but they constricted our Liberties, Freedoms, and Constitutional Rights, and they were not crafted nor enforced in accordance with Constitutional processes.

An even larger insurrection against the Constitution is the illegal immigration that is occurring on our southern border. Our immigration laws are not being enforced, the Coronavirus Pandemic restrictions on these illegal immigrants are being ignored, and the illegal immigrants are being dispersed across America, which spreads disease and crime, as well as additional costs for social services. And the non-reactions by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government to this situation is a governmental insurrection against the Constitution.

The fact that many elected politicians, appointed officials, bureaucrats, and activists prefer these end results is not a sufficient reason to ignore the Constitution. If you prefer these results, you should be utilizing the Constitutional process of changing our laws to achieve these results and not ignoring the Constitution to achieve these results. And in changing any laws, such changes to the laws must be Constitutional.

Given that elected politicians and appointed officials take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, it may well be time to have an insurrection for the Constitution and against the government that is not upholding the Constitution.

08/07/21 A Loss of Perspective

With the New York Attorney General's findings on the sexual harassment actions of Governor Cuomo, the hue and cry for his resignation have risen. Although I believe he should resign, that is not his most serious offense that should have brought about his resignation. With the deaths of thousands of his citizens from the COVID-19 Pandemic because of his nursing home orders, and then the covering up of the cause of these deaths, he has committed a more grievous offense that should have required his immediate resignation. However, the hue and cry for his resignation because of these deaths was less loud and of a shorter duration.

These occurrences highlight an appalling trend in modern American society – A Loss of Perspective on importance. A Loss of Perspective that is predominant with Progressives/Leftists and being driven by ideology and power politics. The traditional values of murder, rape, assault, arson, robbery, theft, burglary, property destruction, and looting, etc. are serious crimes engendering serious consequences are being replaced with the violations of Progressives/Leftists values of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, as being more serious, and more worthy of consequences, than traditional values.

The mob violence that occurred throughout American cities in 2020, and the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, are other examples of this Loss of Perspective. The rioters of 2020 were treated with kids gloves by elected officials and law enforcement, and were verbally supported by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", and suffered few legal consequences for their action, while the Capitol rioters were severely and consistently condemned by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and are facing the full prosecution of the law as I have Chirped on “07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards”.

For Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seriousness is defined by what supports or opposes their political power. Only when their political power is endangered, or their political power is enhanced do they consider words and deeds serious and then act. And their words and deeds are only to preserve, protect, or enhance their political power. These are the responses of despots and another example of the Anti-Americanism of the modern Democrat Party, as I have stated in my Article, "J'accuse!".

This Loss of Perspective leads us down the slippery slope to despotism. Americans need to regain their perspectives to retain their "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". To not do so is to give up on our American Ideals and Ideas and to submit to the will of the power-seekers.

08/05/21 Workplace Reasonable Rules of Conduct

Whenever you are at your workplace, your employer has the right to set reasonable rules of conduct for their employees. One of these longstanding rules has been no politicking and no proselytization. A newer rule has been no discrimination nor harassment. All these reasonable rules have been implemented to assure a harmonious workplace where the employees are focused on the goals of the business and not their own personal propensities.

Today, however, employees believe that they have the First Amendment right to Free Speech in the workplace. I would remind them that their First Amendment rights are for their words and deeds in the public sphere and not the workplace, which is a private sphere. This is especially true for employees in the sports and entertainment businesses who feel free to engage in these activities, as well as employees in the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. 

Often, these employees believe that they have the belief and right to intimidate or harass into conformance, or silence other employees, that do not share their viewpoints. These actions are most often done by "Progressives/Leftists" as they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct. But it is never correct to harass anyone into conformance or silence, especially in the workplace as their livelihood, and thus their family responsibilities could be endangered if they do not conform.

It is also not right to subject an employer’s customers to their viewpoints. A customer has the right not to be inundated by words and deeds of politicking, proselytization, discrimination, nor harassment when engaged in acts of commerce, and this could also negatively impact their employer’s business.

All employees should remember that they are representatives of their employers when they are in the workplace, and they should conduct themselves accordingly.

08/03/21 Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom

I have extracted from my Observations my writings on Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom to create a new Article, “Knowledgeable � From Information to Wisdom”. This article also examines their interrelationships and how each is required to become a better and wiser person.

08/01/21 Justifiable Insurrection

To the question of ‘What constitutes an insurrection?’, the answer is ‘When it is an insurrection to establish Natural Rights or preserve Freedoms and Liberties’. Insurrections are only justified and necessary to accomplish these objectives. It was an insurrection against British rule by the American Colonists, defined by The Declaration of Independence, that established Natural Rights and the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans. And to preserve these Freedoms and Liberties, we established The Constitution of the United States. As long as our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" are retained, and our Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are preserved, then any actions against the United States government is unnecessary and unjustified, and these actions would not be a legitimate insurrection.

In America, we have preserved our Freedoms and Liberties through the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammo Box, in that order, as I have written in my Article "The Four Boxes of Liberty". However, in America of the late 20th century and the 21st century, we have seen the corruption of the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, and the Jury Box. A corruption by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, led by Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party. A corruption that is destructive to our American ideals of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. A corruption that, hopefully, can be corrected by the Ballot Box but may become an insurrection instituted through the Ammo Box.

As I have Chirped on, “07/10/21 The Disillusionment of the Deplorables” and “07/30/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System”, more Americans are losing faith in our government to protect our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and assure our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Consequently, we may be approaching the possibility of an insurrection to retain our American ideals and Ideas. If this should happen, it would be a justified and necessary insurrection, as it would be for the purposes of retaining our Natural Rights and our Freedoms and Liberties. Almost all insurrections are bloody affairs as they sow death, dismemberment, disease, and destruction on all. But not having an insurrection to preserve our Natural Rights and our Freedoms and Liberties would be bloodier and longer-lasting, as a result of a despotic America, as I have written in my Article, “Despotism in America”.

Despotism always begets poverty, hunger, stagnation, and other ills for all who live under despotism, and it is only beneficial to the despots. And despotism eventually results in insurrection as all people have a natural yearning for Freedom and Liberty. If this insurrection should arise in America, it should only be done under the banner of A New Declaration of Independence and A New U.S. Constitution to end these corruptions and reestablish our American ideals and Ideas.

07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System

Increasingly, there seems to be a two-tiered justice and governmental system in which enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations apply to most Americans but not so much to the rich and powerful, politically connected, and protected identity groups. We have also seen the politicization of government agencies along ideological lines. The Judicial branch and the FBI, the intelligence branches, and now the Defense Department are all saturated with Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality as I have written in the "Terminology" webpage.

Democrat politicians and special interest groups have few investigations nor prosecutions taken against them, but Republican politicians and Conservative activists are being actively investigated and prosecuted. Examples of this two-tiered justice are the Nursing home deaths from placing COVID-19 infected patients in the nursing homes, election irregularities if not outright violations of election laws, the perpetrators of the mob violence of 2020 vs. the January 6th, 2021, Capitol ‘insurrectionists’, and the political influence-peddling of Hunter Biden and the Biden family. This can also be seen in the selective prosecutions of the violators of COVID-19 restrictions, such as protest groups violations being allowed, while Religious or other groups of people violations being prosecuted.

Democrat Governors, Attorney Generals, Mayors, District Attorneys, and legislators regularly flaunt the law or refuse to enforce or prosecute persons or groups of persons who violate the law. Police officers are being demonized and defunded, which has a direct negative effect on the middle and lower class but has little impact on the upper class, which can afford their own protection. Add to this list the southern border policies of the Biden Administration, which allow hundreds of thousands of persons to illegally immigrate into America, some of which are drug runners, gang members, human traffickers, and other criminal elements, as well as many being COVID-19 infected for which they face no COVID-19 restrictions that Americans must endure.

Government agencies are instituting ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness’ training, which is more indoctrination of "Progressives/Leftists" ideologies and ideas than diversity or inclusiveness, and it is often is based on White Privilege blaming and shaming. In some cases, they are purging employees that do not acquiesce or conform to their ‘training’. In law enforcement and the military, they are rooting out officers and servicepersons who do not share their Progressives/Leftists viewpoints. Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project are being taught in our public schools, which demonize and denigrate white people and disparage our American history. Government officials and agencies are labeling those that disagree with their Progressives/Leftists ideologies and ideas as extremists or domestic terrorists. They are also investigating them for possible, rather than actual, criminal actions, and often in violation of their "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", as I have written in my Article, “It Appears that I am a DomesticTerrorist”.

All of this begs the question of how much further they will go, or as Victor Davis Hanson has written, “How Much Ruin Do We Have Left?” before the American people stand up and put an end to this nonsense. However, putting an end to this nonsense may require more than just elections, for when a large minority of a population believes that they are being oppressed, they often arise into civil disobedience or civil unrest, which can easily lead to an insurrection.

07/30/21 Social Media and Free Speech

In my Article, “Social Media and Free Speech”, I touch upon Section 230 of the Federal code that deals with "Social Media" content and distribution. The Wikipedia article “Section 230” has more information on this topic, but the actual law, “47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material”, is very readable.

A recent lawsuit by President Trump on his banning on Facebook and Twitter has raised some interesting questions about Section 230. In addition, comments made by President Biden’s Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, have raised concerns about interactions between government and social media. A series of articles by noted Constitutional scholar and lawyer Rob Natelson examines this lawsuit from a legal and constitutional perspective. These articles are “Trump v. Twitter, Part 1: How Social Media Censorship Abuses Federal Law” and “Trump v. Twitter, Part 2: Can a Private Company Violate the First Amendment?” and “Twitter v. Trump, Part 3: Trump’s Best ‘Free Speech’ Claim against Twitter”.

The larger question that this lawsuit raises is what constitutes Free Speech in the 21st century in the era of the Internet? What good is Free Speech if someone or some entity can restrict somebody from reading or listening to your Free Speech (somewhat like the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound")? As the "Social Media" services utilize the free and publicly available Internet as their means of communication, should the Internet be considered as a common carrier? What restrictions on content are constitutional, and how are they are to be applied? Is a company a publisher or a provider, and be treated differently depending upon the answer? And finally, the questions about the impacts on our democracy if censorship or banning of content in Social Media is permitted to continue?

Given these questions, I have rewritten my Article, “Social Media and Free Speech”, to address these questions.

07/29/21 Proof of Immunity

In a previous Chirp on, “07/29/21 The Natural Right of Self-ownership”, I spoke on this right regarding medical procedures. If you have been vaccinated or have a natural immunity to an infectious disease, then it is highly unlikely that you will become infected or infect others. Given this premise, does your Natural Right of Liberty and Freedom preclude the government or employers from requiring proof of immunizations to engage in the normal activities of society?

Unless there is a clear and present danger to others, for the government or employers to require proof of immunizations for infectious diseases is a restriction on our Natural Rights of Liberty and Freedom. At the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic, there was a clear and present danger of becoming infected, or spreading the infection, to others. With the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine and natural immunity and the widespread inoculations that have occurred, it is no longer a clear and present danger to others. It is only a danger to those who have voluntarily chosen not to be inoculated, a danger in which they have assumed the risk of contracting the infectious disease. This is no different from the dangers of contracting or spreading other infectious diseases such as Influenza, Hepatitis, Measles, Mumps, Polio, HIV/AIDS, and Whooping cough, etc...

For the government to require proof of immunizations for any infectious disease requires that the government establish a database of those who have been vaccinated or have natural immunity. A database that would contain private medical information on vaccinations or natural immunities of individuals that would have to be accessible by government agencies and private entities to confirm your status before engaging in the normal activities of society. In lieu of a database, the government would have to require all persons to obtain and retain an identity card with their immunization status and present such a card before engaging in the normal activities of society. Such a database or identity card is abhorrent to a people who believe in Liberty and Freedom. It also could be utilized in the future for nefarious purposes and actions of government or private entities.

Therefore, our Natural Rights of Liberty and Freedom supersede any power of government or employers to require proof of immunizations for infectious diseases.

07/28/21 The Natural Right of Self-ownership

The Natural Right of Self-ownership, also known as a sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one's own body and life. It is this concept that makes slavery and involuntary servitude morally abhorrent. It is repugnant for any person or persons, entity, or government to force you to do something with your body that you are not disposed to do. This concept, however, does not apply to Abortion Rights, as abortion also includes this principle in regard to the unborn child's rights to life as I have Chirped on, “09/22/20 Abortion Articles”.

This leads to the question of how Self-ownership applies to medical procedures. In most cases, Self-ownership means that you cannot be forced to undergo a medical procedure that you do not desire. In some cases, this is not true, such as if you have been legally declared mentally incompetent to make your own decisions, the right of a parent to determine a dependent child’s medical procedures, and if you present a clear and present danger to others as a result of your medical condition (i.e., an infectious disease carrier).

If you have been vaccinated or have a natural immunity to an infectious disease, then you are not a clear and present danger to others, and therefore need not be forced to undergo a medical procedure related to your infectious disease. If you have not been vaccinated or have a natural immunity to an infectious disease, and are exposed to the infectious disease, then you assume the risk of contracting the infectious disease. Consequently, your decision on inoculation is your decision alone because it only impacts yourself, and you have the Natural Right to Self-ownership.

Regarding the current COVID-19 Pandemic and the government’s decision to force inoculations on those people who choose not to have the vaccine or those that have natural immunity but have not taken the vaccination, it is an infringement on their Natural Right to Self-ownership. As such, these government actions, whether through intimidation or coercion, are not acceptable to a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom. No "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" nor "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" to justify the government’s decision to force inoculations is acceptable. Even in the private, public, or commercial sphere, there is no justification to force inoculations upon a person when there is no clear and present danger. For the government to require proof of immunity to conduct private, public, or commercial activities, or to force immunizations upon employees, is another issue of Natural Rights which is the subject of my next Chirp.

Consequently, any government actions to require immunizations is a violation of our Natural Rights and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

07/27/21 Rigged

With the recent results of the election audit in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix, AZ), the question of voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election is again at the forefront. Questions have also been raised again about ballots in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Many claim that these questions are by kooks and conspiracy theorists, but these same people were also those people who claimed the COVID-19 Pandemic originated in a Wuhan China biological lab were kooks and conspiracy theorists (and we all know how that perception has changed) and dismissed their claims.

It is also claimed that there is no proof of irregularities, but without proper and thorough investigations, it is impossible to obtain proof. Many who make this claim have adopted a mantra of "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, and See No Evil" when it comes to the voting irregularities in the 2020 elections. And many of the questions about voting irregularities have occurred in States where the Governor and Attorney General have little interest or motivation to conduct a proper and thorough investigation.

Many also claim that any ballot irregularities are a local problem that did not impact the final results. For those that make this claim, I would remind them:

"I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers— that of laughter."
 - Charles L. Black

And most of "Modern Journalism" has little interest in investigating these voting irregularities, as they prefer the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. However, this is about to change. In a ‘The Federalist’ column, ‘Mollie Hemingway Is writing the 2020 election book the media don’t want you to read’ her forthcoming book was announced. In Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections, Molly Hemingway promises to reveal the backstory of the "devastating triple punch that took down the Trump presidency," Regnery Publishing announced Tuesday. "Americans who feel silenced, subjected, and betrayed are about to learn the truth about a scandalous election," the publisher promises.

Mollie Hemingway is one of America's most respected journalists, is a senior editor at The Federalist, a contributor to Fox News, and the co-author of the #1 national bestseller Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post, and many other outlets. As Molly Hemingway has written in her column:

"My book will contain never-before-told eyewitness stories about what really went down in 2020, not just in the presidential race, but in tight House and Senate races as well. The book will contain analysis of how media and Big Tech oligarchs used their power to control information on the Internet to manipulate people’s behavior before and after the 2020 election. My book will contain not just interviews about the election with top officials from the Trump White House and presidential campaign, but also interviews with Trump himself."

“The bedrock of the American republic is that elections must be free, fair, accurate, and trusted. Election lawyers will tell you that fraud is almost impossible to conclusively find after the fact, and that to fight it, strong rules and regulations are needed on the front end. That’s why Democrats and Republicans fight so bitterly about the rules and regulations that govern the process.”

“What happened during the 2020 election deserves to be investigated and discussed. It must be investigated and discussed, not in spite of media and political opposition to it, but because of that opposition. That is why I am writing a book about what happened before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election.”

I cannot wait for this book to be published, as I expect that it will be factual and authoritative about the irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election.

07/26/21 “J'accuse!” Part Deux

In my Article, “J'accuse!”, I examined how the Democrat Party has morphed itself away from our Founding Fathers Ideals and Ideas in the 20th and 21st centuries. The other part of this morphing is why it occurred. The best explanation I have read or heard is in the article, “How did the Democratic Party of JFK, Bill Clinton turn into a woke neo-Maoist movement?” by Victor Davis Hanson. In another article by Victor Davis Hanson, “How Much Ruin Do We Have Left?” he examines how the current events of the last year and a half are ruining America.

As usual with Victor Davis Hanson, he employs his historical scholarship and wisdom to penetrate to the core reasons of an issue. I would encourage all my readers to review these two articles.

07/25/21 J'accuse!

My last dozen chirps have been about how the Democrat Party has morphed itself away from our Founding Fathers Ideals and Ideas in the 20th and 21st centuries. I have compiled these Chirps into a single Article, “J'accuse!” so that you may have a complete picture of this morphing of the Democrat Party.

07/24/21 The Modern Democrat Party

In my last dozen Chirps, I have examined how the modern Democrat Party has become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. In these Chips, I have written that the Democrat Party has its own ideals and ideas on society and government. However, nowhere are these ideals and ideas written in a Declaration or Constitution that can be rationally debated. Instead, these ideals and ideas are often stated in platitudes, banalities, generalities, clichés, bromides, inanities, hackneyed statements, and trite expressions, which makes them difficult, if not impossible, to critique based on intellectual “Reasoning”. Indeed, many of these ideals and ideas are based on emotional responses, rather than reasoning, to the problems facing America.

And their ideals and ideas are fluid dependent on polling numbers. When the polls turn against them, they claim that they were mischaracterized, misquoted, or they disclaim that they ever express these ideals and ideas. Therefore, their principles are lacking, and their primary motivation seems to be for obtaining and retaining power. While they believe that they are doing what is best for America, it cannot be what is best for America or Americans if it violates our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also need to remember the real answer to the question as to what is best for America and Americans:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
 - Thomas Sowell

As the Democrat Party also believes that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, and that they should be the only ones who decide what is best for America.

Many people believe that the greatest threat to America is either the Russians or the Chinese. However, these treats can be neutralized if the American people have the spirit and will to do so. The greatest threat to America is actually the Democrat Party, as they sap our spirit and will to take the proper steps to counter these threats and solve the problems in America. They are also a threat to our American Ideals and Ideals, as they wish to fundamentally transform America from a Democratic-Republic state to a socialistic state.

It is time for the people of America to educate and rededicate themselves to our American Ideals and Ideas. However, this cannot be accomplished until we turn out the Democrat Party from power, and they can reformulate themselves to our American Ideals and Ideas as our Founding Fathers envisioned them.  Or, in the immortal words of President Lincoln in his dedication speech for the cemetery at the Battle of Gettysburg:

“- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

07/23/21 The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X) of the Constitution is the essential Liberties of all Americans that the government cannot violate. They are based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which in turn were based on our Founding Fathers' beliefs in our Natural Rights. These violations of principles by the British government led to the American Revolutionary War for independence. The Constitution as drafted and passed did not contain The Bill of Rights, as the drafters believed that the Limited and Enumerated Powers clause of the Constitution would be sufficient to prohibit the Federal government from encroaching on these rights. However, many of the Conventions of the States that passed the Constitution insisted on a Bill of Rights, and it was agreed that the first Congress would amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. James Madison (often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution”) distilled hundreds of proposed amendments into twelve proposed amendments, of which ten were passed (see “James Madison's Failed Amendments” for information on the two amendments that did not pass). I have written my own thoughts on the Bill of Rights in the following Articles, which are the basis for this Chirp:

• The Meaning of the 1st and 2nd Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
• The Meaning of the 3rd through 8th Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the third through eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
• The Meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments (Nov 2019) -The Human Rights meaning to the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment freedom of speech is under assault through the actions of intimidation and coercion via Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, and Wokeness. It is also being suppressed with the support of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, as I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?". The freedom of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in American is being restricted to the home and place of worship and not permitted to be exercised in public life or commerce. The right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is being encumbered by rules and regulations as to when and where you may exercise this right. There is also an undercurrent of the fear of intimidation or prosecution if you exercise this right of assembly for non-politically correct ideas or support for candidates that oppose the policies and political goals of "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders".

The Second Amendment is under unrelenting assault by those that believe in gun control, as I have written in my Article, “Gun Control”. Gun control is a belief that is counter to our Natural Right of self-protection, the protection of our families, and the protection of our communities from the actions of criminals, mob violence, foreign invasions, and despotic government actions.  

Amendments Three through Eighth have been eroded by the actions of the government in investigating and prosecuting persons of interest for various statements and actions that may or may not be criminal. Originally these investigations were against suspected terrorists and their supporters, but they have now been expanded to persons who oppose government policies and actions. We have also seen the government investigating then prosecuting persons rather than actions. This is contrary to "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", as actions, not persons, should be the focus of justice. To do otherwise is to engage in a witch-hunt rather than the pursuit of justice.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have often been ignored or bypassed by legal sophistry throughout our history, but with the rise of Progressive thought and Federal government powers in the 20th and 21st century, they have almost become mostly irrelevant.

Today, the Bill of Rights is under assault by the tacit, if not outright support, of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Under the guise of Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, and with the support of Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, the Bill of Rights is being morphed from the protections of the individual against government actions into government actions that limit our individual Natural Rights to what they believe is for the greater good. But the greater good cannot be achieved when Natural Rights are restricted, for when you suppress someone’s Natural Rights, you harm not only the person but society as well. Someone’s Natural Rights may be limited, but only for the purposes of protecting another person’s Natural Rights.

However, the Bill of Rights must never be violated if we are to be a society dedicate to Liberty and Freedom. Therefore, the Modern Democrat Party, through its words and deeds as outlined above, has become Hostile to the Bill of Rights.

07/22/21 The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

In my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”, I describe the two major ways that the Constitution can be interpreted. The question is then, what is the proper interpretation of the Constitution? If you cannot properly interpret the Constitution, then you cannot be a proper defender of the Constitution, and indeed, you will be hostile to the Constitution. My Book It Articles on “07/01/21 The Library of Liberty – Part I” and “08/01/21 The Library of Liberty – Part II” provide a historical perspective on how the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be interpreted, and my Chirp on “07/13/21 ‘Constitutional Originalism’ versus ‘A Living Constitution’” provides some guidance on the proper answer to this question.

In my opinion, a ‘Republican Constitution’ and ‘Constitutional Originalism’ are the only proper way of interpreting the Constitution. Any other way of interpretation leaves the Constitution hallow and meaningless, as each generation of Americans could freely interpret the Constitution in any manner that they so desire. A ‘Republican Constitution’ and ‘Constitutional Originalism’ is built upon a foundation of bedrock, while a ‘Democratic Constitution’ and ‘A Living Constitution’ is built upon a foundation of sand. A functioning government and society need a solid foundation to succeed; otherwise, the underpinnings of society are fluid and susceptible to breakdown and collapse.

A ‘Democratic Constitution’ allows for the violation of an individual's Natural Rights; if the government or the majority makes a determination it is proper to do so for the greater good (see my Chirp terminology definition on "Greater Good versus the Common Good"). Therefore, with this interpretation, the Natural Rights of the individual are subordinate to the rights of a group if the majority so deems, which is the antithesis of our Founding Fathers beliefs on the role of government in society as expressed in The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

and the Preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A ‘Democratic Constitution’ does not recognize ‘certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ nor ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’, but infringes on our unalienable Rights and Liberties.

The ‘Living Constitution’ is a deceptive euphemism, not a coherent theory. Proponents of the “Living Constitution” maintain, at bottom, that the Constitution means whatever five justices want it to mean. This plasticity is necessary, they claim, in order for our society to adapt to changing circumstances. But this claim ignores the broader play that Constitutional Originalism gives to the democratic processes to adapt policies to new conditions. And, by entrenching current policy preferences in the Constitution, the ‘Living Constitution’ approach deprives future generations of the very adaptability that it vaunts.

The Democrat Party has adopted the ‘Democratic Constitution’ as the basis for implementing its political goals and policy agendas, and the ‘Living Constitution’ as a means for the Judiciary to impose its policies and political goals. To accomplish this, the Democrat Party often redefines the meaning of words and/or terms in the Constitution, or it utilizes “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” and “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” to justify the constitutionality of its political goals and policy agendas. They do so to shoehorn their political goals and policy agendas into the Constitution because they realize that many of these goals and policies are incompatible with the Constitutional “Limited and Enumerated Powers” of the Federal government.

Therefore. the Democrat Party is hostile to the American Ideals and Ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And, as such, they are violating their oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’.

07/21/21 The Party of Power

Our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned that power tends to grow at the expense of Liberty. That in human nature power is strong, and Liberty is weak, so, therefore, Liberty must be eternally vigilant to protect against the encroachments of power. By ‘Power’, the Founding Fathers meant Dominion of Government, i.e., the dominance of the people through legal authority. The Founding Fathers also knew that Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy often degenerate into Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Mob Rule, and they wished to protect the people from this degeneration. They, therefore, tried to assure through the Constitution a Democratic-Republic and the Limited and Enumerate Powers of the Federal Government, so that Liberty would be maintained and that we have leaders rather than rulers through free and fair elections.

With the rise of Federal Government powers in the 20th and 21st century, and the actions of Progressives/Leftists of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as well as with the support of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media in condoning this increased Federal government power we are again entering into the anxieties and fears of Power versus Liberty. Many of the fears of the Anti-Federalism during the ratification of the Constitution have come to fruition with this rise in Federal Powers, despite the objections to these fears by the Constitution ratification supporters of “Federalism in the United States”. As a result, our present government is morphing into the Tyranny of Congress and the Presidency, an Oligarchy of appointed officials and the bureaucracies that support them, and a Mob Rule of the majority that does not recognize or countenance the Liberties and Freedoms (i.e., our Natural Rights) of all the people.

As I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", all of this increase of Federal Powers was achieved by Democrats and their Progressives/Leftists agenda. And all of this was obtained and maintained by the misleading and/or ruling of the American people. Consequently, the Democrats wish to be rulers and not leaders. America was not formulated to be ruled but to be led by the will of the people while protecting their Liberties. Therefore, to support the Democrat political agenda and socialistic goals is to be ruled and not led, and to be ruled is antithetical to the ideas of the United States Constitution.

With the administration of President Biden and the (slim) majority of the Democrat Party in Congress, we have seen them try to rapidly expand Federal Powers and to retain and increase their control of Congress, so that they can more easily pass their political agendas and socialistic goals. And these political agendas and socialistic goals all lead to more Federal Powers and the rulership of the Democrat Party over America.

The attempts of the Democrat Congress to pass the 2021H.R. 1 and S. 1 and different variations of this legislation that would federalize elections contrary to Article. I. Section. 4. of the Constitution that states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”, is an attempt to consolidate their powers as I have Chirped on, “03/06/21 Election Integrity – Part Deux”. This legislation would make it easier for them to cheat in elections in the urban areas of America, in which the Democratic Party controls the elections, which de facto makes elections unfree and unfair.

The Democrat Parties' past efforts to legalize illegal immigrants and give them the right to vote is also another attempt by them to obtain and retain power, as they believe that most of these votes would be for Democrat candidates. The Democrat Parties current open borders policy, which has allowed hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of illegal immigrants to enter America, and their subsequent efforts to transport these illegal immigrants to different parts of the country, is also an attempt by them to obtain and retain power if these new illegal immigrants eventually have the right to vote.

Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Power rather than the Party of Leadership in America.

07/20/21 The Party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic

Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others. Capitalism's primary thrust is to provide as many goods and services and in as an expedient and economical manner as possible while rewarding those who provide the goods and services that other people want. No other economic system except Capitalism has succeeded in bringing the people the goods and services they want at a price they can afford or in a timely manner than Capitalism. It has provided growth and innovation that benefits all. Unbridled Capitalism can do harm, but tightly regulated Capitalism can do more harm. We must reach a balance in Capitalism between protecting the people and expanding Capitalism to promote economic freedom and liberty to improve the lot of all the people. Doing so will provide job growth and tax revenues, and therefore a better economic climate for all.

Socialism and Democratic Socialism, wealth redistribution, income inequality, tax the rich, occupy Wall Street, free education, free healthcare, etc., is all the same principle – Socialism or ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.’ To implement these items requires that you take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). And it is accomplished through Government intimidation and coercion through threats of fines and/or imprisonment. The government decides what and how much to take and what and how much to give. This is not the same as taxes, as taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. Therefore, with Socialism, the government is the master of all the citizens, and the citizens are the serfs of the government.

The above two paragraphs are excerpted from my longish Article, “Socialism is Acceptable”. This article also explains why Socialism is immoral, and Capitalism is pro Liberty and Freedom. For a fuller explanation and justification of these statements, I would highly recommend you take the time to read this article.

Today, in America and throughout the world, the belief that Socialism (or Democratic Socialism) is acceptable or viable has gained much traction. To believe this, however, is to ignore history and economic realities. For history has shown that any form of Socialism has economically failed, been oppressive to the Liberties and Freedoms of its citizens, and has impoverished the people within its clutches. While history has shown that Capitalism has economically thrived, liberated people, and raised the standard of living for those within Capitalism.

And much of these Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic ideas are being driven by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders". Indeed, it is only on the Democrat Party side of the isles of Congress you will find any support for Anti-Capitalistic and Pro-Socialistic ideas. Unfortunately, this has been the history of the Democrat Party in the 20th and 21st centuries. Anti-Capitalistic Socialistic ideas that have disguised themselves in noble euphemistic phrases of; Entitlements, The Great Society, The War on Poverty, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Equity, Reparations, Human Infrastructure, etc., all for the purposes of "Greater Good versus the Common Good". All of these actual and proposed policies have a core socialist agenda – to take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). They also have the agenda of making people dependent on government subsidies and garner votes for Democrat Party candidates from those so subsidized. And all these policies have been Democrat Party policies. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic.

07/19/21 The Party of Anti-Economics

From the Wikipedia article on Economics:

“Economics is the social science that studies how people interact with value; in particular, the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behaviour and interactions of economic agents and how economies work. Microeconomics analyzes basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, their interactions, and the outcomes of interactions. Individual agents may include, for example, households, firms, buyers, and sellers. Macroeconomics analyzes the economy as a system where production, consumption, saving, and investment interact, and factors affecting it: employment of the resources of labour, capital, and land, currency inflation, economic growth, and public policies that have impact on these elements.”

Economics is a soft science due to its complexity and numerous interactions between the complexities. It is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to reach sound conclusions or predictions with economics. Economics is also a dynamic science rather than a static science, as a change in one of the complexities or interactions propagates throughout the other complexities or interactions, which then feedback into the other complexities or interactions. However complex and interactive economics is, it is real and important within society, or as the saying goes, ‘money makes the world go round’ - Paul Van Der Merwe.

Every law, rule, or regulation that government creates, modifies, or removes has an economic impact. Whether it is a small or large impact depends on what it impacts and the economic feedback impacts as a result. And all these impacts are subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Given the large size and intrusiveness of the Federal Government, we can safely say that even the smallest addition/change/removal can have a large economic impact due to the propagation effect of economics. Within the Federal Government, the budget, the deficit spending and the debt, the taxing, the expenditures, the laws and regulations, etc., have an impact not only on the Federal government but on all of society. And people and businesses react differently to these changes, which also adds to the economic feedback impacts on society.

And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
  - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

Most Congressional Representatives and Senators often started out in the law or education professions, and many started out as public servants (a nice-sounding term for a career politician). Some have been businesspeople or doctors, while others could be deemed community activists, along with a smattering of other professions. All of these, except the businesspeople, have had professions that are generally insulated from the daily forces of economic commerce. They have not had to meet a payroll nor expend monies for employee benefits, pay governmental business taxes or fees, nor implement governmental regulation into their economic lives. In addition, they have not had to respond to the economic law of supply and demand and competitive pricing. And given my own personal experience, I dare say they have no idea of the complexities of business overhead costs. To these non-businessperson politicians, these are abstracts, while to the businesspersons that are impacted by these laws, rules, or regulations that government creates, modifies, or removes, it is known as ‘The Real World’.

Many of the politicians and bureaucrats who vote for or implement laws, rules, or regulations that impact the economics of society do so primarily for political purposes and pay little heed to economics or engage in wishful thinking about the economic impacts. They pick and choose economists that agree with their policy positions and agendas and discount or ignore economist who disagrees with them. They also rely on static models of economic impacts as these models provide firmer but often less accurate predictions of the economic impacts of legislation and regulations. Alas, so it has been during my entire life. The question is not how to reign in the politicians but how to elect politicians who are more attuned to the economic impacts of government on society.

The answer to the question is for the electorate to pay attention to the economic impacts and ignore the wishful thinking of politicians. Due to the lack of knowledge on economics by the general public, it is often difficult for the general public to separate the wheat from the chaff of what politician says and claims about the economic impacts of their policy positions and political agendas. But the general public can determine the economic impacts by their pocketbook. The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are often at odds regarding governmental tax and spend economic impacts. However, as a generality (which is more or less true depending on circumstances), it can be said that modern America's economic growth and prosperity is greater when the Republicans have the reins of government, while growth and prosperity are often static, modest in growth, or in decline when the Democrats have the reins of government.

This is because the Democrats utilize static modeling to determine economic impacts, and often engage in wishful thinking about economics, and disregard the diverse reactions of people and businesses to their policies. They are also more concerned about public policy agendas at the expense of negative economic impacts, and when negative economic impacts occur, they are inclined to spend more monies to alleviate the negative economic impacts (which rarely works). After negative economic impacts occur, they often make excuses utilizing inane or nonsensical economic platitudes to justify their actions. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Anti-Economics.

07/18/21 The Party of Anti-Americanism

“My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
 - President John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

At one time, the Democrat Party was an American patriotic party, as the above quote illustrates. However, since that time, the Democrat Party has morphed into anti-Americanism in its beliefs. As the Democrat Party has drifted leftward in the last several decades, it has adopted many of the attitudes and language of the Anti-Americanism of the left. Socialism (or Democratic Socialism), anti-capitalism, unlimited free trade, open borders for immigration, and Internationalism have predominated their beliefs and speech. Denigration of American history and America’s achievements have become de rigueur in their words and deeds.

They hold America to a utopian ideal, and when America has not met that ideal, they disparage America. But no country in the world or history of the world has ever met that ideal, nor is it possible to meet that ideal. They do not acknowledge that America has brought forth more Liberty and Freedom, prosperity, and positive advances in the condition of humankind than any other country in the past or present history of the world.

Rather than improve America, they seem to want to ‘fundamentally transform’ America. A transformation for which they have no proof or evidence that it would be better for America and Americans. Indeed, many of their ideas have been shown to be detrimental when implemented in other countries. They are, however, good at making excuses for this detriment in claiming the imperfection of the implementation of these ideas in other countries. However, no idea of social order or government can be perfect as people are imperfect. And many of their ideas ignore or disregard human nature, and any social or governmental policy which does not account for human nature is doomed to failure.

Although the Democrat Party and its supporters profess to be patriotic, it is a patriotism based on their ideals and ideas of a ‘Democratic Constitution’ and a ‘Living Constitution’ which I will discuss in my next Chirp on, “07/21/21 The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution”. Therefore, the Democrat Party and its supporters are not patriotic to American Ideals and Ideas but to their own ideals and ideas.

07/17/21 The Party of Racism

To determine who is racist is to first determine the meaning of racism. The most basic determination of racism is from the great speech of "Martin Luther King, Jr., - I Have a Dream":

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

When a person’s words and deeds are “judged by the color of their skin”, the person so judging them is a racist. When a person does not judge another “by the content of their character”, they may be practicing racism. When the laws, rules, and regulations of government differentiate between people “by the color of their skin”, they are perpetuating racism.

And the Democrat Party has a long and bitter history of racism, as I have pointed out in my Articles, “Slavery and Discrimination Rooted in Party Politics” and “Democrats: The Party of Systemic Racism”. This Democrat Party racism has morphed from overt to covert by the modern Democrats proclaiming themselves as champions in the fight against racism, but their actions reveal the true nature of their racism. The very social programs and policy agendas that they support in this supposed fight against racism are based on racial identity and the bigotry of soft expectations based on race. Social policies that favor one racial group over another are racist, social policies that expect less from one racial group or another are racist, and social policies that place guilt or victimhood on one race or the other are racist. And these social policies are the agenda of the Democrat Party.

The ideas of ‘Critical Race Theory’, ‘The 1619 Project’, ‘Black Lives Matter’, Systemic Racism, Equity, Reparations, Affirmative Action, and Special Benefits or Tax Exemptions based on race are manifestations of the racism of the Democrat Party. They are also antithetic to our American ideals and ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

Therefore, the party of racism in America is the Democrat Party.

07/16/21 The Party of Divisiveness

American is more divisive today than it has been for several decades. The question of the reasons for this divisiveness is important to be answered to mend this divide. Many have blamed President Trump and Republican Party leaders for this divisiveness, while many have blamed President Biden and the "Democrat Party Leaders" for this divisiveness. And they both share in this blame. But the underlying reasons for this divisiveness are the people who believe in “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” and those who espouse these falsehoods.

There is also the difference between Progressives/Leftists and Constitutional Conservatism in their interpretation of the Constitution, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. Progressives/Leftists and Democrats tend to interpret the Constitution in a democratic manner, while Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans tend to interpret the Constitution in a republican manner. A secondary difference is in their style of governance, as I have written in my Article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”, where Democrats tend to rule while Republicans tend to lead.

When you believe something to be true, you act upon these beliefs. If these beliefs are unfounded, then you will take foolhardy actions. As to your beliefs, you should always remember one of my “Truisms”:

"Just because you "believe" something to be true does not mean that you "know" something is true, and just because someone says something is true doesn’t make it true."
 - Mark Dawson

We no longer discuss issues and concerns within America based on “Reasoning” and with proper “Dialog & Debate” but instead argue for the purposes of political gamesmanship and political power. We no longer try to persuade Americans as to our opinions but try to impose our opinions on Americans. Name-calling, pejoratives, and sloganeering are substituted for polite and respectful speech. Compromising and bilateralism are considered a sign of weakness and are not tolerated within the political sphere. Legislation is stalled or discarded if it does not implement one side or the other policy positions. And most importantly, we have forgotten the meaning of Free Speech in America. This is the root cause of divisiveness in America.

While President Trump and Republican leaders have engaged in these activities, it is President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that have utilized the strategy and tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, for the purposes of political gain. The Democrat Party and their supporters often use pejoratives (i.e., Racist, Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, or Bigoted amongst other pejoratives) to characterize their opponents rather than discuss the merits of their policies. The Democrat Party has exhibited that no compromise or bipartisanship is no be allowed, and their attitude toward legislation appears to be that if it does contain all that they want, then the legislation is not to be considered and scuttled. It is also true that the modern Democrat Party is structured on identity politics and the pitting of one group against another to win votes and achieve political power. Victimhood is also part and parcel of the Democrat Party divisiveness strategy, and victimhood requires another group to be oppressors. Consequently, all Americans are divided into groups, and it is possible for an American to be part of multiple groups instead of viewing Americans as part of one group – Americans.

The Democrat Party has forgotten our American Ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” require that each American be treated equally to all other Americans and that Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” means all the people and not groups of people. Therefore, the Democrat Party is the Party of Divisiveness.

07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards

“Rules for thee, but not for me.”

The saying—rules for thee, but not for me—is a common one in reference to politicians, especially so in the case of elected officials who decide that they and their supporters deserve protections the rest of us are to be denied. This most often occurs with special interests groups, campaign contributors, and the rich and powerful. This has been the nature of politicians since time immemorial, and I expect it will always occur now in the future. But Que Sera, Sera (what will be, will be), and this Chirp is not about this type of double standard.

Rather, it is about the hypocrisy of condemning the speech and conduct of the opposition while ignoring the same type of speech and conduct of your supporters. It is also the hypocrisy of establishing laws, rules, and regulations for others while exempting or ignoring these laws, rules, or regulations for themselves. It is also about the hypocrisy of when Congressional leaders of one party wish to conduct business in one manner when they are in power and another manner when they are out of power. And most egregiously, when they decide on whom to prosecute for criminal acts based on their politics. 

The "Democrat Party Leaders" are quick to condemn Republicans and Conservatives when their words and deeds are beyond the pale, but they remain silent or pronounce excuses when Democrats and Progressives/Leftists' words and deeds are beyond the pale. Republicans, however, often condemn fellow Republicans and Conservatives as well as Democrats and Progressives/Leftists when their words and deeds are beyond the pale. And when Democrats do condemn fellow Democrats or Progressive/Leftists, it is because the political heat or poll numbers turn against them, rather than out of principles or convictions.

When Congress passes laws and the Executive branch makes regulations, they often exempt themselves and the Judiciary from these rules and regulations. This is done under the principle that one branch of government cannot interfere in operations of another branch of government, except in the oversight powers of Congress on the Executive Branch and the Constitutionality review powers of the Judiciary. While this is an important principle, it often makes the three branches of government immune from the laws and regulations that the rest of America and Americans must obey (especially workplace laws and regulations). While both Democrats and Republicans do so, it is often the Democrats that expand this principle to arbitrarily immunize themselves from the laws and regulations that the rest of America and Americans must obey.

The other more glaring example of their double standard is in the COVID-19 Pandemic rules and regulations that they imposed upon America and Americans. Notwithstanding the questions of the constitutionality of these rules and regulations, we have often seen the elected and appointed officials ignoring these rules and regulations when it comes to their own or their families’ actions. While some Republicans have done so, it is the Democrats who have most often done so.

When the Democrats obtain control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and/or the Presidency, they often unilaterally modify or ignore the rules and procedures of the Congress and the Executive office to advantage themselves at the expense of the Republicans. And it is often done by the Democrat Leadership without concurrence by Democrat or Republican membership, nor with consultation with Republican leadership. Republicans rarely do this, and when they do this, it is often done by putting it to a vote by all members or with the concurrence of the Democrat Party Leaders.

Some of the more flagrant examples are the changing of filibuster rules and attempting to eliminate the filibuster, the improper utilization of reconciliation to pass legislation, committee rules, and procedures being ignored, Chairpersons of Committees disallowing questions from the Republicans and not allowing due process in the questioning of witnesses before committees, not allowing Republicans to subpoena documents and witnesses, and restricting the scope of investigations to only reveal half-truths. Many of the more flagrant examples of this were during the (two) House impeachment hearings of President Trump, and it can also be seen with the current House investigations of the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as well as the attempts to pass the current President Biden budget and infrastructure spending legislation.

The mob violence of the 2020s, which resulted in deaths, injuries, arson, property destruction, and looting, perpetuated by Progressives/Leftists, was defended by the Democrats, assisted by the actions of Law Enforcement by Democrat Mayors and Governors, and not prosecuted by Democrat local District Attorneys or State Attorney Generals. However, the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by far-right individuals that resulted in trespass, theft, and destruction of property was vigorously confronted by Democrat Congressional Laws Enforcement and is being fully prosecuted, and in some cases, being maliciously prosecuted.

The Democrats are quick to point out the double standards of the Republicans; however, utilizing the bad behavior of one party does not exempt your party from bad behavior. And as the vast majority of the bad behavior falls on the shoulders of the Democrats and not the Republicans, they must shoulder the major responsibility for this double standard. Therefore, the Democrat Party is most often the party that practices a double standard, especially when they control the reigns of power within the government.

07/14/21 The Party of the Rich and Powerful

A recent article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Democratic Party won't admit it's become the party of wealth”, contains some very interesting facts about the wealthy in America. Some of the most salient facts are:

“The two parties are switching class constituents. Some 65% of the Americans making more than $500,000 a year are Democrats, and 74% of those who earn less than $100,000 a year are Republicans, according to IRS statistics.”

“By 2018, Democratic representatives were in control all 20 of the wealthiest congressional districts. In the recent presidential primaries and general election, 17 of the 20 wealthiest ZIP codes gave more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans.”

“Increasingly, the Democrats are a bicoastal party of elites from corporate America, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the media, universities, entertainment and professional sports. All have made out like bandits from globalization.”

And these rich and powerful people and their Congressional districts are isolated from the rest of the (flyover) country. Many of the negative impacts of laws, rules, and regulations do not reach the rich and powerful or their neighborhoods, while many government actions positively impact their wealth and power. Increasingly, there seems to be a two-tiered justice and governmental system in which enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations apply to most Americans but not so much to the rich and powerful Americans. Much Federal legislation has special provisions that provide exemptions (especially for taxes rates and tax exemptions) that benefit the rich and powerful. Special access to Congresspersons and Executive Officers by the rich and powerful is the norm.

And much of this is because of the reach of the Federal Government into the everyday lives and commerce of Americans. The more the Federal Government legislates and regulates our lives and commerce, the more it is in the interests of the rich and powerful to integrate themselves into the halls of Federal government to influence this legislation and regulation. And this growth of the Federal government was and is created and expanded by the Democrat Party in the 20th and 21st centuries. And all of this growth of the Federal government was fueled by Progressive ideology on the role of government in society. A Progressive ideology that was often counter to the American ideals of Limited and Enumerated Powers of Government for the protection of Natural Rights, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, Representative-Democracy, and Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

Therefore, the Democrat Party has become The Party of the Rich and Powerful and shall remain so as long as we have a Progressive Ideology that permeates government.

07/13/21 The Library of Liberty

Our American Ideals and Ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are enshrined in our two founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Yet, very few Americans have read these documents, and fewer still understand their meaning. In discussing this with my cigar-smoking compadres, one of them inquired as to what I thought were the best half dozen or so books that properly expressed our American Ideals and Ideas. The below list from my “Book It” webpage (which reviews these books) and is my recommended reading list on this topic:

• The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition by Bernard Bailyn
• The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom by Thomas G. West
• The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur
• The Constitution: An Introduction by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen
• The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant 3rd Edition by Robert G. Natelson
• The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition by David F. Forte, Matthew Spalding, et al.

These books have helped formulate or crystalized my thoughts in my Miscellaneous Items and History Articles and in my Chirps. They are not political polemics but rational history and distinguished scholarship. Reading these books will give you a firm understanding of what our Founding Fathers believed and what they determined were our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/12/21 ‘Constitutional Originalism’ versus ‘A Living Constitution’

Much has been said over the debate of the interpretation of the Constitution on an ‘originalism’ or a ‘living’ basis. Yet, these terms are not clearly defined and are often defined improperly by each side of the issue.  I recently came across a review by Edward Whelan of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Second Edition by David F. Forte, Matthew Spalding, et al. that succinctly summarized these different viewpoints as follows:

“. . . an underlying battle over the meaning of the Constitution and the power of the judiciary. The major combatants in this jurisprudential battle are originalists, on one hand, and advocates of the “living Constitution,” on the other.

In much the same way that Molière’s character was delighted to discover that he had been speaking in prose all his life without knowing it, most Americans would be surprised to discover that they are originalists. Even some ardent critics of “originalism” haven’t the slightest understanding of what they are criticizing: In a recent debate on the Alito nomination, a lefty law professor arguing against me ridiculously charged that originalists seek a return to the original 1787 Constitution, without any of the amendments, “not even the Bill of Rights!” An anti-Alito editorial in the Boston Globe hinged on a similar mistake.

The term “originalism” merely identifies the traditional, common-sense principle that the meaning of the various provisions of the Constitution — yes, including all those amendments — is to be determined in accordance with the sense they bore at the time they were adopted. This principle, which inheres in the very nature of the Constitution as law, is readily grasped outside the realm of contentious political issues. Virtually everyone will intuitively understand, for example, that the only sensible way to determine what it means to be a “natural born Citizen” — a criterion of eligibility for the presidency — is to look to the sense of that phrase at the time it was adopted.

We originalists understand the Constitution to have created a scheme of representative government in which the vast bulk of decisions are, for better or worse, made by the people through their elected representatives. Judges, under an originalist perspective, can legitimately intervene to override a legislative enactment only when the enactment violates the original meaning of a constitutional provision.

Originalist jurisprudence does not provide an easy answer to every constitutional question, for originalists will differ among themselves on the scope of the rules and principles set forth in the Constitution as well as on subsidiary methodological questions. But originalism provides an objective — and, we originalists maintain, the only legitimate — measure of what the Constitution actually means.

Proponents of the “living Constitution,” by contrast, maintain, at bottom, that the Constitution means whatever five justices want it to mean. This plasticity is necessary, they claim, in order for our society to adapt to changing circumstances. But this claim ignores the broader play that originalism gives to the democratic processes to adapt policies to new conditions. And, by entrenching current policy preferences in the Constitution, the “living Constitution” approach deprives future generations of the very adaptability that it vaunts.

The “living Constitution” is a deceptive euphemism, not a coherent theory. Though intellectually bankrupt, its approach is politically powerful because it promises — and has delivered — results. For decades now, the Left has won through the courts undeserved victories — on matters like abortion, radical secularism, and obscenity — that it could not possibly have won through the political processes. The more unpopular its agenda (same-sex marriage, anyone?), the more dependent it is on judicial usurpation.”

The proponents of a living Constitution often redefine the meaning of words and/or terms in the Constitution to make their interpretations more palatable to constitutional law. In doing so, they often expand or add to the powers and scope of the Federal government and transfer the implementation of policy from the elected representatives in Congress to the unelected Judiciary. This is antithetical to our constitutional division and balance of powers, and it often negatively impacts the liberties of Americans, as I have Chirped on, “06/30/21 Power vs. Liberty”. As such, the living Constitution interpretation needs to be abandoned to preserve our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/11/21 What Was the American Revolution?

We do not celebrate our independence on the day of the signing of the Treaty of Paris (September 3rd, 1783), which recognized America’s independence, but on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed (July 4th, 1776). This is because the American Revolution was not about the War but about a revolution in the ideals of governance. Or, as John Adams wrote to Hezekiah Niles on 13 February 1818:

“The American Revolution was not (a trifling nor) a common Event. It’s Effects and Consequences have already been Awful over a great Part of the (whole) Globe. And When and Where are they to cease?

But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations. While the King, and all in Authority under him, were believed to govern, in Justice and Mercy according to the Laws and Constitutions derived to them from the God of Nature, and transmitted to them by their Ancestors— they thought themselves bound to pray for the King and Queen and all the Royal Family, and all the Authority under them, as Ministers ordained of God for their good. But when they Saw those Powers renouncing all the Principles of Authority, and bent up on the destruction of all the Securities of their Lives, Liberties and Properties, they thought it their Duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen State Congresses, &c.”

Therefore, on Independence Day, we are not celebrating our War for Independence, but we are celebrating our American ideals. The American ideals of Limited and Enumerated Government for the protection of Natural Rights, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, Representative-Democracy, and Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

However, these ideals should not only be celebrated on the Fourth of July but remembered and upheld on all other days of the year, for this is what makes us have a special place in history. A special place because we were founded on these ideals, and we were the first to enumerate these ideals in a constitution for governance. And while we have not always met these ideals, nor have we currently achieved these ideals, we have throughout our history strived to meet these ideals.

07/10/21 The Disillusionment of the Deplorables

Speaking at a fundraiser in New York City in September 2016, Hillary Clinton said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” She then said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change” and “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”, to which I refer to these halves of the Trump supporters as the ranks of the disaffected.

In doing so, she maligned a large percentage of the American population, a large enough percentage that the American people elected Donald Trump as President. Since that time, the "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" have continued to disparage Trump supporters and have actively engaged in ‘Resistance’ to a duly elected President during his time in office. Some, but not all, of their words and deeds were:

• The intelligence services spied upon the Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign under knowingly false pretenses.
• The entrenched bureaucracy & security state subverted Trump from Day 1 by tactics of stalling or evasions of lawful Executive Orders by bureaucratic means and questionable surveillance or investigative practices by the Intelligence Services and Justice Department.
• Allegations of Russian Collusion with Candidate then President Trump were investigated by Congress and a Special Prosecutor for over two and a half years and reported upon almost daily by the mainstream media, with no evidence as a basis, nor was any evidence of collusion uncovered.
• Political appointees were slandered or libeled during their confirmation hearings.
• Congress twice impeached President Trump on dubious merits of questionable constitutionality and, in both cases, a lack of due process for the accused.
• Governmental responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic were unduly restrictive, maddingly inconsistent, and often not in accord with the science, as well as encroaching on our Natural and Constitutional Rights.
• Election rules were changed in an unconstitutional manner and conducted under questionable circumstances that raised doubts about the legitimacy of the election.
• Political violence was and is legitimized and encouraged but not prosecuted when it is conducted by the left, but condemned and prosecuted when it is conducted by the far-right.
• Negative information about Joe Biden and his family's activities was suppressed by the "Mainstream Media" and "Social Media" before the election.
• "Social Media" censors or bans contrary or opposition posts to "Progressives/Leftists" ideology.
• The seriousness of Sexism, Intolerantism, Xenophobism, Homophobism, Islamophobism, Racism, Bigotism, along with other pejoratives, has been marginalized by baseless allegations against those that would disagree with "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" policy agendas.
• The Mainstream Media was a willing accomplice in disseminating these falsehoods and misleading the American public on these issues.

And nobody has been held accountable for these misdeeds (and possibly criminal actions), and anyone who points out these facts is labeled as ‘Kooks’ or ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ and relegated as deplorables not worthy of consideration. Because of the above-outlined words and deeds, the ranks of the basket of deplorables have swelled, while the ranks of the disaffected have diminished by their joining the basket of deplorables. Also, as a result, we have a ‘Disillusionment of the Deplorables’ with the Federal, State, and Local governments in America and society as a whole. A disillusionment that is undermining our cohesion as a society and a disillusionment that is taking hold of a majority of Americans.

Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is being replaced by the government “of the elected and appointed officials, by the bureaucracy, and for the special interests”. Until and unless we change these circumstances, we are in danger of losing our American Ideals and Ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. And if we do not change these circumstances, then we may rip our society apart with ‘the last best hope of earth’ being relegated to the dustbin of history.

07/09/21 COVID-19 Lessons Learned

There are many lessons that can be learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic and our response to it. Some of the most important are:

• Scientists can be wrong, scientists can be political, scientists can be corrupted, and scientists can lie. Science can get it wrong, and sometimes science should fear to tread where angels would never go.
   
• Statistics and probabilities can be manipulated to a predetermined outcome, especially if politics or money is involved, and therefore you should always be wary of statistics and probabilities. And remember:
  
  "All models are wrong, some are useful."
    - George E. P. Box, one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century
   
• When relying on experts to formulate governmental policies, you should always remember that:
  
  "Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
    - Irish editor and writer George William Russell
   
  
• Many politicians and special interests groups will use any excuse to accrue more power to themselves and government at the expense of individual Freedom and Liberty, as the following quote demonstrates:
  
  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that [is] it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not before.”
  - Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of staff to President Obama, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2008.
   
• The American people can be bamboozled, the American people can be driven by fear, and the American people will band together to combat a common threat. However, the American people will not do so for long without reasserting their Liberties and Freedoms.
   
• Whenever the government becomes involved in directing private commerce, it will not end well for the businesses, the consumers, and the general public.
   
• Our economy is complex and interrelated, and government actions and reactions will always have unintended consequences to the economy.
   
• Whenever the government makes decisions about public health, you should be very concerned about your personal health.

These lessons learned are not only applicable to the COVID-19 Pandemic but to all government actions. Let us not forget what has happened and the lessons we have learned, for if we do forget the lessons learned, then:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 - George Santayana

Please note that with this Chirp, I am ending posts on my Coronavirus Pandemic webpage that examined some of these lessons.

07/08/21 It Appears that I am a Domestic Terrorist

President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland have released a blueprint on “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism”. This blueprint contains so many statements that are untrue and ignores many domestic terrorism actions that are true. To properly critique this blueprint requires a lengthy analysis that would point out its inconsistencies, untruths, and possible Constitutional Rights violations of their strategy. However, Nevertheless, I have written a shorter Article, “It Appears that I am a Domestic Terrorist”, that highlights some of the serious flaws within this blueprint and points out some of the egregious statements that have provoked my ire.

As I conclude in this article, the proffers put forth in this blueprint are antithetic to our ideas of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and are not worthy of a people dedicated to Freedom and Liberty. That this was put forth by the President and the Attorney General of the United States is disquieting and cause for alarm for everyone who believes in our Natural and Constitutional Rights. It is also a good example of why Progressives/Leftists and the Democrats are not fit to rule a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom. If these ideas were implemented without the proper safeguards to our rights, they would change the principles of our government and society, and even with the proper safeguards, they would change the character of our country. We would become more of a police state concerned more about words than deeds. Everybody would be looking over their shoulders when they expressed disagreement with the government, in that they may become a suspicious person who the government would investigate for possible domestic terrorism.

As I have, in my Chirps and Articles, raised concerns about our Natural and Constitutional Rights and have warned of the dire consequences of civil unrest and possible civil war if we do not properly address these concerns, I may be considered a rabble-rouser under the precepts of this blueprint. As such, I could possibly be labeled as an agitator of Domestic Terrorism and run afoul of the legal processes outlined in this blueprint.

07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?

Amendment VI of the United States Constitution states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

It has now been six months since the notorious ‘insurrection’ of January 6, 2021, of which I Chirped on, “06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?”. If January 6th was an insurrection, it was most certainly the most enfeeble and incompetent insurrection in history. Very few people were involved in this ‘insurrection’, and none of them had weapons nor explosive devices. The only person who died during this ‘insurrection’ was a protestor shot to death by a Capitol policeman.  Minor damage was done to the Capitol building, and some property was looted or destroyed, for which the persons involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. A few of the ‘insurrectionists’ have been arrested and detained on charges of trespassing, for which they have not been released on bail nor allowed to publicly speak of their actions. Much of the evidence surrounding this event has been withheld from the public, but speculation, falsehoods, and untruths abound.

Six months have passed without a ‘speedy and public trial’ occurring, which in my opinion, is a violation of the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused. A Public Trial would also answer many of the questions and illuminate the facts surrounding this event, which would allow Americans to discover the truths of this ‘insurrection’. It is passed time that the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused be enforced. Let us have this public trial forthwith and allow the American people the ascertain the truths of this ‘insurrection’.

07/06/21 Supreme, But Not Always Right

As I have stated in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", each branch of the Government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, takes an oath of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, and each branch needs to uphold the Constitution as it sees fit. As each branch is co-equal to each other, all three branches have the duty and responsibility to enforce the Constitution. No one branch is supreme in its duty or responsibility to enforce the Constitution. The Supreme Court is only supreme within the Judicial branch. The Supreme Court does have the responsibility to determine if the Legislature or Executive branch is exceeding its authority under the Constitution. Still, it has no authority to create policy or regulations (this is often expressed as the ability to negate a law or piece of the law, but not to create law, rules, or regulations). When the Supreme Court rules outside the boundaries of the Constitution or does not review or rule on constitutional issues (known as Activism or Abdication), it is not upholding the Constitution. Sometimes, the Supreme Court simply gets it wrong. My new Article, “Supreme, But Not Always Right is an examination of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions that have been wrong and that have had negative consequences to our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/05/21 Destroyed from Within

In the words of one of our greatest Presidents:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

And it is from within that we are now being destroyed. Our American Ideals and Ideas of governance are under attack as I have Chirped on, “07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas” and “07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution”. Today’s society is being transformed by the words and deeds of Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, the coercion and suppression of free thought via Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, and Wokeness that is oppressive to the spirit of America, and the governance of America based on Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good that are endangering individual rights and corrupting our civic institutions.

The governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, the southern border crisis, crime in our streets, mob violence, and the encumbrance of a huge national debt upon ourselves and our future generations are destroying America. The utilization of “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” to implement social policy debases our society, and the introduction of ‘The 1619 Project’ and ‘Critical Race Theory (CRT)’ into our history and culture tears apart the bonds that connect us.

And all of this is being driven by  Progressives/Leftists and "Democrat Party Leaders" in their quest for political power to decide what is best for Americans. They also wish to ‘fundamentally transform America into their ideas of equality (i.e., ‘Equity’) and social justice. In doing so, they have forgotten that we are not a democracy but a republic where majority rule cannot contravene the Natural and Constitutional Rights of the minority. To do so, they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have discussed in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". And they would implement de facto despotism to accomplish their policies and political goals.

To stand up for our American Ideals and Ideas does not make you Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, or Bigoted, etc. It makes you patriotic, but not in the form of my country right or wrong but my country because it espouses the best principles of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and constantly tries to achieve these goals. It is, therefore, the patriotic duty of every American to oppose all who espouse contrary ideals and ideas to our American Ideals and Ideas as I have Chirped on, “07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas” and “07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution”.  If we do or not do so, then as Abraham Lincoln said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”.

07/04/21 Documents, Letters, and Speeches on American Ideals

With Independence Day upon us, I would recommend you take the time and effort to read some of the most important Documents, Letters, and Speeches in American history. My list is the following:

• A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.
• The Declaration of Independence
• The United States Constitution
• The Bill of Rights
• Other Constitutional Amendments

• "Franklin's Speech to the Constitutional Convention"
• "Franklin's Letter to Ezra Stiles"
• "Franklin's Excellent Use of Moral Equivalency on Slavery"
• "From George Washington: To B. Franklin"
• "Washington Prevents the Revolt of His Officers"
• "Washington's Inaugural Address"
• "Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation"
• "Washington's Farewell Address"
• "Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech"
• "Lincoln's A House Divided Speech"
• "Lincoln's First Inaugural Address"
• "Lincoln's Message to Congress in Special Session"
• "Lincoln's Proclamation of Thanksgiving"
• "Lincoln's Gettysburg Address"
• "Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address"
• "William Tecumseh Sherman to Atlanta: "War Is Hell"
• "FDR Four Freedoms Speech"
• "Kennedy's Inaugural Address"
• "Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream"
• "Reagan Inaugural Address"

07/03/21 The Ideas and Ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution

I have often written in my articles and Chirps about our American ideals and ideas. But what are these American ideals and ideas? The answer is that The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the idea of how to implement our ideals. I have touched upon these American ideals and ideas in many of my Chirps and a few Articles as I have Chirped on, “07/02/21 American Ideals and Ideas”. However, these articles and Chirps do not do justice to our American ideals and ideas.

Our American Ideals and Ideas of “Life, Liberty, Property, and The Pursuit of Happiness “ and “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are enshrined in our two founding documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Yet, very few Americans have read these documents, and fewer still understand their meaning. The following three books are the best guides to our American Ideals and Ideas:

• The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom by Thomas G. West
• The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur
• The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant 3rd Edition by Robert G. Natelson

These books examine the understanding of our Founding Fathers on Natural Law and Natural Rights and how they based their understanding in the crafting of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. After reading these books, you will know and understand these documents and their importance in both yesteryear and today’s society. My newest Book It Article, “07/01/21 The Library of Liberty - Part I”, is an overview of these books.

07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas

Many Americans do not know or have forgotten the ideals and ideas upon which our country was founded, or as I have said, “The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals.”. However, these ideals and ideas have several interpretations and meanings that often are contradictory or contentious or fraught with misunderstandings of the founders’ intentions. Some of the most misunderstandings, contradictions, and contentiousness, along with the Articles or Chirps that I have written (within parentheses) on these topics are:

• Natural Rights and Natural Law in society, governance, and law.
  (“A Hierarchy of Rights” and "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights")
   
• What constitutes a Just Government and a Just Society?
  (“A Just Government and a Just Society”)
   
• The Conflicts of Individual Liberties and Freedoms in a Social Compact of government.
  (“06/17/21 Conflicts of Individual Liberties and Freedoms versus Government”)
   
• The place of Religion, Morality, Ethics, and Virtue within government and society.
  (“10/14/19 Doing Nothing Illegal”, “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society”)
   
• A Republic or a Democratic interpretation of the Constitution.
  “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”
   
• The Precepts of a Civil Society.
  ("A Civil Society")
   
• The Importance and Assurance of Equalities and Equal Justice for All in governance.
  (“Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America")
   
• The Duties and Responsibilities of government in Crime and Punishment.
  (“06/15/21 Crime and Punishment”)
   
• The Role and Responsibility of government in Public Education and Public Welfare.
  (“Indoctrination versus Education”, “03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?”, and “Entitlements”)

07/01/21 A Hobbesian or a Lockean Government

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English political philosophers of who our Founding Fathers were very aware. Their awareness of these political philosophies was central in the creation of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Both philosophers have diametrically opposed ideas on the structure and role of government. Some passages from the Wikipedia article on the philosophers is illuminative:

“Thomas Hobbes (sometimes known as Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; 5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy. Hobbes is best known for his 1651 book Leviathan, in which he expounds an influential formulation of social contract theory. In addition to political philosophy, Hobbes contributed to a diverse array of other fields, including history, jurisprudence, geometry, the physics of gases, theology, and ethics, as well as philosophy in general.”

“Hobbes, influenced by contemporary scientific ideas, had intended for his political theory to be a quasi-geometrical system, in which the conclusions followed inevitably from the premises. The main practical conclusion of Hobbes' political theory is that state or society cannot be secure unless at the disposal of an absolute sovereign. From this follows the view that no individual can hold rights of property against the sovereign, and that the sovereign may therefore take the goods of its subjects without their consent. This particular view owes its significance to it being first developed in the 1630s when Charles I had sought to raise revenues without the consent of Parliament, and therefore of his subjects.”

“John Locke FRS (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism". Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon, Locke is equally important to social contract theory. His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American Revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. Internationally, Locke’s political-legal principles continue to have a profound influence on the theory and practice of limited representative government and the protection of basic rights and freedoms under the rule of law.”

As can be seen from the above, Hobbes believed that a strong, undivided government should be hieratically structured with rule by an absolute sovereign, while Locke believed that Natural Rights and Freedoms of all persons were essential and that government is instituted to protect these rights and subject to the will of the people. While both Hobbes and Locke agreed that government was a social contract for the foundation and structure of society and legitimate government, they disagreed on the manner of government. Our Founding Fathers obviously disagreed with Hobbes's philosophy while embracing Locke’s philosophy.

Much of the modern struggle of governance in America, and the rest of the world, is the conflict of these two visions of government. And that struggle is apparent in today’s America when you analyze the basis of the partnership between the Democrat and Republican parties. While both claim that they are interested in doing what is best for the American people, their approach is diametrically opposite. The Democrat Party has a Hobbesian approach of a strong government that can direct the people and that group rights are paramount, while the Republican Party has a Lockean approach that the people will direct the government while individual rights are paramount.

06/30/21 Power vs. Liberty

In my Book It of “06/01/20  Freedom and Liberty”, I recommend the book The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition by Bernard Bailyn. After rereading this book, I thought it should be highlighted in this Chirp. The back flap of this book states:

“The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, awarded both the Pulitzer and the Bancroft prizes, has become a classic of American historical literature. Hailed at its first appearance as “the most brilliant study of the meaning of the Revolution to appear in a generation,” it was enlarged in a second edition to include the nationwide debate on the ratification of the Constitution, hence exploring not only the Founders’ initial hopes and aspirations but also their struggle to implement their ideas in constructing the national government.

Now, in a new preface, Bernard Bailyn reconsiders salient features of the book and isolates the Founders’ profound concern with power. In pamphlets, letters, newspapers, and sermons they returned again and again to the problem of the uses and misuses of power―the great benefits of power when gained and used by popular consent and the political and social devastation when acquired by those who seize it by force or other means and use it for their personal benefit.

This fiftieth anniversary edition will be welcomed by readers familiar with Bailyn’s book, and it will introduce a new generation to a work that remains required reading for anyone seeking to understand the nation’s historical roots.”

In this book, the author relates that our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned that power tends to grow at the expense of liberty. That in human nature power is strong, and liberty is weak, so, therefore, liberty must be eternally vigilant to protect against the encroachments of power. By ‘Power’, the Founding Fathers meant Dominion of Government, i.e., the dominance of the people through legal authority. The Founding Fathers also knew that Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy often degenerate into Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Mob Rule, and they wished to protect the people from this degeneration. This book probes the anxieties and fears our Founding Fathers had about power by examining the pamphlets and books that they wrote and read prior to the Declaration of Independence.

Whenever I read American history, I keep one eye firmly on the historical events and the other eye on our current events to determine if there are similar circumstances in America. Our present situation is analogous to that of the Colonists prior to The Declaration of Independence. At that time, the Colonial Tories believed in the powers and rulership of government, while the Colonial Patriots believed in the limitations and leadership of the government. The Colonial Tories believed in a government of a King, Nobility, and the Common people that checked each other’s powers to preserve liberty, while the Colonial Patriots believed that this system had been corrupted at the expense of Liberty and the Common people and that it needed to be reformed or replaced.

With the rise of Federal Government powers in the 20th and 21st century, and the actions of Progressives/Leftists of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as well as with the support of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media in condoning this increased Federal government power we are again entering into the anxieties and fears of Power versus Liberty. Many of the fears of the Anti-Federalism contingent during the ratification of the Constitution have come to fruition with this rise in Federal Powers, despite the objections to these fears by the Constitution ratification supporters of “Federalism in the United States”. As a result, our present government is morphing into the Tyranny of Congress and the Presidency, an Oligarchy of appointed officials and the bureaucracies that support them, and a Mob Rule of the majority that does not recognize or countenance the Liberties and Freedoms (i.e., our Natural Rights) of all the people.

As I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", all of this increase of Federal Powers was achieved by Democrats and their Progressives/Leftists agenda. And all of this was obtained and maintained by the ruling of the American people. Consequently, the Democrats wish to be rulers and not leaders. America was not formulated to be ruled but to be led by the will of the people. Therefore, to support the Democrat political agenda and social engineering goals is to be ruled and not led, and to be ruled is antithetical to the ideals of the United States Constitution.

Let us hope that we can redirect our government and people through persuasion and the ballot box back into our founding ideals and ideas of Limited and Enumerated Government for the protection of Natural Rights, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, Representative-Democracy, and Government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. If not, we may be faced with the same problem that the American colonists had with the British government, and we may need to take the same actions as the colonists took to preserve their Liberties. Or, as one of our Founding Fathers said:

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

06/29/21 Are We Condemned to Repeat It?

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
 - Edmund Burke

With this quote in mind, we can learn from history as to our present circumstances. The history we can learn from is the Continental Congresses during the founding of our country:

The First Continental Congress was a meeting of delegates from 12 of the 13 British colonies that became the United States. It met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after the British Navy instituted a blockade of Boston Harbor and Parliament passed the punitive Intolerable Acts in response to the December 1773 Boston Tea Party.

They drew up a Petition to the King pleading for a redress of their grievances and repeal of the Intolerable Acts. That appeal had no effect, so the colonies convened the Second Continental Congress the following May.

The Second Continental Congress was a meeting of delegates from the Thirteen Colonies in America that united in the American Revolutionary War. It convened on May 10, 1775, with representatives from 12 of the colonies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shortly after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, succeeding the First Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia from September 5 to October 26, 1774. The Second Congress functioned as a de facto national government at the outset of the Revolutionary War by raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats. All thirteen colonies were represented by the time the Congress adopted the Lee Resolution, which declared independence from Britain on July 2, 1776, and the Congress agreed to the Declaration of Independence two days later.

They, again, wrote petitions such as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms and the Olive Branch Petition, which were again ignored.

The lesson to be learned is from the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
 - The Declaration of Independence

When the government infringes on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the people, and pays no heed to their protestations, then the people have the moral right and duty to alter or to abolish the government and to institute a new Government. This is the case with today’s government, as I have stated in the ‘Particulars’ of my "A New Declaration of Independence". Such has been the patient sufferance of many Americans, and unless and until Congress and the President respond to these ‘Particulars’, we need to continue our repeated protestations and electioneering for candidates that support reforms that address the ‘Particulars’. However, if these concerns are not addressed, then we may need to alter our government, and it may be necessary, as Thomas Jefferson expressed in his view, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical".

For those that would respond that most of the American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservations of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to our American ideals. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not – as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those that are resisting governmental actions that disregarded or abrogated our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural and Constitutional rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural and Constitutional Rights.

Let us then remember our past and apply the lessons of the past to our current situation. Otherwise:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 - George Santayana

06/27/21 Religion, Morality, Ethics, and Virtue within Government and Society

“I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men!”
 - Benjamin Franklin

Today Benjamin Franklin is primarily thought of as Deist, and there is no doubt about his belief in Deism as he stated this in his autobiography. However, his Deism beliefs changed as a result of his involvement in the American Revolution and our founding, as reflected in the above quote. Franklin adhered to a religion that might be called doctrineless, moralized Christianity, as exemplified in the following quote:

“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.”
 - Benjamin Franklin

Many of our Founding Fathers were religious, and of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees. Yet, they all understood that one’s religious beliefs were personal and not to be dictated by anyone nor any government. This is why the Freedom of Religion was integral to the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Morality, Character, and Virtue were equally important as Religion to our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers held a specific meaning of these words:

• Morality - Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
• Character - The inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions.
• Virtue - The quality of doing what is right and avoid doing what is wrong.

Of these, Virtue was the most important for elected and appointed officials, as well as public servants, to practice in their public duties. Virtue was also important for the people to practice in order to retain our Liberties and Freedoms.

My new Article, “Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society” examines these qualities and their importance in American society.

06/25/21 Negative and Positive Rights

America was founded on the concept of Natural law and Natural Rights to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms for all. Natural Law is the belief that certain laws of morality are inherent by human nature, reason, or religious belief and that they are ethically binding on humanity. Natural Rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Natural Rights are those endowed by birth and are to be protected by the government. These Natural Rights include life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Human rights, on the other hand, are rights deemed so by society. In America, these Human Rights are our Constitutional Rights that cannot be violated by our government. The concept of negative law is related to the concept of Human Rights. Civil Rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of civil rights. Negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either inaction (negative rights) or action (positive rights). These obligations may be of either legal or of a moral character.

Until the 20th-century, American governmental policies were based on negative rights, but with the Progressivism of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, we morphed governmental policies into positive rights. With the support of progressive Congresses and of liberal Supreme Court rulings, these changes were codified into the law on dubious constitutional grounds. Grounds that were not based on our founders' intentions but based on a substantive reinterpretation of the Constitution as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. In doing so, we changed from a society based upon individual identity into a society based on group identity.

By Congress passing positive rights laws (i.e., "Entitlements") and laws creating extensive permissions and regulations in the ordinary conduct of our lives and commerce, we have constricted our Natural Rights and, therefore, our Liberties and Freedoms. Positive rights laws often entail violating negative rights as if you favor some group or groups, you inherently disfavor another group. We have also seen an effort to remold our social character into collectivism versus individualism and group think rather than free thought. This is evidenced by the actions of, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage; Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good. All of these items are an attempt to ‘fundamentally transform’ our country into a more utopian ideal that is antithetical to our founding ideals of Liberties and Freedoms for all.

As I have stated, if you put the primacy of positive rights over negative rights, it requires that you favor one group over another in our laws and often requires that you redistribute monies from those that have earned the monies to those that we deem entitled to “equity”. The inequity of “equity” is that it is a violation of our Natural Rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. To redistribute monies violates the principle so eloquently expressed by one of our greatest Presidents:

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

To ignore this principle is to invite chaos into our society, as:

“The opposite of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is not some sort of transcendent political perfection. It is death, slavery, destitution, and misery.”
 - Thomas G. West

In today’s American society, we see the tensions of positive and negative rights played out in the bitter partisanship between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party and their constituents. The Democrat Party believes in the primacy of Positive Rights over Negative Rights, while the Republican Party believes that Negative Rights should never be violated. It is this struggle that divides our nation, a division that has become more bitter and deeper in the 21st century. It is a struggle that has become more confrontational and violent by both sides. But it is a struggle that needs to be resolved to determine the future of America. And it may not be subject to compromise as positive and negative rights are often antithetic to each other in which compromise is not possible. Much like the struggle between slavery and anti-slavery forces in our early history, one side or the other must be triumphant. And once again, I would quote one of our greatest Presidents:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

Therefore, we must disenthrall ourselves from these Progressive ideas of Positive Rights to regain our Liberties and Freedoms, or we shall become serfs to the government that would be enforced by despotism.

06/21/21 Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis, the Latin for "to stand by a decision," is the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question that is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").

In the last several decades', Stare Decisis is being utilized by the courts to avoid making decisions on contentious constitutional issues. Constitutional issues that need to be reexamine due to new information or societal changes that would impact the previous decision.

My new Article, “Stare Decisis and Constitutionality”, examines this issue and proposes a remedy to the misuse of Stare Decisis in regard to constitutional issues. Stare Decisis, along with the issues of “Legal Standing vs. Constitutionality” and "Judges, Not Lords", needs to be reexamined in light of the last few decades of court actions and opinions.

06/19/21 Legal Standing vs. Constitutionality

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Given that many Judges and Justices are utilizing Legal standing to reject Constitutional challenges to avoid ruling on contentious constitutional issues, I believe that this change to Legal standing principles needs to be implemented. This was seen in the lawsuits about the 2020 Presidential elections, Obamacare, and many Executive Orders of recent years. All Judges and Justices need to remember that the primary duty and responsibility is the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, Legal standing is subordinate to Constitutional issues and should not be utilized to avoid constitutional issues by the courts.

My new Article, “Legal Standing vs. Constitutionality”, examines this issue and proposes a remedy to the misuse of Legal standing in regard to constitutional issues. Legal standing, along with the issues of “Stare Decisis” and "Judges, Not Lords", needs to be reexamined in light of the last few decades of court actions and opinions.

06/17/21 Conflicts of Individual Liberties and Freedoms versus Government

Your rights stop at my nose is a saying that expresses the limitations of personal rights of Liberty and Freedom as I have Chirped on, “06/26/19 Freedom from - Liberty to”. When free people enter into a society, they do so for the purposes of safety; safety in their persons and property, safety from enemies both foreign and domestic, and safety against criminal acts against them and their property. They institute the government to assure this safety in their persons and property. They also institute a government that will not be or becomes oppressive to their Natural Rights. They do so for the stated reasons in the preamble of The Constitution of the United States:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
 - Preamble to The Constitution of the United States

And inherent to ensuring domestic tranquility is the safety of their persons and property. To ensure this safety, they cede certain of their Natural Rights to the government to protect their other Natural Rights. And government creates and enforces laws to assure their ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ as stated in The Declaration of Independence.

All laws can be viewed as a restriction on freedom and liberty, and such restrictions are proper in any well-regulated society. But they are only proper to prevent one person’s freedom and liberty from infringing on another person’s freedom or liberty. It is this balance between each person’s Freedom and Liberty that defines the state of a Free society.

However, there is always tension as to the Natural Rights the people cede to the government and the powers of the government. Governments tend to accrue powers over time at the expense of the Natural Rights of the people. The people bear the responsibility to ensure that government does not overstep its bounds to preserve the Natural Rights not ceded to the government. Or, as it has been said:

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

Therefore, government powers must be delimited between the Natural Rights of the people and the powers of the government. This is what our Founding Fathers attempted to do in the creation of our Constitution by enumerating the powers of the Federal government. When the Federal government acts outside of the enumerated powers, they are infringing on the Natural Rights of the people. Only in an emergency situation, limited in duration and scope, can the Federal government exceed its powers. And when the emergency ceases to exist, then the emergency government powers are null and void. The same can be said for the State and local governments, as the Constitution of the United States binds the States and Local government to this principle.

No amount of Verbal Semantics, "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", or "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", nor the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" can abrogate a person’s Natural Rights nor allow the government to exceed its powers. For the American people to allow the government to exceed its powers is to begin the slippery slope toward despotism.

06/16/21 Crime and Punishment

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
 - Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

All Congressmen, The President, Vice President, Executive officers, and Justices and Judges take an oath of office to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’. In addition, the President has the Constitutional duty that they ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’.

As such, the primary role of government is to protect its inhabitants from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Foreign enemies are easy to identify, while domestic enemies are less easy to identify. However, the secondary duty of government is to ensure domestic tranquility, and domestic tranquility requires that the laws, and all the laws, be faithfully executed. This is done to ensure that the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the people are protected as these are ‘unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ as stated in The Declaration of Independence.  It is also necessary for domestic tranquility that our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are assured and ensured through the administration of "Justice and The Rule of Law in America".

Consequently, by not arresting, prosecuting, and punishing criminals, you are violating the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness of the victims of crime, as all criminal activities violate these Natural Rights of the victims. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of the government to arrest, prosecute, and punish persons who commit criminal acts. And all criminal acts need to be punished, for if you do not punish all criminal acts, then you do not have Natural Rights for all.

Prosecutorial discretion is when a prosecutor has the power to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime and which criminal charges to file. This is a rather broad power that also gives prosecutors the authority to enter into plea bargains with a defendant, which can result in the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge or receiving a lesser sentence for pleading guilty to the original charge. If utilized indiscriminately or utilized selectively, prosecutorial discretion becomes prosecutorial misconduct that can be utilized for grounds for removal of a prosecutor. Prosecutorial discretion can never be utilized to ignore a law with which the prosecutor disagrees.

Today, in America, we have seen the erosion of these concepts. People who commit crimes in violent protests by the left are often not arrested, prosecuted, and punished, while other political persuasions are arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Many criminal actions in urban areas are not even investigated (and sometimes not bein responded to by police), let alone arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Some, and a growing number of district attorneys, are releasing suspected criminals without bail and/or not charging them with crimes. Many criminals are being sentenced to non-imprisonment punishments, and many are being released without serving their full sentence in the name of social justice. And when these criminals are returned to the streets prematurely, they often commit additional criminal acts. All of these actions disturb the domestic tranquility of the inhabitants of where they are released.

In addition, the powerful and politically connected person are often not getting charged nor prosecuted for the criminal acts they perpetrate. Many prosecutors have forgotten that they investigate and prosecute criminal acts and not persons. In their attempts to demonize persons, politicians, or businesspersons that they disagree with they often initiate prosecutorial investigations and inditements against such persons, as I have written in my Article, “The Criminalization of Politics”.

Therefore, when elected politicians and government officials decline to pursue criminal actions or selective enforce laws, or not enforce laws, they are violating their oath of office and violating the Natural Rights of the people. And such violations should not be tolerated by a people dedicated to ‘Natural, Human, and Civil Rights’ and ‘Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All’.

06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?

Was January 6th assault on the Capitol building an insurrection or a Reichstag fire, an arson attack on the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament in Berlin, on Monday 27 February 1933, precisely four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler's government stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch council communist, was the culprit, and it attributed the fire to communist agitators. A German court decided later that year that Van der Lubbe had acted alone, as he had claimed. The day after the fire, the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed. The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.

If January 6th was an insurrection, it was most certainly the most enfeeble and incompetent insurrection in history. Very few people were involved in this ‘insurrection’, and none of them had weapons nor explosive devices. The only person who died during this ‘insurrection’ was a protestor shot to death by a Capitol policeman.  Minor damage was done to the Capitol building, and some property was looted or destroyed, for which the persons involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. A few of the ‘insurrectionists’ have been arrested and detained on charges of trespassing, for which they have not been released on bail nor allowed to publicly speak of their actions. This appears to be a violation of their habeas corpus rights, which would be a violation of their Constitutional Rights.

Much of the evidence about the events surrounding January 6th has been withheld by government agencies for various reasons of national security. Reasons that are dubious at best and at worst a cover-up of the government involvement in the January 6th ‘insurrection’. It has now been revealed that the FBI had informants, and perhaps operatives, within the groups responsible for the January 6th ‘insurrection’. Informants and Operatives that not only informed the FBI, but they may have instigated the violence. If so, then the FBI is complicit in the January 6th ‘insurrection’. A complicity that may negate any criminal charges against the January 6th ‘insurrectionists.

More nefarious is that our Legislators and President are utilizing the January 6th ‘insurrection’ as a pretext to create laws against ‘insurrection’. Laws that may be crafted that would be a violation or constriction of our First Amendment rights of ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’. Laws that may violate or constrict our Fourth Amendment rights to ‘be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’. Laws that could violate or constrict our Fifth Amendment rights of prosecution ‘unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury’ and ‘nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’.

If Congress does indeed pass these laws that violate or constrict our Constitutional Rights, and the President signs them into law, then the January 6th ‘insurrection’ will become the American Reichstag Fire. An American Reichstag Fire that would constrict our Natural Rights and that could begin the slippery slope toward Despotism. Americans must be made aware of this and halt the crafting of these laws, for if we do not, then:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

06/14/31 Incompetence and Inanity

Why has President Biden had so few press conferences or interviews? For the same reason, he has so few press conferences and interviews while campaigning - Incompetence and Inanity. And this is the same reason why Vice President Harris has had so few press conferences or interviews. Incompetence and Inanity that have further divided America, Incompetence and Inanity that has led to the problems that I have Chirped on "05/26/21 Intelligent, Educated, Morally Superior, Correct – Or Not", and incompetence and Inanity that appears to be unending.

Incompetence and Inanity that were covered up by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media for the purpose of electing anyone other than President Trump and to institute the "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" policies and political goals. Incompetence and Inanity that may lead to inflation, recession/depression, the stifling of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", the restrictions on our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, and perhaps foreign wars. Incompetence and Inanity aided by their lying to the American public as I have Chirped on “06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying”.

The American people need to wake up and smell the coffee. When they do so, they will realize that, as Shakespeare said in Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. A rot that needs to be excised from America so that the blessings of Freedom and Liberty may flower again in America.

06/13/21 It Didn’t Start, and They Came

Words we need to know and remember:

“It didn't start with gas chambers.
It started with one party controlling the media.
It started with one party controlling the message.
It started with one party deciding what is the truth.
It started with one party censoring speech and silencing the opposition.
It started with one party dividing citizens into 'Us' and 'Them'.
It started with one party calling on their supporters to harass 'Them'.
It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.
It ended with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.”
 - paraphrased from the Holocaust Museum

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

Ponder upon these words, and then compare them to the actions of "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" for the last few decades of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good. And then pause and recall these words of wisdom:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  - George Santayana

06/12/21 Old Guard Republicans

Old Guard Republicans are as dead as the face on Jacob Marley’s door knocker (Charles Dickens – A Christmas Carol). But this has been the history of the late 20th and 21st century Republican Party. From Rockefeller Republicans to Goldwater Republicans, then to Reagan Republicans, and now to Trump Republicans, the Republican Party has morphed as strong Republican Party leadership has emerged. And this morphing is not because of the personality of the leader but by the kinship of the Republican Party constituents to the ideas and ideology of the strong  leader’s message.

During this morphing, the old guard Republicans have resisted these changes to retain their positions of power or prominence within the Republican Party. But resistance has been futile, as when push comes to shove, the Republican Party constituents will overcome the Republican Party leadership to chart the course of Republican Party policies and positions. This is unlike the Democrat Party, where the leadership maintains strong control over their leadership and constituents.

We are now in this struggle and resistance for control of the Republican Party, and once again, the Old Guard Republicans are falling away to be replaced by the new guard Trump Republicans. A new guard Republicans dedicate to the ideas and ideals of The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution. The ideas and ideals of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” through “Limited and Enumerated Powers” of government is the standard of the new guard Trump Republicans. And this struggle in the Republican Party is critical to the future of America.

The "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" are interested in fundamentally transforming America to fit their vision of Democratic Socialism of "Identity Politics", "Equity and Equality", the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", larger and more intrusive government, greater taxes and spending, and one party (The Democrat Party) rulership in America. Critical Race Theory, The 1619 Project, Black Lives Matter, and “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” reign supreme in Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party ideas and ideals. These ideas and ideals of the Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are antithetic to The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution.

The ascendancy of Trump Republicans will create a party of dedication to the principles of The Declaration of Independence and the doctrines of The United States Constitution, which will of necessity pit them against Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. We are in a stormy present of this clash of these ideas and ideals. A clash that has been present throughout Western Civilization between Natural Rights of the people and Governmental Powers over the people, the will of the majority against the protections of the minority, and whether we are governed by "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". This is the basis for the partisan divide between Americans today. Today, the Republican Party stands for the supremacy of Natural Rights over Governmental Powers, while the Democrat Party stands for the opposite. Both believe they are doing what is best for the American people, but the question is the difference between the  "Greater Good versus the Common Good" and their interpretation of the Constitution as “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. The resolution of this clash will determine the future of America.

This is not a small clash of minor significance, but a large clash that will have significant impacts on the future of America and humankind. For it is the clash that will determine the direction of the balance of the people versus government, and whether the people will be a subservient or subjugated people to the government or the government will be constrained by limited and enumerated powers respecting the Natural Rights of the people.

As such, the Republican Party constituents and leadership need to resolve themselves to whatever measures are required to defend our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” against the assaults of Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, "Equity and Equality", and the Greater Good versus the Common Good. The means and methods of the past, utilized by the Republican Party to defend our Freedoms and Liberties, are inadequate to stop and reverse this erosion of our American ideas and ideals, as evidenced by the erosion of our Freedoms and Liberties in the present. Therefore, we Republicans should remember the words of wisdom of our first Republican President:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

It should be remembered that the traditional means and methods of resolving our differences with the antebellum south over slavery did not resolve the question of slavery. It took a Civil War to resolve these differences and to establish the Natural Rights of Freedom and Liberties for the slaves and eradicate slavery from America. Let us hope that in this stormy present, there will be no need to resolve these differences by a Civil War, but we need to utilize all the means and methods necessary to put an end to the encroachment of government on our Natural Rights.

06/10/21 Equity and Equality

I have added the terms "Equity and Equality" to the "Terminology" webpage as follows:

In the context of social systems such as education, politics, and government, the terms equity and equality have similar but slightly different meanings. Equality refers to scenarios in which all segments of society have the same levels of opportunity and support. Equity is the concept in which all segments of society have the same, or nearly the same, outcomes of equality. Equity is most nefarious in that the ‘equality of outcome’ takes precedent over ‘equality of opportunity’. Therefore, with equity you have discrimination for persons or groups rather than against persons or groups.

"Equity" requires that some people or groups of people get preferential treatment over other persons or groups of people, which implies that the other person or groups obtain lesser treatment, which is the antithesis to “Equality”. Equity requires that one person or group of persons be equal in income, possessions, or benefits, which does not take into account a person’s intelligence, knowledge, experience, hard work, motivations, talents, skills, and abilities in the reward for their efforts. Equity also has the problem of when it should end. Oftentimes, the goals of equity are nebulous or changing, or utopian, which necessitates that the equity will become unending. This equity then becomes a permanent feature of our society that negates equality.

06/09/21 Dr. Fauci and China

It has now become apparent that Dr. Fauci was an active supporter of Gain of Function research. Despite the warnings of the possible negative repercussions of such research, he believed the benefits of such research outweighed the risks. And despite the United States ban on such research, he successfully lobbied for a national security exemption to this ban. After which, he then funneled government monies to a non-governmental agency to conduct this research in China. He may also have transferred government funding directly to China under a disguised misnomer to cover his tracks. At the same time, he did not perform his due diligence to assure that the labs performing this research were doing so in a biologically safe manner. As a result of these decisions, it now appears that the COVID-19 virus, either accidentally or on purpose, escaped from the Wuhan China lab where this research was being done, thus inflicting the world with a pandemic that killed millions, sicked many tens of millions, and did economic harm to the order of tens of trillions of dollars to the countries of the world.

Anyone who would inflict such deaths, illness, and economic harm, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, may be guilty of Crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, as Dr. Fauci did this as an agent of the United States government, all Americans and our government may share some guilt in this Crime against humanity. It is certain that China did this research without proper safeguards, is complicit in these Crimes against humanity. If it is not a Crime against humanity, it should be, as any government, group, or individual who biologically engineers then loosen a pandemic upon the world is assaulting humanity.

The other question is whether China deliberately or accidentally loosen this pandemic upon the world. We may never have a definitive answer to this question, but in this case, it does not matter. As China instituted internal bans on travel when this pandemic was discovered, and they did not institute international travel bans, it does not matter. The deliberate decision to not ban international travel while banning internal travel constitutes a deliberate act of biological warfare against the world. As such, China bears the burden of a biological assault upon the world and should pay the penalty for this assault. In addition, the Chinese leaders who made these decisions on lab safety and no international travel bans are guilty of Crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice.

The question is, then, what constitutes justice in this case? I would propose that the individuals responsible for these decisions should be brought to trial before the World Court, and those that are found guilty should face long prison terms for these crimes. I would also propose that all private foreign debts that China holds should be impounded and set aside to compensate the individual victims that China harmed. I would also propose that all foreign government national debts that China holds should be nullified and the debts returned to the foreign nations be utilized to repair their economies. In addition, all foreign trade with China, by all nations, should be banned for ten years. I realize that these punishments may be harsh, but they are not as harsh as what China inflicted upon the people and the nations of the world by their Crimes against humanity and biological warfare assault. There may be internal national economic tremors by the ban on Chinese trade, but this is a lesson on the people and governments that to have expansive trade with a closed nation bears some consequences.

06/07/21 Be Wary, Be Very Wary

Whenever you read or listen to another’s comments (and your own comments), you should be wary of the comments. The following are from my webpage “My Own Quotes” and “Miscellaneous Quotes of Wisdom” that highlight the reasons that you should be wary:

"Educated Guesses always have the inherent questions as to the quality of the education and the accuracy of the guess."
- Mark Dawson

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn’t make it true."
   - Mark Dawson

“At one time people believed that the world was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe. Their belief did not make the earth flat nor at the center of the universe.”
 - Mark Dawson

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
 - Christopher Hitchens

“The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative – which is impossible.”
 - Mark Dawson

“The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion.”
 - Mark Dawson

“Always be wary of an assertion in which the reasoning is not explained, and then be prudent of the reasoning as it may be flawed.”
 - Mark Dawson

“Assertions contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the problems of Unintended Consequences that may be inherent in any assertion.”
 - Mark Dawson

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
  -  New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

"I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers— that of laughter."
 - Charles L. Black

Therefore, be very wary of any comments as they may run afoul of these quotes.

06/06/21 I Like the Way You Think

Many times, a person says to another that they like the way they think. But it is not the way they think that they like, but the conclusion that they draw that a person likes. But thinking is more than conclusions; it is a process of “A Philosophical Approach” and “Reasoning”; therefore, you can only like the way a person thinks if you know and understand their process. Not only do you need to know their process, but you yourself must understand the process of ‘A Philosophical Approach’ and ‘Reasoning’. And the best way to know this process is to become more knowledgeable about these topics and to practice them in your own thinking.

For most people, this can be difficult and time-consuming, which is why I wrote the beforementioned articles. Although these articles are not extensive nor comprehensive, they provide an introduction to these topics. Once you begin to understand these topics, it is easier to critique another’s thinking to determine the soundness of their conclusions. And you will be surprised how often a person’s thinking is flawed, and therefore, their conclusions are flawed. For weak thinkers produce weak rationale and incorrect conclusions.

Most people assume that if they like the conclusion, then the thinking is correct. However, this is rarely the case. Before you can accept that a conclusion is correct, you must determine if the rationale is correct. Even if you believe that the rationale is correct, there is a good possibility that it is not correct. That is why Philosophical debates can be unending, as Philosophers will often discover flaws in the rationality of others' reasoning. You can also assume that politicians' and political commentators’ rationale has flaws, as they are not proficient in philosophy and reasoning or that they are driven to conclusions by political goals and policy agendas rather than facts and reasoning.

Consequently, always be wary of a conclusion in which the reasoning is not explained, and then be prudent of the reasoning as it may be flawed.

06/05/21 Dr. Anthony Fauci and Associates

Dr. Anthony Fauci and several of his associates are excellent examples of what is wrong with experts in today’s society. Most experts believe that they have the answers and that their judgment should reign supreme, as I have Chirped on, “06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top”. They also have the attitude of many "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" in that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct. An attitude that should be antithetical to a good scientist, as a good scientist should always follow the data no matter where it may lead.

Dr. Fauci’s recently revealed e-mails under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), although heavily redacted, have revealed his and several of his associate’s duplicitousness on COVID-19. Taken along with his public statements, which were often contradictory, he has revealed himself to not be a person of science but a person of public policy.

A person of science examines all the facts derived from observations and experiments, constructs a hypothesis based on the facts, then reveals the facts and hypothesis for critical review by other scientists. As new facts are obtained that contradict their hypothesis, they modify, discard, or create a new hypothesis as appropriate.

A person of public policy, in a Republic, utilizes good science to present the facts and conclusions to our elected representatives for them to formulate public policy. They themselves do not formulate and implement public policy, nor do they disassemble, misinform, or misdirect our elected representatives. Nor do they try to suppress contrary opinions to their own. In no cases should a public servant attempt to mislead elected representatives on the facts and conclusions but, instead, help our elected representatives understand the “Reasoning” that led to their conclusions.

In the COVID-19 Pandemic, Dr. Fauci and several of his associates have acted with the intent of formulating and implementing public policy, rather than as a person of science intent on giving our elected representatives the information that they can utilize to formulate public policy. It is for this reason, and their duplicitousness, that Dr. Fauci and several of his associates should resign or be fired from government service, as he and several of his associates’ actions have been an assault on our republican principles. As such, they are unfit to serve as public servants. They may even have committed criminal actions of perjury to Congress for which they should be held accountable. Their firing or resignations would also set a good example for all public servants that they are to provide accurate and thorough information to our elected representatives and not attempt to formulate or implement a public policy for which they believe is correct.

It is time for Dr. Fauci and several of his associates who colluded with him to join the ranks of ignominious persons in American history for their assaults on our republican principles and for the damage they have done to our country.

06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying

It has become apparent that President Biden and Biden Administration officials have taken misinformation, misdirection, non-answers, cover-ups, suppressions, and secrecy to a new level. This is not surprising as "Progressives/Leftists", and Democrat Party politicians have been doing this for decades by utilizing the tactics of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors". No matter what you label their words, it is all lying to the American people. A lying because they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. A lying that they believe is for the greater good of Americans as they believe that they are acting in the best interest of all Americans. A lying that is done for the purposes of obtaining and retaining the power to implement their policies and political goals.

A lying about COVID-19 inoculations, restrictions, its origins, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Illegal Immigration on the southern border, the alleged January 6th ‘Insurrection’, 2020 voter fraud allegations, and 2021 voter integrity measures (both State and Federal legislation), ‘Infrastructure’ spending, Ransomware Attacks against critical industries, as well as Russia and China actions on the world stage. Along with a host of other issues and the perpetuation of “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”, this lying is ingrained and incessant amongst  Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party politicians.

And the reason that they can lie is because of “Modern Journalism”. Modern Journalism that does not ask the tough questions about their statements, uncover the facts of the situation, and discover the truth of a situation, but merely parrots their statements, ignores the issue, or asks inane questions of them. Modern Journalism that has adopted a mantra of "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, and See No Evil" when it comes to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" words and deeds. Indeed, the opposite is true for those that would oppose Progressives/Leftist in that they "Hear All Evil, Speak All Evil, and See All Evil" of those in opposition to Progressives/Leftist or Democratic Party leaders. Perhaps we should stop calling them 'Journalists' and hereafter refer to them as 'Propagandists', which would be a more accurate term for what they are practicing. Modern Journalism that has forgotten that:

“If you do not investigate allegations that have veracity, then it is impossible to find evidence of wrongdoing.”
- Mark Dawson

They have the First Amendment right to do so, but all journalists should also remember that:

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

And Modern Journalism is not acting responsibly. Until Modern Journalism starts acting responsibly, the American people will be misinformed and make irresponsible decisions to the detriment of America.

06/03/21 Insurrectionists

A recent article, “Who in America is Entitled to Call Who an Insurrectionist These Days?” by Cliff Nichols has posited:

“If fraud and other means of chicanery were found to have been employed by insurrectionists to unlawfully upend the results of our nation’s 2020 election process, would that unlawful regime of insurrectionists have the moral authority to prosecute patriots for exactly that of which their regime is itself guilty — insurrection?”

To the question of ‘What constitutes an insurrection?’, the answer is ‘When it is an insurrection to establish Natural Rights or preserve Freedoms and Liberties’. Insurrections are only justified and necessary to accomplish these objectives. It was an insurrection against British rule by the American Colonists, defined by The Declaration of Independence, that established Natural Rights and the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans. And to preserve these Freedoms and Liberties, we established The Constitution of the United States. As long as our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" are retained, and our Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are preserved, then any actions against the United States government is unnecessary and unjustified, and these actions would not be a legitimate insurrection.

In America, we have preserved our Freedoms and Liberties through the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammo Box, in that order, as I have written in my Article "The Four Boxes of Liberty". However, in America of the late 20th century and the 21st century, we have seen the corruption of the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, and the Jury Box. A corruption by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, led by Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party. A corruption that is destructive to our American ideals of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. A corruption that, hopefully, can be corrected by the Ballot Box but may become an insurrection instituted through the Ammo Box.

My new Article, "The Liberal Manifesto Major Principles" examines the political goals and policy agendas of the modern Progressives and Leftists and the Democrat Party. These political goals and policy agendas are antithetical to our American Ideals and should frighten any person who believes in Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Consequently, the implementation of these political goals and policy agendas are a basis for an insurrection to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms.

If a government oppresses your Natural Rights, then, as The Declaration of Independence states, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Those that believe that there should not be an insurrection to reinstitute Natural Rights are in opposition to Natural Rights. Those people who believe that no insurrection is justified would have been loyalist supporters of the British Crown during the American Revolution, and if they had succeeded, there would have been no United States of America dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. And insurrections do not need majority support to be justified, as a large minority that believes that they are being oppressed is sufficient, just as it was during the American Revolution, for an insurrection to be morally justified.

Therefore, unless we can right our course, an insurrection may be necessary to restore our American ideals. If so, then it is incumbent upon the insurrectionists to state their grievances against the current government of the United States. To this end, I have written "A New Declaration of Independence" to state these grievances and "A New U.S. Constitution" to correct these problems.

06/02/21 History of Republics and Democracies

The English writer and historian Lord Macaulay (1800-1859) has described the history of Republics, Democracies, and other forms of limited government as:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
2. From faith to great courage.
3. From courage to liberty.
4. From liberty to abundance.
5. From abundance to complacency.
6. From complacency to selfishness.
7. From selfishness to apathy.
8. From apathy to dependency.
9. And from dependency back again into bondage.

And this history comes about not from external threats but threats from internal decay, exhaustion, and collapse. The history of late 20th and early 21st century America has seen us rapidly progress from steps five through eight. The rise of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, "Entitlements", "Identity Politics", and “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” has accelerated this process.

Today, in America, this process is being accelerated by Progressives/Leftists and "Democrat Party Leaders", aided and abetted by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, and utilizing the tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage. We may even be entering into step nine with the Biden Administration passed and proposed legislation on ‘COVID 19 Relief’, ‘Infrastructure Spending’, and ‘For the People’ acts. A slew of Executive Orders by the Biden Administration that has been more directives decrees than enforcement orders, as I have Chirped on “03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders”, has also pushed us down this path.

If Americans value the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, then we must reverse course. If we do not reverse course, then Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans may find it necessary, as Thomas Jefferson expressed in his view that, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical".

06/01/21 Parallel Worlds

Are we really living in parallel worlds of two groups of people? Two groups of people divided by:

“While we walk and talk and mingle with all sorts of people on a daily basis, the truth is this: as the days grow darker, the divide between those who know God, know truth, and know reality, and those who do not, is growing ever wider. It is as if there are two parallel worlds with no real connection between the two.

The lost are becoming ever more lost; the deceived are becoming ever more deceived; and those who hate God and his people are becoming ever more intense in their hatred. While we are to do all we can to reach these people, the divide becomes greater by the day it seems.

We have masses of people who are utterly clueless. They think their world is the real one, when in fact they are living a lie, they are living in delusion, they are living in a world of make-believe. Trying to wake these people up is the need of the hour. They desperately need truth, but so many of them hate the truth. They desperately need the light, but they hate the light.”
 - Bill Muehlenberg in CultureWatch

These two groups are delineated by the Progressives/Leftists and Conservatives, with the moderates living in limbo between to two groups. But by living in limbo, you are, however, de facto allowing the Progressives/Leftists to persist and live in a world of make-believe.

The Culture Wars are indicative of these parallel worlds, as the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" exist in one world of make-believe while the masses of people have to live in a world of reality. The world of the Progressives/Leftists is an unreal world of ignoring human nature as I have Chirped on, “01/31/21 Human Nature and Behavior”. A world without the wisdom of God and the teachings of Christ to guide us in our moral and ethical lives. A world that ignores or contradicts basic economics, and a world of rulers and subjects, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". And a world that contradicts our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

The first months of the Biden administration vividly demonstrate that this is true; China and Russia have become more belligerent, economic indicators are all down, and fears of economic inflation and/or recession are up, energy independence has been lost, illegal immigration has increased dramatically, and Middle East peace has been shaken, along with the other domestic problems of racism, sexism, genderism, ethnicism, classism, and criminal and mob violence. And all these problems, in which the Biden administration has been in denial, are a result of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders living in a world of make-believe.

We that live in a world of reality, therefore, need to instill the light and truth and not allow a world of make-believe to guide our actions as a society.

05/31/21 I Have a Dream

In the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “I Have a Dream Speech”:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
 - Martin Luther King, Jr.

That dream is now dead, but it did not die from racism in America, but from Progressives, Leftists and Democrats. In their efforts to combat racism they instituted political goals and policy agendas that divided Americans into "Identity Politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. Identity Politics often pit one group against another group, and they always result in inequalities in society because the advantages given to one group always redound to disadvantages of other groups.

They have, therefore, destroyed the dream of Dr. King that each person is threated individually. In the past the ‘Rage Against the Machine’ was directed against conformity and for the liberty for the individual. Today, this rage is for conformity to the "Progressives/Leftists" ideas. A conformity that is enforced by the coercion and suppression of Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media to Progressives and Leftists" ideas. The tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good are utilized to achieve this conformity. As I have Chirped on, “02/19/21 The Perversion of the English Language” they have convoluted the English language through "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Putting Words into Another's Mouth", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to achieve this conformity. It reminds me of the words in a famous novel:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

And like Humpty Dumpty the Progressives, Leftists and Democrats wish to be masters, or rulers as I wave written about in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". And it is time, like Humpty Dumpty, for them to fall off a wall and they should not be put back together again.

Let us return to the dream of Dr. King and strive to become a people that judges each person by the content of their character. If we do not do so than we will have lost our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

05/30/21 Greatest Moments in the Advancement of Civilization

If you were to list some of the greatest moments in the advancement of civilization, they would include:

• The monotheism of Judaism which required each person to live a moral and ethical life in a personal relationship with God.
• The awakening of human intellect in ancient Greece.
• The quickening of trade and culture, the rule of law, and the rise in living standards in the early Roman Empire.
• The flowering of arts and commerce in Renaissance Italy and Germany.
• The blooming of modern science from Italy that spread to France, The Netherlands, England, America, Germany, and throughout Europe.
• The Age of Enlightenment centered in France and England that spread throughout Europe and America.
• The recognition of the Natural Rights of a person as a basis for society.
• The recognition that slavery was a moral evil that should be eliminated.
• The beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain.
• Capitalism and technological advancements in Britain, America, and then Europe.

Except for the monotheism of Judaism, all these moments occurred in Western Civilization. When the offshoot of Judaism, Christianity, spread throughout the Roman Empire, this monotheism was incorporated into Western Civilization.

You may have been taught about these events in school, but you almost certainly were not taught what they all have in common: They all occurred in environments of political decentralization. Sometimes the decentralization was so extreme that the central authorities (if, indeed, there were any) could not even keep the peace. Yet society leaped ahead anyway. Political Centralization is often a discouragement to dissonance thought, creativity, scientific advancement, economic growth, innovation, and most importantly, the unfettering of Natural Rights.

Therefore, Western Civilization should be lauded for its accomplishments, learned from by it mistakes, but celebrated as the greatest force that contributed to the advancement of humankind.

05/29/21 Worse Than What?

Many Democrat politicians run a campaign of fear and "Identity Politics". Fear that the election of their Republican opponents will lead to worsting conditions for their constituents if the Republicans should win. And this fear is directed at distinct identity groups within the electorate – race, sexuality, economic status, ethnicity, and religion, amongst others. These fear and identity campaigns are antithetic to our American ideals of ‘We the People’ and ‘E Pluribus Unum’ — out of many, one. But ‘Divide and Conqueror’ is a well-tested and successful maxim in both war and politics.

This most often occurs in large cities in America where there is a large Democrat base of voters. Today’s big cities in America suffer from appalling problems such as:

• Crimes of all sorts
• Dilapidated and abandoned housing
• Unsanitary Conditions and Environs
• Poor public schools and schooling
• High Unemployment
• Hopelessness and Despair

And these cities have been under Democrat Party control for decades, to which I would ask the constituents of these cities ‘Worse than what?’. The Democrat constituents have been conditioned to think the alternative is somehow worse, but how electing Republicans would make it worse for these cities is never explained and defies rational thought. If Republicans wanted to destroy a city, it is unclear what they would do differently from what Democrats did under the guise of “improving” them.

The Democrat candidates, and the Democrat Party, have made their Republicans a type of Bogeyman. A Bogeyman is a type of mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behavior. Bogeymen have no specific appearance, and conceptions vary drastically by household and culture, but they are most commonly depicted as masculine or androgynous monsters that punish children for misbehavior. The Bogeyman or conceptually similar monsters can be found in many cultures around the world. Bogeymen may target a specific act or general misbehavior, depending on what purpose needs serving, often based on a warning from the child's authority figure. The term "Bogeyman" is sometimes used as a non-specific personification or metonym for terror, and in some cases, the Devil. And too many Democrats, a Republican is another type of a Bogeymen.

However, you may have noticed that a Bogeymen is only used by adults to frighten children into good behavior. And this is how Democrats view their constituents – as children – by frightening them into voting for Democrat politicians. It is well past time that these voters behave like children and vote unthinkingly for Democrat politicians out of fear of a Republican. They should demand that any politician, both Democrat, and Republican, provide concrete proposals of how to improve their cities and how to pay for these improvements. And then, the constituents should demand that they implement their solutions when they are elected. Platitudes, banalities, generalities, clichés, bromides, inanities, hackneyed statements, and trite expressions by any candidate should not be accepted. To not do so is to allow these appalling problems of the cities to fester and grow.

05/28/21 The Federal Government Checked by States and Localities

According to the United States Constitution, the Federal government is one of Limited and Enumerated Powers. Any powers not enumerated by the Constitution are to be reserved to the States or the People, as stated in Amendment X to the Constitution:

“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.”

Sadly, for most of the 20th century and the 21st century, this Amendment has been ignored or forgotten. The rise of big government, entitlements, regulatory provisions, and other social goals have allowed the Federal Government to exceed its limitations. Much of this has been accomplished by the Federal Government by bribing the States with federal funds to accept the overreaching of their Limited and Enumerated Powers. But this was not only accomplished by the States' willingness to accept federal funding but by the people allowing this to happen, mostly for personal gain.

But this is much more than the overarching of the Federal Government nor States Rights, but about an assault on the individuals' Freedoms and Liberties as the Supreme Court has stated:

“The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’ … ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”
 - From the New York v. United States (1992) Supreme Court ruling

This encroachment by the Federal Government has also increased the taxes on all Americans, and in many cases, these taxes are spent disproportionately between the States, resulting in the taxpayers of one State contributing to the funding of another State, without their having any say in how the monies are spent in a State. This is an example of ‘No Taxation Without Representation, which was one of the main causes of the American Revolution against Britain.

This overreaching by the Federal Government also institutes nation policy irrespective of State and local needs. A national policy that is appropriate for New York is often not appropriate for Nebraska but is required Constitutionally for Federal policies to have equality and consistency across States.

We, the American people, need to correct this problem and reign in the Federal government to its Limited and Enumerated Powers. This can start with the States and localities suing the Federal government when it steps outside its boundaries, but it also requires that the people support these actions by electing politicians that understand and support Limited and Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government. In addition, the United States Supreme Court and other courts need to be more assertive in ruling against the Federal Government when it oversteps its boundaries. Most courts have been giving deference to the Federal Government in their rulings in that the burden of proof is not borne by the Federal Government but by the States and localities who institute these lawsuits. I would suggest that courts should start requiring the Federal Government to bear the responsibility of the burden of proof that their actions are Constitutional. There also needs to be reform on the legal concept of ‘Standing to Sue’ the Federal Government. Standing to Sue is the requirement that plaintiffs have a serious interest in a case, which depends on whether they have sustained or are likely to sustain a direct and substantial injury from a party or an action of the government. When it comes to the Constitutional issues of the Federal Government exceeding its Limited and Enumerated Powers, then it impacts not only some Americans but all Americans and, therefore, any American should have the Standing to Sue to redress their grievance.

Consequently, all Americans, the elected politicians and ‘We the People’, have a duty and responsibility to assure that the Federal Government, and all governments in America, are constrained by the Constitutional Limited and Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government.

05/27/21 Individuality

The intelligent individual human mind is one of nature’s miracles, and it makes us distinct from all other life on Earth. And each human being has a mind that is unique unto itself. We are all individuals who cooperate with each other for the benefit of each individual. However, cooperation has its limitations, especially in creativity:

“Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.”
 -  John Steinbeck, East of Eden

As individual human beings, we have "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" that are paramount above the interests of government and society. These include:

"Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
  - Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Therefore, it is important that we preserve and defend the sanctity of the individual human mind for the reasons of its significance. Or, as it has been said:

“And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about.”
 - John Steinbeck, East of Eden

Those that do not believe in this sanctity of the mind are engaged in an evil, the evil of the suppression of the individual human mind. In today's America, the forces of  Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage, do not believe in the individual mind, but upon collectivism and conformity. This effort is being led by Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party in that they would subsume the individual into the group. It is for this reason that all of us should actively oppose Progressivism and Leftism, and the Democrat Party, to assure the sanctity of the individual. To ignore this evil or stand idle is to allow this evil to prevail, or, as it has been said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
  - Edmund Burke

05/26/21 Intelligent, Educated, Morally Superior, Correct – Or Not

"Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct. In fact, they are neither of these things. If they were more intelligent, they would utilize “Reasoning” in their "Dialog and Debate" in discussing their political goals and policy agendas. Instead, they often resort to the tactic of personal "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" of their opponents when defending their positions, which demonstrates that they are bereft of intelligence. As for their better education, given the state of American education today where indoctrination is more prevalent than education, as I have written in my Article “Indoctrination versus Education”, this is nothing to boast about. Moral superiority requires the recognition of everybody’s "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" that Western Civilization has spent several millennia trying to delimit.

As to being always correct, the first months of the Biden administration vividly demonstrates that this is untrue:

• Illegal Immigration has increased dramatically on our Southern border.
• Energy Independence has been sacrificed to (false) environmental concerns, resulting in increased energy costs, thus increasing the costs of goods and services to all Americans.
• Middle East Peace has been shattered with the rocket attacks on Israel.
• Russia has become more belligerent and may even have attacked our infrastructure with the Colonial Pipeline ransomware shutdown.
• China has escaped accountability for the COVID-19 virus and becomes more belligerent to America, as well as our becoming more dependent on their imports of indispensable raw materials, pharmaceuticals, and other essential material supplies.
• The Economy of Unemployment Rates and Labor Shortages, the Consumer Price Index, and Consumer Confidence have become worse.
• Real and proposed increases in taxes and spending, with a corresponding increased National Debt, have impacted our economy.
• Fears of Economic Inflation and/or Recession are increasing and may become a possibility.
• The COVID-19 Restrictions and Limitations have varied wildly and with seemingly inconsistency, having a negative impact on our economy and social cohesiveness.

The history of the last several decades of "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" has often demonstrated that their being correct is untrue.  Many of their social policies and their tax and spend programs have had a detrimental impact on American society. They are also incorrect when they propagate “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” rather than the true problems of “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems”. And all of this is a result of the "The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that has led to “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms”. As I have written in the “Terminology” webpage,  Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good are all manifestations of them being incorrect.

Rather than reasoning about the problems that America faces, they resort to emotional recourses to gain support for their political goals and policy agendas while ignoring the negative consequences of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. As such, they often lead America down the wrong path in obtaining our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

05/19/21 The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

As I have written in my Article, “Tax the Rich and Make Them Pay Their Fair Share”, Taxing the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share has complex meanings and implications. Those that utilize this phrase rarely understand the meanings, implications, and consequences of increasing the taxes on the rich. They often casually and thoughtlessly presume that the rich can afford the taxes and that there will be no or little risks to the economy, nor impacts to the middle or lower class by taxing the rich. In all these presumptions, they are wrong, and they pose an economic danger to all Americans if they should succeed in “Taxing the Rich” or making them “Pay Their Fair Share”. They have also not examined how much taxes the rich actually pay, and they are often disbelieving when they are confronted by the facts and truth of the rich taxation.

Those that utter the phrase, ‘Tax the Rich and Make Them Pay Their Fair Share’ are also engaging in class envy to punish the successful person. Successful people who provide them with goods and services in a timely manner and at a price that they can afford. Excessive taxation on these persons disincentivizes them from producing more goods and services, or they're increasing the prices for their goods and services, which directly impact the middle or lower classes.

Therefore, The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes is one of “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”.

05/18/21 Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights

Negative and Positive Rights are rights that oblige either inaction (negative rights) or action (positive rights). These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. These are not to be confused with Negative Liberties or Positive Liberties.

Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. As such, negative rights exist unless someone acts to negate them. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In other words, for a positive right to be exercised, someone else's actions must be added to the equation. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.

In todays’ America, I believe that it is safe to say that Progressives/Leftists hold to the primacy of Positive Rights, Conservatives/Libertarians hold to the primacy of Negative Rights, while Moderates/Liberals seek a balance between Positive and Negative Rights. However, Positive and Negative Rights are often antithetical and cannot co-exist without impinging on one or the other. In the book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D. in Chapter 42, ‘The Fallacies of Positive Rights’, he contends that:

“The liberal mind’s argument for positive rights or entitlements: if human beings have positive rights to food, clothes, houses, jobs, education, medical care, childcare, abortion, a clean and safe environment, adequate social status, leisure time or any other good, service or condition, and if those entitlements are deemed enforceable, then persons who do not have them are being neglected and deprived and are therefore victims of injustice. On this understanding of the human condition, the liberal mind views the minimal libertarian state as profoundly unjust because it zealously protects only the basic rights essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a peaceful and orderly environment, and explicitly refuses to guarantee all of those goods and services which only individuals and groups can provide through their own initiative. In fact, however, it is the liberal agenda’s collectivist state that is profoundly unjust precisely because any attempt to enforce its platform of positive rights immediately violates the negative rights essential to ordered liberty.”

Therefore, in our current political discourse, the claim of Human Rights is often used to describe something as sacred or inviolable, express a sense of entitlement, and shape ideas of justice. However, there is much dispute over what counts as a right, where they come from, and what moral weight we ought to credit them. Much of this dispute has originated from the transition from a Natural Rights framework to a Human Rights framework, which has blurred the line between negative and positive rights. This transition has weakened our social valuation of rights and, more distressingly, threatens our fundamental Natural Rights in favor of efforts to guarantee certain levels of material comfort.

05/17/21 The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

The book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D. is about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset and human nature and human freedom. Although the book was published in 2006, the Liberal/Progressive/Leftist Agenda has become more pronounced and easily understood by the words and deeds of today's "Progressives/Leftists" and the Democrat Party. These political goals and policy agendas are antithetical to our American Ideals and should frighten any person who believes in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. My new Article, “The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” is my commentary on this book.

This book has also inspired me to create articles that are extractions from this book. I would suggest that you read these articles in the following order to obtain the essence of this book:

• The Liberal Mind Overview - This article is an overview of the three sections of this book, which I have titled: I – The Nature of Man, II – The Development to Adulthood, and III – The Adult Liberal.
• The Liberal Mindset – This article is the author's selections from the book that highlight the major topics of the book.
• The Two Liberal Minds Beliefs - This article defines two types of liberals: ‘The Benign Liberal’ and ‘The Radical Liberal’ and their different viewpoints and perspectives.
• The Liberal Manifesto Major Principles - The section “The Liberal Manifesto: Major Principles” from Chapter 35 examines their political goals and policy agendas of today's Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party. I have excerpted this section of the book for your review and consideration.
• The Liberal Integrity and Treatment - The Chapter 48 section, ‘Integrity and Treatment’, has the best explanation of the difference between the Liberal and Conservative mindset that I have ever encountered. I have excerpted four sections of this chapter of the book for your review and consideration and as a basis for understanding the psychological nature of the political divides that are occurring in America today.
• The Ideal and Reality in Radical Liberalism (this article) – The Chapter 47 sections, ‘The Liberal Agenda as an Evil’, and ‘Ideal and Reality in Radical Liberalism’ contradicts the claims of moral superiority and correctness that The Liberal Mind so often self-proclaims.

05/16 /21 Success via Difference

You can make a success of your life if you tell people what they want to hear, but you can make a difference in other people’s lives if you tell them what they need to hear. And remember:

“Be careful in what you say to people, as most people are not interested in hearing the facts or truth, they are only interested in hearing their own opinions reinforced.”
 - Mark Dawson

But hearing their own opinions reinforced does not make a difference in their lives but only reinforces their ignorance and prejudices. A reinforcement that does not improve an individual or society. Therefore, be careful and kind with your words, but also try to “Be the Better Person” and try to make a difference for the better by informing others on what they need to hear. Or, as it has been said:

“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”
 - Thomas Sowell

05/15/21 Unconstitutional Elections

In Rob Natelson’s latest column, “The Undeniable Irregularity That May Have Cost Trump the Election” he points out that “The liberal media loudly proclaim that reports of 2020 presidential election irregularities are “lies.” But about one particular irregularity the media are mum.”

These ‘irregularities’ are the involvement of State Courts, State Election officials, and Local election officials in the manner of elections that are a  violation of the Constitution and Federal election laws, as I previously Chirped on, “11/05/20 The Judiciary Involvement in Elections” and “01/28/21 Election Anomalies”, as well as my Article, “Voting Responsibilities”.

The Democrat Congress is now attempting to codify these unconstitutional actions as I have Chirped on, "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections". A codification that ignores or utilizes sophistry to bypass the Constitution for it to be enacted. This is yet another example of the Democrats ignoring or using sophism about the Constitution when the Constitution is inconvenient or contradictory to achieving their political goals and policy agendas. If passed, one can only hope that the Supreme Court will accept a challenge to this law and overturn this law as Unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court does not do so, then the consequences will be pernicious to our constitutional republic.

I hope that everyone will read this article to understand the constitutional limitations on Federal elections and support the defeat of this legislation.

Robert G. Natelson is a former constitutional law professor, a long-time political activist, a former gubernatorial candidate, and a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant”.

05/14/21 Constitutional Ideals and Constitutional Order

In the latter half of the 20th century, the Liberals/Progressives/Leftists have assailed our Constitutional Ideals and Constitutional Order to obtain their political goals and policy agendas. Much of the time, they have utilized sophistry to disguise these assaults. However, in the 21st century, this sophistry has become more transparent to the American people, as their words have been more direct, and their actions have become louder than their words. They attack our Constitutional Ideals and Constitutional Order for the purposes of obtaining or retaining the power to implement their political goals and policy agendas.

A new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “How Much Ruin Do We Have Left?”, examines the impacts of these assaults, and their implications for the future of America, as he has stated in the introduction to this article:

“As Americans know from their own illustrious history, any nation’s well-being hinges on only a few factors. Its prosperity, freedom, and overall stability depend on its constitutional and political stability. A secure currency and financial order are also essential, as is a strong military.

Perhaps most important is a first-rate inductive educational system. Of course, nothing is possible without general social calm (often dependent on a reverence for the past) and secure borders.

The ability to produce or easily acquire food, fuel, and key natural resources ensures a nation’s independence and autonomy.

Unfortunately, in the last few months, all of those centuries-old reasons to be confident in American strength and resiliency have been put into doubt.”

With the words and deeds of the Biden administration, we are seeing our Constitutional Ideals and Constitutional Order being relentlessly assaulted. The Biden administrations’ Southern border immigration policy, its Energy policy, its Mideast policy, its Russia and China policy, its Coronavirus Pandemic policies, along with a slew of other Executive Orders have all been to the detriment of America. The spending and taxing legislation passed or proposed is leading us into inflation and possible economic recession or depression, along with the unusual situation of high unemployment with high demands for employment. The proposed election reforms are not a reform to assure free and fair elections, as I have Chirped on, "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections", but an attempt to establish a one-party rule over America, with the one-party being the Democrat Party. Attempts to restrict our First and Second Amendment Rights continue unabated, as I have Chirped on, "03/12/21 Free Speech is Essential" and "04/20/21 Gun Control".

All of this, and more, are an assault on our Constitutional Ideals and Constitutional Order to institute a fundamental transformation of America from what our Founding Fathers envisioned of Natural Rights and Limited and Enumerated Government. This is being done by redefining the Constitution as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. Victor Davis Hanson ended his article with the observation, “We are learning how much will soon be left of what our ancestors bequeathed. And the rest of the world is watching — some with glee, others with horror.”, to which I might add to the horror of all Americans that believe in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

05/13/21 Is America becoming Sovietized?

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson has provided keen insight on America today based on his extensive historical knowledge. His new article, “Americans becoming Sovietized? 10 warning signs about the woke left's radical agenda”, is very provocative and should be a warning to all Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans about the events occurring in America today.

His ten warning signs are:

• There was no escape from ideological indoctrination – anywhere.
• The Soviets fused their press with the government.
• The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.
• The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.
• The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.
• The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.
• The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.
• Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.
• The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.
• The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom.

I would encourage everyone to read this article and remember:

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
 - Thomas Jefferson

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke

And the wisdom of President Lincoln:

On Jan. 27, 1838, Lincoln spoke before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "the perpetuation of our political institutions." During that address, he said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

05/12/21 Safety and Security vs. Liberty and Freedom

There is a dynamic contention between ‘Safety and Security’ and ‘Liberty and Freedom’. The more that you have of one, the lesser you have of the other. Safety and Security are not only the protection against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, but the protection of oneself and one’s family from personal harm and property theft or destruction. Many include food, shelter, clothing, and other basic needs of life are within the domain of Safety and Security, as I have elaborated in the section “Freedom from Want” in my Article, “The Four Freedoms”.

As I have chirped on, “03/01/21 Liberty and Freedom”, I often distinguish between Liberty and Freedom, as they are different. The difference can be encapsulated as:

“Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, while Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights.”
 - Mark Dawson

However, expansive Liberty and Freedom often lead to chaotic societies that negatively impact their citizens Safety and Security. The issue is how to achieve a balance between Safety and Security vs. Liberty and Freedom. Our Founding Fathers were cognizant of this dynamic and attempted to craft a balance between Safety and Security and Liberty and Freedom. They did this by crafting a Constitution in which the government had limited, and enumerated powers and the people retained rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as I have written in my Articles, “Limited and Enumerated Powers” and “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”.

Today, in America, we still face this question of a balance between Safety and Security vs. Liberty and Freedom. This balance is often delineated between ‘Individualism’ and ‘Collectivism’ as my Articles “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution” and the question of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" examines.

When resolving this issue, we should remember some words of wisdom from one of our Founding Fathers:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

05/11/21 Intimidation and Fraud

Today, in America, the “Progressives/Leftists” and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) have often utilized intimidation to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. With the 2020 Presidential election and their attempts to pass the ‘For the People Act of 2021’ (as I have posted on "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections"), they have refined the art of voter fraud to win elections. They have also refined their election campaigns to misdirect or obscure their candidate’s policy agenda by the utilization of sophistry to achieve victory in elections. This was prominently displayed with candidate Biden’s non-campaign in the 2020 Presidential elections from his basement and the Georgia Senate runoff election of 2021. And this sophistry constitutes a fraud on the American electorate.

This intimidation and fraud are done with the cooperation of the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and by the tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage. And it is done because the Democrat Party realizes that they cannot achieve election victory if they do not utilize these tactics.

With the 2020 elections placing a slim control of the House of Representatives with the Democrats, a tie in the Senate (with Democrat Vice-President Harris breaking any tie votes), and a Democrat Presidency, they are revealing their true colors with their Legislative and Executive actions. A true color that is not supported by the majority of Americans. They are in a rush to radically transform America, while they have this control, to achieve their political goals and policy agendas.

In the process of doing this, they are not bringing America together, as I have Chirped on "08/21/20 Bringing Us Together", but are, indeed, pulling us apart. They are radically changing America to fit their vision of America without the support of the American people. A radical change from individualism to collectivism, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. A radical change that will impact all of our society, and in my opinion, have negative consequences for all Americans.

These negative consequences include, but are not limited to; establishing one-party rule by Democrats, morphing capitalism to state-controlled capitalism, redistribution of wealth by confiscatory taxes, favoritisms for groups of Americans at the expense of other groups of Americans, and other infringements on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" as I have written in the ‘Particulars’ section of my Article, "A New Declaration of Independence”.

The Democrat Party is taking America down a road that it may not be possible to undo without an insurrection. An insurrection that could be bloody and scar America for decades to come. For those that would respond that a majority of American people will not support this insurrection, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to Natural and Constitutional Rights. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not – as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those that are resisting governmental actions that disregarded or abrogated our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural and Constitutional rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural and Constitutional Rights

Whether this insurrection would be a good or bad thing for America, I am reminded that Thomas Jefferson expressed the view that "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical". It may be a good thing if it reestablishes our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, but it may be a bad thing if it devolves into despotism or tyranny. But our current course, as envisioned by the modern Democrat Party, is a course to despotism.

05/10/21 Should Rep. Liz Chaney be Removed from House Republican Leadership?

My answer is yes, but not for the reasons that most have given for her removal. To remove someone for dissenting ideas is a form of "Cancel Culture", and Cancel Culture should never be practiced by anyone or any organization. Under this standard, she should not be removed from the House Republican leadership. However, by the standard of effective leadership for the future, she should be removed.

Rep. Liz Cheney has exhibited a propensity to excoriate and excise Trump and his supporters from the Republican Party. As most of the Republican Party members are pro-Trump, she is antagonizing the party base, which is not a good strategy for future election victories by Republicans. Rather than excoriate and excise Trump and his supporters, she should be advocating for the good policies and agenda of Trumpism, and ameliorating what she believes are the bad policies and political goals of Trumpism, and encouraging more activism for these good policies and goals and backing Republican candidates that support these good policies and goals.

By looking back to the past and criticizing, she is not looking forward to the future. All Republican Party leadership should be focusing on the future to obtain electoral victories. Even if she should change her tactics to be more accommodating to the Trumpism base, the bitterness she has engendered makes her ineffective as a leader. By this standard, Rep. Liz Cheney should not be in a position of leadership and, therefore, should be removed from Republican Party leadership.

05/09/21 Motherhood

On this Mother’s Day, we should stress the importance of the mother upon their children’s development. For this child’s development is the crucible for the adult, and therefore the future of our society. With this in mind, I have selected some words of wisdom about motherhood:

“On the other hand, students of history continue to ignore the simple fact that all individuals are born by mothers; that everybody was once a child; that people and peoples begin in their nurseries; and that society consists of individuals in the process of developing from children into parents.”
 - Erik Erikson

“The child is father of the man.”
 - Wordsworth

“My opinion is that the future good or bad conduct of a child depends entirely upon the mother.”
 - Napoleon I

“Holding people to account for their actions while raising children capable of accountability is the central task both of parents and society.”
 - Stanley Greenspan

“Adolescent man, in all his sensitivity to the ideal, is easily exploited by promises of counterfeit millennia, easily taken in by the promise of a new and arrogantly exclusive identity.”
 - Erik Erikson

“Whatever his preparation, the time has come for the young adult to make his own way in the world; he can delay and linger in the protection of his home, or in the halls of his alma mater where the storms of the world are filtered and refined, but he cannot tarry too long without commitment and the direction it provides. The choice of an occupation and the choice of a mate are the decisions that start him on his way.”
 - Theodore Lidz

The molding of a child’s mind is the most important thing that a person can do, and this molding can only be accomplished successfully by a loving and caring mother and father. The successful molding of a child’s mind results in a responsible adult who will take care of themselves and their family and contribute to the betterment of society. Whenever the State tries to assume this child molding, as in Communism, Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism states, it has utterly failed to mold a child into a responsible adult and often creates government-dependent adults to the detriment of society.

05/08/21 Democracy or Republic

Many would reform our government to make it more democratic and subject to democratic rule. However, the word ‘Democracy’ or ‘Democratic’ does not appear in the Constitution, while the word ‘Republic’ or “Republican’ appears once in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, …”

Our Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the history and problems of democracy, as evidenced by the following quote:

"Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
 - James Madison

Our Founding Fathers, therefore, designed a Constitution to alleviate these problems. A Constitution based on the principles of a Democratic-Republic that would rein in the problems of a Democracy and Majoritarian Rule. They formulated the Constitution to help preserve our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and to create the United States dedicated to these ideals.

The current Administration and Congress seem to be committed to democratic rule by the Democrat Party, based on very small Democrat majorities in Congress and a Democrat President. Such radical change from a Republic to a Democracy should not be undertaken without the support of “We the People” and only after public "Dialog and Debate" and deliberation of the impacts of such a change. We should also keep in mind the deleterious consequences of “The Law of Unintended Consequences” if we made this change. It may also be necessary to amend the Constitution to achieve this change, and under no circumstances is it proper to ignore or circumvent the Constitution to achieve this change.

My Article, “The Problems of Democracy and Majoritarian Rule”, examines these problems and the flaws in the proposition that we should be more democratic and subject to democratic rule.

05/07/21 Defending the Constitution

Robert G. Natelson is a law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities. Among other subjects, he taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment. Professor Natelson is especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning. His research on that subject has carried him to libraries throughout the United States and in Britain, including four months at Oxford. His books and articles span many different parts of the Constitution, including groundbreaking studies of the Necessary and Proper Clause, federalism, Founding-Era interpretation, regulation of elections, and the amendment process of Article V. His research articles on the Constitution’s meaning have been cited repeatedly by justices and parties in the Supreme Court. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.” He is also the author of many commentary pieces about the Constitution in today’s society, which can be viewed by clicking here.

Several of these commentary articles are a series of essays defending our Constitution against unfair accusations from so-called progressives. These essays, in order of publication, can be reviewed here. As always, with the works of Robert G. Natelson, these articles are well researched and scholarly but are brief and easily understood by the general public.

05/06/21 Systemic Racism

Much has been said about Systemic Racism in America. There is, of course, racism in America, as racism is inherent in human tribalism and all societies throughout history and across the globe have exhibited racism. The important word in Systemic Racism is Systemic - affecting an entire system. Therefore, the question is racism in America systemic? In our history, this has been true but starting with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s American has attempted, and mostly achieved, the elimination of the systemic aspects of racism in America. Blacks, Women, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians in the latter part of the 20th century and the 21st century are well represented in all aspects of American life and democracy. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

• A Black Man was elected to the Presidency of the United States twice.
• A Black Woman was elected to the Vice-Presidency of the United States.
• A white woman is The Speaker of the House, and many Blacks, Women, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians are elected House and Senate representatives, as well as being Committee leaders, as shown by the “Membership of the 117th Congress: A Profile” report.
• Many Blacks, Women, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians were and are Cabinet Members and Executive Officers.
• Nearly proportional representation of Blacks and Hispanics in the House of Representatives and Senate.
• Many Blacks, Hispanics, and Women as Governors and Mayors of our States and Cities.
• The number of Justices and Judges in the Federal, State, and Local judiciaries approaches the diversity of the American population.
• Majority minority police officers in our major metropolitan areas, as well as Black and Woman Police Commissioners and in the command ranks in those metropolitan areas.
• An over proportional representation of Blacks and Hispanics in Professional Sports, Performing Arts, and Entertainment businesses.
• Many Colleges and Universities have diverse Blacks, Women, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians as professors.
• Throughout American businesses, Blacks, Women, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians have risen in the ranks of workers and management.

The problems in America are not Systemic Racism, but are as I have written in my Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems”. Systemic Racism, along with “Critical Race Theory” and “The 1619 Project” is bullshit. Any historical knowledge and proper “Reasoning” would reveal the intellectual vacuities of ‘Systemic Racism’, ‘Critical Race Theory, and ‘The 1619 Project’. These terms are utilized to elicit a visceral emotional response to cower Americans into acceptance of "Progressives/Leftists" policies and political goals.

Consequently, it is important to confront and oppose the assertions of Systemic Racism, Critical Race Theory, and The 1619 Project in order to preserve our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All

05/05/21 Sutton’s Law

Sutton's law  is named after the bank robber Willie Sutton, who reputedly replied to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by saying, "because that's where the money is." In Sutton's 1976 book Where the Money Was, Sutton denies having said this but added that "If anybody had asked me, I'd have probably said it. That's what almost anybody would say ... it couldn't be more obvious."

Sutton’s Law is most utilized in medical diagnosing, but it also applies to all Data Analysis (including Statistical Analysis). Sutton’s Law states that when diagnosing or analyzing, one should first consider the obvious, as it is applicable to any process of diagnosis or analysis.

In Medicine, it suggests that one should first conduct those tests which could confirm (or rule out) the most likely diagnosis. It is taught in medical schools to suggest to medical students that they might best order tests in that sequence which is most likely to result in a quick diagnosis, hence treatment, while minimizing unnecessary costs. It is also applied in pharmacology; when choosing a drug to treat a specific disease, you want the drug to reach the disease. A similar idea is contained in the physician's adage, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

In Data Analysis and Statistical Analysis, it is a warning that you should first consider the obvious before drilling down into the data. A lot of time and money will be saved if the obvious holds up under scrutiny, and you are more likely to be correct in your analysis if the obvious holds up under scrutiny. Much of today’s social statistical analysis does not utilize Sutton’s Law, as it would lead to conclusions that are not congruent with "Progressives/Leftists" policies and political goals. Instead, we have the situation in social statistical analysis to achieve a foreordained conclusion by the process of:

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics" (1954)

This quote is encapsulated in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave", and elaborated in the classic book “How to Lie with Statistics Reissue Edition” by Darrell Huff  (Author), Irving Geis  (Illustrator).

Often, such social statistical analysis is done to determine the ‘root causes of a social problem. But root causes are often in the eye of the beholder. The search for root causes in social statistical analysis often starts with Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the statisticians who are looking for root causes, and just as often these statisticians ignore Sutton’s Law to reach their foreordained conclusion.

An example of this is to infer systemic racism just because, as a class, young black men are stopped, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated at rates that "over-represent" their roughly 15 percent portion of the total U.S. population. The relevant metric is not the population portion - that favorite statistic of the disparate-impact analysts. What matters is offense conduct. It is simply a fact that, as a class, young black men break the law at higher rates than other demographic groups. We know that based not on police observations but on victim reports - reports that also tell us black people are victimized by crime at unacceptably high rates. And the root cause is not systemic racism in America, but it is as I have written in my Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems”. Issues that are difficult to quantify by social statistical analysis but are easier to understand by applying Sutton’s Law. If you have a strong family unit, a quality education, and morals and ethics that are religiously based, then you are less likely to become involved in criminal activity, and the racial statistical disproportionality in criminality would disappear.

Therefore, we all should apply Sutton’s Law before we become entangled in the data analysis. Hopefully, this will allow us to make better social policy decisions that will redound to the betterment of America.

05/04/21 Progressives and Leftists Questions Answered

Whenever Democrats and Progressives/leftists have questioned America’s greatness, I have three questions and answers in rebuttal to their assertions about America’s greatness. They are:

1. Is America perfect? No – but as I have often said, "Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best." The Constitution Preamble states “… in Order to form a more perfect Union”, a more perfect union but not a perfect And the striving for the betterment of America has been the history of America.
2. Has America made mistakes? Yes – but every country and society make mistakes. It is how they deal with mistakes that are important, and not that they have made mistakes. As long as their mistakes were not evil intentions, and they have corrected their mistakes, then they (including America) can be forgiven.
3. Is there any other country or society that has been better than America? No – In my readings on history, most countries and societies have been far worse than America, and few have even approached the goodness of America.

Therefore, while America is not great, it is the greatest country that is or has been in the world. And this greatness is because of our dedication to the ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and "A Just Government and a Just Society", as well as "A Civil Society".

05/03/21 Democratic Socialism Questions

Whenever I hear "Progressives/Leftists" espouse their viewpoint and policies, I have an overwhelming urge to ask them some questions or inject a pithy comment, many of which I have obtained from other sources. These questions and comments are:

“Five Questions to Ask Democratic Socialists:

1. What is the difference between "Democratic Socialism" and regular "Socialism"?
2. Where in the world has Socialism ever worked?
3. Who pays for the 'free' benefits of Socialism?
4. What will stop "Democratic Socialism" from becoming regular "Socialism"?
5. Why would we ever want "Democratic Socialism" in America?”
   - Liz Wheeler

“The three questions that will destroy most of the arguments of the left:

1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?”
   - Thomas Sowell

“If one person has a right to something he did not earn, does it not of necessity require that another person does not have a right to something that they did earn?”
 - Walter E. Williams

“What exactly is your 'fair share' of what 'someone else' has worked for?”
 - Thomas Sowell

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
 - Thomas Sowell

And to paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is fair, but who shall decide what is fair."

And when supporters of Democratic Socialism claim that they are better because they are democratic, I would respond:

"The biggest difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that one is imposed by the tyranny of the minority, while the other is imposed by the tyranny of the majority."
 - Mark Dawson

I hope that you will think of these questions and comments wherever you listen to Progressives or Leftists.

05/02/21 Today’s Democrats Believe

The article, “Biden's partisan presidency – Dems too far left to reach across the aisle. Here's why” by Liz Peek, is an interesting read and contains a list of current Democrat Party beliefs as follows:

“Today’s Democrats believe:

• That freeing criminals from jail and taking cops off the streets will make our neighborhoods safer.
• That allowing hundreds of thousands of poor, uneducated people to enter our country illegally will make the United States more prosperous.
• That handing out "free money" will create a society where "work, not wealth" is rewarded.
• That teachers’ unions should not be held accountable for the deplorable failures of our inner-city schools, even as we pay more than almost any country on earth for public education.
• That raising taxes on employers will promote hiring.
• That the United States can run up endless amounts of debt, because "modern monetary theory" – an untested academic hypothesis – suggests that there will never be a reckoning.
• That we should sacrifice our productive and efficient energy industries on the altar of climate change, even though China’s emissions are twice those of the U.S. and growing rapidly, while ours are shrinking.
• That our country is "systemically racist" even though Black Americans have proportionate representation in Congress and we have twice elected a Black president.
• That raising taxes on the wealthy will make everyone else better off.
• That biological men should compete in women’s sports, because gender is an attitude, not a fact.
• That 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote but that people that age crossing the border illegally are "children."
• That censoring dissonant political voices, and a president of the United States, promotes freedom.

Many of these ideas don’t make sense. Some are downright offensive. But all help explain why President Biden will struggle to attract support for his progressive programs.“

Too which I would also add:

• That a Photo Id for voting is racist, but a Photo Id for other ordinary activities is for security.
• That a ‘Covid Vaccination Passport’ should be required to engage in the normal pursuits of life and commercial activities.
• That boycotting States that pass voting reform laws that assure election integrity is acceptable, but boycotting China that has a horrendous record of Human Rights violations is not permitted.

These ideas are why President Biden will never be able to achieve bipartisanship as I have chirped on, ‘07/24/20 Bring Us Together”, as these ideas are not unifying but polarizing. To implement many of these ideas would be antithetic to our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. And these ideas are why the Democrat Party should not hold political power.

05/01/21 The Ten Radical New Rules that are Changing America

In a new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Ten Radical New Rules That Are Changing America”, he explains how America has changed through the efforts of "Progressives/Leftists". They are:

1. Money is a construct.
2. Laws are not necessarily binding anymore.
3. Racialism is now acceptable.
4. The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen.
5. Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children.
6. Hypocrisy is passé. Virtue-signaling is alive.
7. Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it.
8. McCarthyism is good. Destroying lives and careers for incorrect thoughts saves more lives and careers.
9. Ignorance is preferable to knowledge.
10. Wokeness is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity.

This article is well worth the read for his thoughts on these rules, and his other articles are just as thought-provoking.

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. As a National Review Institute fellow, he has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson is perhaps best known for his 2001 book, Carnage and Culture.

Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism.

04/30/21 The Conflicts of Mindsets

As I have written in my Chirps on “04/28/21 My Mindset” and “04/29/21 The Progressivist/Leftist Mindset”, the Progressives and Leftists have a different mindset than Conservatives. Much of the differences in each mindset are a difference in vision, as I have written about in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. For a fuller account of these different visions, I have recently read a book that I would highly recommend, “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles” by Thomas Sowell:

“Controversies in politics arise from many sources, but the conflicts that endure for generations or centuries show a remarkably consistent pattern. In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes this pattern. He describes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the "constrained" vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the "unconstrained" vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. A Conflict of Visions offers a convincing case that ethical and policy disputes circle around the disparity between both outlooks.”

As The New York Times Book Review has stated, "Extraordinary on several counts... [Sowell] makes his case fairly, lucidly and persuasively."

Thomas Sowell has taught economics at a number of colleges and universities, including Cornell, University of California Los Angeles, and Amherst. He has published both scholarly and popular articles and books on economics and is currently a scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite academics to read and quote, so much so that I have created a webpage, “My Favorite Quotes of Thomas Sowell”, that collects some of my favorite words of wisdom of Thomas Sowell.

04/29/21 The Progressivist/Leftist Mindset

I am fairly certain of my own mindset when I think, reason, and write about political, social, historical, and scientific topics. I am primarily a Constitutional Conservative principally interested in "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. I am also committed to “A Philosophical Approach”, “Reasoning”, and the importance of facts to determine truths. Consequently, I have an intellectual approach, rather than an emotional approach, to reach my conclusions. Emotions are important in my thinking, but only as a guide and not a determinative of my thinking and reasoning.

When listening or reading the reasoning of "Progressives/Leftists", I utilize my intellectual and analytical skills to ascertain their reasoning. In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that Progressives/Leftists predominately utilize emotional-based reasoning with a modicum of intellectual reasoning. I have also realized that most Progressives/Leftists utilize unsupported premises throughout their arguments to support their conclusions. This mindset allows them to reach a conclusion unsupported by facts, or as Joe Biden stated in the 2020 Presidential campaign trail, “We choose truth over facts”.

Having an inquisitive mind, I have often wondered about the psychological basis of the Progressives/Leftists mindset. In researching this topic, I have come across a book that I believe answers the question of the Progressives/Leftists mindset. This book is “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D. as stated from the Preface:

“This book is about human nature and human freedom, and the relationship between them. Its contents are an outgrowth of my life-long interest in how the mind works. That interest, beginning at about age twelve, eventually led me to careers in clinical and forensic psychiatry and to the particular access these disciplines provide to human psychology. Disorders of personality have been a special focus of this interest. First in clinical practice and then in forensic evaluations, I have had the opportunity to study the nature of personality and the factors which affect its development. The practice of forensic psychiatry has permitted an especially close look at the manner in which all mental illnesses, including personality disorders, interact with society's rules for acceptable conduct. These rules, both civil and criminal, largely define the domains of human freedom and the conditions that ground social order.

Historically, of course, western ideas about freedom and social order have come from fields quite distant from psychiatry: philosophy, ethics, jurisprudence, history, theology, economics, anthropology, sociology, art and literature, among others. But the workings of the human mind as understood by psychiatry and psychology are necessarily relevant to these disciplines and to the social institutions that arise from them. This book is an attempt to connect mechanisms of the mind to certain economic, social and political conditions, those under which freedom and order may flourish. Although I have made strenuous efforts to follow where reason leads, I have not written this book out of intellectual interest alone. My intent has been more "generative" than that, to use one of Erik Erikson's terms. It has, in fact, grown out of a deep concern for the future of ordered liberty. In their efforts "to form a more perfect Union," America's founding fathers intended, as the Preamble tells us, to establish justice, insure peace, provide for the nation's defense, promote its general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. But the entire twentieth century, and the dawn of the twenty-first, have witnessed modern liberalism's relentless attacks on all of these goals and on all of the principles on which individual liberty and rational social order rest. Although they are strikingly deficient in political substance, these attacks have nevertheless been successful in exploiting the psychological nature of man for socialist purposes. To counter the destructiveness of these attacks requires a clear understanding of the relationship between human psychology and social process. It is my hope that this book makes at least a small contribution to that purpose.“

More information about this book can be viewed at his website The Liberty Mind, and my Articles, "The Liberal Mindset" and "The Liberal Manifesto Major Principles".

As I have written in my “Book It” webpage of “04/01/21 The Wit and Wisdom of Evan Sayet” there are three books that he has written that explores the Progressivist/Leftist Mindset; “THE WOKE SUPREMACY: An Anti-Socialist Manifesto” by Evan Sayet, “KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks” by Evan Sayet, and “Apocali Now!” by Evan Sayet and A.F. Branco. These books are well worth reading as they expose the insidiousness of the Progressivist/Leftist Mindset. Even if you agree or disagree with Evan Sayet, these books will make you think about this issue of mindsets.

04/28/21 My Mindset

I am fairly certain of my own mindset when I think, reason, and write about political, social, historical, and scientific topics. I am primarily a Constitutional Conservative principally interested in the topics as I have written in my articles of:

• "A Civil Society"
• "A Just Government and a Just Society"
• "Despotism in America"
• "Dialog and Debate"
• “Divisiveness in America”
• “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”
• “Lies and Beliefs”
• "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights"
• “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”
• "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders"

Whenever I think, reason, and write about any topic, I always keep in mind these articles to guide me in my conclusions. I am also ready to change my mind whenever new or additional facts or reasoning comes to my attention or has been said:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others".
 - Benjamin Franklin

I also believe that I can be wrong, and I am willing to change my opinions, and I always keep in mind whenever I reason and write to:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
 - Benjamin Franklin

04/27/21 The Problems with Islam

A common saying about Islam is that it is ‘A Religion of Peace’. However, its history has been far from peaceful, just as much as Christianity has been far from peaceful in its history. However, when discussing ‘Peace’, and a peaceful religion, it is necessary to first determine if a religion is a peaceful religion. The best definition of Peace I have ever encountered is from a great Philosopher:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
 - Baruch Spinoza

Therefore, I have extracted my Chirp on “02/14/21 A Religion of Peace“, and extended my thoughts into a new Article, “The Problems with Islam”. This article does not address the theology nor history of Islam. but instead focuses on the current actions of Muslims. This limitation is due to my belief that every current religion should primarily be judged by the actions of its believers and secondarily judged by its theology and history, or in the case of this new article, ‘Islam Is as Islam Does’. While the significant majority of Muslims are peaceful to the above definition, it is a fact that a large percent of Muslims are not peaceful according to this definition. My new article examines the unpeaceful actions of many Muslims, and the consequences of these unpeaceful actions. 

I am quite aware that this is a contentious subject, but I hope that I have addressed this subject in a calm and reasonable manner.

04/26/21 Defund or Reimagine the Police

The cries to defund or reimagine the police have rung throughout the land in the wake of several occurrences of police brutality and civilian killings. There is no doubt that some police officers are bad apples, but then again, in every profession and walk of life, there are bad apples. What is important is that we reform police actions to correct their misdeeds, or remove the police officers, and sometimes prosecute police officers for their misdeeds. But to defund or reimagine the police for the misdeeds of the few is to eliminate the good for the purpose of obtaining perfection.

And we should always remember that:

"Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best."
 - Mark Dawson

and

“Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good”
 - Voltaire

In defunding or reimagining the police, we run the risks of increased crime and introducing chaos into our society. Increased crime because of less policing resulting in less enforcement of our laws, thereby introducing chaos from these results. There are also calls for fewer prisons, reduced jail times, increased paroles, and cashless bail for criminal activities, which would result in the release of more criminals into our streets and more chaos in our society.

Abraham Lincoln understood this well when he spoke to an audience in Springfield, Il on January 1838, about what happens when a society refuses to punish thugs and vandals. Lincoln said:

"Citizens, seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose."
 - Abraham Lincoln

When Americans imagine they have nothing to lose, they will take action to regain what they have lost. Actions that may not be peaceful, and indeed, may become violent. For if the government does not protect you, your family, or your property, then Americans have the Natural Right to protect themselves through the use of arms. This will lead to vigilante justice and civil strife that is contrary to "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" and "A Civil Society".

No matter what the good intentions of the persons advocating these changes are, “The Law of Unintended Consequences” will intervene, and the unintended consequences could be tragic. Therefore, lets us not defund or reimagine the police, but reform the police to assure that the rights of Americans are protected and that the lives and safety of the people and police are assured.

04/25/21 Objective and Subjective

Many people believe that they are objective when they are, in fact, being subjective. The words’ objective and subjective are antithetical to each other and must be delineated as follows:

• Objective – Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation.
• Subjective - Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.

This most often occurs when a person makes assertions. However, assertions also contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Therefore, assertions have the seeds of subjectivity. Consequently, when someone asserts something, there is a good possibility that they are subjective in their assertion.

Therefore, whenever an assertion is made, the assertion must not be assumed to be true or correct. All assertions must be disassembled to determine if they are objective or subjective. And the burden of proof of an assertion is upon the person making the assertion. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

The “Burden of Proof” must be based upon “Reasoning” rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of ‘if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right’, which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.

Consequently, we all must be concerned as to our objectivity or subjectivity whenever we make any statements, and we all must be ready to challenge an assertion whether we believe if it is true or not. To do otherwise is to lead us onto a false path.

04/24/21 The General Welfare, the Enumerated Powers, and the Necessary and Proper Clauses

The General Welfare, the Enumerated Powers, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of The U.S. Constitution are a limitation on the powers of the Federal Government and not reasons for the Federal government to become involved in actions outside of their enumerated powers. Those persons who utilize these terms without understanding their meaning are corrupting the Constitution, usually for the purposes of achieving their policy goals or political agendas. And people who mislead you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, should be given no heed. My new Article, “The General Welfare, the Enumerated Powers, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of The U.S. Constitution”, examines these clauses and their meanings.

04/23/21 Constitution Readings

When intelligently discussing the Constitution, it is important to be knowledgeable about both the document and its history. Otherwise, you face the conundrum of:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
- Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism

Much has been written about the Constitution and its history, and most of what has been written has been conflicting. Legal Scholars, historians, and politicians disagree with each other about the history, meaning, and intent of the Constitution. These disagreements are important for a fuller understanding of the Constitution, but these disagreements need to be intellectually grounded to be important. Unfortunately, much that has been written or said about the Constitution is nonsense and unreasonable, and much of this nonsense is spouted for personal or political agenda purposes.

In my many readings on the Constitution, I have read books that are both good and bad. Some of these books have been exceptionable, and I often refer to these books when writing my Chirps and Articles. Therefore, I have written a separate Article, “Constitution Readings”, of the books that I believe provide a good foundation for understating the history and meaning of the Constitution.

04/22/21 Identity Politics is Tribal Behavior

E Pluribus Unum is Latin for "Out of many, one" (also translated as "One out of many" or "One from many") – is a traditional motto of the United States, appearing on the Great Seal along with Annuit cœptis (Latin for "he approves the undertaking [lit. 'things undertaken']") and Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New order of the ages"); its inclusion on the seal was approved by an Act of Congress in 1782. While its status as a national motto was for many years unofficial, E Pluribus Unum was still considered the de facto motto of the United States from its early history. Eventually, the United States Congress passed an act (H. J. Resolution 396), adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto in 1956.

 E Pluribus Unum requires that we first be Americans in our identity, while all other identities are secondary and negligible in our responsibilities to our society. It is fine to be prideful of our heritages, but this pride should only be within ourselves and not be determinative of our actions with others.

When people take actions based on their heritage, then we are no longer a nation but a collection of tribes. In the history of mankind, tribal behavior has resulted in much strife between the tribes. It often results in wars, poverty, suffering, and depredations of our Natural Rights. It is when mankind began to collectivize the tribes into regional associations and then civil governments that we began to progress into a Civilization. Civilizations in which tribal behavior was no longer acceptable. A civilization that progressed into the most diverse and freedom-loving society in history – the United States of America.

The Greco, Roman, and British empires were very diverse, but diversity within these societies was obtained and maintained by the force of arms and ruled by a central authority that was not diverse. Only in America do we have a diverse nation that is ruled by the diverse citizens of America. But this diversity in modern America is morphing into tribalism, not tribalism of geography but tribalism of "Identity Politics". And like all tribalism, we are experiencing strife between the tribes, a strife that will divide Americans into warring camps that will require a force of arms to quell.

And this tribalism has not occurred naturally but as a political tactic to obtain political power. And this tactic is practiced almost solely by one party – The Democrat Party. The tactics of "Identity Politics" are often practiced by the Democrat Party as it has morphed into a party-based mostly on Identity Politics, while the Republican Party is based mostly on its principles. A generalization that is not always true in the specifics of an individual issue but is generally true for the whole. The claims by the Democrat Party that the Republican Party also engages in Identity Politics are mostly a projection of their own Identity Politics activities, as the Republican Party generally does not target racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity as the basis of its policies and positions.

Therefore, much of the bitterness and divisions within America are a result of the Democrat Party's words and deeds. And this bitterness and divisions cannot end until the Democrat Party reforms its tactics, or they are turned out of power. Americans must unite around E Pluribus Unum in their voting and governance if we are to remain a people dedicated to "A Civil Society" and “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

04/21/21 Compliance to Police Officers Instructions

The most effective and best way to reduce police shootings is also the easiest way. Americans, when they are confronted by the police, should be compliant with the police officers' instructions. If you have a beef with the police officer, then you calmly and rationally talk to the police officer after you are compliant with their instructions. If such calm and rational discussions do not resolve your dispute, then you should take it to court, but do not try to resolve it on the street. If you are not compliant with the police officer's instructions, then you will come out second best in the argument. You may not always get what you want from the police office by being compliant, but you will not be injured or killed by the police officer if you are compliant.

The case of the police shootings and death of George Floyd of Minneapolis MN, Daunte Wright of Brooklyn Center MN, and Adam Toledo of Chicago IL are perfect examples of the tragic consequences of noncompliance with police officers' instructions. In each case, if the suspects had immediately complied with all the Police Officers' instructions, they would be alive today. Instead, they choose to be noncompliant, violent in the cases of George Floyd and Daunte Wright, and armed fleeing in the case of Adam Toledo, which led the police officers to take actions that resulted in their deaths.

In the case of George Floyd, there is evidence that the police mishandled the situation, which exacerbated his medical conditions that led to his death. Sufficient evidence in which a police officer was prosecuted and convicted of three felonies. As to the merits of this prosecution and conviction, I am in no position to comment. I only hope that the jury decision was merit-based and not swayed by the intimidation of the mob, or fear of mob retribution against the jury members, or the possibility of community or nationwide riots of a not guilty verdict.

Whether the police officers overreacted or not, and whether the police officers should be prosecuted for their actions, is the responsibility of the Judicial system. No mob actions should determine the legal culpability of the police officers’ actions. To do otherwise is to institute an ochlocracy (A political system in which a mob is the source of control; government by the masses). It should always be remembered that in America, every person (including police officers) is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and all persons are entitled to Due Process of Law as I have written in my Article, “Justice and The Rule of Law in America”. Deadly force by police officers is sometimes necessary to preserve the life, health, and safety of police officers and bystanders. However, whenever deadly force is utilized by police officers, there must be an investigation, and possible prosecution of police officers, to determine if deadly force was justified. The mob actions should be directed to assuring that the investigation is timely, objective, and without influence by outside pressures to determine if the police officer's actions were justifiable. In no case should the mob actions turn to violence or demands for a guilty verdict. As I have written in my Chirp on "08/31/20 Insurrection", such violent mob actions are unacceptable in America.

If we do not observe the preceding paragraphs' cautions, then it is not possible to maintain a "A Civil Society" nor “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

04/20/21 Gun Control

We are now, once again, discussing Gun Control in America. I have previously written my thoughts on this topic in my Articles, “Gun Control” and “Thinking and Reasoning About Gun Control”. However, two new articles from The Heritage Foundation have elucidated some common misunderstandings by Americans about Gun Control. These short articles are well worth the time it takes to read them. They are:

“6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings”

1. Mass killings are rare, and mass public shootings are even rarer.
2. Many gun control measures are not likely to be helpful.
3. Public mass shooters typically have histories of mental health issues.
4. The United States does not have an extraordinary problem with mass public shootings compared to other developed countries.
5. Mass killers often find ways to kill even without firearms.
6. Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons.

“Fact Sheet: Gun Violence” - Eight Stubborn Facts Regarding Gun Violence in America

1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

Before we rush to do something about gun violence, let us be sure that we are doing good. Many government policies feel good without doing good and rarely account for the costs and benefits of the policy, nor for “The Law of Unintended Consequences” of the policy. When thinking of doing good, you should always remember:

“In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.”
 - Frederic Bastiat – That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen

“The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; and for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it. Most often, however, the law of unintended consequences illuminates the perverse unanticipated effects of government legislation and regulation.”
 - from The Library of Economics and Liberty

“Life is like a double entry ledger. For everything that happens, there are both positives and negatives, especially for anything that you say or do.”
 - As stated in one of my “Truisms”

and

“Be prepared for both the positives and negatives for anything that you say or do.”
 - As stated in one of my “Principles”

We should also remember the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said."
 - Benjamin Franklin

04/19/21 Insurrection

There has been much rhetoric about the ‘insurrection’ that occurred in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. Troops were brought in, and fences were constructed to prevent a further insurrection. Justice Department investigations have begun, and there has been a proposed Congressional Commission to investigate this insurrection. There is no doubt that those people involved violated the law and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. There is also no doubt that as an ‘insurrection’, it was one of the feeblest attempts of an insurrection in history. So feeble it is almost laughable if it were not for the five people who died during or after the event: one was a Capitol Police officer, and four were among those who stormed or protested, including one stormer shot by a Capitol Police officer. Minor damage was sustained to the Capitol building, and some property was damaged or looted.

Meanwhile, previous too and since then, in 2020 and 2021, we have seen much rioting and looting by mobs in many cities. Rioting and looting that has cost many more lives, and much more property destruction and damage, and extensive looting. Yet no one has called these action insurrections, indeed, may have labeled them ‘mostly peaceful’ demonstrations or actions justified by the events that sparked them. But these events pose more of a threat to our Republic than the ‘insurrection’ in Washington D.C., as these events were and are an assault on our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. The deaths, injuries, destruction, damage, and looting of these events are far greater than what occurred in Washington, D.C. And these events were in defiance to local governments' lawful and proper authority to maintain peaceable assemblies, and as such, they were and are an insurrection.

Yet Justice Department investigations and proposed Congressional Commission to investigate these insurrections are feeble or non-existent. Apparently, Democrats and "Progressives/Leftists" believe that it is only an insurrection if it occurs in Washington D.C., and only if it is instigated by those to the right of themselves. This is but another example of the double standard that Democrats and Progressives/Leftists utilize when describing America and Americans. And this double standard divides Americans and further leads to further erosion of "A Civil Society".

Update: On the day I posted this Chirp, it was announced that the Capital Police officer who died the day after the ‘insurrection’ had died of natural causes. The was no forensic evidence of any external or internal injuries to this Police officer and no other contributing factors to his death by natural causes. In addition, three of the civilians who died also died of natural causes, while one civilian died of gunshot wounds inflicted by a Capitol Police Officer. No details were posted about the death of the civilian who died of gunshot wounds, and no details are expected to be released. This is an outrage, as any civilian who died because of law enforcement actions should be fully explained so that the American public makes a judgment on the propriety of the law enforcement actions that led to the death of a civilian.

04/18/21 Risk-Aversion versus Risk-Taking

In a recent article by Michael Barone, “Too Much Risk Aversion Is Too Risky”, he points out some interesting correlations between the different responses to COVID between the Red States and the Blue States. The one oddity he points out of American COVID responses has been the one-dimensional perspective of liberal decision-makers. An oddity that highlights the differences between Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking persons. Some excerpts from this column are:

"As economist Allison Schrager argues, welfare-state protections have appealed to risk-averse traditional Democrats, while deregulated free markets have appealed to more risk-taking Republicans.”

“Women tend to be more risk-averse, for obvious evolutionary reasons (they're needed for species survival), and be more Democratic and dovish; men, more willing to take risks, are more Republican and hawkish. There's a reason every society protecting itself against attack has always depended on strong, aggressive, utterly non-risk-averse (think skateboarding!) young men.”

“One oddity of American COVID responses has been the one-dimensional perspective of liberal decision-makers. They claim to be following "the science," but with a narrow focus.”

“To prevent the spread of a virus that is often asymptomatic and less lethal than influenza to people under age 65, they have imposed restrictions that have reduced life-saving medical screenings and produced mental illness and stunted development among children and adolescents.”

“We're learning that risk aversion can go too far. A 5 mph speed limit could reduce vehicle deaths toward zero, and closure of elementary schools would vastly reduce the spreading of colds. But too much risk aversion can be too risky.”

I would recommend that you read this entire article to fully appreciate his comments. I would also add that upon reading his article, that I began to cogitate on the impacts of Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking in personal, political, and societal actions.

Risk takers are those persons who advance themselves and our society, while risk aversion persons are those people that preserve themselves and our society. Society needs both risk-takers and risk-averse people to flourish. Generally, a person is either more of a risk-taker or more of a risk aversion person. The question is, of course, what is the balance between Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking?

In our personal lives, those that are risk takers often achieve either success and economic prosperity or failure and economic adversity. Those that are risk-averse often achieve a modicum of success but not as much economic prosperity. Each person must decide for themselves what are their personal success and economic prosperity goals, and the best means of Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking to achieve these goals. All, however, must realize that there are no guarantees in life and that any decision has the possibility of success or failure.

In our societal politics and governance, there is also the question of Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking. However, the stakes are higher as political decisions and governance impact all Americans. Democrats seem to be more inclined to risk aversion when it comes to the welfare of the people but more risk-taking in the creation and administration of laws to achieve this risk aversion. Republicans, however, seem to be more of risk-taking when it comes to the welfare of the people but more risk-averse in the creation and administration of laws. This may be a result of their Constitutional interpretation, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”.

So, how do we achieve this balance between Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking in our politics and governance? I would suggest that we look into the American ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. And we should look at them through the lens of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and ”The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Any Risk-Taking actions that would endanger these American ideals should be taken cautiously and with due deliberation. Any Risk-Aversion actions that engender the common good of the people, but not the greater good of the people as I have written on "Greater Good versus the Common Good", should be undertaken after forethought and due deliberation of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", and our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

Under no circumstances should we as a people be in a rush to accomplish this Risk-Aversion or Risk-Taking, as I have Chirped on, “10/01/20 Rush to Judgment and Rush to Solutions”. Much of this Rushing to Judgment and Rushing to Solutions is based on Impatience. An impatience that seems to be a characteristic of Americans. We, as a nation, are often in a hurry to accomplish something. A hurry that often leads to poor decisions and unintended results. Let us make these Risk-Aversion and Risk-Taking decisions through thoughtful and deliberate considerations by the normal functioning of our Legislative process.

04/17/21 Jordan Peterson for President

I would love to see Jordan Peterson as the President of the United States. His intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom are sorely needed in America today. Although he is not a politician, perhaps this is an advantage as we have too many politicians in elected office that have screwed things up.

Jordan Peterson’s clear and level-headedness on the problems and solutions facing western civilization provide a refreshing antidote to the nonsense being spewed by "Progressives/Leftists". A YouTube video of Jordan Peterson discussing “12 principles for a 21st century conservatism” is an example of his forthrightness.

Alas, given that Jordan Peterson is Canadian-born and a citizen of Canada, that rules him out for the Presidency. However, if he becomes a Democrat, it could be possible, as most Democrats have little regard for the Constitution and support equitableness for both legal and illegal immigrants.

04/16/21 Tenets of a Viable 21st Century Conservatism

Jordan Peterson has written two best seller books about personal responsibility; “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” and “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life”. While Jordan Peterson has a conservative outlook, he does do define himself as a conservative as he has some disagreements about conservatism. I recently ran across a YouTube video of Jordan Peterson discussing “12 principles for a 21st century conservatism” that articulates his view of conservatism.

“Conservatism has all-too-often found itself unable to articulate a coherent positive doctrine. By this I mean specifically that the laudable conservative tendency to preserve the best of past has too-often manifested itself in a series of "thou shalt not" statements, instead of laying out a manifesto of fundamental values that might serve to unite people around a set of common ambitions. I am attempting to rectify this problem with this statement of principles, some of which I believe might have the additional virtue of being attractive to young people, looking for mature and forthright purpose and responsibility.

I am not making the claim that the statement is perfect, comprehensive or final.”
 - Jordan Peterson

These 12 principles of 21st century Conservatism are:

1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.
2. A peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.
4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor.
7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights.
8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible.
11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.

Although this is a long video, it is worth every minute of your attention, as it is an intelligent and cogent argument for conservatism in the 21st century.

04/15/21 The Political Correctness Stance of Jordan Peterson

Whether you know everything about Jordan Peterson, or snippets of what people say about him here and there, or you are unfamiliar with him, Jordan Peterson has become an icon of rational thought over the last several years.

For some, Jordan Peterson is a refreshing new voice in the political and social world. For others, the name Jordan Peterson alone is enough to spark intense argument and debate. And unless you have listened to several of his lectures or read his bestselling books, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos” and “Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life”, it can be difficult to situate yourself to Jordan Peterson’s relevance.

Are you supposed to rally for him, against him, or just ignore his name completely? Like all rational figures, he cannot be ignored, but you can agree or disagree with him if your argument is intellectually reasoned. However, I would place my bets on Jordan Peterson’s arguments in any dialog, discussion, or debate in which he participates.

In his many writings, debates, and speeches on the topic of Political Correctness, he explains why he detests it and social justice warriors so much. The salient points of his stance on "Political Correctness" are:

• Political Correctness and Social Justice Warriors (SJW) have grown over the last few years.
• Political Correctness is the first step towards Orwellian groupthink from a postmodern Neo-Marxist radical left, and if taken too far, can lead to "Despotism in America".
• Political correctness emphasizes the importance of being politically correct in accordance with groupthink rather than factually correct in accordance with reality.
• With the rise of "Social Media" platforms, it is easier than ever before to enforce social rules, such as what can be said and what cannot be said, and those who break the rules are alienated through "Cancel Culture".
• Black Lives Matter and #MeToo are examples of movements with originally good intentions that are now used for purposes of an extreme "Progressives/Leftists"
• Political Correctness leads to group victimhood and "Identity Politics" rather than individual responsibility.

Please note that the hyperlinks in the above bullet points are my thoughts on these topics. I would also note that the rise of Political Correctness has also given rise to "Virtue Signaling" and "Wokeness".

Jordan Peterson has a website, a YouTube Channel, and a Podcast about his thoughts on many of the contentious issues of our modern society. I would suggest that you visit these websites to learn more about the rationality and wisdom of Jordan Peterson.

04/14/21 Moderate Joe Biden

During the Presidential election of 2020, we were assured by many supporters of Joe Biden that he was a political moderate and that he would restrain the more "Progressives/Leftists" elements of the "Democrat Party Leaders" and membership, and he would be a conciliator. You could trust Joe to be more level-headed and constrained and to be more accommodative to all sides and viewpoints of an issue. He would ‘Bring Us Together and calm the turbulence of President Trump’s administration.

After several months of his administration, I can definitely state that this expectation was an illusion manufactured for electioneering purposes. The Executive Orders that he has issued, the Legislation that he proposes or supports, and his immigration policy are not the actions of a moderate but the deeds of Progressive/Leftists that desire and labor to achieve a fundamental transformation of America. A fundamental transformation to a democratic-socialist form of government, a larger, more powerful, and more intrusive Federal government, and the institution of the Democrat Party to lead this government for the next several decades. To achieve these goals, President Biden, the Democrat Party Leaders, and "Progressives/Leftists" will say and do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals. They will institute actions that they then try to mask with words that are fictitious to the actions and words intended to cover up the factuality and consequences of their actions.

The most divisive aspects of President Biden’s agenda, an agenda he borrowed from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Biden's plans include legalizing voter fraud in the name of "election reform"; ending the Senate filibuster; packing the Supreme Court; defunding police departments; approving statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; increasing taxes; opening America's borders to convicted criminals, human traffickers, drug pushers and carriers of COVID-19; passing the Green New Deal; socializing health care; restoring the burdensome regulations eliminated by his predecessor; sacrificing military preparedness in the name of political correctness; eroding the Second Amendment, and restricting religious liberty. These are not the actions of a moderate, nor accommodating to other ideas and viewpoints, but that of an unchangeable mindset which I have Chirped on "04/29/21 The Progressivist/Leftist Mindset". However, his penchant for advancing Progressives/Leftists ideology in his Administration may be for any or all combination of three reasons: Sincerity, Democrat Party Politics, or his reduced mental capabilities from Dementia.

If he is sincere, then the American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” are in danger. A democratic-socialist form of government cannot allow Freedoms and Liberties except for that which they deem is proper. Equalities would not be defined as equality of opportunity but by equality of outcomes based on a person’s identity or victimhood, as I have Chirped on, “07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome”. Equal Justice for All will be determined by your identity or victimhood status rather than treating each person as equal before the eyes of the law. And our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" would not be respected except when they find it convenient to do so.

President Biden, and his advisors, may be concerned that if they do not toe the line on Progressive policies, they may face severe public criticism from Progressives and Leftists and/or internal opposition within the Democrat Party, which could result in the fracturing of the Democrat Party. This would endanger their control of the party, their hold on power, and the future election prospects of Democrat candidates. Given the Democrat Party’s history and penchant for obtaining and retaining power, they will often say or do anything that they think is necessary to obtain or retain power, which is what is now happening in President Biden’s administration. They may have calculated that the only means to retain and maintain power is to accede to the demands of the Progressives and Leftists, an acquiesce that has set them on the course that they are now undertaking.

As anyone, such as myself, who has dealt with dementia knows that President Biden is exhibiting the signs of dementia. If it is true that he has entered dementia, which I believe is true, then we have the question of ‘Who is directing the Progressives/Leftists actions of President Biden?’, a subject that I have Chirped on, “03/16/21 Scripted versus Unscripted”. If President Biden is in dementia, then those persons who are directing his actions are in control of policy decisions and the levers of government. The people that he has appointed are decidedly of the Progressive/Leftist viewpoint that wishes to impose this viewpoint on Americans by means of despotism, as I have written in my Article, "Despotism in America". People that are in control of his actions that were not elected but appointed. Unelected people that will determine how the American people will be governed and the direction of America. People who also tend to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have Chirped on, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”.

My mother, and my mother’s mother, also suffered from dementia, as well as other family members who suffered from dementia, as I have Chirped on, “08/08/20 A Most Terrible Disease”. Dementia is a serious mental health issue and is not to be taken lightly. Consequently, people who suffer from dementia should not be in control of themselves, let alone be in control of others. I am sorrowful to say that when President Biden speaks, along with how he speaks (unnatural pauses, losing focus, stiff posture, hanging sentences, etc.), and when I look into his eyes, I mostly see empty space behind his eyes, which reinforces my opinion that he has entered dementia.

If President Biden is Sincere, or he is playing Democrat Party Politics, or he is or has reduced mental capabilities from Dementia, then the Democrat Party is and has perpetrated a fraud on America. A fraud of presenting Joe Biden as a moderate when he has governed as a Progressive/Leftist. A fraud of Joe Biden being a conciliator when he has only adopted Progressive/Leftist policies. And a fraud of misrepresenting candidate Joe Biden’s mental health and his mental abilities to lead America. A fraud in which they had the assistance of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media in perpetuating this fraud. A fraud so egregious and done for the purpose of obtaining and retaining power for the Democrat Party that they deserve to be turned out of power until a new generation of honest and ethical Democrat candidates, committed to American ideals, can be elected. Alas, the thirst of Democrat Party officials for power seems to provide no check on their governance, and may indeed be Unconstitutional. However, they should remember:

“In most cases, those who want power probably shouldn’t have it, those who enjoy it probably do so for the wrong reasons, and those who want most to hold on to it don’t understand that it’s only temporary.”
 - John C. Maxwell

04/13/21 What is Money?

Money in of itself is just a high-quality piece of pager with quality engraving that has no intrinsic value. It is what the money represents that has value, and that value is the labor and toils it took to earn money. My new Article, “What is money?’ examines this concept of money and its impacts on government taxes and spending and its repercussions on society.

04/12/21 Necessary and Proper

Liberty and Freedom are not absolutes, as one person’s Liberty and Freedom ends where another’s Liberty and Freedom begin, as I have Chirped on, “03/01/21 Liberty and Freedom”. While some curtailment of Liberty and Freedom is necessary for a just and orderly society, however, any curtailment must be narrow in scope and only to achieve the necessary and proper functions of government. In exercising the necessary and proper functions of government, it must be done so in a manner to assure that the Natural Rights of all are protected.

Enumerated Powers (also called expressed powers, explicit powers, or delegated powers) of the United States Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and other parts of the Constitution. The United States Government was constituted to assure these Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights in order to assure the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". The U.S. Constitution specifies the limited and enumerated powers of the Federal Government, and it does so to assure that the Federal Government will not encroach on the rights of the States and the people as I have written in my Article, “The Meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments”. Another Article of mine is on the "Limited and Enumerated Powers"  of the Federal government, which examines these limited and enumerated powers and their application in today's society.

The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution has often been misapplied to mean whatever Congress deems is necessary and proper for Americans, without it being limited to the enumerated powers of the Federal government. By misapplying this clause, it becomes possible for the Federal government to take any actions irrespective of the Constitutional limitations on the Federal government. This misapplication has also given rise to bigger government and higher taxes, which are beyond the legitimate scope of government.

Consequently, for any law, rule, or regulation to be Constitutional, Congress and the Executive branch may only exercise the powers that the Constitution grants them, and only within the restrictions of its powers within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As enumerated in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, any other powers and rights are retained by the States or the people. Therefore, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government only have the limited duties and responsibilities enumerated within the Constitution and its Amendments, and to the “Constitutional Protection of Rights and Just Laws” of the people, and not the ability to do whatever they think is Necessary and Proper for Americans.

04/11/21 Classic Doctor Who

The classic sci-fi television series ‘Doctor Who’ has many wonderful lines. Two of which are very apropos to today’s "Progressives/Leftists":

"You know, you are the classical example of the inverse vision of the size of the mouth and the size of the brain."
 - Doctor Who

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering."
 - Doctor Who

Not only is this very true for Leftists, but it has become true for Progressives.

04/10/21 Dog Whistles

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without explicitly stating the speaker’s intent. The concept is named for ultrasonic dog whistles used in shepherding. In today’s politics, the accusations of someone using dog whistles are fairly common but are often unfairly applied. Adjectives, a word class that qualifies nouns, are often used before nouns for the purposes of sloganeering, and these slogans are just as often claimed to be dog whistles even when the adjective and noun is properly utilized.

This is another example of what I have Chirped on, “02/19/21 The Perversion of the English Language”. When someone is utilizing an adjective properly, it is not a dog whistle but a proper attribute of something. Language is the way we communicate our thoughts and feelings, and perverting language leads to less understanding or misinterpretation. To pervert the proper utilization of an adjective and noun into a dog whistle is to pervert the English language for political gain.

Those that claim others are using dog whistles often base this claim on knowing what the speaker or writer intended. However, to know what a speaker or writer intended requires the ability to read another’s mind. An ability to read another’s mind that has no basis in fact and that has never occurred in history. Another tactic of those that claim others are using dog whistles is to put words into the mouth or writings of the other, then criticize the words or writing they put into the other mouth or writings. This technique is to rephrase or restate what someone has said in the most negative connotation possible or to add negative or pejorative statements into another’s mouth or writings. The person who puts the words into another’s mouth or writings then goes on to criticize the words or writings they put into someone’s mouth or writings. This is a dishonest and despicable tactic and wholly inappropriate manner to debate political issues, and it is often done to disparage, denigrate, or demonize someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person has said or written. It is your responsibility to only quote the words or writings of another person and then speak or write your own thoughts and reasoning on what another has said or written. After both sides have laid out their reasoning and conclusions, then it is fair to critique the other's reasoning or conclusions, based on what they have said or written, not for what the words or writings that you have put into their mouth or writings.

Accusations of dog whistles are most often made by Progressives, Leftists, and Democrats against Conservatives and Republicans, as I have rarely heard an accusation of dog whistles by a Conservative or Republican against Progressives, Leftists, or Democrats. These accusations of dog whistles are one of the ways in which Democrats and Progressives/Leftists try to confuse or obfuscate an issue. To claim that a proper adjective and noun is a dog whistle is also an attempt to cut off the debate, as well as the utilization by many of the tactic of “Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage“ and “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”, which leads to more “Divisiveness in America”. When someone claims that another is using a dog whistle, they often do not want to properly debate or discuss an issue, and they simply want to demonize, denigrate, disparage the other person to cut off debate or discussion.

Therefore, whenever you hear someone claiming another is utilizing a dog whistle, you need to determine if the other person was using a proper adjective and noun rather than a dog whistle. If they were using a proper adjective and noun, you could infer the accusers do not want to debate or discuss the issue, as they may not have an intellectual reason for their position. Indeed, they are attempting to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational response on the issue. Consequently, be very wary of someone who claims to hear a dog whistle, as they are not informing you but are instead trying to mislead you.

04/09/21 Equitable and Equalities

To be ‘Equitable’ does not achieve ‘Equalities’, and equitableness is not impartiality. Equitable requires that someone or some persons decide what is best or fair for Americans. However, we should all remember that when doing something for the best or for fairness’ sake:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

And to paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

 “The most basic question is not what is fair, but who shall decide what is fair."

To achieve equitableness requires that you direct the actions of someone or some group, while to achieve equalities allows someone or some group the Liberty and Freedom to choose their actions, as I have Chirped on, “03/01/21 Liberty and Freedom”. Equitable is often paired with ‘Inclusiveness’ when their proponents justify them. But equitableness and inclusiveness require that you favor someone or some group to the disadvantage of another person or group. This favoring is antithetic to our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Thus, being equitable does not contribute to the advancement of individuals or American society, and indeed it is to the detriment of many persons not so favored by equitable actions, and thus it is to the detriment of America as a whole.

Consequently, when someone says ‘equitable’ or ‘inclusiveness’, you might as well stop listening, as they have nothing truly useful to add to the conversation.

04/08/21 Legislative and Executive Orders Misnomers

The USA Patriot Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the DREAM Act, the CARES Act, the For the People Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, etc., etc., etc. all of which give us a ‘feel good’ sense of ‘whatever it is, it's for our own good, and it promotes safety and security for America.’ These misnomered names given to the proposed and passed bills in Congress and of Executive Orders are more often than not misleading, and we must beware of how politicians mislead us through language to promote their agendas. And these misnomers are another example of perverting the English language as I Chirped on, “02/19/21 The Perversion of the English Language”.

Much of these misnomered Congressional Legislation and Executive Orders contain items that bear no relation to the misnomer, and some Executive Orders are utilized to circumvent current federal laws that Congress has passed. And this is done for the purposes of implementing social policy or pork spending, spending which is often counterproductive to the misnomered name of the Congressional Legislation and the Executive Orders. And these misnomers are a deliberate tactic to obtain support for the Congressional Legislation and Executive Orders, and both Democrats and Republicans misnomer legislation.

Much of these misnomers are often justified as for the greater good of America, a greater good that I have written in the “Terminology” webpage on the “ Greater Good versus the Common Good”. It is also justified as what is best or fair for all Americans, but we should all remember that when doing something for goodness or fairness’ sake:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

And to paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

 “The most basic question is not what is fair, but who shall decide what is fair."

As goodness or fairness are not objective but subjective to each person predilections, there can be no determination of what is best or fair for all Americans.

And this misnomered Congressional Legislation and Executive Orders often infringe on our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. These misnomered Congressional Legislation and Executive Orders often end up being more intrusive and invasive into the lives of Americans and often bring about more bureaucratic rules and regulations upon the American people. This Congressional Legislation and Executive Orders usually results in more bureaucracy, increased government spending, and higher taxes, which result in increased costs for consumer products and services and a lower standard of living for most Americans.

All citizens of the United States should beware these misnomers, as they are often used to mislead and confuse the public on an issue or policy. A misleading and confusion that begets the problems discussed above to the detriment of all Americans.

04/07/21 Ideological Tests for Government Service and Society

Critical Race Theory, Identity politics, and Intersectionality, etc., are now being indoctrinated under various guises into government service and, indeed, in American society. They are being justified under the banner of inclusiveness, anti-racism, and anti-patriarchal, and they all assume that government employees and white Americans have these attributes that need to be purged. And these indoctrinations are all part of the "Political Correctness" and "Wokeness" of "Progressives/Leftists" ideology. This indoctrination is pernicious to the ideals of the Natural Right to Freedom of Thought and Equality of Opportunity.   

And this is most pernicious in the Armed Services, as the Armed Services is the most equal and merit-based government service in the United States government. And the Armed Forces is the most important governmental service for the protection of foreign and terrorist enemies of America. And competency and advancement by merit are the most important attributes that the Armed Forces require to achieve its mission.

Government employment indoctrination programs that emphasize differences among employees that impose a demand for people to feel guilty about their identity and background, that elevate one group over another, or that seek to subordinate a group relative to another group generate resentment or a sense of aggrieved victimization, or entitlement to special handling.

They are also an attempt to institute an ideology within the bureaucracy of government and society. A bureaucracy committed to this ideology in the formulation of laws and regulations and the administration of these laws and regulations. A bureaucracy that becomes self-perpetuating and entrenched, and an entrenchment that excludes Americans that do not agree with this ideology. If Americans of different ideologies are excluded from government service, then we do not have a representative bureaucracy but a deep-state bureaucracy —a bureaucracy of George Orwell’s 1984 dedicated to the state and to the preservation of the state. Consequently, we have a bureaucratic swamp and a deep-state, a swamp of homogeneity ideology, and a deep-state of exclusion and self-preservation.

Therefore, Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, and Intersectionality have no place in government employment nor in law or regulations. They also have no place in a society dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. To allow this to continue is to disavow our founding ideals of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

04/06/21 Of the Financiers, By the Financiers, and For the Financiers

‘Follow the Money’ is one of the wisest aphorisms of all human interactions. Another wise aphorism is ‘Money makes the world go round’. Combining these two aphorisms is a good means to discover truths, especially truths in politics, governance, and financing. When politics, governance, and financing combined it is often difficult to ‘Follow the Money’, but if you succeed in doing so you can discover how this tripartite ‘… makes the world go round’.

However, this tripartite makes it difficult to follow the money as they often wish to disguise these activities from the scrutiny of the public. They often misnomer legislation or pack the legislation with ‘goodies’ to disguise the money flow. But make no mistake about much legislation as it contains much monies to make the tripartite world go round.

Business, in a capitalistic marketplace, is about providing goods and services at an affordable price. However, there is a big business in provide the financial means to fund businesses, and there is a bigger business of the financial business. Fortunes can be made, or lost, merely by engaging in financial transactions, financial transactions that do not fund business nor produce goods or services but do produce profits or losses for those that engage in financial business. And much of this financial business is based on speculation as to future economic activities. Wall Street used to be the centerpiece of this speculation, but over the last several decades the centerpiece has shifted to financial institutions. A shift that is not as visible as Wall Street, but a shift that can be more consequential than Wall Street. And it is not possible for most Americans to be involved in this financial business, as it takes large sums of money to be involved in the financial business.

Speculating about the future economy can be much more profitable if you have the means to influence the economic future. This is where politics and governmental legislation enter the picture. If you can influence politicians to craft legislation that sways the economic future, then you can increase your profits by speculation on the future. And much of the last decades legislation has a financial component that sways the future. Some legislation does this directly while most legislation does this indirectly. This is why you need to ‘Follow the Money’. Tax Credits and incentives, Tax write-offs, Cap and Trade, etc. are some of the direct financial impacts on future economic activities. Indirect impacts are when legislation favors or disfavors one business or industry over another. If you know what is to be favored or disfavored, then you can speculate more accurately. And it is not always possible to determine what is favored or disfavored in the legislation, as it is often disguised by Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors. And many of these indirect financial impacts are most profitable to the financial businesses.

I have no problem with the financial businesses engaging in speculation, as this is an example of ‘Money makes the world go round’, and often these financial speculations grease the wheels of business. My problem is when financial institutions influence governmental Laws, Rules, and Regulations to benefit their interests to the detriment of other interests in that they are then interfering with the free flow of the marketplace. And anything that interferes with the free flow of the marketplace often results in deleterious impacts upon Americans.

My bigger problem is with the politicians that allows this to occur. ‘Money makes the world go round’ is very true for politics. Politicians need money to obtain and retain elective office. Some politicians also want to obtain money for their personal enrichment. As such, they are susceptible to the inducements of business and financial institutions to favor or disfavor their interests. Politicians should only be interested in doing what is best for all Americans and not some Americans. The main purpose of legislation upon business is to set the parameters of proper business activities, and to protect the health, welfare, and safety of all Americans. To do otherwise make politicians part of the game rather than being the umpire of the game. When they do this, it is time to ‘Kill the Umpire’ by voting them out of office. If we do not vote out these politicians who are part of the game then we will have a government ‘Of the Financiers, By the Financiers, and For the Financiers’.

04/05/21 The Modern Plantation

One of the seminal works of slavery in the Anti-Bellum South is “The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South” by Kenneth M. Stampp. Professor Stampp is a winner of the 1993 Lincoln Prize from Gettysburg College's Civil War Institute for his lifetime contributions to Civil War studies. This is a non-fiction book about slavery published in 1956 by academic Kenneth M. Stampp of the University of California, Berkeley, and other universities. The book describes and analyzes multiple facets of slavery in the American South from the 17th through the mid-19th century, including demographics, lives of slaves and slaveholders, the Southern economy and labor systems, the Northern and abolitionist response, slave trading, and political issues of the time.

In this book, Professor Stampp describes the common experiences of life as a slave as:

• Disease contraction and transmission, disease deaths, occupational injuries, disabilities, early mortality rates, and premature infant deaths were much higher for slaves in comparison to the white population.
• Nihilism and despair amongst the slaves.
• No slave economically nor socially advances themselves or their families.
• Liberty and Freedom are only obtained by a few slaves, and mostly by fleeing bondage.
• Slaves receive only a basic provision of food and clothing for their labor.
• The destruction of the family unit of the slaves through the separate sale of spouses and children, and infrequent child-raising by parents.
• The education of slaves was forbidden, resulting in illiteracy and the inability of slaves to rise above their circumstances.
• The inferiority of all slaves to white persons and the cajoling of non-slaveowners to accept slavery as natural and moral.
• Unhealthy, unsafe, broken down, and dilapidated housing for slaves was common.
• Violence, intimidation, and fear against slaves to maintain and retain slavery.

All these experiences of a slave were deprivations of their Natural Rights as a person. This book inspired me to write another Article, “The Truths about Slavery”, with some of my own thoughts on slavery.

Not only is this book a fascinating read, but it is analogous to the black experience of today. If you substitute the word ‘slaves’ with ‘black Americans’ in the above list, the slave experiences are comparable to the black experiences of today in urban locations (and some rural locations). The only difference is that slaves endured a life of hardship in involuntary servitude, while today's urban black have a life of entitlements that allows for torpidity. The major difference is in the nature of the slave owner, for today’s slave owner is those person’s who established and perpetuate today’s black experience – i.e., "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders". And the Democrat leadership has done this throughout their history, as I have written in my Article “Slavery and Discrimination rooted in Party Politics”. After decades of Democrat one-party rule and progressive social policies in urban locations, and Federal entitlements that are “Tyranny Disguised as Virtue and Compassion”, the Democrat leadership have instituted another form of slavery upon blacks in America – the rulership by the Democrat Party. A Democrat Party rulership that does not exact the labor and toil of the ruled but demands the unconditional support and votes of the blacks under this form of slavery. And this form of slavery is pernicious as it is self-imposed. Or, as it has been said:

“Whether we want to own up to it or not, the welfare state has done what Jim Crow, gross discrimination and poverty could not have done. It has contributed to the breakdown of the black family structure and has helped establish a set of values alien to traditional values of high moral standards, hard work and achievement.”
 - Walter E. Williams

Not only are entitlements the cause of today’s black experience, but the lack of quality public education contributes to this cycle of the modern-day black experience, as I have Chirped on “03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?” and in my Article “Public Education”. A black experience that does not allow for true Liberty and Freedom of the black individual, but for the oppression and despotism upon the black person by binding them into a cycle of poverty and dependence upon governmental actions. Many blacks have broken these new bonds of slavery by obtaining a quality education and values of high moral standards, hard work, and achievement. This is one way, and the most important way, to break the bonds of modern-day slavery. The other way is to stop voting en masse for the Democrat Party and to institute a social policy that is results-oriented, with the results being the Freedom and Liberty of black Americans to achieve their personal goals on their own intellect, hard work, and independence from Democrat Party rulership.

04/04/21 The Future Voters of America

In many high schools, they have various clubs that promote the aspirations of many students. Clubs such as the: Future Business Leaders of America, Future Homemakers of America, Future Nurses of America, Future Scientists and Engineers of America, and Future Teachers of America, etc... In that spirit, I would propose a new national club for high school students - “The Future Voters of America”.

The Future Voters of America club would be open to all students who are illegal immigrants that aspire to vote in American elections. This club would promote the ideals of Progressive policies and the importance of voting for Democrat Party candidates. It would encourage its members to become politically active to support open borders and equities for illegal immigrants.

Some people would claim that this is unnecessary and redundant to what is already being taught in modern American high schools. I would retort that the more indoctrination of impressionable young people to Progressive ideas, and the more future votes for Democrat Party candidates that can be garnered, the better it would be for a brighter future of America.

Let us all get together and support a national club for The Future Voters of America. I would also support governmental funding for such a noble purpose. And I also expect that many wealthy Americans would be interested in being benefactors of this club.

On a more serious note, I have two Chirps for today:

04/04/21 Admiral McRaven – Rules for Life

William Harry McRaven is a retired United States Navy four-star admiral who served as the ninth commander of the United States Special Operations Command from August 8, 2011, to August 28, 2014. From 2015 to 2018, he was the chancellor of The University of Texas System. In 2014 he gave a commencement address that, in my opinion, is one of the best speeches on personal responsibility. In this speech, he had ten points about life as an adult:

This speech is engaging, humorous, and inspiring that can be viewed on YouTube at University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address by Admiral William H. McRaven.

04/03/21 Taxpayers versus Non-Taxpayers

Today, in America, we have the concept of one person, one vote. This is truly a noble concept, but it has some negative consequences. Today, in America, we have almost half the population that pays no, or limited taxes, on individual income taxes, individual Interest taxes, individual Dividend taxes, individual Capital Gains taxes, and individual Inheritance taxes. These taxes are a large percentage of the Federal budget that funds the necessary and proper functions of government and the entitlement spending of government. We, therefore, have the situation of non-taxpayers voting to spend monies, while the taxpayers are voting to spend lesser monies. This is an untenable situation both financially, politically, and to our society. It also pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans: The Taxpayers versus the Non-Taxpayers.

This is injurious politically, or has been said:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
- Benjamin Franklin

And

“A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
 - Alexis de Tocqueville

Consequently, we are endangering our Republic by the pitting of Taxpayers versus Non-Taxpayers. An endangerment that may result in the end of representative democracy for all the people by replacing it with a democracy of the Taxpayers versus the democracy of Non-Taxpayers.

It is injurious financially, as we have a spiral of taxing and spending that has led to a national debt that is harmful to our economy and to our future generations’ economy, that would be necessary to pay off this debt. A spiraling of taxes and spending that is driven by a greater number of non-taxpayers that receive entitlement funding and a lesser number of taxpayers to fund the necessary and proper functions of government and entitlements.

It also reduces the income of the taxpayers for which they have labored and toiled, as greater taxes are required on some to compensate for the little or no taxes on others. Or, as one of our greatest Presidents has said:

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

And this taxing is equivalent to serfdom and slavery on the taxpayers, with the non-taxpayers being the masters, and the taxpayers being the slaves, as Abraham Lincoln so notably said:

“You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

This is also injurious to our society as we have a large number of people dependent on government spending, as I have written in my Article “Entitlements”, and a large number of people responsible for funding these government entitlements through taxes. A dependence on government entitlements that saps the soul of those who are dependent and reduces for all our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

This situation is occurring because we have forgotten the difference between the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Our Constitution requires that we tax and spend for the common good and not for the greater good. The way to correct this problem of Taxpayers versus Non-Taxpayers is by limiting the Federal government to the enumerated powers within the Constitution to the necessary and proper functions of government and to right our course on the spending for the common good rather than the greater good. Or, as one of the authoritative Constitutional Founding Fathers has stated:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
 - James Madison

04/02/21 No Taxation without Representation

‘No Taxation without Representation was one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution. The American Colonists highly objected to the British Parliament imposing direct taxes upon them without their consent, as they had no representation in Parliament. The British Parliament responded that the Colonists had representation from the member of Parliament from the district from which they or their progenitors immigrated. Of course, the American Colonists could not vote for these Members of Parliament, as it was impractical given the dispersion of immigration and the distance and time it would take to cast their votes. Besides this, the British Parliament declared that the American Colonists were subjects of the British Empire, and therefore subject to the British Parliament and King of England's rule and taxation. To this reasoning, the American Colonists highly objected, and was one of the clauses, “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:” of the Declaration of Independence.

Today, in America, we have a similar situation. Many of the current economic relief bills, and the proposed infrastructure bills, have spending that would pay off debts of States that were fiscally irresponsible by the taxing of other State’s taxpayers that were fiscally responsible. Consequently, the taxpayers of the fiscally responsible States would therefore be taxed to support the taxpayers of the fiscally irresponsible States. And as the voters of fiscally responsible States have no votes for the fiscally irresponsible States elected politicians, we, therefore, have the situation of taxation without representation.

As the voters of the States that are in debt were responsible for incurring these debts, so too should the voters of these States be responsible for paying off these debts, and the taxpayers of other States bear no responsibility to pay off these debts. There should be no bailouts for fiscally irresponsible States by the taxpayers of other States. Let the burden of debt be borne by those elected politicians that incurred the debt, for to do so is to make them responsible for the debt, and responsible to the taxpayers that would pay off these debts.

Many in Congress would respond that they have representatives in Congress that have votes on these bills, and therefore, they have representation. But the members of Congress had no votes on how the fiscally irresponsible States taxed and spent their monies that led them into debt. This claim of Representatives in Congress that would support fiscally irresponsible States is equivalent to the claim that American Colonists had representation in Parliament from which they or their progenitors immigrated. If anyone’s taxpayers’ monies are being spent, then they should have a vote for the elected politicians that tax and spend. Otherwise, you have the situation of ‘Taxation without Representation’.

‘No Taxation without Representation’ is antithetical to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It, therefore, should not be allowed to occur in America, and we should put an end to bailing out fiscally irresponsible States with the taxpayer’s monies of any other State.

04/01/21 Tax-Free Washington D.C.

‘No Taxation without Representation’ is one of the rallying cries for those that support Statehood for Washington D.C...  While I agree with the sentiment of ‘No Taxation without Representation’ the answer is not Statehood of Washington D.C., which is Unconstitutional and could not be implemented without a Constitutional Amendment, but the alternative of no individual income taxes, no individual Interest taxes, no individual Dividend taxes, no individual Capital Gains taxes, and no individual Inheritance taxes for Washington D.C. residents. If we did this, then there would be no taxation and therefore no need for representation.

Of course, “The Law of Unintended Consequences” would kick in, and it would not be difficult to ascertain the unintended consequences. I would expect that wealthy persons would buy up extensive lands in Washington D.C. and tear down the dilapidated housing to build upper-class housing to avoid paying these taxes. As there is limited land in Washington D.C., and wealthy people desire larger land plots, the number of these upper-class housing plots would be limited. A limitation that would not seriously impact the tax revenues collected by the U.S. Treasury from those rich people that relocate to Washington D.C. And as the wealthy people would offer a premium for the current properties, the current resident would experience a windfall from the sale of their property. A windfall that is increased as there would be no Capital Gains taxes on the sale of their property. Public housing could be sold to the wealthy or developers, with the monies collected being distributed to the residents of the public housing, thus enriching the residents of public housing. Both sides, the wealthy and the poor, would gain from this plan.

Washington D.C. would be transformed into a luxurious landscape rather than the poor and dilapidated landscape that it is currently. And all this may not be a bad concept. The current poor residents would have sufficient monies to purchase good housing in the areas around Washington D.C. or in other states. Developers would rush to create desirable, affordable housing for these formally poor persons, and many construction workers would be employed in the transformation of Washington D.C. to luxurious housing as well as the construction of desirable, affordable housing for these formally poor persons.

Alas, I would expect opposition to this plan based on the demagoguery of the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Much of this opposition would come from Democrats as their opposition would be based upon their desire to obtain two additional Senate seats by the Statehood of Washington D.C. and the desire to have a solid block of voters that would cast their ballots for Democrats. This opposition by Democrats would reveal their true desires for Washington D.C. Statehood, which is the accumulation of power rather than ‘No Taxation without Representation and the future prosperity of the poor residents of Washington D.C.

03/31/21 Scientific Proofs

There are some things that scientists cannot explain because they are outside the realm of science. The best example of this is "Is there a God?", and "What is the nature of God if he exists?" Another scientific limitation is the nature of the mind and consciousness. Scientists are beginning to explain the physiology of the brain and how it works, but they cannot explain what the brain's connection to the mind or consciousness is, and many scientists believe that this question has no scientific explanation. Scientists also cannot explain why we love someone, what beauty is, why the arts affect us, and many other aspects of being human. These are questions of metaphysics, philosophy, theology, and morality, and ethics that cannot be explained by science.

There are also things within science that cannot be proven, for to prove something in science, science utilizes mathematics, deductive reasoning, and observation, and experiments. But science never proves anything - it simply states that a scientific theory best fits the observation and experiments, supported by mathematics and logical reasoning. However, mathematics and logic have their limitations. In fact, it has been proven (mathematically) that mathematics and logic cannot prove everything (mainly by Bertrand Russell and Kurt Gödel - two of the greatest logicians and mathematicians of the 20th century). It has also been proven (by Werner Heisenberg in his Uncertainty Principle) that observations and experiments can never be completely accurate. Therefore, nothing can be completely proven. It has therefore been said that Truth is Bigger than Proo, and many scientists rely on Belief and Intuition to achieve their results. This does not make it less scientific, but when and where you run into the limitations of mathematics, logical reasoning, and observation and experiments, a scientist must supplement their proofs with belief and intuition. The best explanation of this I have ever read is Dr. Michael Guillen's book "Amazing Truths" in Chapter 7 - "The Certainty of Uncertainty”. Another very good book on what science cannot prove, but more difficult to read and comprehend, is "The Outer Limits of Reason - What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us" by Noson S. Yanofsky.

Two good books that examine this issue are “Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth” by Jim Baggott and “The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next” by Lee Smolin.

03/30/21 Mathematics is Not Science

Mathematics is the pursuit of knowledge unconstrained by the physical reality of the Universe. Much of mathematics has no foundation in reality, but much mathematics is needed to explain and describe the reality of the physical Universe. Mathematical Theorems are a rigorous pursuit of mathematical truths that require strict standards for proofs. Less strict standards for Mathematical Conjectures are allowed, but such conjectures are not proofs but speculations that require proofs to be developed to be accepted as a Mathematical Theorem. Mathematics, therefore, cannot be utilized to prove anything except that the mathematics is correct. Scientific Theories are the best explanation of physical phenomena that fits all the known facts, and much science requires a mathematical foundation to be proven accurate and correct. Also, scientific theories cannot be “proven”, as new facts are often discovered, which requires that the Scientific Theory be modified or replaced, as outlined in my Science Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry“.

Good science requires good mathematics. But mathematics is abstract, while science is based on reality. As such, mathematics is a contributor to science and not a substitution for science. In today’s science, there has been a movement to substitute mathematical proofs for observational and experimental proofs in some fields of science. This is due to the difficulties in obtaining observational and experimental data due to the very small or very large sizes and/or the very short or very large times to be observed or experimented upon. When this occurs in science, we should not abandon observational and experimental proofs but instead categorize the science as speculation awaiting observational or experimental proof. If you substitute mathematical proof, then you no longer have science, but you have a scientific belief. Remember that just because mathematics says that something is possible does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen.

A good book that examines this issue is “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” by Sabine Hossenfelder.

03/29/21 Probability and Statistics

Probability and Statistics, the branches of mathematics concerned with the laws governing random events, including the collection, analysis, interpretation, and display of numerical data. Most people use Probability and Statistics to prove something, but Probability and Statistics cannot ‘prove’ anything.  Probability and Statistics can only be utilized to show the likelihood of a random event.

An example is the flip of a coin. When you flip a coin, what is the probability of its landing heads up? The probability is 50%, as a coin has only two sides – heads or tails, and it must land on one side or the other side. If you flip the coin ten times, and it comes heads up seven of the ten times, it has a statistical probability of 70% of landing heads up. However, when you flip the coin the eleventh time, its probability of landing heads up is still 50%. Just because a coin has a history of landing heads up most of the time does not mean it will land heads up when you flip it. The statistical history could be influenced by outside factors such as how you balance and flip the coin, the mass distribution within the coin, and the air currents around the coin while it is flipping. Indeed, coins have been created that have a propensity for landing heads up to give cheaters an edge when betting on a coin flip.

Probabilities have the problem of factoring in all the influences of what may occur that affect the outcome. Suppose you miss a factor in your probability prediction, then you will have an incorrect probability. Probabilities are also unreliable regarding human activities, as human activities are often unpredictable.

Statistics also have the problem of Correlation or Causation, as I have examined in the section on “Correlation vs. Causality” in my Article “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”. Correlation is when two or more statistics are compared, and they seem to be in sync, especially when they are graphed. A Causality occurs when two or more statistics are related, and a change in one or more of the statistics affects the other(s) statistic. But as statisticians are trained that “Correlation does not imply Causation”, be careful when statistics are correlated to assure that there is a causation.

Probabilities and Statistics are often used and abused to justify a political or social point of view. They are, however, often used and abused in all arenas. Be especially aware of politicians who utilize probabilities and statistics to justify their positions, as politicians are often not knowledgeable about probabilities and statistics, and they are often adept in twisting and turning Probabilities and Statistics to justify their political goals. And all sides do it as I have examined in my Chip on “04/01/19 Both Sides Do It“. Therefore, you should be wary of all probabilities and statistics until you can review them to ascertain their veracity. You should also remember the wisdom of a great American economist of the 20th century:

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics" (1954)

03/28/21 Forgiveness

As in the saying, ‘To err is human, to forgive divine’ we must always remember that people err, and when they admit their error, we should be forgiving. This does not mean that people should not be punished for their errors, but such punishment should only be for those errors that have physically harmed another person or their property. And such punishment should only be administered in a just manner, as I have stated in my Article, "Justice and The Rule of Law in America".

Emotional harm is another matter, as not all emotional harm can be redressed by punishment, nor is it worthy of punishment. The emotional harm caused by the physical harmed upon another person or their property can, but not always, be redressed by punishment. Consequently, emotional harm without physical harm is not subject to punishment, or ‘sticks and stones can break my bones, but words cannot hurt me.’ If we decide to punish people for their words or deeds that did no physical harm, then the other question is, who shall decide what words and deeds are worthy of being punished? Or has been said:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

Today, in America, we have devolved to believe that if someone is emotionally harmed by another’s words, then their words are worthy of punishment. It is this belief that has given rise to Political Correctness, Cancel Culture, Doxing, and Wokeness. But “Political Correctness”, “Cancel Culture”, and “Wokeness” are an attempt by many to tear down and rebuild American society and government in their “Utopian” vision of America and control what Americans think, speak, or act upon. Such control is a violation of the Natural Rights of a person, and as such, is to be abhorred. No person or persons should decide what is best for another person, nor should they impose what they believe is best, but they should only counsel others on what they believe is best. And those that counsel others need to remember:

“Just because you ‘believe’ something to be true does not mean that you ‘know’ something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn’t make it true." 
 - Mark Dawson

And:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
 - Benjamin Franklin

People often say or do things that they regret, and if they offer sincere apologies for their words and deeds and possibly restitution, they should be forgiven. Forgiveness need not be given until after a sincere apology, but it can be given without an apology if you find it in your heart to do so. For ‘To err is human, to forgive divine’ and we should all try to “Be the Better Person” in our dealings and treatments of others.

03/27/21 Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

Fear of a Pandemic, fear of Climate Change, fear of Terrorism, fear of firearms, fear of white people, fear of Nuclear Power, fear of Conservative/Republicans, and irrational fears of isms (i.e., Sexism, Intolerantism, Xenophobism, Homophobism, Islamophobism, Racism, Bigotism. etc.), and the fear of contrary thoughts of fellow Americans runs rampant in today’s America.

Fears that are often utilized to galvanize the mob to irrational actions. Fears that are utilized by some politicians to advance their policy positions and legislation. Fears that are often accompanied by "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those who would oppose the fear reactions. Fears that allow for the pitting of one group of Americans against another group of Americans. Fear that is propagated by “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”. Fear that is contrary to "A Civil Society", and a fear that ultimately endangers our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

There is nothing like fear itself to obtain goals that would not be acceptable without fear. Fear that is stoked by a real or manufactured crisis, and fear that permits it to never allow a good crisis to go to waste, or that permits the manufacturing of a crisis to obtain your goals. If you think of the Coronavirus Pandemic governmental relief responses (less than one-fifth of the expenditures are for direct COVID-19 relief) and Anti-Asian hatred (a 149 percent increase from 49 cases in 2019 to 122 cases in 2020¹), amongst many other real or manufactured crisis which allowed for governmental actions that would not be acceptable without fear.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, we have a party membership based on fear and a party leadership that stokes these fears to obtain and retain political power. This is, of course, the Democrat Party, as all the fears listed in the first paragraph of this Chirp are part and parcel of the Democrat Party. In many cases, the Democrats do it by utilizing the tactics of fear of the personal destruction of a person or groups of persons by utilizing the ‘Three D’s’, while Republicans generally utilize the tactic of fear of a policy or legislation. Fear by Democrats that is perpetrated by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good,  as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage.

It is often claimed by Democrats and their supporters that both sides do it, but there is a difference in the Democrats doing it. Of course, both sides do it, as in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So, therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism/Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is, “are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side are doing it?”. When you see one side or the other paying more heed or engaging in extreme deeds or words, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to make not only a determination of the number of words and misdeeds incidents but also the severity of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase ‘Both Sides Do It’ is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme words or deeds by the one side engaged in these words or deeds.

When weighing this balance, it is obvious that the Democrats engage in fearmongering more and with greater severity than Republicans. And much of the Democrat fearmonger targes people rather than policy or legislation. It is part of the Democrat tactics to obtain and retain power. And they do it because they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct, and therefore their words and deeds are for the Greater Good of Americans. But no Greater Good can be achieved when you install fear, for fear begets the violation of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

Consequently, we have nothing to fear but the Democrat Party. The only way to stop this fearmongering by Democrats is to turn the Democrats out of power until they reform their ways. A reform that I believe that Democrats are loath to do, as they are concerned that they may not be able to obtain or retain power without fearmongering.

Note 1 - Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University – “Anti-Asian Hate Crime Reported to Police in America’s Largest Cities: 2020”.

03/26/21 Regressive, Not Progressive

The Democratic Party is no longer the Progressive Party but has become the Regressive Party. They have regressed to what we were prior to the American Revolution in that they have abandoned the Constitutional ideals of Natural Law and the Rights of the Individual. Instead, they believe that they can dictate the words and deeds of the individual and oligarchically rule the individual from their position of political power.

The recent actions of the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader as I have Chirped on, “03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders” and “03/14/21 A Fait Accompli”, are an example of oligarchical rule dressed up as ‘democracy’. The proposed elimination or bastardization of the Senate Filibuster Rule is further evidence of the regressiveness of the Democrat Party.

Progressivism is not changing for governance's sake, nor for the “Greater Good versus the Common Good”, but change to further achieve our American ideals. Therefore, it is not possible to be progressive without a commitment to Natural Law and the Rights of the Individual, as all American history has been a march to achieve these American ideals. Consequently, The Democrat Party is no longer committed to the ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” in America. They have regressed to be the party of rulership of Americans as it was by the oligarchical rule of America by the British Monarchy and Parliament prior to the American Revolution.

03/25/21 Environmental Impacts of Energy Utilization

In the movie "Apollo 13", shortly after the explosion on the spacecraft, the engineers on the ground are discussing the problems they are having. One of the engineers' pipes in that none of these problems are as nearly as significant as the loss of power (energy). Without solving the power problem, the astronauts would die. And so, it is with all energy, for without the proper amount of energy or the proper utilization of energy, nothing can happen in modern society.

Today's modern technological society is built on energy. It is the energy that lifted us out of a labor-intensive agrarian society into an industrial society and then into our technological society. Indeed, inexpensive and plentiful energy is the primary driver that lifts all societies from poverty into prosperity. There is no rich low-energy nation, just as there is no poor high-energy one. Consequently, we must all be cognizant about energy production and utilization to maintain and expand our technological society and to lift humanity out of poverty and despair.

My new Article “Environmental Impacts of Energy Utilization” examines these issues and their impacts upon our society.

03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?

Public Education is a good idea gone bad, as I have explained in my Article, “Public Education”. The public-school systems in urban America are a failure. They fail to provide a good education for their students, and they fail to provide a good environment for their students, and they fail to prepare their students to become productive and contributing adults; thus, they fail the parents of the students, and they fail the taxpayers who fund these schools. There are many reasons, mostly unspoken, for this failure.

Rather than the teaching of knowledge, how to think, and the skills that can be utilized as a productive adult, it has degenerated to teaching students what to think. More interested in the self-esteem of the students, rather than the self-sufficiency of the students, they are churning out students that are functionally illiterate and incapable of becoming responsible adults. And most of this failure has impacted the black students in public education. They have, however, churned out students that are dependent on public welfare to support themselves, as well as voters that support Progressive/Leftist ideologies and cast their ballots for Democrat Party politicians. Given their success in doing this, it makes you wonder if this was the goal of modern public education, especially since most of this failure occurs in municipalities controlled by the Democrat Party for decades. Or as Waler E. Williams has stated:

“Whether we want to own up to it or not, the welfare state has done what Jim Crow, gross discrimination and poverty could not have done. It has contributed to the breakdown of the black family structure and has helped establish a set of values alien to traditional values of high moral standards, hard work and achievement.”
 - Walter E. Williams

To this, I would add that public education has become a means of the welfare state that does not allow the student to break out of the welfare state and, indeed, entraps them into the welfare state. They have done so by utilizing “The Wrong Approach” to educating their students. A wrong approach that borders on insanity, as ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’. And spending more monies on insanity is not a solution, as it only makes you more insane. Consequently, the result of modern public education is insanity that is harmful to America and American society.

The current actions of Teachers Unions in response to the Coronavirus Pandemic is another failure. Despite the science that says that it is not a danger to students and teachers to resume classroom instruction, they remain adamant that they should not return to the classroom until all students and teachers are inoculated against COVID-19. This refusal is having both negative short-term and long-term impacts on the education, social life, mental health, and prospects of college life and employment of students. The political power of Teachers Unions is being flexed to delay school openings to the detriment of students, parents, and society.

The political power of the Teachers Unions has also been flexed in the past that have impacts on society. The impact of teacher salaries, teacher benefits, and teacher retirement plans have increased the burden on taxpayers to the point of fiscal crisis for local and state governments, not to mention the financial impact on the taxpayers. This political dynamic of Teachers Unions negotiating salary and benefits with the people they have helped elect has further increased the financial burdens on taxpayers. The overwhelming support of Teachers Unions for Democrat candidates has also altered the political environment in that it has entrenched Democrat Party control of urban governments.

Finally, I am reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan that are a corollary to our current educational system:

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
- Ronald Reagan Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall

And so, I would say to all of us that if we wish to provide a quality education for all our students, it is time to tear down the current educational system and open the gates to a new and better educational system. And as far as education reform is concerned, we must adopt the motto:

If you are not part of the solution to educational system reform,
you are part of the problem of a failed educational system.

For more of my thoughts on public education, I would direct you to my Article, “Public Education”, as this article elaborates my thoughts on the issues and concerns regarding Public Education in America.

03/23/21 Baizou in America

The Chinese state media describes ‘Baizou’ as people who "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment, who have no sense of real problems in the real world, who only advocate for peace and equality to satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority, and who are so obsessed with political correctness that they tolerate backward Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism."

Today, in America, the "Progressives/Leftists" and the "Democrat Party Leaders" have become Baizou, as this is as good as any description of Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders. Baizou is, of course, not a term of respect but of derision. If your number one competitor in foreign relations and foreign trade has contempt for you, then it does not bode well for you in the conduct of your foreign relations or trade. Respect amongst foreign friends and foes is what is required for peaceful coexistence. And without peaceful coexistence, we will be eclipsed, and we may founder as a nation.

03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections

03/21/21 Despotism in America

Over the last several weeks I have Chirped about Despotism in America. Despotism in America that has been growing throughout the 20th century and has accelerated dramatically in the 21st century. Despotism as defined by dominance through the threat of punishment and violence. In reviewing these Chirps I have decided to extract and edit these Chirps into an Article, “Despotism in America” that examines the current state of Despotism in America.

03/20/21 Despotism by Legal Jeopardy and Financial Ruin

Another means of imposing despotism upon the American people is by threats of finding themselves in Legal Jeopardy and/or Financial Ruin. Threats of lawsuits and the lodging of lawsuits, or threats of harming your business or employment, are utilized to keep you in line. And these threats are a result of the actions of Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and Identity Politics as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage.

In public, if you disagree with the above, you are one, some, or all of the following -- sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted. At your workplace, you can be charged with inflicting emotional distress, practicing workplace intimidation, engaging in sexual harassment, and a variety of other offenses, then be dismissed from your job with little opportunity to defend your actions. If you are the owner of a business, your business can be targeted with boycotts. All these actions could result in your being put in Legal Jeopardy and/or Financial Ruin.

Most Americans would rather acquiesce than challenge these actions, as it is emotionally distressing and a financial burden to challenge these actions. This despotism is another form of tyranny upon the American people, as I have Chirped on, “03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind”.

Liberty and Freedom can not only be crushed by unjust or Unconstitutional laws and malicious prosecutions but by the threats of frivolous lawsuits and potential economic harms if you should contravene the above prevailing social constructs. Let all who believe in our American ideals of Freedom and Liberty stand up and oppose this despotism of Legal Jeopardy and Financial Ruin and banish it from our country.

We must, therefore, rise above our acquiescence to combat these actions, or we will forfeit our Freedoms and Liberties. Let those who would threaten lawsuits or financial ruin for exercising our Free Speech Rights be banished from our society. To not do so is to become a subservient or subjugated people and end the experiment of our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

03/19/21 The Despotism of Self-Censorship

In today’s America, we have begun to self-censure our words and deeds to ensure that we will not become the target of retributions for expressing contrary speech and actions to the policy positions and ideology of Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and Identity Politics, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage.

We have become so alarmed and inured by these possible retributions that we self-censure ourselves to avoid these retributions. Consequently, we have submitted to despotism - The Despotism of Self-Censorship. It is a despotism of which I have written in my Chirps of “03/18/21 Our True Dictators”, “03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind” and “03/12/21 Free Speech is Essential”.

This Despotism of Self-Censorship is oppressive to the mind and spirit of Americans. It is a constriction on our words and a constriction on our actions, which translates to a constriction on our Liberties and Freedoms. America has always been a land of actions, actions by individuals to improve themselves, provide for their families, and improve their communities. The Despotism of Self-Censorship limits our actions, which limits the growth of America. Not only economic growth, but the growth of our American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. And this all begins with the limitation of our Freedom of Speech by self-censorship, for, as it has been said:

“Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist."
 - Frederick Douglass

Therefore, Free Speech is essential to Liberties and Freedoms, and there can be no Free Speech when you have the Despotism of Self-Censorship.

03/18/21 Our True Dictators

Today’s dictators in America are not by government officials, although the Democrat leadership is in a rush to become dictatorial, but by our cultural leaders. As Salena Zito has written about her and her family’s experience in dictatorial Hungary:

“Many intellectuals in the U.S. frequently toss around the word "dictatorship" or "dictator" about political parties they don't like, and with such abandon, it is now deemed normal in some circles to use the terms without irony, primarily when referring to the Republican Party.

In their zeal to dismantle conservatism, they miss the true dictator in our country. They are our cultural curators. The corporations, much of the media, the entertainment industry, major league sports organizations, academia and Silicon Valley all demand that we fall in line with how they think. They want to approve of how we speak, what books we read, what movies we watch, what words we use, who we support politically, how we educate our children and what parts of history are acceptable to teach.”

In today's America, this is done by the coercion and suppression by Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage.

This constant harassment and haranguing by these forces are emotionally depressive and oppressive to our spirit. By acquiescing to these forces by remaining silent, not only are we self-suppressing our Free Speech rights, but we are enabling these forces to make us a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of societal norms and governmental authority.

We must, therefore, rise above our silence or stupor to combat these forces to remain a people dedicated to Freedom and Liberty. Let the True Dictators be banished from our society, and "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof".

03/17/21 Virtue Signaling

In the Presidential campaign of 2020, we saw a lot of verbal Virtue Signaling by the Biden campaign, but very few firm proposals on how they would implement their verbal Virtue Signaling. After two months of their administration, it is now possible to determine the virtuousness of their implementation. Alas, we now know that we had a Biden campaign of verbal Virtue Signaling but a Biden administration of non-virtuous actions.

The crisis at our southern border, as I have Chirped on “03/15/21 The Human Catastrophe of Illegal Immigration”, is the largest example of this non-virtuousness. The failure of not getting our children back to school is another prominent example, while the proposed legislation of “For the People Act of 2021” (the greatest misnomer of many misnomers of legislation) is an assault on our Free Speech Rights and the integrity of our elections. The misnomered “Equality Act” legislation currently under consideration is more verbal  Virtue Signaling that has negative repercussions on our society.

The ‘moderate’ Presidential candidate Biden of verbal Virtue Signaling has quickly morphed into an administration of non-virtuous actions by perhaps the most Progressive’ President in our history. I am in no way surprised by this morphing as Democrat Politicians and Progressives/Leftists are expert verbal Virtue Signalers but always morph into non-virtuous actions when they implement their policies.

03/16/21 Scripted versus Unscripted

A ventriloquist dummy can say many thoughtful and humorous things. But that does not make the ventriloquist dummy thoughtful or humorous, it only makes him a mouthpiece for the ventriloquist. The ventriloquist dummy is only as thoughtful and humorous as the ventriloquist and, therefore, it is the ventriloquist that is the most important person in the act.

We now have the same situation with President Biden as anyone, such as myself, that has delt with dementia knows that President Biden is exhibiting the signs of dementia. His scripted remarks are (somewhat) coherent and only exhibit senility rather than dementia. However, he has not been engaged in unscripted dialog which would reveal the true nature of his mental capacities. This was true for both his candidacy as well as his administration.

If it is true that he has entered dementia, which I believe is true, then we have the question of who are the ventriloquists of President Biden? If President Biden is in dementia, then is the ventriloquists that are in control of policy decisions and the levers of government. Ventriloquists who were not elected, but appointed, that will determine how the American people will be governed and the direction of America.

And governance by ventriloquists is a danger to our Republic. Not only is it undemocratic but it is not subject to the will of the people. Ventriloquists in government can operate without checks and balances, and without coherent direction, that allows them to implement policy on their own predilections. It also allows them to be rulers as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". It is a danger in foreign policy as the leadership of other countries, some hostile to America, can depend on uncertainty and delay in our responses to their actions.

Dementia is a serious mental health issue, and not to be taken lightly, but people who suffer from dementia should not be in control of themselves, let alone in control of others. Therefore, it may be time to relive President Biden of his office and institute Vice-President Harris as President. I suspect that this was the goal of the Democrats, as they tried so hard to cover-up the extent of candidate Biden’s dementia by hiding him in his basement before the Presidential election, and only allowing him to make scripted remarks rather than engage in the unscripted politics of an election.

03/15/21 The Human Catastrophe of Illegal Immigration

The hundreds of thousands of Illegal immigrants streaming across Mexico to enter the United States is a humanitarian crisis for both the American people and these immigrants. Illegal immigration can bring with it crimes, drugs, disease, terrorism, and negative economic impacts on Lower-Class Americans. This illegal immigration has also brought about increased governmental spending on social services and other essential government services for these illegal immigrants. And make to mistake about these impacts, as these impacts have huge economic, time consuming, resource consumption, and health and safety impacts on Americans, as well as increased drug addictions, diseases, and violence upon Americans. No matter what language is used to describe these impacts, it all comes down to a catastrophe to America.

While most of these illegal immigrants are good people trying to do what is best for themselves and their families, many of them are not so good and utilize the services of bad people, thus helping to fund these bad persons. Drug running, violent gang members, some terrorists, sexual slaves, unaccompanied minors, young adults masquerading as minors, plus the physical dangers of illegal border crossings has accompanied this illegal immigration. The impacts on Americans of illegal immigrants that have COVID-19 and other infectious diseases are potentially catastrophic. In the time of high unemployment because of the Coronavirus Pandemic lockdowns, the importation of low-skilled workers from illegal immigration depresses the job market for low-skilled Americans, especially as the low-skilled Americans need to be paid minimum wages while low-skilled illegal immigrants often work for less than the minimum wage.

Opening the borders or ‘Catch and Release’ does not solve these problems, and indeed, it is likely to increase these problems as these policies increase the flow of illegal immigrants. Quarantining these illegal immigrants until they have background checks and health screenings is not practical, as many have no or falsified backgrounds to check, and the physical and fiscal impacts of quarantine and health checks can be overwhelming, not to mention the psychological impacts on those that are quarantined and the sociological impacts of having internment camps in America.

Much of the Human Catastrophe of Illegal Immigration was reduced by the immigration policies of President Trump, while the immigration policies of President Biden have increased the Human Catastrophe of Illegal Immigration. Therefore, let us not focus on the words of candidate Biden but the deeds of President Biden, for actions speak louder than words. Or has been said:

"Well done is better than well said."
 - Benjamin Franklin

Modern Journalism has also impacted this situation, as the underreporting, misreporting, or non-coverage or of this crisis has led to a skewered perception of Americans about this crisis. Modern Journalists have also adopted a mantra of "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, and See No Evil" when it comes to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" words and deeds about this crisis. Indeed, the opposite is true for those that would oppose Democrats, and Progressives/Leftist policies on this crisis as their mantra is "Hear All Evil, Speak All Evil, and See All Evil” for Republicans and Conservatives. Perhaps we should stop calling them 'Journalists' and hereafter refer to them as 'Propagandists', which would be a more accurate term for what they are practicing with this crisis.

When examining this crisis, we should all pay close attention to the results, rather than the rhetoric, of this crisis. Becoming results-oriented is to become solution-oriented, and the solution to this illegal immigration crisis is of utmost importance to all Americans.

03/14/21 A Fait Accompli

The United States House of Representatives was formulated to be the people’s house. A people’s house where the people elect representatives who would take testimony, investigate, deliberate, negotiate, and draft then pass legislation in the best interest of all Americans. Sadly, this is not how the current House of Representatives works, and it has not worked that way in the last several years.

All of this can be attributed to one person – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Rather than allowing the representatives to do the work of the people, she gathers around herself a few cohorts that craft legislation in private. She then presents this legislation as a Fait Accompli to be voted up or down by the House of Representatives. The legislative amendment process is severely limited, especially for Republicans, and time constricted. As she has almost complete control of the Democrat legislators, which are in the majority, this Fait Accompli is always voted up with few amendments.

Sadly, this process is beginning to occur in the Senate under Democrat Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. While the Senate process is not quite the same as the House process, the result is the same. With the possible elimination or modifications to the Filibuster rule in the Senate, the Senate process will be similar to the House process.

This is also not a representative democracy, as the elected representative have no part in the crafting of legislation. In both the House and the Senate, the razor-thin majority of the Democrats is being utilized to pass legislation that has major repercussions to both governance and society across America. This is the tyranny of the slim majority over an exceptionally large minority. And with Democratic President Biden agreeing with the results that there is no check on the Democrats passing progressive legislation that they see fit for America. This is the ‘fundamental transformation’ of American that the Progressives/Leftists have strived for, and it is also a fundamental transformation of the ideals of the Constitution.

The limited and enumeration powers of the Federal government, the checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the Federal government, the protection of minority rights, and our First and Second Amendment rights are being dispensed with, and the rule by a select few is being implemented by the Democrats and Progressives/Leftists. Consequently, the Democrats are exercising rulership rather than leadership, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". There is no more preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States, but a circumvention or ignoring of the Constitution. The Democrats are trying to transform our Constitution into a democratic form rather than the republican form for which it was intended, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”.

If this continues, we will no longer be a Democratic-Republic but become an Oligarchy. An oligarchy that is only responsive to the will of the oligarchs and not to the will of the people and to the protection of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". Consequently, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people” shall perish in America.

03/13/21 A Republic, if you can keep it.

As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?''
Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

It is now questionable if we can keep it, as the following facts demonstrate:

• The suppression of Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly,
• The selective prosecution of mob violence offenders,
• The selective enforcement of laws bases on political ideology or identity politics,
• The Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders,
• The restrictions on the Free Exercise of Religion,
• The persecution of anyone who supported President Trump, worked in his administration, or voted for him that now must be hunted down and purged,
• The passing of laws that favor one group of Americans at the expense of another group of Americans,
• The lack of Election Integrity in the last election and the legislative proposal to entrench this vote fraud,
• The flood of Illegal Immigrants and the non-enforcement of immigration laws,
• The failures of the Supreme Court to rule on contentious Constitutional issues,
• The expansion of restrictions on Firearms Ownership,
• The extended Coronavirus Pandemic lockdowns and rules imposed by Governors and local officials,
• The criminalization of politics,
• The continued presence of so many troops in Washington, D.C.

As all these assaults on our Republic are currently underway by the Democrats and Progressives/Leftists, therefore, it appears that we can no longer keep our Republic. The actions of Democrats and Progressives/Leftists, as I have written in the “Terminology” webpage; Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, contribute to this erosion of our Republic.

To those who would respond that it is for the “Greater Good’ or “Safety” of Americans, I would retort:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Our Republic is in danger of becoming a tyranny of the mind and the isolationism of the mind, as I have Chirped on “03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind”, and “03/11/21 Isolationism of the Mind”, to the detriment of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". It may be time for “A New Declaration of Independence” and “A New U.S. Constitution” to reestablish our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. After all, the American Revolution was fought to retain our Natural Rights over an oppressive government. Let us hope that we can return to these ideals without a revolution. Otherwise, we may have the situation that prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.

03/12/21 Free Speech is Essential

Free Speech is essential to our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". Without Free Speech, we cannot have "A Civil Society" nor “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Without Free Speech, it is possible to impose the tyranny of the mind and the isolationism of the mind, as I have Chirped on “03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind” and “03/11/21 Isolationism of the Mind”. Without Free Speech, we cannot be free people but will become servile people, as I have Chirped on “03/09/21 A Subservient or Subjugated People”.

Those that would restrict Free Speech claim it is for the ‘Greater Good’ or ‘Safety’ of Americans. They also wish to protect us from what they claim is misinformation or falsehoods. These attitudes have the hidden premise that they know what is best for Americans. But, as to the question as to what is best for Americans, we should all remember:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

Who will determine what is or is not acceptable Free Speech in the marketplace of ideas? The Progressives/Leftists claim that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct and, therefore, they know what is best for Americans. As such, their idea of Free Speech is:

“Some people’s idea of Free Speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”
 - Winston Churchill

They also claim that they wish to protect Americans from the emotional harm of offensive or hateful speech. However, I do not care if your feelings are hurt, as long as I am expressing a reasonable and intelligent position in a polite and respectful manner and doing so in an honest and truthful way. I care about my spouse and child’s feelings, and perhaps my other family and friends’ feelings, and I am sensitive to their feelings. However, I have no control over what you do, think, or feel. I can only control what I do, think, and feel. Your response to what I may say or do is a reflection on your thoughts and feelings, not on my thoughts and feelings. You may also be misinterpreting what I do or say, or perhaps I may be miscommunicating. If I am miscommunicating something, I will accept a critique (but not a criticism) and will try to do better or restate my thoughts. But for you to say that your feelings are hurt is not a valid objection to what I say or do, nor a reason to curtail my Free Speech. The only response to my Free Speech is for others Free Speech to counter my Free Speech. And this counter Free Speech should be reasonable and intelligent, done in a polite and respectful manner, and doing so in an honest and truthful way. To make hurt feelings a valid reason to curtail Free Speech will result in the shutting down of Free Speech for all, as someone, somewhere, feelings may be hurt by what is being said or done. If we restrict Free Speech to exclude what anyone deems as hurtful or hateful speech, then we would have little Free Speech in America. After all, some Conservatives and Republicans can claim that the Progressives, Leftists, and Democrat’s Speech is hurtful or hateful and, therefore, their Free Speech rights should be curtailed. Consequently, all Free Speech in America would be curtailed.

Today, however, Free Speech is not only being assaulted by the government, as being done in “The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”, but by Big Tech and Modern Big Business as I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?" Free Speech is also being assaulted by the actions that I have written in the “Terminology” webpage; Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good.

We should all remember that Free Speech for the individual is required to have Free Speech for everyone. Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions to Free Speech are few, narrow, and far between in that they deal with Speech that is directed to the physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property). The hubris of a government or society that believes that it can constrict the Free Speech of a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can have their Free Speech Rights constricted.

03/11/21 Isolationism of the Mind

This Chirp is not about isolationism as it relates to nationalism, but the isolationism of the mind, and most importantly, the isolationism of the mind as regarding political thought and social policy. When one side of a political issue or social policy does not think about the ideas of the other side, then they are isolating their mind. An isolation that not only stifles their mind but leads to “Divisiveness in America”.

This isolationism occurs mainly in the Progressives/Leftists minds, as it is almost impossible for Conservatives to not be inundated by Progressives/Leftists ideas as they have permeated through American culture and by the reporting of “Modern Journalism”. The isolationism of the Mind by Progressives/Leftists allows them to not even consider anything but their own beliefs and ideology. Consequently, it does not allow them to consider the potential negative impacts of their policies and ideology. It also allows them to impose their own beliefs and ideology on others, as they believe that it is the only proper and correct way to think. Indeed, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, are the impositions of Progressives/Leftists thinking as a result of this isolationism of the Mind. Rather than convince you that they are correct, they would impose upon you what they believe is correct and punish you if you do not agree with them. This leads them to impose a tyranny on the mind of Americans, as I have Chirped on “03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind”.

This Isolationism of the Mind leads to a lack of or improper “Reasoning”, as you cannot properly reason unless you consider the arguments by all sides of an issue. It, therefore, is impossible to discover the solutions to the problems facing America if you do not consider all the ideas about the issues. And to not consider Conservative ideas is the modus operandi of Progressives/Leftists. When confronted by Conservative ideas, the reflex of Progressives/Leftists is to resort to "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" rather than intellectual reasoning on the arguments of Conservatives. Progressives/Leftists also are prone to making emotional appeals rather than intellectual arguments for their policies, which is not the best way to make social policies as it can lead you down the wrong path to the solution of a problem.

This Progressives/Leftists isolationism does not infect all Americans but seems to be constricted to pockets in America. If you look at the voting patterns map of America, by red for Conservatives and blue for Progressives/Leftists, the map is splotch by blue around metropolitan areas while the rest of the country is red or pink. Consequently, Progressives/Leftists are congregating together and physically isolating themselves from Conservatives, thus increasing their mental isolationism.

This Isolation of the Mind is poisonous to the mind, as it does not allow for original nor alternative thoughts, as well as the corruption of reasoning by the mind. It also allows those people who have isolated their minds to adopt an almost religious belief on the sanctitude of their beliefs. A sanctity that allows them to condemn and persecute those who disagree with them. It also allows them to constrict the Free Speech Rights of those that would oppose their beliefs, which my next Chirp will address.

03/10/21 Tyranny of the Mind

Having watched the movie and television miniseries of John Steinbeck’s book ‘East of Eden’. I decided to read the book, as a book often is greater than a film or a television adaptation. This book is primarily about good and evil, but it explores tangential issues as well, as I have Chirped on, “03/02/21 Timshel - Man's Ability to Choose Between Good and Evil”. Another tangential issue in the book is the following passage:

“At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?

Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.

And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning hammer blows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.

And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for this is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost."
- John Steinbeck, East of Eden, Chapter 13

Having read this passage, I paused and cogitated on this subject and then began to reflect on how it applies to modern American society, which led me to this Chirp.

As I have written in the “Terminology” webpage; the single-mindedness of  Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and the Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good versus the Common Good they espouse is an assault on the individual. As they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Those that reserve the determination of moral rightness to themselves or like-minded persons are themselves immoral, as they are intolerant of any moral convictions, words, or deeds that are contrary to their own.

As such, these actions are a tyranny on “the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected.” Therefore, all Americans need to resist and oppose these actions as they are antithetical to American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Such opposition is difficult and may come at a personal expense, as these forces will do whatever is necessary to crush their opponents. But opposition is necessary to preserve our American ideals. Let those who are, or would, oppose these actions remember the following quote about true patriotism:

“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
 - Thomas Paine - The Crisis

Let all true patriots of America stand up and oppose this tyranny of the mind and banish it from our country. To not do so is to become a subservient or subjugated people and end the experiment of our American ideals.

03/09/21 A Subservient or Subjugated People

I have often utilized the term ‘a subservient or subjugated people’ without examining its meaning. Most of us think of subservience or subjugation as occurring through the force of arms that imposes an Authoritarian, Autocratic, Dictatorial, Monarchic, or Tyrannical government upon a people. While this is true, it is not the only way to become A Subservient or Subjugated People. Another way is to start with a little rulership that slowly morphs into greater rulership that then morphs into Authoritarian, Autocratic, Dictatorial, Monarchic, or Tyrannical government upon a people.

This morphing often occurred by the people acquiescing to this morphing because they believed it was in their best interest and for the greater good of the people. In America, the twentieth century saw this slow morphing into greater morphing and now threatens to become Authoritarian. The symptoms of this are, as I have written in my “Terminology” webpage; Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, and my Article, “Tyranny disguised as Virtue and Compassion”. All these items require the implementation of authoritarianism to be accomplished. Therefore, it is extremely important that we resist and oppose these actions as they are antithetical to American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders

To be ruled by regulation and Executive Orders is to be ruled by despotism. When Executive orders are not about enforcing the law but extending or ignoring the law, when regulations are contorted to become more than the law intended and subject to the predilections of the regulators, and when laws are written and passed that allows for these actions, we are not a Republic of the Citizens but a Tyranny by the Bureaucrats.

All of these actions are an attempt to disguise the purposes of this rule by regulation by hiding under cover of obtuse language and stolid bureaucratic procedures to impose this tyranny. And all of this occurs with the tacit approval of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. Politicians do this so that they can obscure their intentions as not to be accountable to their voters and thus potentially lose votes, and bureaucrats do this to extend their fiefdoms and budgets, thus obtaining more power.

The fondness of the Biden administration for rule by regulation is hardly a secret by now, but this fondness has also been a characteristic of the Obama administration and somewhat of the Trump administration. However, the Biden administration is carrying this fondness to the extreme to obtain his political agenda. Congress, with both branches controlled by Democrats, have encouraged and abetted this fondness by not asserting their prerogative of lawmaking and turning a blind eye to this rule by regulation to achieve their political goals. Modern Journalism has also contributed to this problem by not exposing this power grab by politicians and bureaucrats and, indeed, has been supportive of these political goals regardless of the means to achieve these goals.

And all of this must come to an end if we are to retain and maintain our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, for with rule by regulation, these noble goals cannot be achieved. If we continue to vote for politicians that allow this rule of regulation, and if we give more power to bureaucrats to engage in this rule of regulation, then we are becoming subservient or subjugated people.

03/07/21 Reparations are Immoral

Once again, the question has arisen of reparations for black Americans because of the history of slavery and bigotry and discrimination in America. But who will be responsible for the payment of reparations? For this answer, we need not look beyond what the Judeo-Cristian teachings have taught us. The core question is, “Are children punished for the sins of their parents?”. The following answer to this question is from GotQuestions,org.

“Children are not punished for the sins committed by their parents; neither are parents punished for the sins of their children. Each of us is responsible for our own sins. Ezekiel 18:20 tells us, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.” This verse clearly shows that punishment for one’s sins is borne by that person.”

If current Americans are responsible for the payment of reparations, for which they had no part in slavery and bigotry and discrimination in America, then we are vesting the sins of the fathers upon the sons. As such, reparations would be immoral, as I have examined in my Article, “Reparations are Immoral”.

Therefore, let us put aside the call for reparations and focus on what can be done to help all Americans rise above their circumstances. This should be accomplished by correcting the Family, Education, and Faith problems that I have outlined in my Articles, “Public Education”, “Indoctrination versus Education”, and “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems “.

03/06/21 Election Integrity – Part Deux

As I have Chirped on, “02/17/21 Election Integrity” the issue of free and fair elections is now on center stage by a narrow partisan majority led by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to unilaterally nationalize and dictate the rules for every locality in perpetuity — as they did with a House vote on a sweeping measure known as H.R. 1. This legislation would institute the failures of the 2020 Presidential Election and sow more distrust on the integrity of elections.

Article. I. Section. 4. Of the Constitution states:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

However, this legislation would place the primacy of “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives in each State by the Legislature thereof;” onto Congress and the Judiciary. It does so by:

• Compelling states to accept early voting 15 days in advance of election day.
• compelling states to allow ballot harvesting.
• compelling states to allow bureaucrats to redraw congressional districts.
• compelling states to allow felons to vote.
• compelling states to ban voter ID laws.
• compelling states to count mail-in votes that arrive up to ten days after Election Day.
• compelling states to undermine free-speech rights by imposing “onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, nonprofit organizations.”
• mandating automatic voter registration with minimal voter eligibility verification.
• mandating election day voter registration with no voter eligibility verification.

As the Heritage Foundation report on “The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”, noted:

“federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom. It would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process.”

The article "The Facts About Election Integrity and the Need for States to Fix Their Election Systems" by The Heritage Foundation provides additional information on election integrity. The Articles "H.R. 1 Would Create Such Chaos We Would Need a Constitutional Amendment to Fix It" and "The Founders Warned Us About Abuses Like H.R. 1" by the noted Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson provides further illumination about our historical background on Federal elections, and the repercussions of this legislation. Another article “H.R. 1 Is a Threat to American Democracy. Period.” by the noted Constitutional and Election Law scholar Hans A. von Spakovsky illuminates the tragic consequences of this legislation.

By utilizing the reasoning of “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” to pass this legislation would allow Congress to completely bypass the State Legislatures on election laws. By doing so they are utilizing “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning”. This clause was meant to allow Congress to override a States abusive election laws that violated the Constitutional and Civil Rights of Americans, but not for the purpose of creating State Laws on elections.

This legislation does not address the real issues and concerns of voting, as I have covered in my Article, “Voting in America”. What it does do is allow for voting fraud that would ensure the election of Democrat candidates, especially in urban areas as these areas have a troubling history of voting fraud. Or has been said:

“In this country, if the people who win elections want to hold onto power, they need to perform well, pass sound policies and earn the support of the voters again. House Democrats do not get to take their razor-thin majority — which voters just shrunk — and use it to steamroll states and localities to try and prevent themselves from losing even more seats next time.”
 - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

All of this was made possible by the Supreme Court refusing to address the issue of Election Integrity in elections, as I have written about in my Article, “The Failures of the Supreme Court”, and my Chips of “02/24/21 The Supreme Court Fails Once Again” and “01/10/21 The Supreme Failure of the Supreme Court”. By not addressing this issue the Supreme Court has failed its Constitutional duties and its individual members have failed to uphold their sworn duty to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”.

By passing this legislation the House of Representative has shown utter contempt for the principles and meaning of the Constitution. Let us hope that the Senate does not show such contempt. If the Senate passes this legislation than each member of Congress who voted for this legislation, and the President who signs this legislation, have failed to uphold their sworn duty to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. Alas, I do expect Congress to pass this legislation as the Democrats are more interested in obtaining and retaining power then they are interested in upholding the Constitution and assuring free and fair elections.

03/05/21 Hypocrisy

The blatant hypocrisy of the "Democrat Party Leaders" is so obvious that it is becoming a laughingstock and detrimental to society. The Democrat Party Leadership seems to have an attitude of ‘Rules for thee but not for me’ and different standards for speech and conduct that are applied for Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Progressives/Leftists. Some of the most blatant examples are:

• Allegations of sexual misconduct without veracity are to be believed and decried, except if the veraciousness of alleged sexual misconduct is perpetrated by Democrats/Progressives/Leftists.
• As I have written in my Chirp of, “03/04/21 The Pork is Back!” Government spending earmarks are acceptable for those groups that support Democrats/Progressives/Leftists policy positions, while earmarks for those groups that support Republican or Conservative policy positions are not to be considered.
• Campaign finance restrictions are acceptable for Republican candidates, while no restrictions are to be applied to Democrat candidates, as I have outlined in my Article, “Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures”.
• Criticizing Russian actions is acceptable and encouraged, but criticizing Chinese actions is unacceptable and deplored.
• Mob violence by the extreme right is to be condemned and prosecuted, while mob violence by Leftists is to be excused and sometimes supported.
• Partisan leadership in government by Republicans in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches is to be ‘resisted’, while partisan leadership in government by Democrats is to be accepted.
• Profiteering from government insider connections is deplorable for Republicans but not for Democrats (i.e., think of the enrichment of Joe Biden’s family from government contracts, and foreign governments or foreign entities as I have Chirped on, “10/14/19 Doing Nothing Illegal).
• The Coronavirus Pandemic responses of Democrats are applauded as proper and necessary, but any other actions are to be condemned as dangerous as I have written in my Coronavirus Chirp of “03/21/20 Pandemic Ramifications and Repercussions”.
• They believe in science, but only the science that supports their policy positions.
• To "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" Conservatives and Republicans is an acceptable practice, while any supposed offensive thing spoken or written against Democrats/Progressives/Leftists is to be condemned and subject to Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and Identity Politics.
• To criticize the election of President Joe Biden is disloyalty, but the criticisms of the election of President Donald Trump were patriotic.

The reason that they get away with this is that “Modern Journalism” and political commentators treat Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Progressives/Leftists differently, hardball for the former and softball for the latter. Therefore, Democrats/Progressives/Leftists can expect that they will not be criticized for hypocrisy, while the Republicans/Conservatives expect harsh criticisms of hypocrisy from journalists and political commentators.

The recognition of this blatant hypocrisy by the American people also adds to the divisiveness in America, as I have Chirped on, “03/03/21 Victims and Dependents, i.e., Democrats”. Therefore, let us treat all hypocrisy, from all parties, subject to criticism from all parties, and to criticize both with whom you agree or disagree when they exhibit hypocrisy.

03/04/21 The Pork is Back!

The USA Patriot Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the DREAM Act, Employee Free Choice Act, the Right to Work, the Food Safety Modernization Act, etc., etc., etc. all of which give us this "feel good" sense of "whatever it is, it's for our own good, and it promotes safety and security for America." The names given to proposed and passed bills in Congress are more often than not misleading, and we must beware of how politicians spin circumstances and convolute language to promote their agendas. These misnomer bills end up being more intrusive and invasive into the lives of the people, resulting in more loss of liberty and freedom. They often involve more rules and regulations upon the American people, which usually results in more government debt, higher expenses for consumer products and services, and as a result, a lowering of living standard for most Americans. All citizens of the United States should beware of these misnomers, as they are often used to mislead and confuse the public on an issue or policy.

To the above list, we should include the COVID-19 Relief Act that Congress is currently debating. Much of the spending in this bill is not directly related to COVID-19 relief, and the majority of the spending is on pork that the Democrat Party wants to spend on their constituents. Some estimates are that direct COVID-19 relief is less than one-third of the spending in this legislation. What this bill would do, if passed, is increase our Nation's Debt to 30 trillion dollars, a debt that would be passed onto our children and grandchildren. A passing on of debt that is morally untenable as you would financially burden future generations for the benefit of the current generation. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln famous quote:

“You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
- Abraham Lincoln

To become:

“The future generation will work and toil and earn monies so that the current generation can spend the monies of their future labors.”

It is the same tyrannical principle. A principle that should not become the motto of the current generation, for we shall impose the tyranny of debt on future generations. And it is immoral to impose any tyranny of any sort upon another person, both in the present and future.

Congress is also trying to pass this law through the Reconciliation process, a process that allows the Senate majority to sidestep the filibuster and pass bills that affect spending, revenue, or the federal debt ceiling. There are limits on how it can be used, though. One is that, at maximum, three bills can be passed a year using the mechanism. Another is the Byrd Rule, which states that certain kinds of provisions are “extraneous” and therefore cannot be passed under Reconciliation. These include those that:

1. Do not produce a change in outlays or revenues.
2. Produce changes in outlays or revenue that are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.
3. Are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure.
4. Increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision’s title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee’s reconciliation instructions.
5. Increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision’s title, as a whole, remains budget neutral.
6. Contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.

As can be seen from the above rules, the COVID-19 legislation does not meet the rules for Reconciliation. The ignoring of these Reconciliation Rules and the elimination of the Filibuster to pass this COVID-19 legislation does great harm, in the present and future, to our society. This ignoring of the Reconciliation Rules and the elimination of the Filibuster also endangers our Republic as it imposes the will of the (slim) majority upon the (slim)minority. A harm that we may not be able to overcome and put right in the future. It used to be that we slipped minor pork into major legislation, but now it seems we are inserting major pork into misnomered legislation. And no amount of tortuous or convoluted reasoning can justify this imposition of the tyranny of debt upon future generations.

03/03/21 Victims and Dependents, i.e., Democrats

Many Americans wonder why the country has become more partisan and fractured along identity lines. The answer is quite simple - The Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party creates identity groups of Americans on their supposed victimhood and make them dependent on government actions and largess for the sole purpose of obtaining and retaining government power. The Democrat Party does not want to break the cycle of poverty nor redress legitimate grievances, for if they did so, they might have less dependable voters, thus reducing their power. The Democratic Party does not want to address election integrity and illegal immigrants as they need the votes to obtain and retain power. The Democrat Party has no desire to reduce spending, but it has the desire to increase taxes, to make government more powerful and Americans more dependent on government.

The Democratic Party is not interested in fealty to the Constitution but regards it as an obstacle to be circumvented or ignored. Consequently, there are no American ideals that join the American people. The Democratic Party ideals are of self or group interests and not the interests of all Americans. Gone are the ideals of “We the People” and “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. The Democrat Party has also replaced the ‘common good’ with the ‘greater good”, as I have Chirped on “10/20/20 The Greater Good”, to the detriment of our society.

The Democratic Party has embraced the ideals of Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, as they believe in a ‘Democratic Constitution’ rather than a ‘Republican Constitution’, as I have examined in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”.

As such, the Democrat Party does not believe in the individual but relies on the collective identity of groups of Americans. In doing so, they have pitted individualists against collectivists and fractured Americans. The result is that we have a debasement of “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” and “Tyranny Disguised as Virtue and Compassion”.

The Republican Party, however, still (mostly) believes in our Constitutional ideals, but they have tergiversated on some of these ideals to accommodate the political environment. But this tergiversation is what has brought about the ‘Trump Revolution’ in the Republican Party. The populism of the Trump Revolution is about returning to our Constitutional ideals and the primacy of the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of each individual.

Consequently, until the American people decide on which direction to proceed, we will have more partisanship and fracturing in America. Hopefully, this decision of the American people will be by peaceful democratic means. But it should be remembered that if a sufficient number of people believe that their Natural Rights are being infringed, they have the Natural Right to defend their Natural Rights through the force of arms, or as it has been stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Most Progressives and Leftists (i.e., Democrats) wear their beliefs of the ‘Greater Good’ with their words and deeds, while most Conservatives (i.e., Republicans) wear their beliefs of the ‘Common Good’ by living a harmonious life and firearms to protect their harmonious life. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not only the right to protect yourself and your family from criminal actions but the right to protect yourself from an oppressive government. Our Founding Fathers knew this from not only protecting themselves against marauding Indians but by protecting themselves against British and French troops that would infringe on their Natural Rights.

After all, the American Revolution was fought to retain our Natural Rights over an oppressive government. Let us hope that we can return to these ideals without a revolution. Otherwise, we may have the situation that prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.

03/02/21 Timshel - Man's Ability to Choose Between Good and Evil

Having just viewed the movie “East of Eden” and the television miniseries “East of Eden”, as well as reading the novel “East of Eden”, I was struck by the theme of Good and Evil and the Bibles view of it. Upon doing some research on this theme, I came upon the following article from “Oprah.com” that I believe is a succinct examination of the Bibles view of Good and Evil:

“Here is individual responsibility and the invention of conscience. Toy can if you will but it is up to you. This little story [from the Bible] turns out to be one of the most profound in the world. I always felt it was but now I know it is.”
 - John Steinbeck, Journal of a novel.

 “Steinbeck's East of Eden is a book about us all, descendants of Cain, who, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, "appears to be the builder of the first city and ancestor of stock-breeders, musicians, smiths and possibly prostitutes." Like all of us, Cain had free will to decide between good and evil. In this semi-autobiographical work, Steinbeck does not envision a virginal Eden as our birthright. As much as we inherit Cain's curse, we also inherit his ability to redeem himself.

The main theme for East of Eden turns on the correct translation of the Hebrew word timshel, translated differently in various versions of the Bible. The word appears in the Cain and Abel story in Genesis, when God discusses sin with Cain.

What is the true meaning of this passage?

(a) God promises Cain that he will conquer sin ("thou shalt rule over him")?

(b) God orders Cain to conquer sin ("Do thou rule over him")?

(c) God blesses Cain with free will, leaving the choice to him ("Thou mayest rule over him")?

By studying the passage in the Bible, Adam Trask's Chinese servant, Lee, helps characters Samuel and Adam understand the intended original meaning in this passage from East of Eden:

"...this was the gold from our mining: 'Thou mayest.' The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin (and you can call sin ignorance). The King James translation makes a promise in 'Thou shalt,' meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word timshel—'Thou mayest'—that gives a choice. For if 'Thou mayest'—it is also true that 'Thou mayest not.' That makes a man great and that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win."

Here is the choice each of the characters in East of Eden face—as does, ultimately, every human being. No matter how deep-rooted the sin, there is always a chance for redemption. In the authoritative Orthodox Jewish translation from The Chumash: The Stone Edition the passage in question reads: "Surely if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it."

 Sources:

• Journal of a Novel: The East of Eden Letters by John Steinbeck (The Viking Press, Inc.,1969; Penguin Books, 1990)
• The Chumash: The Stone Edition edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman (Mesorah Publications Limited, May 1999)”

To which I might add to the discussion on why a good God would permit both good and evil to exist in our world. The problem with the previous statement is the term ‘good God’. God is neither good nor evil, but simply is (“I am that I am”). God has given us his thoughts about good and evil, but God gave humans the free will to choose between good and evil. Consequently, it is not God who is responsible for good or evil, but the Free Will choice of an individual to choose good or evil that is the reason for good and evil in our world.

03/01/21 Liberty and Freedom

I often distinguish between Liberty and Freedom, as they are different. The difference can be encapsulated as:

“Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, while Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights.”
 - Mark Dawson

Liberty and Freedom are not absolutes, as one person’s Liberty and Freedom ends where another’s Liberty and Freedom begins. While some curtailment of Liberty and Freedom is necessary for a just and orderly society, however, any curtailment must be narrow in scope and necessary and proper to assure the Natural Rights of all.

An example of necessary and proper is the Freedom of Speech. We are all free to speak our minds as a Natural Right, but we are not free to advocate violence or destruction against another person or entity's property. But this Freedom of Speech constriction must be limited to the direct words, and not indirect interpretations of what a person meant by their words, for if you utilize indirect interpretations, they become subjective of the readers or listeners interpretation and not objective the writers or speakers intent. A subjective interpretation that is fraught with possible misinterpretation that should not be utilized to condemn or prosecute the writers or speakers, as this would be a violation of their Natural Right of Free Speech.

The same holds true for peaceable assemblies. A few people in an assembly that become unruly or violent should be prosecuted for their actions, but the many who were peaceable should not be condemned nor prosecuted by the actions of a few. However, the members of the peaceable assembly where violence occurs have a moral responsibility to try to quell the violence and assist law enforcement in identifying those people who were violent so that they can be prosecuted for their actions. To demonize the many for the actions of a few is also a violation of their Natural Right of Peaceable Assembly.

Those of us who would constrict the Natural Rights of Freedom of Speech and Peaceable Assembly, along with other Natural Rights, are not interested in the Liberty and Freedom of a person and, indeed, are more concerned about the control of a person. A control that results in a subservient or subjugated people. The hubris of a person that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

You should also remember that you have no Natural Right not to be offended by someone, but you do have the Natural Right not to be harmed by another. Therefore, we should all be cognizant of our Natural Rights, exercise them appropriately, and defend the Liberties and Freedoms of all persons.

02/28/20 Free Will

Philosophers, Theologians, and Scientists have debated the concept of Free Will for centuries, with no definitive answer as to the nature of Free Will and where it originates from. Some believe that Free Will originates from God, others believe it is part of our nature as sentient beings, while others postulate that there is no Free Will and that we are only driven by our physiology and natural forces.

Whether Free Will was given to us by God or as part of our Natural Rights, I believe that Free Will exists. We are free to choose our words and deeds, but we are not free from the consequences of our words and deeds. We must all exercise our Free Will with responsibility, as we will be held responsible for our words and deeds. I, therefore, place no credence on the arguments that there is no Free Will. For without Free Will, nobody would be responsible for their words and deeds. They would claim that they were predestined to do or say whatever they did or said, and their life outcomes would be ‘set in stone’ by physiology and natural forces.

I believe that Free Will was a gift from God, as I believe in God. And that God does not know beforehand how we will exercise our Free Will. I believe that God knows all there was and all that is, but I do not believe that God knows all that will be. God knows the physical properties and physical laws of the universe, so God knows what will happen because of these physical properties and physical laws of the universe. But God does not know what humans will do or say. This belief is a result of my belief that God gave humans "Free Will" for individuals to speak what they will or take any action they so desire. God only provides us with the knowledge of morality and ethics as a guide for our Free Will. As individuals, we have the Free Will to speak or take any action, and God cannot know what speech or actions we will take. God only observes our words and deeds (and perhaps our thoughts) and renders a judgment of them after their body passes away, and their spirit joins with God.

Free Will also answers the question of why there is good and evil. As each person has the Free Will to choose good or evil words and actions, we will have both good and evil in the world. The same is true for both truth and falsehoods, right from wrong, and other dichotomies of human nature, as Free Will dictates which and how many dichotomies we choose.

If you believe that Free Will is part of our nature as sentient beings, then we all make choices, choices for which we are responsible for the outcomes of the choice. However, if you do not believe in God but in Free Will as our nature as sentient beings, the question then becomes, how do you know which dichotomies of human nature are appropriate to speak or act upon? A philosophical answer may lead you to the appropriate words and deeds, but most people do not think philosophically nor speak or act philosophically. Morality and ethics may have the answer, but morality and ethics must have a foundation as a starting point. Where is this foundation to be found in nature? Others respond that the Law provides this foundation, as the law was driven by the human experience of what is proper and appropriate behavior. But the law cannot account for all speech or actions, and nobody can know all the laws before they exercise their Free Will. As I have explained in my Article, “The Law is Not All”, the law is insufficient as a foundation to guide all human decisions, and thus our Free Will.

I, therefore, believe in God as I believe in Free Will. The fact that we have Free Will, and the decisions of Free Will based on the dichotomies of human nature, and the knowledge of morality and ethics that God has provided us with to guide our Free Will, strengthens my belief in God. Consequently, we must all exercise our Free Will appropriately based on morality, ethics, and natural law that God has provided.

02/27/21 Thinking and Reasoning About Gun Control

I have just finished the book, Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Professor Simon Blackburn that I believe is a good introduction to the concepts of Philosophy. However, I was able to utilize my knowledge and reasoning to spot some faults in this book. My new Article, “Thinking and Reasoning About Gun Control”, examines one of his statements in the book about gun control that I believe demonstrates some of the faults of incorrect thinking that he himself points out. This article is a good example of throw-away statements that should not be ignored but should be critiqued to determine the validity of a statement.

02/26/21 Destroying the Village

In what is considered one of his iconic dispatches, published on 7 February 1968, Peter Arnett wrote about the Vietnam war of the Battle of Bến Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong." The quotation was gradually altered in subsequent publications, eventually becoming more familiar, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." The accuracy of the original quotation and its source has often been called into question. Arnett never revealed his source, except to say that it was one of four officers he interviewed that day. US Army Major Phil Cannella, the senior officer present at Bến Tre, suggested that the quotation might have been a distortion of something he said to Arnett. The New Republic at the time attributed the quotation to US Air Force Major Chester L. Brown. In Walter Cronkite's 1971 book, Eye on the World, Arnett reasserted that the quotation was something "one American major said to me in a moment of revelation."

The same can be said for America today, as in order to protect the people of the village of the United States from the Coronavirus Pandemic, we are destroying the village of the Constitution of the United States that defines the people. The lockdowns, restrictions, school closings, and economic impacts on persons and businesses have been slowly destroying America, not to mention the corrosion of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". Will America ever restore itself to a nation that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Or will be become a subservient or subjugated people subject to decrees by government officials masked as protections from the Coronavirus Pandemic by following the science, even though the science is disputable and sometimes contrary to the decrees.

It is past time that we submit to fear itself and awaken to the negative impacts of these decrees. We must make reasonable and rational decisions as to how to best proceed and to restore our Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. We must also insist that our politicians exhibit leadership rather than rulership, as I have written on in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

02/25/21 Canceling Student Debt

There is no doubt that the current student debt is crushing to both students and parents. Not only is it crushing financially but crushing psychologically. Upon graduation, students cannot obtain employment that can relieve them of this debt in short order, and they must alter or postpone their life decisions such as residency or creating a family to pay off this debt. Many are moving back in with their parents, thereby stunting their growth as an individual. The parents may also take on financial responsibility to support them and sometimes to help them pay off the student debt. And these student debts are rising as the costs of higher education rises. My new Article, “Cancelling Student Debt”, is an examination of the causes of student debt, the impacts of student debts, and the consequences of canceling student debt.

02/24/21 The Supreme Court Fails Once Again

On Monday, Feb 22, 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear a number of lawsuits on procedural grounds about the 2020 Presidential Elections, utilizing the reasoning of "That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election," Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent, to which he added, "But that may not be the case in the future." And this was the reason the Supreme Court has once again failed, as I have written in my Chirp, “01/10/21 The Supreme Failure of the Supreme Court” and my Article, “The Failures of the Supreme Court”.

The issue of importance before the Supreme Court was not if the election would have changed, but was the election conducted Constitutionally and conducted properly to preserve the integrity of the vote. This was the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule on what constitutes Constitutional elections and the preservation of the integrity of elections. The suspicions of outright vote fraud, as well as the veracity of the allegations of illegal actions by State election officials, and the possible unconstitutional actions of the State Executive branches and State Judiciaries in violations of the State Legislatures laws of elections are of utmost importance in our democratic process of assuring a free and fair election. There is also the issue of the reasoning of the Supreme Court. If you reason that since the outcome would not have changed, you can violate the Constitution leads to the slippery slope of what other Constitutional protections can be violated if the outcome would not change. The important issue is not the outcome but if the Constitution was violated. Thus, the Supreme Court has prioritized outcomes of actions rather than the constitutionality of actions as the basis for making decisions or nondecisions. On Constitutional issues the Supreme Court must rule on constitutionality, and they must speak to the future as to constitutional actions that are or are not allowed by the Constitution.

If these allegations of vote fraud and unconstitutional actions prove to be true, then we have an assault on our Freedoms and Liberties. For without a Free and Fair Election, we cannot have a republican government that is representative of the will of the people. As the will of the people may have been subverted by possible corrupt voting practices and possible unconstitutional actions of the State Executive officers and State Judiciaries, this is an issue that the Supreme Court should address. And I would remind the Supreme Court the best means to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court is to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.

In their efforts to avoid becoming involved in this political conflict and to preserve what they believe is the integrity of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is violating their sworn duty to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. But I would remind the Supreme Court the best means to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court is to preserve the integrity of the Constitution. I would also remind them that you cannot avoid the serious problems of today and not expect them to come back in the future. And when serious problems come back, they often come back furiously.

By not looking to the future of elections and ruling before the next election, the Supreme Court invites the same turmoil that occurred in the 2020 Elections and future questions about the integrity of all elections. This is a colossal failure of the Supreme Court that reverberates throughout our Constitutional Republic to the detriment of our republic. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of not addressing this problem at this time.

02/23/21 Income Redistribution

Poverty has been the normal state of humanity for much of its history. Therefore, the question is not ‘Why is there so much Poverty?’ but ‘Why is there so much wealth?’. An issue that I have examined in my Article, “Why is there so much poverty?”. Throughout history, wealth was accumulated by the powerful who used the force of arms to obtain and retain wealth. Most people who examine this issue would conclude that it was the ‘Industrial Revolution” that created wealth. However, the Industrial Revolution was only possible by the rise of ‘Capitalism’, which in turn was fired by the rise of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. This rise of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All began in Great Britain but reached its full flower in the American Colonies and then the United States. It faltered in Great Britain because they had the vestiges of Monarchy and Aristocracy as impediments to ‘Free Markets’ driven by Capitalism, but it flourished in America because they had little impediments to Free Markets driven by Capitalism. In all other parts of the world, poverty reigned supreme until the rise of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, Capitalism, and Free Markets arose. Or, as it has been said:

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.
 - Walter E. Williams

Capitalism provides for the goods and services that people need or desire, at a cost they can afford and in a timely manner. Capitalists become wealthy by doing so and enrich other people they employ or contract for products and services they utilize. Therefore, Capitalism is the best and only reliable means to reduce poverty and raise the standard of living for all.

Consequently, the means to reduce poverty is to expand Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, Capitalism, and Free Markets. No other way has ever achieved the reduction of poverty that is desirable, and indeed, any other way that has been tried has resulted in failure that reduces the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. The other ways tried throughout history usually result in despotism on the people and more poverty. Indeed, the communists, fascists, and socialists’ governments in the 20th century tried income redistribution that resulted in oppression, economic depression, and more poverty.

Many Intellectuals in America and elsewhere advocate for ‘Income Redistribution’ to solve the problem of poverty. However, these Intellectuals have not considered the negative impacts of Income redistribution on economic growth, decreased productivity and efficiency, the inadequacy of responses to market demand and supply, and the impacts to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All by confiscating the property of one person to provide for another person. Income redistribution has the effect of reducing wealth for many while only modestly decreasing poverty. Indeed, Income redistribution may increase the costs of goods and services, making poverty more widespread. Or, as it has been said:

"Intellectuals have a great tendency to see poverty as a great moral problem to which they have the solution. The human race began in poverty, so there's no mysterious explanation as to why some people are poor. The question is why have some people gotten prosperous, and in particular why some have gotten prosperous to a greater degree than others. But everybody started poor, so poverty is not a mystery to be solved by intellectuals. More than that, intellectuals have no interest in what creates wealth, and what inhibits the creation of wealth. They are very concerned about the distribution of it, but they act as if wealth just exists - somehow. It's like manna from heaven, it's only a question of how we split it up."
 - Thomas Sowell

The way to reduce poverty is to increase the means of achievement to wealth, not by income redistribution. And the way to increase the means of achievement is through quality education, a strong family and religious basis for the structure of society, and the reduction of governmental impediments to Capitalism. Education is the foundation for the reduction of poverty, an issue that I have examined in my Article, “Public Education” and “Indoctrination versus Education”. I have also examined the strong family and religious basis for the structure of society in my Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems“. When we foster these goals, we can reduce poverty and increase the standard of living for all.

02/22/21 Defacing, Destroying, Intimidation, and Acts of Aggression

In the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number of pernicious activities directed at people, persons, or groups with whom the perpetrators may disagree. You have every right to critique or criticize someone else’s speech or actions, but you have no right to deface or destroy someone else’s property in reaction to their words and deeds. Nor do you have the right to practice intimidation or acts of aggression against another person with whom you disagree. For to do so, you are engaging in activities that are deleterious to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the other person. This is also destructive to "A Civil Society" and leads to “Divisiveness in America” that makes it much more difficult to achieve bipartisanship to solve the problems in America. And you should remember when you critique or criticize someone that you should always engage them in the proper "Dialog and Debate" of civil discourse. You should also remember that when you are engaging in these activities, you are demonstrating your emotional immaturity and a bereft of intellectual acumen regarding the issue that has so infuriated you to engage in these actions.

02/21/21 Philosophy

Most people do not care for or think about Philosophy, as they consider it too esoteric and convoluted to be understood by the common person. This is a shame but somewhat true. The specific issues and concerns of Philosophy can be esoteric and convoluted, but the generalities of Philosophy are not as complex as the specifics.

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about reason, existence, knowledge, values, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Philosophy never teaches you what to think but how to think, as every philosophical idea has dissents and counter ideas. Philosophy is never definitive but can be utilized to discount ideas. However, Philosophy does teach you how to think and reason to reach a rational conclusion. Your conclusion may be incorrect, as your philosophical reasoning may be flawed. However, by studying philosophical methods and thinking more philosophically, your conclusions can become sounder, and you can detect flaws in the reasoning of others. How to think and detecting flaws in thinking are the main reasons that you should become acquainted with Philosophy.

To become more acquainted with Philosophy and its methods, the following three books are what I would recommend you obtain:

Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn

“Here at last is a coherent, unintimidating introduction to the challenging and fascinating landscape of Western philosophy. Written expressly for "anyone who believes there are big questions out there, but does not know how to approach them," Think provides a sound framework for exploring the most basic themes of philosophy, and for understanding how major philosophers have tackled the questions that have pressed themselves most forcefully on human consciousness.”

Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation by Douglas N. Walton

“This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, replying to, and criticizing questions, forms of valid argument, relevance, appeals to emotion, personal attack, uses and abuses of expert opinion, problems in deploying statistics, loaded terms, equivocation, and arguments from analogy.“

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford Quick Reference) 3rd Edition by Simon Blackburn

“This bestselling dictionary is written by one of the leading philosophers of our time, and it is widely recognized as the best dictionary of its kind. Comprehensive and authoritative, it covers every aspect of philosophy from Aristotle to Zen. With clear and concise definitions, it provides lively and accessible coverage of not only Western philosophical traditions, but also themes from Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophy.

Entries include over 400 biographies of famous and influential philosophers, in-depth analysis of philosophical terms and concepts, and a chronology of philosophical events stretching from 10,000 BC to the present day. New entries on philosophy of economics, social theory, neuroscience, philosophy of the mind, and moral conceptions bring the third edition of this dictionary fully up to date.

Fully cross-referenced and containing over 3,300 alphabetical entries, it is the ideal introduction to philosophy for anyone with an interest in the subject, and it is an indispensable work of reference for students and teachers.”

02/20/21 America Has Been a Remarkable Moral Achievement

Dennis Prager has recently written an illuminative article, “Given How Flawed Human Nature Is, America Has Been a Remarkable Moral Achievement”. Not only does this article explore America's moral achievements, but it also explains why many Progressives and Leftists besmirch America's moral achievements. It is well worth the three minutes to read this article, as you will have a better understanding of American moral achievements and those who would disparage them.

02/19/21 The Perversion of the English Language

It has been reported that The Biden Administration has told officials at the Department of Homeland Security to stop using long-held terms like "illegal alien" to describe those who enter the United States unlawfully. However, the term "alien" is found within US Code and is regularly referenced in the immigration system and in court rulings to describe everyone who is not a US citizen. In doing so, The Biden Administration is engaging in ‘The Perversion of the English Language’.

This English language perversion is one of the ways in which Democrats and Progressives/Leftists try to confuse an issue. Language is the way we communicate our thoughts and feelings, and perverting language leads to less understanding or misinterpretation. The Democrats and Progressives/Leftists will substitute a word or phrase that is innocuous and then utilize it instead of the proper non-innocuous word or phrase, thus leading to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the language. They also accomplish this as part and parcel of their Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, practices.

While Republicans and Conservatives sometimes engage in this English language perversion, it is a deliberate tactic of Democrats and Progressives/Leftists to obtain their policy goals. Rather than resorting to “Reasoning” to persuade the American public, they resort to the deception of misnomers or ill-defined language to obscure their true intentions. They also rely on emotional appeals to achieve their goals, in which the appeals and goals are obfuscated by this perversion of the English language.

Therefore, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I would suggest that ‘Illegal Immigrants’ be utilized to identify those persons who permanently reside in the United States without proper authorization.

The reason that the Democrats engage in this misnomer regarding Illegal Immigrants is self-obvious. As the Biden Administration gears up to push a massive amnesty bill through Congress, thus effectively solidifying Democrat political power for decades to come by appealing to those that have been given amnesty to vote for Democrats, these misnomers are useful in obtaining their goal. The less obvious reason is that once Illegal Immigrants obtain citizenship, they would be eligible for entitlements. Consequently, this would require that we grow the Federal Debt and Deficit to pay for these entitlements or increase taxes on middle-class Americans to fund these entitlements, along with the growth of government bureaucracies to administer these entitlements. And more middle-class taxes, more government spending, and bigger government are a basic cornerstone of Democrat policies and positions.

When the proposed legislation on amnesty is released, you need to examine the details of the legislation to find the Devil in the Details, for:

“Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils.”
- Mark Dawson

And I suspect that there will be many Devils in the Details that will be obscured by ‘The Perversion of the English Language’.

02/18/21 Gun Control

The Biden Administration appears to be ramping up its efforts on Gun Control, and, as usual, gun control advocates will run afoul of the meaning and intent of the second amendment to the Constitution as well as the realities of gun control.

The Second Amendment is the natural right to protect yourself, your family, and your society from violent acts that may be perpetrated against them. Whether these violent acts be from an individual, a group, or a government, you have the natural right to protect yourself against these violent acts. You also have the natural right to protect yourself from encroachments to your Human Rights from individuals, groups, or government. And you have the natural right to arm yourself with sufficient and enough weaponry to protect yourself, and your family, and your society. And it is your right, and nobody’s else right, including a government, to determine what types and amounts of weaponry are necessary to protect your Human Rights. Therefore, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing but everything to do with protecting your Human Rights.

Many who advocate gun control say we have nothing to fear as our Human Rights are protected by our Constitution and laws. But lawbreakers pay no heed to these laws, and government protection may come too late to protect yourself or your family from these lawbreakers. You must have the ability to protect yourself and your family on the spot, to prevent harm to yourself and your family. And governments can change and become oppressive or encroach upon your Human Rights. Indeed, history has shown that without resistance from its citizens, both armed and unarmed, governments tend to encroach more and more on individual Human Rights. Our forefathers knew this from painful experiences, which is the reason they crafted the Second amendment.

As to the realities of Gun Control in America, I have examined this issue in my Article, “Gun Control”. The realities such as the practicability of gun confiscation or buy-backs, the negative impacts of Gun-Free Zones, the deterrence on crime of gun control, the practicableness of a national registry of guns, the disproportionately unfair impact of gun control, and the role of mental illness in gun violence are examined in this article.

It is, therefore, important for all Americans to resist any gun control that runs afoul to the meaning and intent of the second amendment to the Constitution, and almost all gun control runs afoul of the meaning and intent of the second amendment to the Constitution. To not resist so is to endanger our safety and our ability to withstand despotism.

02/17/21 Election Integrity

Robert G. Natelson has written a series of articles that examines the issue of Election Integrity in America. Robert G. Natelson is a former constitutional law professor, is a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, and a senior adviser to the Convention of States movement. Robert G. Natelson's meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been relied on repeatedly in the U.S. Supreme Court, both by justices and by the parties. Professor Natelson was a law professor for 25 years at three different universities. He taught Constitutional Law, Advanced Constitutional, Constitutional History, and First Amendment courses. He is now the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, Colorado. He is the author of the book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.” These articles are informative and are based on Constitutional history and principles, and the Rule of Law in America. These short articles are:

• Don’t let them divert us from ensuring electoral integrity!—1st in a series
• Saving America and election Integrity: 2nd in a series
• Saving America and election integrity: 3rd in a series
• How state legislatures can break the power of corrupt big-city politics in presidential elections -4th in a series
• The solution is a convention of the states: 5th of a five part series

You should read these articles and weep for the future of America if the Integrity of Elections become compromised or corrupted. It is well past the time when we should reform the election process to assure Election Integrity as I have outlined in my Article, “Voting in America”.

02/16/21 The Double Standard Institutionalized

It has long been apparent that a double standard exists for Democrats and Progressives versus Republicans and Conservations. The Words and Deeds of Democrats and Progressives that are offensive or loathsome are to be ignored, ameliorated, or forgiven, while the Speech and Actions of Republicans and Conservations that are offensive or loathsome are to be highlighted, exacerbated, or objurgated.

This is done by defining offensive or loathsome differently when applied to one group or the other. This is now being instituted by Democrats and Progressives in the structure of government and society. If you express any words or commit deeds that are in opposition to Democrats and Progressives' policies and positions, then you are to be ostracized from government, and your opinions are to be suppressed by society.

In government, we have seen the rise of diversity training that is more thought control rather than awareness, the exclusion for promotion or demotion within government based on Political Correctness, the vetting of the United States Armed Forces for political orientation, and Congressional committee assignments or removal based on Political Correctness rather than ability. We have also witnessed the actions of government officials that violate their own edicts where they exhibit that there are rules for thee but not for me. We have also seen a double standard in the enforcement or non-enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations based on the objectives of Democrats and Progressives. Most disconcerting is the persecution that many times parades as prosecution for those that disagree with Democrats and Progressives policies and positions, as I have examined in my Article, “The Criminalization of Politics”.

As I have written in my “Terminology” webpage; Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, are the means to suppressing the Free Speech rights of those that they oppose. We have also heard some Progressives talk of the reeducation of Trump voters, or exclusion or retribution to Trump appointees or supporters in government and society. These terms and actions are an example of the Double Standard Institutionalized in society, as they are so obviously biased against Republicans and Conservations and for Democrats and Progressives' policies and positions.

All the above actions are based on the speech of a person, not the actions of a person. In the United States, we criticize or critique the words of another person, but we only take actions based on the deeds of a person that is in violation of the law. If we start to take action on the words of a person, we are violating the Natural and Constitution Right to Free Speech. We must remember that there is no Free Speech unless there is Free Speech for all. To violate the Natural and Constitution Right to Free Speech requires a subservient or subjugated people. The hubris of a government that believes that it can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled. Consequently, the Institutionalization of the Double Standard is antithetic to our Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

02/15/21 Insurrection and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

With the second Impeachment of President Trump resulting in the acquittal on charges of inciting insurrection in the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, you may think that it is over. But is it over? My new Article, “Insurrection and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,” examines the possibility of utilizing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for further actions the Democrat Party is considering against former President Trump.

02/14/21 A Religion of Peace

To first determine if a religion is a peaceful religion, you need to define the meaning of ‘Peace’. The best definition I have ever encountered is from a great Philosopher:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
 - Baruch Spinoza

A peaceful religion needs to be a voluntary religion, where each person decides whether to believe or not believe the religious tenets. A peaceful religion cannot impose its religion upon another person, nor make another person subservient or subjugated to its tenets. You may believe the other person is wrong in their beliefs and try to convert them to your beliefs, but you cannot impose your beliefs on another person. A peaceful religion requires that its believers be polite and respectful in their speech and behavior for persons of other religious beliefs and tenets, as well as for its own believers unless those beliefs or tenets violate the Natural Rights of a person.

And Justice requires an affirmation and enforcement of our Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Therefore, you cannot have Peace without Natural and Legal Rights. And Natural Rights require “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” to be the law of the land.

A vast percentage of Muslims believe that all the peoples of the world should believe in and follow the tenets of the Koran, or they should be subservient or subjugated to the Will of Allah. They also believe that Sharia law is the only acceptable law for all. Therefore, they are intolerant of any other beliefs or laws. Consequently, Islam is not a religion of ‘Peace’.

02/13/21 New Articles and New Terminology

I have posted three new articles that I have been working on for the last week. These articles are:

1. “Democrats: The Party of Systemic Racism”, examines the history and actions of the Democratic Party that reveal their past and current racism.
2. “Social Media and Free Speech”, examines the methods, actions, and repercussions of Social Media when they allow, tag, or cancel posts by their subscribers.
3. “The Meaning of Holocaust”, examines the modern English meaning of holocaust and the implications and peril of the modern interpretation of holocaust.

I have also added the term “Identity Politics” to my vocabulary of “Terminology”.

02/12/21 Multiculturalism and Cultural Equivalence

Multiculturalism describes the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an ethnic group. This can happen when a jurisdiction is created or expanded by amalgamating areas with two or more different cultures (e.g., French Canada and English Canada) or through immigration from different jurisdictions around the world (e.g., Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries).

Multicultural ideologies and policies vary widely, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in society to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group to which they belong.

Multiculturalism that promotes maintaining the distinctiveness of multiple cultures is often contrasted to other settlement policies such as social integration, cultural assimilation, and racial segregation. Multiculturalism has been described as a "salad bowl" and "cultural mosaic".

In the past, America has been a pluralistic society that expected its immigrants to adopt American ideals and values. We also expected that the ideals and values of the immigrant culture that coincided with American ideals and values would be incorporated into American society. We did not expect that the immigrant would lose their culture, only that it would celebrate their culture as a remembrance. After all, that is the meaning of “E Pluribus Unum, the national motto of the United States of America, meaning "From many, one", or "out of many, one".

However, in today's society, many promote Multiculturalism as a means to allow for the creation of separate cultures within the United States and Identity Politics, which often pits one culture against another. I believe that this is harmful to America, as it creates dividedness in America. A dividedness that flares up and pits one group against another to the detriment of all Americans.

Others said that ‘Diversity is our Strength’ in the United States, and others have said that one culture is not better than another, and we should accept all cultures as equals in America. To this, I say nonsense. The Roman Empire and the Soviet Union were some of the most diverse societies in history, yet they crashed and burned into the dustbin of history. Not all cultures are equal, as some cultures have contributed more to the advancement of mankind in Human Rights, Government, Law, Economics, Theology, Arts, Sciences, and Technology than others. All cultures have contributed some things to the advancement of mankind, but they have not all contributed equally. And calls for the treatment of different cultures as equal is the nonsense of Political Correctness. America’s strength is not in its diversity but in the upholding of our ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

02/11/21 Modern College and University Studies

Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Multicultural Studies in modern Colleges and Universities tend not to be studies but become the arena for the disparagement of American history and American ideals, as well as other white-male societies. It is perfectly fine to study these issues and to learn from their history. Too often, however, it is more than learning that is the purpose of these studies.

History is distorted or reinterpreted to achieve political goals rather than to learn from our mistakes and try to improve society. They also try to place the blame for our problems on the current generation that were caused by the actions of previous generations, rather than learn from these mistakes and correct them. A blame and shame game to cower the current generation to fundamentally change rather than improve our current society. Often, however, they must trample on our Natural and Constitutional Rights to achieve these fundamental changes. And to trample on these Natural and Constitutional Rights is evil, as I have spoken about in my Chirp on “02/04/21 Evil Is as Evil Does”.

These studies have created a generation or two of students that are radicalized against America and American Ideals. The result will be that if they succeed, we will be “Condemned to Repeat It” of the ills of previous societies. Let us learn from our previous mistakes and attempt to correct them in our current society, but not repeat the problems of the suppression of Natural Rights of previous societies.

02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)

Modern Big Business has branched out to social activism, rather than constraining themselves to providing products and services in a timely manner which the common man can afford. In doing so, they are taking company monies from their shareholders' profits, or increased customers' prices, or both, to spend on their social activism. For a company to spend monies on social activist, for which the other people may not agree, without the permission of the other people is immoral, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”.

In the advertising of their social activism, they are also skewering the political and social environment to fit their vision of good social policy, as they do not present a balanced viewpoint of this social activism. And most of this social activism by companies has a decidedly Progressive/Leftists orientation.

This may occur as Modern Big Business does not want to be targeted by the Cancel Culture that could negatively impact their company profits. It also occurs in conjunction with Wokeness, as this provides a rationale for their spending on social activism. And Modern Big Business has started making hiring, firing, and promotions based on this Wokeness, thus infringing on the private Free Speech rights of those impacted. It is often the Big Businesses that are more regulated or unregulated by the government that engages in these activities, for they are dependent on government regulation that is favorable to themselves or unfavorable to their competitors or to evade regulation that will increase their profits.

This social activism spending by Modern Big Business needs to cease, as it is not the proper function of companies in our society. Companies need to focus on their products and services to meet their customers’ needs and not spend monies to meet a social goal. Social goals are the responsibility of the government and the American people and not businesses.

02/09/21 Toppling Statues, Defacing Monuments, and Renaming Buildings

The toppling of statues, defacing monuments, and renaming buildings is a symptom of a sickness in America. A sickness brought forth by ignorance of American history because of improper or unstudied schooling on American history. A sickness that reveals a lack of understanding of the social environment and historical circumstances that motivated historical actions. A sickness of the soul that only allows current morality to dictate judgments on historical figures, rather than judging them by the morality of their times. A sickness that does not permit the acknowledgment of the good in American history. A sickness that allows for the sins of the fathers to be invested upon the sons. A sickness that consumes the soul and allows for the deconstruction and disparagement of American history and society. A sickness that allows for the demons of our soul, rather than the better angels of our nature, to control our actions. A sickness that exacerbates the divisiveness in America and prevents reasonable and rational resolutions to the issues and problems in America.

The toppling of statues, defacing monuments, and renaming buildings of despots or dictators is a proper response of a people who have gained their freedom from these despots or dictators. The toppling of statues, defacing monuments, and renaming buildings is not a solution for a free people, nor a step in the right direction to resolving America's problems. The solution is to understand and learn from our history so that we do not repeat the ills of our past and build a better society based upon the lessons of our history. In my History Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”, I expound a perspective on how to view history and make judgments on civilizations and personages. Another History Article of mine, “United States History Perspective”, is my viewpoint on United States History, focusing on the many turning points in U.S. history that changed our country and how Americans strove to improve our society. If you keep this perspective of history and remember our turning points, you can more fairly judge our history.

In judging our history, we can ascertain that America, with all its faults, has been a history of striving to obtain our ideals of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. While we have not always obtained these ideals, we have, and hopefully will continue to have, the motivation and will to obtain these ideals. To judge American history by current morality or a standard of perfection is not appropriate as:

"Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best."
 - Mark Dawson

02/08/21 A Return to Civility

In President Biden’s campaign and Inaugural address, he promised a return to civility. The question is, what will he return to? A two-part article, “Democrats Want a 'Return to Civility'; When Did They Practice It?” Part I and Part II by Larry Elder Posted: Jan 28, 2021, 12:01 AM, looks at this question.

President Biden’s words and deeds, as well as other "Democrat Party Leaders", have called into question the Democrat’s meaning of civility. He and his nominees for office have all have a long history of incivility to Republicans and Conservatives, as Larry Elder has pointed out. Incivility that is based on intense partisanship and the marginalization of Conservatives and Republicans. His Executive Orders have not shown the civility of bipartisanship, nor have they been respectful of Republicans and Conservatives' concerns. They certainly have not been approved by Congress as some of them seem to contradict Federal law. These types of Executive Orders are not unique to President Biden, as we have seen these types of Executive Orders proliferate in this century, as I have Chirped on, “01/26/21 And So, It Continues”. The recent Senate vote to adopt a budget resolution for Coronavirus relief 51-50, with Vice President Harris casting the tie-breaking vote, is another example of partisanship and incivility by the Democrats.

Consequently, it appears that President Biden and Democratic Party leadership's definition of civility is for Republicans and Conservatives to be silent and submissive to Progressive/Leftist and Democrat Party policies and positions. This definition is not of civility as it requires submissiveness to the desires of Progressive/Leftist and Democrat Party policies and positions. It is also an assault on the Free Speech rights of all Americans. We should all remember that Free Speech for someone is required to have Free Speech for everyone. Free speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property). The hubris of a government that believes that it can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

Therefore, whenever you hear calls for civility by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", you are hearing calls for the submissiveness to the goals of the Progressive/Leftist and Democrat Party policies and positions.

02/07/21 Madness, Madness, Madness Part Deux

In my Chirp on “06/16/20 Madness, Madness, Madness” I have expounded on the current madness in American society. Given my recent penchant to collect "Quotes of Wisdom", I thought I would create this chirp of quotes that helps explain the current madness of America.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
  -  New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
  - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
 - Anonymous (but often misattributed to Albert Einstein)

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
   - Christopher Hitchens

"You are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice."
 - Ezra Taft Benson

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins."
 - Benjamin Franklin

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

"It doesn't matter how smart you are unless you stop and think."
- Thomas Sowell

"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance."
- Thomas Sowell

“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”
- Thomas Sowell

“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.”
 - Walter E. William

“Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place.
 - Walter E. Williams

“The Founders knew that a democracy would lead to some kind of tyranny. The term democracy appears in none of our Founding documents. Their vision for us was a Republic and limited government.
 - Walter E. Williams

"The hubris of a government that believes they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled."
- Mark Dawson

"The hubris of governmental leaders who believe that they can correct or control any situation is astounding."
- Mark Dawson

“You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room.”
 - Mark Dawson

We should all keep these quotes of wisdom in mind before we speak and act. To do so will result in less madness and more rational words and deeds.

02/06/21 How Does Temporary Becomes Permanent?

The short and sweet answer is ‘FEAR’! When people are fearful of something, they react defensively. This defensive reaction will continue until the fear dissipates. And it is usually in somebodies’ interest to continue the fear as there are benefits, mostly monetary or power, to those that can manipulate fear. Fear also allows a person or persons to induce actions that they would not consider appropriate in times of calm. Fear, and anger, often lead to mob actions that can devolve into riots, arson, destruction of property, as well as harm or death to individuals.

Fear is often advantageous for politicians, as well as rewarding for Journalism and Social Media. By stoking fear, a politician can gain support, and therefore power, as well as assisting in their election or reelection. This can be evidenced in modern electioneering, as both parties utilize fear of the other party or candidate for the basis of their electioneering. By reporting and misreporting on the fearful words and deeds of the fearful or fearmongers, the journalist can increase their viewership and circulation. Fear also increases followership and ‘likes’ on social media, which is advantageous for those who spread fear. Fear that can be utilized for actions for nefarious purposes. Fear often occurs when a crisis comes upon us, a crisis that often allows for fearmongering. Or has been said:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
 - Rahm Emanuel

A crisis that invokes fear is the strongest crisis that allows politicians to do things that they would not do otherwise. This fear allows politicians to pass legislation or issue Executive Orders that infringe on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", in a manner that impinges our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Much of this legislation or Executive Orders is claimed to be for what is best for Americans, but we should all remember:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

Deciding what is best for Americans should be done in a calm and rational manner, rather than a hurried and ill-considered manner. It should not be done hastily to satiate the fears of Americans, as often when actions are hastily done, they have ill effects and are subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. If immediate actions are required to resolve a crisis, then these actions should be minimal and of short duration. To do otherwise is to allow the temporary measure to become permanent. And those that wish for the temporary measure to be permanent often stoke fear to achieve their goals.

The year 2020 saw much of this reaction to fear. Fear of the Corona Virus Pandemic leads to hasty Executive Orders that have continued for almost a year. Coronavirus Relief legislation has been passed several times, and I expect several of its provisions will last much longer than the pandemic. The fear of President Trump led to two ill-conceived Impeachments and was the basis for the 2020 Presidential elections. In 2021 the fear of a small violent mob at the Capitol building in Washington D.C. led to 25,000 National Guard troops protecting the inauguration of President Biden, of which 5,000 troops remain to this day.

We should always remember the words of wisdom from one of our Presidents in reacting to a crisis:

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

For ‘fear itself‘ allows for the temporary actions to become permanent fixtures, which are often not advantageous to Americans or our American ideals of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’.

02/05/21 Book Burning and Book Banning

The 20th century saw much book burning in response to the opposition of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism ideology. The 21st century has not burned books, but many are trying to ban books in opposition to Progressive/Leftist ideology. Not only are they trying to ban books but to ban all writings and speech that are opposed to Progressive/Leftist ideology. The banning of books includes the removal of books from library shelves and schools and the intimidation of publishers to not publish works of authors that would disagree with Progressive/Leftist ideology. The banning of other writings and speech is through the removal of user accounts on social media, the removal of videos and audios from the internet sites that distribute such videos and audios, and the removal of apps that support conservative thought. More insidious is the tagging of content as incorrect or false, or not returning search results for those queries that would direct you to conservative viewpoints. This banning of books and other Free Speech is also occurring in the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media.

No matter when or where this banning occurs, it is wrong. Wrong because it violates our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and requires a subservient or subjugated people to be accomplished. Therefore, Book Burning and Books Banning are equivalent actions, and both should be condemned by all people who cherish “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. If we allow for Book Banning or other Free Speech bans, the question is ’Who shall be the arbiter of what is to be banned?’, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/30/21 The Arbiter”. Consequently, no excuses are acceptable for Book Burning, Books Banning, or other Free Speech banning, for such excuses are antithetical to our American ideals. If you disagree with someone, you should voice your opposition to them, but not ban them. We should all remember that Free Speech for someone is required to have Free Speech for everyone.

02/04/21 Evil Is as Evil Does

The latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century has shown a loss of the meaning of evil. In the first half of the 20th century, it was easier to identify evil. Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, and those that led these movements - Hiller, Mussolini, Lenin/Stalin, and Mao Zedong, amongst other despots - were easily identified as evil. The gross violation of the Natural Rights of their victims, along with the mass murder of their victims, were easily identified evils when they became known. However, these evil actions did not spring forth in full bloom, as they were preceded by a gradual erosion of the Natural Rights of the people. This is the true meaning of evil – the deprivation or elimination of Natural Rights.

The beginnings of true evil start with the beginning of the suppression of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of people, for when you suppress the Natural Rights of a person, you are perpetuating an evil upon this person. Much of this beginning of evil was cloaked in lofty goals to better the lives of the people under these regimes. And much of this beginning of evil used propaganda to scapegoat groups of people or to demonize those who would oppose this evil.

In modern America, the elimination of the immorality of Sexism, Intolerance, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, Bigotry, etc., has often been utilized to justify the suppression of Natural Rights. It is quite proper to eliminate these ills in America, but it is not proper to do so by the suppression of the Natural Rights of Americans. We can, and should, make harmful acts of these ills illegal when they occur, but not suppress the Natural Rights of someone before they commit harmful acts. We can, and should, condemn and excoriate anyone who would propagate these ills, but not by suppressing their Natural and Constitutional rights. For the Natural and Constitutional rights of all is our best defense against evil.

Those that think that this suppression is acceptable are misguided, but those who engage in this suppression are evil. Those of us who engage in this suppression, as I have written in my “Terminology” webpage; Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, are starting down the road of suppression which will eventually result in the triumph of evil in America. All Americans should arise in defense of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, and this can only be accomplished via "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Therefore, all Americans should be vigilant and defend our Constitutional ideals as a defense against evil.

02/03/20 Extracted Articles

I have extracted and edited some sections from my Observations to highlight these topics. The first Article is “Gun Control” – An examination of the realities of Gun Control in America. The second Article is “Homosexual Nature and Homosexual Marriage” – An examination of the nature of homosexuality and the repercussions of homosexual marriage. The third Article is “A Hierarchy of Rights” – An examination of the categorization and priorities of our rights in America.

I have also extended my Article on “The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and The Equal Protection of The Law Doctrine” to include an examination of the meaning and scope of ‘The Equal Protection of The Law Doctrine’ of the Constitution.

I know that these two topics are contentious so please keep your responses to these articles on an intellectual plateau.

02/02/21 They Never Get Duped by Republicans or Conservatives

Given the recent controversy over New York’s Governor Cuomo handling of the Corona Virus Pandemic, many journalists are claiming they were duped by Governor Cuomo. I find it interesting, however, that they never seemed to be duped by Republicans or Conservatives. If you think back to the "Mainstream Media (MSM)" coverage of politics in the 21st century, there was a lot of journalistic duping by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" but little journalistic duping by Republicans and Conservatives. Therefore, I suspect that modern journalists hear then question what the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders say but hear then transcribe, rather than question, what the Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders say. Vey rarely do modern journalist investigate and determine the facts and truths of what one side or the other claims. Instead, we get bromides, clichés, platitudes, and sloganeering as reporting. While this may make for good ratings or circulations it does not do justice to good reporting.

This is, of course, another example of the failure of “Modern Journalism”, as they have a double standard for those that modern journalists support vs. those that modern journalists oppose. Another way of stating this is that they play softball with Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and hardball with Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. A clear case of modern journalism bias. Claiming that they were duped is also an attempt by modern journalists to get them off the hook for their journalistic malpractice.

Therefore, when you hear a journalist say they were duped, you can translate their statement as they did not practice responsible journalism, but they were willing participants in the propaganda of the Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Therefore, this is why I say that we should stop calling them journalists and hereafter refer to them as Propagandists, which would be a more accurate term for what they are practicing.

02/01/20 Modern Journalism Addendum

I have revised my Article on “Modern Journalism” to reflect on journalism escapades of 2020 and 2021. This addendum is "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil", which are the mantra of modern journalism when it comes to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" words and deeds. Indeed, the opposite is true for those that would oppose Progressives/Leftist in that they "See All Evil, Hear All Evil, and Speak All Evil" of those in opposition to Progressives/Leftist and Democratic Party leaders ideology.

I have also added another example of modern journalism bias in the words and terms they utilize to describe events. The words utilized and the term definitions have different meanings when applied to Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders than they do for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. When applied to Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, the words and terms have a positive connotation, while the words and terms they utilize for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders often have a negative connotation. When it is not possible to have a positive connotation for words and deeds of Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, modern journalism often resort to neutral words and terms. This technique of applying positive or negative connotations of words or terms to different groups, based on the journalists' and a group's political proclivity, is another illustration of the biases of modern journalism.

A perfect example of this was the riots that occurred in the cities during 2020 and the riot that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. In the former case, journalism reported that the riots were ‘mostly peaceful protests’, while in the latter case, they reported that the riot was an ‘insurrection’. As is usually the case with modern journalism, the terms ‘mostly peaceful protests’ and ‘insurrection’ were utilized differently for Progressive/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and than it was for Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders.

When modern journalist engages in such escapades, or the misutilization of words and terms, they are no longer practicing journalism, but they have become propagandist for the Progressives/Leftist and Democrat Party Leadership. Perhaps we should stop calling them journalists and hereafter refer to them as Propagandists, which would be a more accurate term for what they are practicing.

01/31/21 Human Nature and Behavior

Human Nature - The psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings.

Behavior – The manner of acting or controlling yourself.

Human nature is that part of our psyche that is a result of millions of years of evolution. It is a basic part of all humans and is formed by our genetic structure, which controls the wiring of our brains. Consequently, human nature helps guide our thoughts and actions. We must all acknowledge our human nature and account for it in our dealings with others and with society. Basic emotions - anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise, are part of our human nature. While there are much discussion and debate on which other human emotions are part of our human nature, there is no doubt that some, if not most, of our emotions are part of our human nature.

Behavior, in regard to human nature, is the way we consciously or consciously respond in both words and deeds to the information of what our human nature provides. Sometimes this behavior is lifesaving, but it can also be life-threatening if we respond inappropriately. Almost always, there are intended and unintended consequences when we respond to our human nature. Therefore, it always behooves us to behave conscientiously, if possible, to our human nature. Immediate danger to our life, safety, and health are unconscious responses that we often cannot control, nor should we, as these responses are for the purposes of immediate self-preservation.

Post-modernism is a broad movement in which one of its tenants would have us believe that human nature is a Social Construct - an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society. But human nature is not a social construct, as it is part of the psychological attributes of humankind. Those that propound the idea of Social Construct often do so to mold our nature to fit their ideal of a better human. But our genetic structure and the wiring of the brain cannot be molded, as it must be accepted for what it is. Behavior, however, can be molded to what is acceptable behavior under the circumstances. This is why we have religion, morality, ethics, and law, and why we construct society and governments to control our behavior.

Human nature must be considered in the creation and administration of social policy and in governmental actions. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure. And failure is what is inevitable if you do not account for human nature.

01/30/21 The Arbiter

Many Progressive/Leftists wish to determine which Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, is proper in America. Many Moderates and conservatives simply wish to be left alone and decide how they will live their lives. These Progressive/Leftists are often intolerant of any policy positions that differ from their viewpoints, and they wish to impose their viewpoints on all Americans through the above means. These Progressive/Leftists would determine what is best for Americans, and what the facts and truths are in America. But their facts and truths are highly contentious, incorrect, misleading, and often devoid of or contain faulty “Reasoning”. And, as to what is best for America Thomas Sowell has opined:

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

Progressive/Leftists would violate our Free Speech, Peaceable Assembly, Petitioning the Government, Religious Freedoms, and Firearms Rights to achieve their goals, as they are intolerant of any other viewpoints but their own. To enforce these Progressive/Leftists viewpoints through laws, rules, regulations, or intimidation requires a subservient or subjugated people to accept these dictates. I suspect that if the arbiters of what is proper in America had a decidedly Moderate/Conservative orientation, the Progressive/Leftists would not be enthusiastic in these arbitrations. Nor should they be, for no one should be forced to ameliorate their conscience to outside arbitration.

A people dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” cannot allow others to decide what they think or do. Therefore, constrictions on Social Media and the imposition of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, is antithetical to our American ideals.

01/29/21 A Voice in the Wilderness

If a tree falls in the uninhabited forest, does it make a sound? Of course, it does, as sound are waves propagated through the air. The real question is, if nobody can hear the sound is the sound just a physical manifestation? All sound is just a physical manifestation, and it is how the brain interprets a sound that gives it meaning. We must listen for a sound and hear what it imparts to give it meaning. And this is especially true for speech. When speech is not listened to or heard, then speech has no meaning. And when speech is suppressed, it can have no meaning, and the speaker is meaningless. So too, it is for writing as well. For if writing cannot be read, the writing is meaningless, and the author has no meaning.

To speak, to listen, to hear, to write, and to read, provides meaning to both the speaker and writer, as well as their audience. To suppress speech or writing, or to relegate it to the backwaters where it will not be heard or read, is to relegate the speaker and writer, as well as the audience to marginalization. For anyone to suppress the speech or writings of another is to violate the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the other. Historically, such suppression has come from the rule of despots or corrupt governments. Today, we can add the rule of Big Tech to this suppression of speech and writing, as I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?". And as I have written in my “Terminology” webpage; Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, is at the forefront of this suppression. Unfortunately, it is also true that modern public education, Colleges, and Universities are also at the forefront of this suppression.

Anyone who would speak or write that which is not approved by those who have political power or by Big Tech are to be banned or relegated to the backwaters and thus become a Voice in the Wilderness that is not to be listened to or read. Anyone who would speak or write Politically Incorrect viewpoints of the Powerful or Progressives/Leftists is vulnerable to "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and subject to being Canceled. Modern Big Business is expected to be ‘Woke’ and support the Progressives/Leftists political agendas, which they often do by company contributions to Progressives/Leftists social activism. More insidious is Modern Big Business advertising in support of these Progressives/Leftists viewpoints, thus misleading the American public.

To relegate Americans to be Voices in the Wilderness is antithetical to our Constitutional ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, as well as an assault on our Free Speech rights. An assault that will trigger a backlash of those freedom-loving Americans who believe in these Constitutional ideals. And an assault that can only be achieved with a subservient or subjugated people. We should all remember that Free Speech for someone is required to have Free Speech for everyone.

01/28/21 Election Anomalies

A new article by Dennis Prager, “The Most Important Question About the 2020 Election”, points out some anomalies in the 2020 Presidential elections that should give all reasonable people food for thought. These points are:

The anomalies:

• In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016 -- and lost.
• Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans regard as the "bellwether" counties that virtually always go with the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.
• He won four bellwether states -- Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost.
• Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.

Add the following to the anomalies:

• Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to change election laws.
• Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them.
• Voting began in some states six weeks before Election Day.
• People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night.

I would also be interested in how many ballots were cast for Joe Biden that did not have any casting of votes for the down candidates on the ballot. Such ballots are highly suspicious as they are easy to manufacture and thus susceptible as fraudulent ballots.

Thus, I, along with tens of millions of other Americans, are concerned that the 2020 Presidential election was rife with fraud and improperly decided. The suspicions of outright vote fraud, as well as the veracity of the allegations of illegal actions by State election officials, and the possible Unconstitutional actions of the State Executive branches and State Judiciaries in violations of the State Legislatures laws of elections needs to be investigated to determine the truth, and if found to be truthful laws need to be created and enforced to assure the integrity of future elections.

One would hope that journalists would be at the forefront of these investigations. Alas, the aphorism "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil" that is the mantra of modern journalism when it comes to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" words and deeds. Indeed, the opposite is true for those that would oppose Progressives/Leftist in that most journalists "Hear All Evil, Speak All Evil, and See All Evil" of those in opposition to Progressives/Leftist and Democratic Party leaders. And this was most certainly true regarding the 2020 Presidential election problems and anomalies.

These allegations also need to be investigated by Congress and the Executive Branch, but as the Democrats are in control of Congress and the Presidency, and they were the benefactors of this possible fraud, I do not expect them to investigate their own culpability in these election problems and anomalies, nor to take any corrective actions to assure election integrity. As such, we can expect future election irregularities will be a staple in American elections. Consequently, we can expect a reign of the Democrat Party rather than a democratically elected representative governance.

01/27/21 A Recap of the News…

I recently came across an article by Jim Cathcart that fully articulates my viewpoint on what is happening in America today. Jim Cathcart was raised in Oklahoma and made his way out to the West Coast, where he became a highly successful professional speaker, mega-author of numerous books and articles, and a leader in the area of personal and executive development, leadership, and business strategy. I would highly recommend that you read his full article:

By Jim Cathcart - Jan 2021

Banning books (Burbank, CA); rioting in the streets (Portland, OR); breaking glass windows (Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Baltimore, and our nation's Capitol); controlling language (U.S. Congress); denying nature (gender denial in sports); accusations of disloyalty (investigating political preferences and voting history); and isolating and excluding opponents (Parler blockage, sponsorship, and distribution denials)...

Demonization of disagreement (using terms like "domestic terrorism" and "white supremacy" to label people as suspicious or undesirable or dangerous); suggesting that racism is so deep and so bad that those guilty of it don't even realize it and can't do anything to change, therefore reparation and unending guilt are required...

Putting "ism" on the end of any behavior or attitude that threatens your narrative (national-ism, sex-ism, Trump-ism); restricting businesses so much that millions of people become unemployed and unable to find work (thereby requiring dependency on a government rescue)...

Changing school curricula to exclude historical truths and doubling-down on new priorities and prejudices; restricting public gatherings and church meetings; inhibiting family get-togethers; and encouraging the isolation and public shaming of those who disagree...

Adding new travel restrictions that require "papers" (covid testing and vaccination); releasing dangerous criminals from prison early; welcoming unvetted immigrants; demonizing police and border security; and amassing the military to imply massive levels of danger to the “leaders”... 

Making the legal ownership of guns seem to be dangerous unless the government controls them (HR 5717 on the house agenda now); shaming and isolating groups and companies you disagree with (NRA, MyPillow, Goya Foods)... 

Controlling the narrative of the news; demonizing the networks or commentators who have huge followings (Fox, Newsmax, OANN, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson)...

Publicizing the home addresses of people you disagree with so they can be threatened at home (Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Mitch McConnell); attacking your major opponents long after you've won so that future resistance is impossible (Trump impeachment post election); denying news coverage of stories critical of the current leadership (Hunter Biden's corruption)...   

Demonizing capitalism; abandoning all limits to spending; and positioning debt as something that lenders should "forgive”...

Restricting the country's ability to remain energy independent; diminishing the danger posed to us by aggressive foreign countries; recommending the isolation and "reprogramming" of your opponents (Trump voters)...

Jim then asks, does any of this appear to be a pattern to you? Is any of it familiar? Is it possible to follow this path and arrive at "Unity"? Is there anything in this that sounds like America to you? Does the continuation of this approach lead to anything you want to see?

The Path to Unity?

I wonder, what exactly do we conclude when an administration and a political party backed by a duplicitous media apparently intend to thoroughly dominate society and contort reality? Clearly, we on the right will not succumb to this treatment. And, we must embrace the realization that multi-millions of people on the left strongly or perhaps passively agree with the left power mongers.

Alas, it is nearly impossible to reach the left’s rank and file. They've been so taken over by the liberal media, that although they're one mouse click away from alternative news sites, which would give them perspective, they never make that click.

This is the quintessential dilemma of our age. A free and fair press would help unite the country because we could all agree on the truth of situations. The press that we have is worse than the Soviet Union of the 1930s. They spew propaganda around-the-clock with no sign of letting up, and they are getting stronger all the time.

01/26/21 And So, It Continues

And so, it continues – the rule by Executive Orders rather than by Legislative Actions. Executive Orders that are not for the purpose of enforcing the law but for the purpose of circumventing the law. Executive Orders are utilized to institute a policy that is the prerogative and responsibility of the Legislative branch. Executive Orders that are for “The Evasion of Duties and Responsibilities” by our elected politicians. Executive Orders that are often done for political gain rather than for what is properly instituted by legislative actions. It is also a violation of the separation of powers within our Constitution. A new administration contravenes the Executive Orders of a former administration ad infinitum. And it is wrong ad infinitum no matter which party is in Presidential authority. Only Executive Orders that aid in the enforcement of our laws is a proper Executive Order, and any Executive Order that negates, contravenes, or circumvents our laws, are Unconstitutional.

But Executive Orders are not only the problem with unconstitutional actions. The Congress of the United States seems to be more concerned about circumventing their Constitutional Duties and Responsibilities to achieve a political outcome. Rarely are the constitutional implications of laws considered or debated. They often utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” and  “Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness” to justify their unconstitutional actions. We can now expect, with the Democratic Party in power in the Congress and Presidency, more of these actions to evade the Constitution or to institute fundamental changes that impact our American ideals. Some of these changes are:

• Electoral College negation
• Free Speech Restrictions
• Gun Control and Confiscation
• Higher Taxes
• Illegal Immigrants:
  • Illegal Immigrants Counted in Census
  • Illegal Immigrants Right to Vote
  • Illegal Immigration Expansion
• Puerto Rico Statehood
• Religious Freedom Constrictions
• Senate Filibuster elimination
• Supreme Court Packing
• Voter Fraud
• Washington DC Statehood

All these items will be wrapped up as good intentions for what is best for all Americans, and all of these have constitutional implications and impacts on our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. And is usual for most Executive Orders and Legislation, it will be done with “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” that hide the true impacts of these actions. Impacts that are hidden in the rules and regulations that the Federal government will institute to enforce these laws, rules, and regulations. To quote myself:

“Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils.”
- Mark Dawson

And all of these laws, rules, and regulations are subject to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, with the unintended consequences that often bode ill for the American people.

01/25/21 We Have Nothing to Fear

In the immortal words of President Franklin D, Roosevelt, ‘We have nothing to fear except fear itself’. Today, however, it is fear which is driving our politics. Fear of the Coronavirus Pandemic, fear of the political opposition, fear of violence in the street, and a fear of Americans who would differ from you. And these fears are driving our elections and pitting one group of people against another group of people. A fear that is being utilized to vitiate our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and abrogate our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” in America. A fear that is replacing "A Civil Society" with a visceral emotional response rather than an intellectual, rational response, as I have chirped on, “01/24/21 Reasoning, Rationality, and Evidence”. A fear that politicians are instigating and utilizing to obtain political power.

Those politicians that utilize these fears are nothing more than Tin-Pot dictators, as I have Chirped on, “01/11/21 Tin-Pot Dictators”. They care more for their power than for our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They may have the best of motives to do what they believe is best for Americans and to preserve our safety, but Americans would be better served by remembering the wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Today, these tin-pot dictators seem mostly to reside in the Democrat Party, although some are in the Republican Party. It does not, however, matter which party in which they reside but that they are gaining the upper hand in our politics to the detriment of all Americans. For without our American ideals, we are not truly Americans, but we shall become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of governmental authority. In the past, we looked to our judicial system, and most especially the Supreme Court, to uphold our Constitution and our ideals. However, in the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, our judicial system has seen a dramatic increase in activists judges that seek ‘Social Justice’ as I have Chirped on” 05/08/20 Social Justice”, or to give deference to government actions. As such, these judges and justices have become ‘Lords’ rather than impartial judges and justices that uphold our Constitution and annul unconstitutional laws, as I have written in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

It is well past time that true Americans reclaim our American ideals and insist that our politicians and judges preserve these ideals of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights as well as our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. To not do so is to fundamentally change the nature of America, a change that will not be for the better for all the American people but will be a change for the worsening of our American ideals. We Have Nothing to Fear but the actions of these Tin-Pot dictators, as they will fundamentally change our American ideals.

01/24/21 Reasoning, Rationality, and Evidence

Reasoning is thinking that is coherent and logical, while Rationality is speaking and acting consistently based on your reasoning. Reasoning and Rationality are, therefore, intellectually based and are not dependent on your emotions, but they are sometimes guided by your emotions. To properly reason, you need to understand Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense, as outlined in my Article “Reasoning”. But always be aware that Common Sense is not so common as you may think, nor not so sensible as you would hope. You must also be aware of how to utilize common sense appropriately, as the inappropriate use of common sense will negate your reasoning. The best method of reasoning is to take a “Philosophical Approach” to your reasoning. Reasoning should always be effectuated and then incorporated into a rational debate for civility to occur.

Actual evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence, is also required to reach a reasonable conclusion. Anecdotal evidence requires that you research and investigate to determine if the actual evidence confirms the anecdotal evidence. To not so is to cast doubt on your conclusions of the reasoning. Indeed, any anecdotal evidence used in your reasoning is sufficient to invalidate the conclusions of your reasoning. Consequently, you cannot reason properly if your reasoning contains anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence often results in arguments rather than discussions. While anecdotal evidence may be great theater, it makes for terrible decision making.

All of us, and especially politicians, should remember the above comments. To reach good decisions requires good reasoning. Unfortunately, many of us make bad decisions by not reasoning or reasoning improperly, and politicians often prefer arguments over reasoning, as anecdotal evidence and arguments frequently assist in their reelection.

01/23/21 Obstructiveness and Resistance

Elected politicians have every right and responsibility to negotiate with each other to achieve a bipartisan compromise on legislation, but Obstructiveness and Resistance are gridlocks to halt the proper functioning of governance. Executive officers have the right to negotiate with the Legislators in the crafting and passing of laws, but they have no right to contravene or ignore the laws passed by the proper legislative process. Courts also have the duty and responsibility to uphold the Constitution when they determine that the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches exceed their authority or contravene the Constitution. In all actions by the legislature, executive officers, and justices or judges, the rights of the minority must be protected, but this should not be equated to a Tyranny of the Minority or the Tyranny of the Majority.

The "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all must be protected in all legislation and laws, rules, and regulations, as well as judicial rulings. To obstruct or resist the infringement of these rights is the sworn duty of all legislators and executive officers to ‘preserve protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’, and it is the responsibility of the American people to ensure that they do so through informed voting in free and fair elections. It is also the sworn Constitutional duty of all judges and justices to uphold these rights and to obstruct any laws, rules, or regulations that violate these rights. For a politician to utilize “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” and for politicians, judges, and justices to utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” to justify their actions are not acceptable. In all the words and deeds of politicians, judges, and justices, the Constitution must remain supreme, as the Constitution was formulated to protect our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

The Democratic Party has demonstrated through their words and deeds of the last decades that they bear little fidelity to these Constitutional principles, and therefore, they must be stymied to protect our rights. Consequently, any actions that the Biden administration may attempt or take that would infringe upon our Natural, Constitutional, or Civil rights must be obstructed and resisted by Congress, the Judiciary, and the American people. The Republican Party must be at the forefront of this Obstructiveness and Resistance based on Constitutional principles, and the American people should be informed of the reasoning for their obstruction and resistance.

To those that say that the Republicans are as guilty of Obstructiveness when they were in the minority, I would respond that this is true, but not to the extent that the Democrats have practiced Obstructiveness. The Republicans often did this for the purposes of achieving some of their goals rather than obtaining all that they wanted, which is the modus operandi for most Democrats. The Democrats have also obstructed needful and necessary legislation for the purposes of political gain in elections, to the detriment of the good for all. The Republicans have also not practiced Resistance as the Democrats have done. Even during President Obama’s administration, which the Republicans were opposed to, they did not obstruct or resist, but they attempted to ameliorate rather than obstruct or resist President Obama’s policies.

Amelioration nor capitulation is not an option when violations of our Constitutional principles are being undertaken by anyone, as has been the case by many in the Democratic Party. To exacerbate violations of our principles leads to the dissolution of our principles, and to capitulate is to allow for the dissolution of our republic. An amelioration or capitulation that will destroy our constitutional principles and lead to despotism. And if you are silent about these actions by Democrats, then your silence is assenting to these actions, as I have written in my Chirp, “Silence is Assent”.

Elected politicians have every right and responsibility to negotiate with each other to achieve a bipartisan compromise on legislation, but Obstructiveness and Resistance are gridlocks to halt the proper functioning of governance. Executive officers have the right to negotiate with the Legislators in the crafting and passing of laws, but they have no right to contravene or ignore the laws passed by the proper legislative process. Courts also have the duty and responsibility to uphold the Constitution when they determine that the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches exceed their authority or contravene the Constitution. In all actions by the legislature, executive officers, and justices or judges, the rights of the minority must be protected, but this should not be equated to a Tyranny of the Minority or the Tyranny of the Majority.

The "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all must be protected in all legislation and laws, rules, and regulations, as well as judicial rulings. To obstruct or resist the infringement of these rights is the sworn duty of all legislators and executive officers to ‘preserve protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States’, and it is the responsibility of the American people to ensure that they do so through informed voting in free and fair elections. It is also the sworn Constitutional duty of all judges and justices to uphold these rights and to obstruct any laws, rules, or regulations that violate these rights. For a politician to utilize “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” and for politicians, judges, and justices to utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” to justify their actions are not acceptable. In all the words and deeds of politicians, judges, and justices, the Constitution must remain supreme, as the Constitution was formulated to protect our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

The Democratic Party has demonstrated through their words and deeds of the last decades that they bear little fidelity to these Constitutional principles, and therefore, they must be stymied to protect our rights. Consequently, any actions that the Biden administration may attempt or take that would infringe upon our Natural, Constitutional, or Civil rights must be obstructed and resisted by Congress, the Judiciary, and the American people. The Republican Party must be at the forefront of this Obstructiveness and Resistance based on Constitutional principles, and the American people should be informed of the reasoning for their obstruction and resistance.

To those that say that the Republicans are as guilty of Obstructiveness when they were in the minority, I would respond that this is true, but not to the extent that the Democrats have practiced Obstructiveness. The Republicans often did this for the purposes of achieving some of their goals rather than obtaining all that they wanted, which is the modus operandi for most Democrats. The Democrats have also obstructed needful and necessary legislation for the purposes of political gain in elections, to the detriment of the good for all. The Republicans have also not practiced Resistance as the Democrats have done. Even during President Obama’s administration, which the Republicans were opposed to, they did not obstruct or resist, but they attempted to ameliorate rather than obstruct or resist President Obama’s policies.

Amelioration nor capitulation is not an option when violations of our Constitutional principles are being undertaken by anyone, as has been the case by many in the Democratic Party. To exacerbate violations of our principles leads to the dissolution of our principles, and to capitulate is to allow for the dissolution of our republic. An amelioration or capitulation that will destroy our constitutional principles and lead to despotism. And if you are silent about these actions by Democrats, then your silence is assenting to these actions, as I have written in my Chirp, “Silence is Assent”.

01/21/21 Special Counsels

The Wikipedia article on Special Counsel defines them as:

“In the United States, a special counsel (formerly called special prosecutor or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting president or attorney general might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than by an ordinary prosecutor who would otherwise be in the position of investigating their own superior. Special prosecutors also have handled investigations into those connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the Justice Department's prosecutors, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns.

While the most prominent special prosecutors have been those appointed since the 1870s to investigate presidents and those connected to them, the term can also be used to refer to any prosecutor appointed to avoid a conflict of interest or appearance thereof. The concept originates in state law: "state courts have traditionally appointed special prosecutors when the regular government attorney was disqualified from a case, whether for incapacitation or interest." Because district attorneys' offices work closely with police, some activists argue that cases of police misconduct at the state and local level should be handled by special prosecutors.”

I am generally opposed to Special Counsels as they often become a means to “The Criminalization of Politics”. And just as often, they result in charges of ‘Process Crimes’ rather than ‘Criminal Law’. As a Special Counsel is an independent authority, there are no checks and balances on their authority, and they can spend as much time and monies as the Special Counsel deems fit. There is also intense political posturizing and journalistic reporting of the Special Counsel activities, most of which is based on suppositions, leaks, and innuendo. If all the Special Counsels activities were done in secret much of this could be alleviated, but not all. The major remaining problem is the proper oversight of Special Counsel's activities. As they are an independent authority, they can, and too often, engage in actions that are dubious under the law. Without proper oversight, they can become a runaway prosecutor that can do more harm than good. They can damage a person’s reputation and finances of whom they are investigating, even if the person was innocent of any Criminal Law. They can also impinge upon the ability of an administration policy or an executive officer’s ability in the performance of their duties.

The Muller Special Counsel investigation of allegations of Russian Collusion with the 2016 Presidential campaign of candidate Donald Trump is the perfect example of these problems. Within several months of the start of this investigation, it became apparent that no actual criminal activities occurred, and the investigation devolved into charges of Obstruction of Justice that involved providing a false statement to investigators and potential cover-ups of evidence. Many people’s reputation and finances were harmed, and a cloud of suspicion hung over the Trump administration that impeded the implementation of his policy agenda.

These are the reasons that I am generally opposed to Special Counsel investigations. Nevertheless, there are some Special Counsel investigations that are justified. Two Special Counsel investigations that are being considered that fall into these justifications are the investigation of Hunter Biden and his associates for foreign influence peddling and the allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential Elections. The ongoing Special Counsel investigations of misconduct of government officials in their actions regarding the Russian collusion allegations is also justified. As all three of these investigations involve possible criminal actions of current or former government officials or the relatives of government officials, a normal investigation would have the situation of an investigation of government officials or relatives that have a direct interest in the outcome of the investigation. These government officials who have a direct interest in the outcome could influence the investigation, an influence that that could pervert justice. Therefore, I would support Special Counsel investigations for these three instances.

01/20/21 The Turning Point

Well, it was a good run. For over two hundred thirty years, we have maintained a Democratic-Republic dedicate to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. While we have not been perfect, the United States has continually strived for improvement. Unfortunately, that strive for improvement has now turned downward to the despotism of progressivism/leftism. Whether it be from Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good, Entitlements, Modern Journalism, or Big Tech chicaneries, we have lost our political identity of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” to the government for the benefit of a privileged class, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Driven by power and profit, this government is now dedicated to the protection of the people who gain from government actions to the detriment of those who do not receive such gain. Our freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms is already under assault and will continue to be so in the quest for more government power and the avarice of the privileged. Indeed, some of the manifestations of this are when we take taxes from the working class to give to the non-working class via entitlements, and the destruction of small businesses to the benefit of large businesses by excessive laws, regulations, and the Coronavirus Pandemic restrictions on businesses. The globalist propensities of the privileged class, politicians, and bureaucrats have led to the outsourcing of many essential goods to foreign nations to the detriment of the working class of Americans.

The inauguration of President Biden, through an election fraught with massive voting irregularities, if not outright illegal or unconstitutional actions by State Executives and State Judicial rulings, has instituted this change to “Government of, by, and for the Privileged, Politicians, and Bureaucrats”. We can expect this trend to continue as the powerful and privileged pass new laws and regulations and issue Executive Actions and Orders to assure their continued hold on government and non-privileged people. A hold that will not be shaken until the non-privileged people peacefully rise-up and change the government, or by the overthrow of the government with the specter of a Civil War. If not, we shall see Americans become a subjugated or subservient people.

We should remember the following words of wisdom by Benjamin Franklin:

As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?''
Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

With the draconian Coronavirus Pandemic lockdowns imposed by Governor’s and local officials, the presence of so many troops at the inauguration of Joe Biden, the persecution of anyone who supported President Trump, worked in his administration, or voted for him that now must be hunted down and purged, as well as the suppression of Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly, the Exercise of Religion and Firearms Ownership, that is currently underway by the Progressives/Leftists, the Mainstream and Cultural Media, and Big Tech and Social Media censorship (as I have written in my “Terminology” webpage; Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good ) it now looks as though we are not able to keep it.

01/19/21 The Most Pressing Issues Confronting America

America is facing many challenging issues that need to be addressed. But these challenges cannot be properly addressed without a factual, rational, and reasonable understanding of the facts and truths about America before we can address these problems. A fully informed public needs to be the first step in addressing these challenges. However, there are many stumbling blocks that prevent this from happening. These include:

Mainstream Media & Big Tech Bias are the biggest stumbling block to understanding our problems before they can be addressed. We can no longer depend on Modern Journalism to provide accurate information or balanced coverage to make informed judgments, as I have written about in my Article, “Modern Journalism”. Modern Journalism has now become propaganda for Progressive, Leftists, and Democratic Politicians to influence elections and social policies, as I have examined in my Chirp on “10/23/20 Journalistic Interference in the Election Process”.

Big Tech Bias against conservation politicians, bloggers, social media posters, and anyone who would disagree with their policy positions has become so rampant and noticeable that no fair-minded person can deny that it exists. Only those who have something to gain from this bias deny its existence or diminish its importance. For more on this subject, I would direct you to my Article, “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?”.

If these problems are not addressed, then the American electorate will not be fully and factually informed about Republican and Conservative politicians and policy positions, and "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" of Republicans and Conservatives will continue unabated. As a result, we will have less of "A Civil Society" and more “Divisiveness in America”.

Voting Problems need to be addressed and resolved before the next Congressional and Presidential election in 2024. Problems that I have examined in my Article “Voting in America” and my Chirp on “10/17/20 Early Voting and Voting by Mail Real-World Examples”. These problems call into question the integrity of the vote and free and fair elections, and we need to resolve these problems to assure our Voting Rights and the Integrity of the Vote.

Falsehoods about America must be confronted and obliviated as I have written about in my Articles, “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” and our “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems” so that we can properly address and solve these problems in America. Solving these problems requires that we understand the true nature of these problems. Unfortunately, because of the misinformation on these problems, this is not possible. Politicians and social justice activists are more interested in scoring political points and influencing elections, along with other motivations that interfere with our understanding of these problems. Interference that skewers the elections by not allowing the voters to make reasoned judgments on the policy positions and decisions of our politicians. Let us all begin to understand the true nature of these problems so that we can work together on solving these problems. To not do so is to propagate these falsehoods or ignore these problems, which makes it impossible to confront and solve these problems.

No other issues facing America can be properly resolved without addressing these issues, as it is not possible to properly resolve the other issues without an informed and consenting public. Consequently, the next Congress and President, as well as the Judiciary, need to confront and resolve these issues to assure "A Just Government and a Just Society" in America. Alas, many politicians have little interest in confronting these issues as it is often against their policy positions, their special interests’ constituencies, as well as being unfavorable to their reelection. And if they do take action, I expect that they will ignore these issues as I have written in my previous Chirp, “01/18/21 Ignoring the Problem”.

01/18/21 Ignoring the Problem

Ignoring the problem is something that we all do when confronted with a difficult problem. Politicians often do this with the thorny issues that could impact their special interest groups or reelection prospects. It is this political ignoring of problems that I wish to address in this chirp. There are three tactics that are often utilized by politicians to ignore a problem. Deflecting Attention from a major problem by focusing on the minor issues is an age-old means to postpone or ignore the problem. Another means is to form an investigatory commission to examine the problem. Finally, if these tactics do not work, then you can stall the resolution of an issue by emphasizing the minor flaws in the legislation.

Deflecting Attention is often accomplished by the tactics of  "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", as I have pointed out in my Article, “Dialog & Debate”. Deflecting is also accomplished by focusing on the bad words and deeds of one side of an issue that opposes your policy or positions while ignoring the bad words and deeds of the other side that supports your policy or positions. However, the bad words or deeds of someone or some group should be condemned by all sides, no matter which side of an issue you support. 

Investigatory Commissions are Washington’s way of ignoring difficult, troublesome, or politically sensitive problems that could affect their reelection. It takes time to establish and perform the duties and responsibilities of a commission. And with the passage of time, politicians can ignore the problem by referring all inquiries or calls for action to the work of the commission. The commission members are often stacked with persons of political persuasion that are favorable to one side or the other, which results in an imbalance of the findings of the commission (a.ka. Stacking the Deck). And just as often, Congress and the Presidency will make a statement about the commission’s findings, then ignore and file away the commission’s report. Investigatory Commissions often do the work that elected members of Congress were elected to do within the committees of Congress. Outsourcing by Congress to a commission is a dereliction of their duties and responsibilities for which they were elected. It also provides political cover for these politicians on making hard decisions, which makes it more difficult for the voters to determine for whom they should cast their votes.

Minor Flaws, which are present in all human actions, and most especially in legislation proposed or passed by Congress, are often utilized to ignore the problems facing America. There are always exceptions to the rules, tangential issues and concerns, and taxes and spending issues to support the legislation. Politicians will often focus on these minor flaws to amend, disparage, then defeat the legislation that they do not support or does not contain the actions that they deem proper. This a classic example of 'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good’ to stall or defeat legislation.

The ignoring of problems exacerbates the divisiveness in American and increases civil unrest to the detriment of "A Civil Society". By utilizing the means of Deflecting Attention, Investigatory Commissions, and Minor Flaws, politicians can ignore the pressing concerns facing America, and most especially the concerns as I have Chirped on, “01/19/21 The Most Pressing Issues Confronting America”. But they can only do this if Americans allow them to do this. It is well past time that Americans allow them to do this, and Americans should require that politicians perform their duties and responsibilities as they were elected to do so. And, as I have Chirped on, “01/17/21 Silence is Assent”, if Americans remain silent, they are assenting to the actions of politicians that ignore the problems facing America.

01/17/21 Silence is Assent

How often do we face acts of injustice or callousness with silence? A derogatory joke in our presence, an act of selfishness or cruelty, or simply observing or reading of an injustice or oppression in our news media. When observing illegal, immoral, or unethical words or deeds do we confront those that commit them? All these instances summon us to choose a side, and to not choose a side is a choice. We can either verbalize our opposition immediately, or through our silence we become allies of the words or deeds we abhor. There is no neutrality, as Silence is Assent, and we should never assent to these words or deeds.

01/16/21 The Law is Not All

As sentient, conscientious, intelligent beings, we all have natural human rights. If we did not have natural human rights, then any rights that we may have would be endowed by society or governments. And anything that society or government can give can be taken away. This would make humans subservient to society and governments and not allow for any freedoms or liberties. My new Article, “The Law is Not All’’ examines why Morality and Ethics are needed to supplement the Law.

01/15/21 The Second Impeachment of President Trump

The second Impeachment of President Trump is not only a farce but an assault on our Constitution. An assault that is far more serious than the alleged impeachment articles that the House of Representatives has passed and the Senate must now consider. It is an assault on our Constitutional principles of Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly, Due Process, the Rule of Law, and a misutilization of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution. This impeachment is far more serious than the averred details in the Articles of Impeachment, as I have outlined in my new Article, “The Second Impeachment of President Trump”

01/14/21 Journalism is now Propaganda

One of the things that the year 2020 has highlighted is how much Journalism and Mainstream Media have become total propaganda. The propaganda of supporting one-side of the issues and suppressing the other side. The propaganda that is lenient with one side while being harsh with the other side. This is best exemplified by their being lenient with the candidate and President Obama, harsh with the candidate and President Trump, and once again lenient with candidate Biden, leniency that I expect they will continue with President Biden. This leniency and harshness is not only limited to the Presidency but also extends to other politicians and special interest groups. This has been a significant issue in the last several years and decades, as I have written in my Article, “Modern Journalism” and “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?”, but journalism in 2020 has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

This leniency and harshness do great harm to the body politic as it does not provide comprehensive and factual information to the general public that allows them to make informed decisions. It also reveals the supine nature of journalism when covering politicians and special interest groups with whom they favor. It also has the effect of skewering elections, as demonstrated by the 2020 Presidential election. Journalism and the Mainstream Media misreporting, underreporting, and nonreporting of the controversies surrounding Joe Biden, of their not pointing out his false or contradictory statements, their dismissing or covering up his gaffes, and they are allowing him to hide from scrutiny in his basement home, as well as their ignoring candidate Vice-President Harris’s past record was an attempt to skewer the election in favor of candidates Biden and Harris.

My Article, “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” also highlights the major issues that Journalism and the Mainstream Media misreport and misrepresent. Another article, “Our Upside-Down Post-Election World“, by Victor Davis Hanson on December 24, 2020, goes into more detail about how Journalism and the Mainstream Media plays by a different set of rules depending on the politics of the candidates and special interest groups. I would heartily recommend your reading of this article.

01/13/21 The Reichstag Fire and Kristallnacht Pogrom Analogy

Dennis Prager has written a perceptive article, The ‘Good American’, on the current reactions to the mob invasion of the Capitol in roughly the same way as the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to justify their suppression of opposition to the NAZI regime.  This article has led me to a consideration of the parallels between the NAZI suppression and the current suppression by modern Progressives/Leftists, for which I have written an Article, “The Reichstag Fire and Kristallnacht Pogrom Analogy”.

01/12/21 Rules for Thee, and Not for Me

‘Rules for thee, and not for me.’ not only applies to Equal Justice in America, which is an underlying problem as it applies to common Americans, but more insidiously as it applies to politicians, the politically connected, and the wealthy in America. As for the application to common Americans, I have written an Article, "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" that examines this issue. This chirp focus on the problem of equal justice for politicians, the politically connected, and the wealthy in America.

The ‘Russian Collusion Delusion’, ‘The Hillary Clinton private e-mail server issues’, and the ‘Allegations of corruption against Vice-President Joe Biden and his family’ are a manifestation of this problem as regards to politicians, but there are many more examples of politicians receiving favorable treatment. “Modern Journalism” and "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?" are examples of the politically connected getting to play by their own unequal rules. The NFL Anti-Trust exemption is also an example of unequal application of the law. The judicial rulings of some judges and justices are also a manifestation of this problem, as I have written about in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

The wealthy in American hire lobbyists to craft the laws, rules, and regulations to benefit their interests, also known as Crony Capitalism. Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism. But there is no such thing as crony capitalism; there are only crony politicians. Without crony politicians, there would be no favoritism to businesses. So, the real problem is not crony capitalists but crony politicians. So, whenever anyone mentions crony capitalism, remember that it is crony politicians that allow this to happen. The wealthy can also hire lawyers and accountants to skirt the law and vigorously defend themselves when charged with criminal violations, which often results in unequal justice.

The Coronavirus Pandemic edicts of the various governors in American, and their violations or exemptions by politicians, and for the politically connected and the wealthy, while they are enforced against common Americans is another manifestation of this problem. These actions are also an example of the arbitrariness of our elected officials as I have Chirped on, 01/11/21 Tin-Pot Dictators The unequal application to voting laws, if not outright fraud and possible illegalities and Constitution violations during the 2020 Presidential election is another example of ‘Rules for thee, and not for me’.

All of this begs the question of is there ‘Rules for thee, and not for me’ in America. Historically, in America, this has been true but ameliorated by a limited and smaller government that did not intrude extensively into the lives of business dealing with Americans. With the rise of Progressivism in the 20th century, this began to change. Laws and regulations on Capitalistic activities, The New Deal, The Great Society, and other government programs and entitlements led to bigger and less limited government. The lack of Supreme Court rulings or the skirting of the Constitution limits of federal actions, along with the supineness of State Governments so that they may receive Federal funding, has accelerated this process of bigger and less limited Federal governance.

If we continue to have ‘Rules for thee, and not for me’ in America, then we cannot have “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”  and "A Just Government and a Just Society" in America.

01/11/21 Tin-Pot Dictators

A tin-pot dictator is an autocratic ruler with little political credibility, typically having grandeur delusions. These tin-pot dictators want to tell us what we can and cannot do, rather than what we should or should not do, as to control our actions rather than providing us information that guides us in making intelligent decisions about our life. They also violate our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

These tin-pot dictators in America are Governors that issue Executive orders and decrees that are not for the purposes of enforcing laws passed by the State Legislatures but to implement what they think is justified and necessary. Rather than utilizing the State Legislature to pass laws that are just and necessary, they resort to sophistry to justify their Executive orders and decrees. It is also those judges that issue rulings of what the Legislatures and Executive must do, or to change/interpret laws as they see fit as outlined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords". Those Governors and Judges that do so seek to be rulers rather than leaders, as examined in my Article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”.

An example of this is the decrees that State Governors have passed to combat the Coronavirus pandemic. Occasionally, our rights need to be curtailed in an emergency, but their curtailment must be limited in scope and of short duration. This curtailment must cease as quickly as possible, and the people harmed by such curtailment must be indemnified for the harm caused by the curtailment. To not do so is to allow for the infringement of our rights for specious reasons. It is a Natural and Constitutional Right for the people to protest these curtailments and seek to redress these curtailments. To enact these orders and to prohibit protests of these orders is to institute despotic rule over the people.

We also have a situation where politicians and their powerful associates can ignore or exempt themselves from the laws, rules, regulations, and Executive Orders and Decrees that they impose on other Americans. This is a case of ‘I can say and do what I please, but you must say and do what I dictate‘, a Constitutional violation of the Equal Rights and Protections for all Americans, and a sure sign of Tin-Pot Dictators that will eventually lead to despotism.

The 2020 election State Executive orders, and State Judiciaries, that contravened the State Legislatures election laws are another example of tin-pot dictatorship as I have examined in my Chirp, “01/10/21 The Supreme Failure of the Supreme Court”. The suspicions of outright vote fraud, as well as the veracity of the allegations of illegal actions by State election officials, and the possible Unconstitutional actions of the State Executive branches and State Judiciaries in violations of the State Legislatures laws of elections demonstrate the actions of Tin-Pot Dictators

And these are not isolated incidents as we have seen these Executive orders and Judicial rulings throughout our history, most especially in the late 20th century and the 21st century. This situation is exacerbated by our Legislators not asserting their prerogatives to create and modify laws and regulations but to accede to the Executive branch in the creation of regulations and not challenging Executive orders that exceed the authority of the Executives. This is often done by the Legislators for political cover for the purposes of electioneering as examined in my Article, “The Evasion of Duties and Responsibilities”.

The hubris of a government that believes that it can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled. If we continue to allow these tin-pot dictators to continue their actions, we are endangering our Freedoms a Liberties. We also should always remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

01/10/21 The Supreme Failure of the Supreme Court

In my Article “The Failures of the Supreme Court,” I point out the historical failures of the Supreme Court. To this article, I must add the failure of the Supreme Court in acting on the issues of the 2020 elections. The suspicions of outright vote fraud, as well as the veracity of the allegations of illegal actions by State election officials, and the possible unconstitutional actions of the State Executive branches and State Judiciaries in violations of the State Legislatures laws of elections are of utmost importance in our democratic process of assuring a free and fair election.

If these allegations of vote fraud and unconstitutional actions prove to be true, then we have an assault on our Freedoms and Liberties. In their efforts to avoid becoming involved in this political conflict and to preserve what they believe is the integrity of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is violating their sworn duty to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. For without a Free and Fair Election, we cannot have a republican government that is representative of the will of the people. For the will of the people is being subverted by possible corrupt voting practices and possible unconstitutional actions of the State Executive officers and State Judiciaries. And I would remind the Supreme Court the best means to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court is to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.

By not taking on a Supreme Court review, by means of legal sophistry in denying these lawsuits, the actions by the State Officials and State Courts of these alleged violations cannot be determined if they are a violation of the Constitutional Right of the State Legislatures to determine the manner of elections as stated in the Constitution as “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”, as well as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of “equal protection of the laws”. This failure of the Supreme Court to determine the truth of election law violations or unconstitutional acts by State officials calls into question the validity of the results of the 2020 election. And the legality of these actions cannot be determined by State judicial review, as the very State officials that would make these determinations are the same officials who are alleged to have violated the laws and the Constitution. Therefore, we would have the situation of a person being the judge of themselves.

Much of the blame for this lies upon the Democratic Party as they refused to accept the election of President Trump in the 2016 election, as well as their Russian Collusion delusion and the Impeachment of President Trump that were an attempt to cripple the administration of President Trump. Not to mention their mischaracterization of the COVID epidemic response of President Trump as examined in my Chirps of “Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps”, and the suppression of negative information about Presidential Candidate Joe Biden by “Modern Journalism” and “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?”.

All of this is antithetical to the principles of the Constitution and an assault upon our Freedoms and Liberties. I am aware that if the Supreme Court takes on this responsibility to determine if free and fair elections were violated in the 2020 elections, it will cause great consternation and disquietude to the government and society in America. However, to not take on this responsibility may cause more harm to government and society, as a large percentage of the people of America no longer had faith in their government to preserve our Freedoms and Liberties. Such a lack of faith in government often leads to civil unrest and possible Civil War to preserve our Freedoms and Liberties.

01/09/21 The Intellectual and the Preposterous

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

It is an unfortunate consequence of the lack of incomplete knowledge, improper “Reasoning”, and overeducation, undereducation, and miseducation that many intellectual persons drift toward preposterousness. This is not helped by many intellectuals not experiencing everyday life as they have been cocooned in an academic or institutional environment where they are often insulated from the realities of the everyday world.

Experts often testify inexpertly as in my Chirp on, “06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top”, as well as creating and quoting Studies and Statistics improperly as in my Article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave ”. My new Article, “The Intellectual and the Preposterous”, explains some of the reasons for this intellectual preposterousness.

01/08/21 Stop the Violence and Violations of Our Rights

With the violence that occurred at the U.S. Capital during the counting of the Electoral votes we have seen both sides of the isle condemn these actions by the mob. This condemnation is proper and just while will still have the means for democratic change. Until we cannot democratically address the issues and problems facing America violence is unjustified. But this condemnation by both sides of the isle should extend to all persons and groups that engage in political violence. Sadly, this has not been the case. The year 2020 shall not only be remembered by the Coronavirus Pandemic and governmental responses to the pandemic, but also the violence that erupted across many cities in America. Violence by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, as well as mobs of rioters and looters were not condemned by both sides of the isle as the silence of Democratic Party leaders and officials was deafening. Indeed, in some case the Democratic Party leaders and officials excused or rationalized this violence. This is unacceptable conduct that must be changed, or, as Newt Gingerich has written in an article:

“However, we must go a step further and make a firm commitment to stop all the violence.

• There have been more than 200 days of Antifa-led violence in Portland, Oregon. It must stop.
• There have been riots burning buildings, looting stores, and in some cases killing people in a number of other American cities. It must stop.
• There is a new generation of radical prosecutors who want to protect guilty criminals and sacrifice innocent victims. It must stop.
• There have been demonstrators going to the homes of public officials and trying to intimidate them and their families. It must stop.

There are real types of violence and threats of violence which are undermining the very fabric of our civilization. We need a deep and thorough examination of the depths of physical, social, and governmental pressures which have led tens of millions of Americans to fear for their future.”

The violations of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" the actions of “Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Greater Good verses the Common Good,“, as well as the allegations of vote fraud, and illegal or unconstitutional actions in the 2020 elections, that we have experienced in modern day America are issues and problems that need to be address if the violence is to be averted. We also need to address “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” to resolve these issues and concerns. Without democratically addressing these issues and concerns many Americans may believe that violence is the only means available to them to correct these problems. If a significant percentage of America comes to this conclusion then we may have the makings of a revolution or civil war.

For those that would respond that a majority of American people will not support these violent actions, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to Natural and Constitutional Rights. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not – as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those that are resisting governmental actions that disregarded or abrogated our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural and Constitutional rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural and Constitutional Rights

This violence and infringement of our rights is reminiscent of what occurred before the American Revolution, The Civil War, and the Labor Unionization efforts. The violence of the colonials, the violence of the pro and anti-slavery movements, and the violence of the labor movement activists and the industrialists was necessary and justified as all tried to address these problems democratically before resorting to revolution or civil war. In the case of the American Revolution and The Civil War, war was necessary to correct these injustices. In the case of the labor movement, we were able to resolve this problem via democratic means rather than revolutionary or civil war. Let us hope that we can address our current issues and problems by democratic means, but if we cannot do so than I fear that we may have to resort to violence, and possibly revolution or civil war, to correct these current issues and problems.

01/07/21 Heat and Light

The incandescent light bulb has often been described as a heat source that provides some light, given that a light bulb generates more heat than it does light. In today's public debates, we often find the proponents of an issue providing a lot of heat and only a little light. And so, it is with much political discussion that occurs on television. These shows generally have several segments of about seven minutes, in which a different topic is discussed in each segment. Often these segments are nothing more than talking points or witty repartee between the participants. As such, they provide more heat than light on the topic.

Given such a format, it is best to consider such shows as entertainment rather than informational, for it is not possible to be informed on a topic within seven minutes. Anything that you learn from listening to such shows should be suspect. If the topic should interest you, then you should seek out more information about the topic through reading more extensive articles on the topic, or God forbid, reading books on the topic. In researching these topics, you should also make an effort to read the opposing viewpoint to become more fully informed. After you have done your research, then you should apply your “Reasoning” to reach a conclusion on the topic. You should also be prepared to change your mind when new or additional information becomes available to you or the possibility that you may be mistaken or have erred in your reasoning. When doing so, you should always keep in mind the wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others".
  - Benjamin Franklin

01/06/21 Of the People, By the People, and For the People

These famous words are from the last line of the Gettysburg Address:

“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

These words encapsulate the ideals of America. Along with the ideals of the Preamble to The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The above quotes are the true ideology of American political thought. This ideology is based on Natural Rights, which the American Founders were well aware of and knowledgeable when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

These ideals are outlined in my Articles of:

• A Just Government and a Just Society
• Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All
• Justice and The Rule of Law in America
• Natural, Human, and Civil Rights
• The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights

I would hope that my readers will take the time to read these articles so that they may have a better understanding of our American ideology and ideals.

01/05/21 Wokeness

I have added to my list of Terminology ‘Wokeness’, the definition of this term, and my analysis of its repercussions are as follows:

Wokeness is a political term that originated in the United States, and it refers to a perceived awareness of issues that concern social justice and racial justice. It derives from the African-American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues. First used in the 1940s, the term has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolizes perceived awareness of social issues and movements.

However, Wokeness only can occur if you adopt the Progressives/Leftist viewpoints and policies. Viewpoints and policies that are often diminutive of “Reasoning”, and disparaging of America history as I have written about in my Articles on “American History”. Wokeness also requires that you adopt “Political Correctness”, and if you do not do so, you can be subjected to “Cancel Culture”, as noted above. Unfortunately, many Progressives/Leftists and those in the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media support Wokeness, and dangerously many Colleges and Universities, as well as Politicians, have adopted or submitted to Wokeness.

“Progressives/Leftists”, the “Mainstream Media”, “Mainstream Cultural Media”, "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" are a detriment to Americans, as they often mislead the American public with their skewered opinions and viewpoints. Recently, they have started to suppress any viewpoints but their own. If this continues to happen, we run the risk of surrendering our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" through misinformation, misrepresentations, and sometimes outright falsehoods that these people propagate.  

“Political Correctness”, “Virtue Signaling”, “Cancel Culture”, and “Wokeness” are an attempt by many to tear down and rebuild American society and government in their “Utopian” vision of America. Unfortunately, those people engaged in these activities can never answer the three questions of Thomas Sowell that will destroy most of their arguments – ‘Compared to what?’, ‘At what cost?’ and ‘What hard evidence do you have?’. Until they can answer these questions, the Politically Correct, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, and Woke must be condemned and disparaged as antithetical to American principles of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

The above terms are reminiscent of George Orwell's 1949 futuristic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in his ‘Ministry of Truth’. The Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events and the propagation of ‘truth’ as the powerful decide what the truth should be. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania.

Rather than a government agency that decides what the truth is, in America, we have social forces and social activism that perform this function. The people who engaged in these activities have a belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, and of course, always correct. If we continue to allow these forces to engage in these activities, they will eventually bring about the destruction of our American ideals of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. The best way to counter these forces is through satirization or ridicule, as well as condemnation and disparagement of those that would engage in these activities. If the American people can laugh at them, and reproach or shame them for their words and deeds, then they can no longer have any power over us.

01/04/21 R.I.P. Walter E. Williams

Walter Edward Williams (March 31, 1936 – December 2, 2020) was an American economist, commentator, and academic. As a black man raised in the ghetto of Philadelphia, PA, he provided keen insights into the political and economic issues confronting the minorities in America. His thoughts and commentaries were instrumental in the formulation of my ideas and political philosophy. The eulogies posted in The National Review do far more justice to him than I could ever hope to provide. I, and many other Americans, will sorely miss his perspectives on America.

Three of my personal favorite quotes of his are:

“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What's more, they believe they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider good reasons for doing so, but every tyrant that has ever existed has had what he believed were good reasons for restricting the liberty of others.”
- Walter E. Williams

“Whether we want to own up to it or not, the welfare state has done what Jim Crow, gross discrimination and poverty could not have done. It has contributed to the breakdown of the black family structure and has helped establish a set of values alien to traditional values of high moral standards, hard work and achievement.”
- Walter E. Williams

My webpage, “My Favorite Quotes of Walter E. Williams” has some of his many quotes that I utilize in my thinking and writing, but does not (and cannot) do justice to his wisdom. The Wikiquote page of Walter E. Williams quotes do more justice to his wisdom. Four of his books are well worth the read, as the topics he discusses are still apropos in America today:

• American Contempt for Liberty by Walter E. Williams
• Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks by Walter E. Williams
• Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays by Walter E. Williams
• More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well by Walter E. Williams

01/03/21 Socialism and Democratic Socialism

The biggest difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that one is imposed by the tyranny of the minority, while the other is imposed by the tyranny of the majority. In either case, it results in a subjugated or subservient people with limited Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Therefore, the statement “Socialism is Acceptable” is always antithetical to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and a violation of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

01/02/21 New Articles

I have written a new Article that examines "The Four Boxes of Liberty" - the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammo Box. I have also written a new Article, "Words of Wisdom about History", from noted historian J. Rufus Fears, that have insights about history that you may not have considered.

I have also extracted a portion of one of my Observations to create a new Article on “The Criminalization of Politics” that examines this issue and its consequences.

Also, Newt Gingrich has written a new article that perfectly encapsulates the frustrations of the 2020 elections and why many people do not recognize Joe Biden’s victory. His article "Why I Will Not Give Up" encapsulates the reasons why many people are averse to accepting the 2020 election results and relates to my Article on "The Four Boxes of Liberty.

01/01/21 The Bard

William Shakespeare, born on April the 23rd in 1564 and died in April 1616 (on his birthday), is the most famous writer in English history and perhaps in all history. In his prime, Shakespeare was a prolific writer, a graceful actor, a proud theatre owner, and a producer. He is one of the most quoted persons in history, and he penned some of the most significant phrases in history. His insights on human nature are still apropos today.

His plays are still performed four centuries after his death. Yet, most Americans are not very familiar with Shakespeare. This is because he wrote in Early Modern English rather than our current Modern English, which makes it difficult to understand the meaning of his words and phrases. This a shame, for there is much to learn from Shakespeare.

However, I have discovered a website, “No Sweat Shakespeare” whose mission is to help everyone understand Shakespeare’s life, language, and writings. If you don’t want to take a college course in Shakespeare but want to become more familiar with Shakespeare, I would recommend that you review this website.

12/31/20 A Pause in my Chirps and Articles.

For almost the last two months, I have not posted any new Chirps or Articles. This was, unfortunately, due to my becoming very ill (not COVID related), which required an extended stay in a hospital, as well as a few weeks at home recuperating. I can now state that I have recovered and will begin resuming the writing of my Chirps and Articles in the new year. So, for all my readers, I would wish you a happy, prosperous, and healthy New Year.

11/08/20 A Swarm of Locusts

Many people were surprised (myself included) that Arizona became a Blue State in the 2020 elections. In analyzing this situation, I have been struck by one important fact: The migration of people from California to other States. And much of this migration occurs to the Red States of America, as the Red States provide greater economic opportunities for these migrants from California.

Where do all the people go? The answer is simple: to the neighboring states. The first state that the Californian’s relocated to is Texas, with 86,200 Golden State residents moving there in 2018. This is followed by Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. Arizona takes the silver medal for popularity among people who escape from the sunniest state. Census Bureau reports that Arizona increased the number of residents by over 107,000 in 2017, and its gain is one of the highest in the country. Also, the state took the first prize for inbound moves in 2017 have attracted 60% of moving people. Another unbelievable statistic says that over 30,000 people every year have moved from California to Arizona for the past three years. In 2018 alone, this number was 68,516 people. What is also interesting is that the biggest number of Californians who moved to Arizona between 2007 and 2017 were between 18 and 25 years of age.

Most of these people have left California for a variety of reasons; a higher cost of living, higher taxes, lower employment prospects, and a lesser quality of life are some of the more frequent reasons for leaving California. Many of these reasons are driven by governmental actions or inactions. Governmental actions or inactions driven by a Progressive/Leftists agenda with the support of Democratic politicians who have a near-monopoly of governmental power in California. Effectively, those people are fleeing California from the effects of a Progressive/Leftists agenda and Democratic Party policies.

However, after leaving California, they are not leaving behind their Progressive/Leftists proclivities and are voting for these Progressive/Leftists agendas and Democratic Party politicians in their new State and Municipality of residence. Thus, they are bringing with them the problems that they fled from. Over time these Progressive and Leftist agendas will be implemented in their current State and Municipality of residence, laying the groundwork for a switch to a Blue State electorate. This implementation of Progressive/Leftists agendas will eventually negatively impact their current State and Municipalities, which in turn will cause them to leave their new State and Municipality to avoid these problems, and thus recreate these problems in their new State and Municipality. These negative impacts may take a generation or two to come to fruition, but it shall always come to fruition because of “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms” and “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.

This situation is analogous to a Swarm of Locusts, as the locust will strip the land of its food supply then move on to new lands to strip them of their food supply, leaving a trail of devastation in their wake. Regrettably, those people who are moving from California to other States and Municipalities, who do not leave behind their Progressive and Leftists proclivities, are behaving like a swarm of locusts. They are not being introspective of the true causes for their leaving California and not exercising their intellectual reasoning to assure that they do not bring the problems of California to their new State and Municipalities.

This situation needs to be rectified by the inculcation of the current and new residents of the State and Municipalities to the negative consequences of a Progressive/Leftist agenda being implemented in their State and Municipalities. Alas, I am not hopeful that this will happen as Progressive/Leftists proclivities rarely respond to intellectual reasoning, as they are often emotionally based reasoning. This emotion-based thinking, and voting, is not limited to any State or Municipality but is a national problem. Until the American people wake up and are cognizant of the negative consequences of Progressive/Leftists' agendas, we will continue to see a swarm of locusts take over the Red States of America. These negative consequences are usually a gradual decline, but they do reach a tipping point where the decline becomes rapid, as there is no more land for the swarm of locusts to devastate.

We, as Americans, need to not allow this devastation to occur. And the only way to avoid this devastation is to utilize intellectual reasoning to resolve the problems confronting America.

11/06/20 Where Do We Go from Here on the Election?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"
 - Sir Walter Scott

And deception is what appears to be occurring in the 2020 Presidential election. The proliferation of lawsuits that are occurring, and will continue to occur, is an attempt to uncover this deception. However, the tangled web that was created by this deception may be very difficult to untangle. Indeed, it may be a Gordian Knot that cannot be untangled without being cut. A cutting that may disenfranchise many voters.

The Democrats are enamored of saying, “Count all the votes,’ but this is a platitude that in of itself is deceptive. Deceptive in that if you count every vote, you would also be counting votes that were illegally cast. Every legally cast ballot should be counted, but you run into the problem that because of this deception, it may not be possible to separate the legally cast ballots from the illegally cast ballots. Thus, if you count all the votes, the election could be decided by illegal votes, which is itself a disenfranchisement of the legal voters as their legal vote could be negated by an illegal vote. If you count every vote, both legal and illegal votes, then you are rewarding deception and fraud, not to mention condoning illegal activities. The attempt to isolate the illegal votes from the legal votes may be a fool’s errand, as the deception that occurred often makes this isolation impossible, and this isolation itself would be susceptible to deception and entanglements.

The question is then what should be done to correct this problem. While the answer may seem to be complicated, it is less so if you prioritize the importance of the actions and their consequences. The first duty of every Congressman, Executive Officers, and Judges is as their Oath of Office states ‘To Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States’. Therefore, any unconstitutional actions must be negated, and any negative impacts of this negation must be a secondary concern and not infringe upon the upholding of the Constitution.

If the actions of any executive officer or judge are determined to be unconstitutional, then these actions and their impacts must be overturned regardless of the consequences. If you allow unconstitutional actions to prevail then you do not have a Constitution, and you allow for the arbitrary rule of law. This arbitrariness is a sure path to the destruction of America. Therefore, all the votes (both legal and illegal) that cannot be isolated need to be negated and not counted.

Another option is for the Supreme Court to decide which States elections were so compromised by unconstitutional actions by executives and courts that they do not accurately reflect the will of the electorate. They could then rule that these States' votes cannot be included in the Electoral College voting. Doing this would result in no majority vote being achieved in the Electoral College. In such a circumstance, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution would be invoked, and the election of the President would be determined by:

“…, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

While the American people would be upset by this decision, their anger should be directed at those executives and courts that allowed unconstitutional actions. Their anger should be mollified by the realization that they are upholding a higher principle, the principles of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Americans should also remember those executives and judges who condoned unconstitutional actions and take this into account in the next elections. Americans should also insist that their elected officials address the problems of voting in America before the next election, as I have written in my Articles “Voting in America” and “Voting Responsibilities”, for to not do so is to invite further deception and tangled webs in elections.

11/05/20 The Judiciary Involvement in Elections

Well over a year ago, I wrote an Article, “The Failures of the Supreme Court”, in which one of the failures was the “Bush v. Gore” decision. This failure has now come back to haunt us in the 2020 Presidential election. A haunting in which we will now have to rectify, and one which will cause more bitter partisanship and unrest in America. As I wrote in this article, this failure was:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.

As the Constitution stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” makes it the responsibility of the State legislators to determine election procedures. The Supreme Court reached the proper decision by improper reasoning. They simply could have stated the legislators were responsible for the election, and the courts had no authority to intervene. If the people of a state were unhappy with their legislators’ actions, they had the possibility of not voting for the legislator in the next election. If the people were unhappy with the court’s decision, they had no recourse. In effect, this would have put the courts in the position of deciding an election and not the people. This is antithetic to a representative democracy elected by the people. The courts have the responsibility to determine if the election laws and procedures are constitutional and have Equality Under the Law & Equal Protection of the Laws, but they have no authority to intervene in an actual election except to make sure that the State election laws, as written, are enforced.

In the current 2020 Presidential election, we are now faced with numerous lawsuits regarding the integrity of the ballots and the Executive and Judicial actions that modified the election laws within a State. Our Constitutional Founding Fathers were very concerned about courts and executive officers becoming involved in elections. This concern was a reality to them, as the British government would appoint executives and judges who would do their bidding, and these Executives and Judges would often overturn elections in which they did not approve of the results. They, therefore, deliberately placed the control of elections upon the State Legislators who were democratically elected and responsive to the will of the people.

Today, Executives and Courts have become involved in elections, usually under the guise of an emergency due to the Coronavirus Pandemic, to modify these laws to accommodate the pandemic. However, these modifications were often not done under the explicit direction of the State Legislators through the legislative process but were often done by executive orders and court decisions. This is precisely what our Constitutional Founding Fathers feared. We now, in the 2020 Presidential election, have the distinct possibility of an election that will be determined by court actions. Court actions, no matter which side is favored by the court that will result in more bitter partisanship and unrest in America. A court decision that will also taint the legitimacy of anyone who becomes our President.

The Presidential election of 2020 is a situation of one of the nefarious conundrums of an improperly decided Supreme Court decision. When the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue, it should not only speak to the current issue but speak to the future to guide future actions in our governance by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. When the Supreme Court does not do so, we eventually find ourselves in a worse future situation. And so, it is today, because of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore that did not speak to the future and which has led us to today’s Presidential election predicament. This time, the Supreme Court must make a decision that speaks not only to our current predicament but provides guidelines for future elections. When it does make this decision, they must bear in mind the fears of our Constitutional Founding Fathers with the involvement of Executives and Courts in the election process. To not do so is to allow for the corruption of the election process for political purposes rather than for the expression of the will of the people in an election.

11/02/20 To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine

As I have pointed out in one of my Pearls of Wisdom,  "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine", we all make mistakes, and forgiveness of mistakes after an apology is appropriate. However, a misjudgment, when it happens due to the failure of obtaining and considering the facts, may be less forgivable. When making a judgment, we have a responsibility to ourselves and others to obtain as many facts as possible before making a judgment. To not do so usually results in a misjudgment, which can have negative consequences and repercussions on ourselves and others. These negative consequences and repercussions often redound not only upon ourselves, but to our family and employers, our governance, and to society. Careful consideration of the obtainable facts, and deliberations on the consequences and repercussions of our judgments, should always occur when making a judgment.

This is especially true when adjudging public figures or politicians when allegations of misconduct, corruption, or criminal actions have been lodged. These allegations must be founded with the veracity of evidence; otherwise, they are rumors or innuendo that border on or cross over to slander and libel. These rumors or innuendo are often for the purpose of damaging a person’s good name and reputation. A good name and reputation that is important for any person to have to lead a dignified and respectable life, as the bard has said:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
- William Shakespeare in Othello

The excuse that it is ‘just politics’ when the unfounded allegations are lodged against a politician is an unacceptable excuse. Unacceptable as it not only harms the politician, but it also harms the body politic. The harm that poisons "A Civil Society" and that leads to “Divisiveness in America”, as well as bitter partisanship that makes it exceedingly difficult to govern and solve the problems that beset America.

We also have a responsibility to obtain as many facts as possible before making a judgment on public policy. Sloganeering, platitudes, and clichés are not a valid means for adjudging a public policy. Only careful consideration of the facts by “Reasoning” and consideration of “The Law of Unintended Consequences” can lead to a sound public policy and just laws. Therefore, before you make up your mind on a public policy, you need to consider all sides of the issue.

This is especially true when you decide as to which politician you will vote for. We all need to consider the character and reputation of a politician, as well as the reasonableness of their public policy positions. We also need to decide on the proper course of American governance and society, and those that would lead us on this course, when voting for a politician. In not doing so, we will do harm to the body politic and our society. Therefore, tomorrow, the election day of 2020, we need to choose and choose wisely the persons that we elect to lead us into the future.

11/01/20 What I am Passionate About

I have written about many things, some important and some not so important. Some with passion and many with dispassion. I prefer dispassion as it leads to better “Reasoning” and, therefore, better conclusions. Even in my dispassionate articles, I do have a passion, but I try to state it dispassionately. I, therefore, have created this list of those dispassionate articles that I am passionate about. They are:

• The protection of our “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” and a Republic political theory of the Constitution for this protection, as I have written in my Article “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”.
  
• The protection of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, and the further institution of "A Civil Society" and "A Just Government and a Just Society" in America.
  
• The resolution of the issues of “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems”, and the solutions to the problems of “Public Education” as a means to correct some of the ills of our society.
  
• The Natural Rights of the unborn child, as I have written about in my Article “The Abortion Question”, and the immorality of the pro-choice advocates in their argumentation as I have written about in my Article, “The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery”.
  
• The importance of “Reasoning” to resolve our differences, rather than the “Divisiveness in America” and the utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" in America.
  
• The ceasing of “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”, so that we may dispassionately discuss and resolve our problems in America, and to put an end to “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms” in America.

These are often my most frequently linked articles in my other articles. I would hope that others would be passionate about these issues, but to speak and act in a dispassionate manner to resolve these issues in America.

10/31/20 A Turning Point in American History

As I have written about in my History Article, “United States History Perspective”, America has had several turning points in our history that have changed the course of our society. I believe that the election of 2020 is another turning point that will change our society. The philosophic basis of our government will be changed by which party we elect to govern our society. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have two different bases of governance. This basis is an interpretation of the Constitution of a Democratic or a Republican political theory of the Constitution, as I have written in my Article “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. Also, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have two different modes of governance, as I have written about in my Article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”.

The Democratic Party believes in a Democratic political theory of the Constitution and of Rulership by elected representatives. While the Republican Party believes in a Republican political theory of the Constitution and of Leadership by elected representatives. To understand why I believe this, you must ignore the words of the Democratic and Republican Parties and focus on the deeds of each party. When you examine the deeds of each party, the differences in the basis and modes of the parties becomes distinct. Many of my Chirps and Articles have pointed out these differences and are the reasons that I believe that we are at a turning point in American history. The 20th century has seen a drift from the vision of governance of our Founding Fathers of limited government with enumerated powers to a more expansive government involved in all aspects of American society. This drift has accelerated in the 21st century to the point where we, the American people, are at a turning point in American history.

Make no mistake about this; the election of the Democratic Party will change the fundamental nature of our governance, while the election of the Republican Party will reestablish the Founding Fathers' vision of governance. The fundamental nature of governance in America is at stake in this election, and therefore this election is the most important election in our lifetime. We must choose wisely and choose decisively, as I believe that once a decision is made, there will be no turning back without massive civil unrest and perhaps a civil war to revoke this decision.

10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail and Political Gamesmanship

Today, there is much talk within the Democrat Party about the Senate eliminating the Filibuster if they should gain control of the Senate in the 2020 election. There is very little discussion of doing so if the Republicans retain control of the Senate. This speaks volumes about how the Democrats view the Filibuster – as a tool for Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship when they are in the minority and as an obstacle to be eliminated when they are in the majority. For the Democrats, the Filibuster is about the power to do whatever they want to achieve their goals, whether they are in the minority or majority in the Senate.

The Filibuster was designed as a tool to assure that the minority has a say in the Senate (see my Article, “The Problems of Democracy and Majoritarian Rule”), and to slow down the legislative process to assure that the mob passions would not overwhelm the calm deliberative process of the Senate. Throughout its history, the Filibuster has often been utilized in this manner, and it has often been utilized as a tool for Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship. Today, the difference is in the quantity of the Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship of the Filibuster. Obstructionism not for the purpose of obtaining bipartisan compromise, blackmail to get what you could otherwise not achieve, and political gamesmanship to score political points for electioneering purposes. All of this has resulted in the deadlock of the necessary and proper activities of the Senate.

A Filibuster is a good tool for the protection of the minority rights and the cooling of the passions of the mob, but it has been corrupted by intense partisan politics. The elimination of the Filibuster is not a solution to this problem. The solution is for our leaders to practice leadership and only utilize the Filibuster when appropriate to achieve the protection of the minority rights and the cooling of the passions of the mob, and not for the purposes of partisan politics.

Part of the problem is the propensity of both the House and the Senate to create omnibus legislation, filled with unrelated items, pork, and favoritism to their supporters. It is often that these unrelated items, pork, and favoritism that initiate a Filibuster. They do this, of course, because these unrelated items, pork, and favoritism could not pass on their own, so they must slip them into other legislation. This also causes the legislation to be more expensive and loaded with additional Federal laws, regulations, and bureaucracy. It also has the consequence of stalling and then rushing to pass legislation until the last moment, a rush to pass legislation that allows for unrelated items, pork, and favoritism to remain in the legislation. Consequently, a solution to the Filibuster problem is to not allow unrelated items, pork, and favoritism to be introduced into legislation but to make them separate legislation.

Alas, politicians being politicians, they are not wont to do this as it would hamper their political gamesmanship and constrict their ability to introduce unrelated items, pork, and favoritism to their supporters into legislation. The ultimate solution to the Filibuster problem is for the American electorate to not elect politicians who would utilize the Filibuster inappropriately. An ultimate solution that is not practicable as the American electorate does not often consider this issue when casting their votes.

10/29/20 Tax Returns and Corruption

With the allegations of corruption against Vice-President Joe Biden and his family, many of his supporters are equating these allegations with President Trump withholding his tax returns. But they are not equal as withholding a tax return is legal and ethical, while the allegations of corruption may involve illegal activities and are most certainly unethical.

Tax returns are considered private information that an individual(s) shares with the government, and the government is legally bound to not disclose tax returns except in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, it is a crime for anyone in the government to release a tax return or any portion of a tax return. There are many good reasons for this making the release of tax returns an illegal action, the reasons that need not be elaborated for the purposes of this Chirp.

The question of the ethics of President Trump not releasing his tax returns is the question of whether any politician should release their tax returns to the public. To this question, I would answer NO! The benefits to be gained by the public disclosure of a politician’s tax return are far less than the harm to society that is done by this disclosure. It is very easy to misunderstand and misinterpret a tax return of a wealthy person. This is largely due to the complexity o our tax code and the complexity of the financial transactions of wealthy persons, especially wealthy businesspersons. Also, tax returns do not provide a full and complete financial picture to a person, as many businesspersons pay taxes through their business rather than on their individual tax returns. It would also require that the public understand the tax code to understand the tax return, an understanding of the tax code that the vast majority of Americans do not have or want to have. Having helped an accountant for over twenty years in preparing many businessperson’s tax returns, I can attest to these facts.

The demands of those persons for a politician to release their tax returns have less to do about understanding the taxes a person pays and more to do with the ability to denigrate and demonize a political candidate. A denigration and demonization that is a discouragement for good and decent businesspersons to running for political office. It also increases partisanship on all sides, which is harmful to society. Consequently, very little of the release of a tax return is a benefit to society, and it is often to the detriment of society. I would, therefore, reaffirm my opinion that politicians' tax returns should not be released to the public.

It is also true that a corrupt person is generally good a hiding their corrupt financial transactions —hiding which is not revealed by the release of the tax returns of a corrupt politician. There are many ways for a corrupt politician to hide their corruption. Overseas accounts, shell corporations, insider trading, excessive speaking fees, excessive author stipends, fellowships, high paid professorships that require little effort, all expenses paid trips, memberships in clubs or organizations that pay executive expenses to a politician are some of the many ways for a corrupt politician to mask their ill-gotten gains in the appearance of legitimate transactions on a tax return. This is why it is generally difficult to prosecute a tax cheat, as it takes considerable knowledge and expertise to unravel a false tax return(s). An unraveling that is not possible by the simple release of a tax return.

The demands that President Trump release his tax returns are, therefore, for the purposes of political gamesmanship. The demands that Vice-President Joe Biden explain his family overseas business dealings are for the purpose of determining if these are corrupt actions and if he is fit to become the President of the United States. The suspicion that President Trump has engaged in illegal or corrupt activities is without veracity, while the allegations of illegal and corrupt activities against Vice-President Biden have considerable veracity. In America, a suspicion is an insufficient reason for actions to be taken, while allegations with veracity require that some actions be taken to determine the truth of the allegations. Consequently, the demands for the release of the tax returns of President Trump are not equivalent to the demands that Vice-President Biden explain his family’s overseas business dealings.

10/28/20 Trickle-Down and Tax the Rich

Once again, as we are in the election cycle in which the Democrat candidates are utilizing the platitude of ‘Tax the Rich’ and the disparagement of ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory. An Article of mine, “Tax the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share”, examines this issue and the implications of taxing the rich. Those that utilize these phrases rarely understand this issue and its implications, and this article examines these issues and concerns. I have not written an article on ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory, as there is no such economic theory. Trickle down was a caricature invented for political purposes to disparage those that believed that less taxes on the rich would generate more tax revenue and economic growth in the private sector.

I am a big believer in the truth, as the Bible states “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Therefore, you should examine the facts and discover the truth before you utter these phrases. A short essay by Thomas Sowell, “Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich” can be downloaded and read to discover the truth. This essay unscrambles gross misconceptions that have made rational debates about tax policies virtually impossible for decades. I would recommend you read this essay to review the facts and discover the truth, which will set you free.

10/27/20 A Compilation of Chirps on Natural Rights

I have combined my Chirps on our Natural Rights of Life, Freedom of Conscience, Self-Protection, and Property and The Greater Good into one Article, “The Greater Good and Natural Rights”, as these topics are interrelated. I have also added a conclusion to this article as follows:

Our Natural Rights of Life, Freedom of Conscience, Self-Protection, and Property are basic and fundamental Natural Rights that are inseverable from each other, as you cannot have one without the others. And you cannot have Freedom and Liberty without the Natural Rights of Life, Freedom of Conscience, Self-Protection, and Property. Therefore, these Natural Rights are paramount to a free people, and thus supersede The Greater Good if this greater good would violate any of these Natural Rights. For those that would compromise on these Natural Rights to obtain some Greater Good, I would remind them of the sage wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

To which I would paraphrase:

“Those who would give up Natural Rights to purchase some Greater Good, deserve neither Natural Rights nor the Greater Good.”

10/26/20 The Natural Right to Life

One of the things that we can be assured of in life is that we will all eventually die. Whether it be by old age, disease, fatal accidents, or by acts of nature (i.e., through Natural Causes), death is inevitable. You have no Natural Right to Life in these circumstances. You do have the Natural Right to Life in that your life may not be unjustly taken by another person or persons. The keyword to this right is ‘unjustly’, as there are some circumstances where your life can be justly taken. If you take the life of another in the protection of your life, or a family member's life, and for the protection of the lives of others, at what point is it a ‘just’ or an ‘unjust’ taking. This issue, and other circumstances in which one person takes the life of another, is one for "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" to determine.

The issue of the Natural Right to Life in an Abortion is complex, and the subject of my Articles, “The Abortion Question“ - An examination of the Human Rights of an unborn child, and the issues and concerns regarding abortion, and “The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery“ - An examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War. I would refer you to these articles for a more thorough examination of this issue.

Capital Punishment is another issue of the Natural Right to Life. Many would argue that the Death Penalty is a violation of the Natural Right to Life, while many would argue that a person who has committed a heinous crime deserving of a death penalty has forfeited their Natural Right to Life. The answer to this question, from the Natural Right to Life perspective, is whether the death penalty is a just or unjust taking of human life. The proponents of the death penalty would argue that if the convicted person had a just trial where all his judicial rights were protected and enforced, then the death penalty is justified. The opponents of the death penalty argue that it is never justified to take the life of another person. My Observation, “Capital Punishment”, examines this issue in more detail.

The other issue of the Natural Right to Life is the taking of civilian lives from Acts of War. The taking of the lives of combatants during a war is an issue of a ‘Just War’ and ‘The Rules of Engagement’ during a war. The issue of civilian deaths because of wartime actions is a very thorny issue. At what point do the actions of civilians supporting a war make them subject to the taking of their lives. And at what point is collateral damage (the inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations) become acceptable. These are issues for legal scholars, theologians, and philosophers and is beyond the scope of this article and my abilities to address this issue. I, therefore, leave this issue for your consideration.

The Natural Right to Life is the first and most essential Natural Right, for, without it, you cannot have any other Natural Rights. It should be preserved and protected in all societies and governments.

10/25/20 The Natural Right of Property

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, the unalienable Rights that he had drafted were Life, Liberty, and Property. His fellow committee members (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston) thought that it would be more comprehensive if they changed “Property” to the “pursuit of Happiness”, as property was one of many means to obtain happiness.

Property that includes your person, your real estate, your personal possessions, and your money. They are your property and no others property until you decide to part with them, or they are forfeited to another by Due Process of Law. However, the Due Process of Law forfeiture may only occur for just purposes and may never be arbitrary. And Just Purposes may never be for the benefit of another person or persons to the detriment of yourself. In the case of necessary Eminent Domain transfer of your real estate property, the government must always give you just compensation for your real estate property, and the utilization of Eminent Domain is only for the public good. "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the utilization of Eminent Domain by the government is not acceptable, as this type of reasoning will allow for the government to seize any property for any tortuous or convoluted reason, which is a violation of your Natural Right of Property.

This is why “Entitlements” are often a violation of your Natural Right of Property, as they often take your money (in the form of taxes) for the benefit of another person or persons. It should be remembered that taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. To do so otherwise is tantamount to depriving someone of their monies earned by their work and labor for the benefit of another, which is a violation of your Natural Right of Property. For who has the right to take money out of the pocket of one person to give it to another person without their consent (also called Spending Other People’s Money)? Or as President Lincoln has stated:

"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
- Abraham Lincoln

And taking monies from a taxpayer to give to another is the same principle. This taking of taxes to benefit some people, rather than all the people, infringes on the Natural Right of Property of those that have been taken from. Some of the governmental actions that violate these tenants are direct Government Entitlements to individuals (further elaborated in my Article “Entitlements”) and the funding of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). NGO’s are often special interest groups with a common objective of their members. Sometimes these objectives are economic, political, or social. But in all these cases, it is for the benefit of their members' objectives, i.e., the good of some, and it is not for everyone’s benefit, i.e., the good of all.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to violate your Natural Right of Property for the purpose of what they believe is “The Greater Good”. But the greater good is never served by violating someone’s Natural Rights. For our Natural Rights are inviolate, and these Natural Rights assure us that the ‘Greater Good’ cannot override our Natural Rights. "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the Greater Good is not acceptable for the violation of our Natural Right of Property. Any ‘Greater Good’ Law or Regulation that violates our Natural Right of Property is therefore immoral. The ‘Greater Good’ must always exist within our Natural Rights; otherwise, it is not for the ‘Greater Good’.

Please note that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes should not be viewed as taxes. They should be viewed as an insurance policy. Something that you pay into to receive a benefit when you are eligible. Therefore, they are not an entitlement, but an investment that is due to you by your having contributed to them. However, when the government expends more than it has collected or saved, then it becomes an entitlement. Therefore, we must put our financial house in order regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid funding and expenditures so as not to violate our Natural Right of Property.

10/24/20 The Natural Right of Self-Protection

As I have written in my Article “The Meaning of the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution”, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the Natural Right to protect yourself, your family, and your society from violent acts that may be perpetrated against yourself, or your family, or society. Whether these violent acts be from an individual, a group, or a government, you have the Natural Right to protect yourself against these violent acts. The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You also have the Natural Right to protect yourself from encroachments to your “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” from individuals, groups, or government. And you have the Natural Right to arm yourself with sufficient and adequate weaponry to protect yourself, and your family, and your society. It is your Natural Right, and nobody’s else right, including a government, to determine what types and amounts of weaponry are necessary to protect your Natural Rights. Therefore, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing, as if often claimed, but everything to do with protecting your Natural Right of Self-Protection.

Any attempt to parse this Amendment to constrict the Natural Right of Self-Protection is an attempt to limit your Natural Rights. And any constrictions of your Natural Rights are detrimental to society. Constricting weaponry of those people convicted of violent crimes is not a constriction of the Natural Right of Self-Protection, as those people who have committed violent crimes have forfeited this Natural Right of Self-Protection by their very actions. A necessary constriction, as those people who have committed violent crimes are not utilizing weaponry to defend themselves but for the purposes of violating the Natural Rights of others.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to limit the Natural Right of Self-Protection under the guise of reasonable gun control for the benefit of America and Americans. However, limiting the Natural Right of Self-Protection is never beneficial to anyone or any society. For such limitations lead to the direction and control of a person or society, which leads to a subjugated or subservient people. The hubris of a government that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

As Americans believe in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, we are a free people. A free people that should reject any limitations to our Second Amendment rights, as well as rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our Second Amendment rights. By not rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our Second Amendment rights, we are on the slippery slope of becoming a subjugated or subservient people.

10/23/20 Journalistic Interference in the Election Process

As I have written in my Article, “Modern Journalism”, there are many issues and concerns about media bias in journalism. To this, I can now add Election Interference as a major, if not the major problem of modern journalism. This media bias has now actively suppressing news stories that are unfavorable to the Democratic Party politicians. Suppression by not only the Main Stream Media but of Big Tech as I have outlined in my Article, “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?”. Suppression that is for the purpose of supporting the election of one candidate over another candidate, the election of the candidate that the Mainstream Media and Big Tech supports.

The suppression of the NY Post article on the allegations of corruption against Vice-President Joe Biden, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, his brother, and his son-in-law utilizing their influence with Vice-President Joe Biden to enrich themselves is the perfect example of this suppression. There is sufficient veracity to these allegations to be concerned that they may be true. Sufficient veracity that the Mainstream Media and Big Tech should not be suppressing this story, and indeed, they should be unbiasedly investigating this story to determine the facts and the truth.

There is also the portraying of President Trump as a racist, by misconstruing by omission his statements on, “The comments by President Trump on white supremacists and the ‘alt-left’ to the despicable actions of some in Charlottesville SC.”. The constant bringing up of these misconstrued comments by journalists is an attempt by the Main Steam Media to paint a false narrative about him, a false narrative that he is a racist to negatively impact his election prospects. He clearly condemned the white supremacists and the ‘alt-left’ in his statements, “I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides”, while also stating that “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides”. This is not a racist comment but an accurate depiction of the various groups on both sides of the issue at Charlottesville, SC.

These actions by the Mainstream Media are no longer media bias but an attempt to influence the election. They are the actions of partisanship rather than journalism. Journalist and Big Tech are corrupting the election process by not allowing for a free and fair election by not presenting all the facts to the American electorate. We should let the politicians be partisan, but the Journalists and Big Tech should report in an unbiased manner and not attempt to influence an election for their preferred candidate.

10/22/20 Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The idea, being espoused by some Democrats and liberals, of a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission after President Trump's term of office of complete would be less about reconciliation than "revenge", and it would do everlasting harm to our Republic. This Truth and Reconciliation Commission goal has been stated as:

“When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”
- Robert Reich

This commission is an assault on the ‘Natural Right to the Freedom of Conscience’ as I have Chirped on, “10/21/20 The Natural Right of Freedom of Conscience”. It will also institute fear and intimidation in America as I have Chirped on, “07/07/19 Fear and Intimidation in the USA”. The effect of this commission would be to intimidate into silence and inaction anyone who would disagree with the Progressives and Leftist ideas and ideology. No political dissent or alternative ideas of the Progressives and Leftists ideas and ideology could be broached, as all would be wary of being called before such a commission, or a future commission, with such a charter. It would also dissuade any person from serving in an administration who would disagree with the Progressives and Leftist ideas and ideology. A disservice to Americans as expert and competent persons would be replaced with obedient executive officers and bureaucrats.

Those who would support a Truth and Reconciliation Commission do not believe in ‘The Natural Right of Freedom of Conscience’ and, as such, they are antithetical to the principles of the First Amendment to the Constitution. They are also of a despotic inclination, as despotism is the only manner in which such a commission could operate and be effective.

The idea of this commission is so abhorrent to American ideals that anyone who holds or espouses this idea needs to be condemned, objurgated, excoriated, and expelled from political discourse in America.  They should especially not be able to hold an elected office or a position of trust within the government, for it would be a violation of their Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”.

10/21/20 The Natural Right of Freedom of Conscience

As I have written in my Article “The Meaning of the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution” the First Amendment to the Constitution, the “Freedom of Expression” is a misnomer as it would be better named as the Natural Right to the “Freedom of Conscience”. The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution is quite a mouthful, and the question arises as to why these rights were lumped together into one Amendment rather than having separate rights? The answer is that our Founding Fathers knew that these rights were inseverable. Inseverable as you cannot have one of these rights without having the other rights of this Amendment. To exercise one of these rights you are in effect exercising another of these rights, and any attempt to limit one of these rights is an attempt to limit another of these rights.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to limit one or more of these rights in the name of advancing policy goals and social causes that they believe are beneficial to America and Americans. However, limiting the “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”, and especially the Freedom of Conscience, is never beneficial to anyone or any society. For such limitations lead to the direction and control of a person or society, which leads to a subjugated or subservient people. The hubris of a government that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

As Americans believe in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” we are a free people. A free people that should reject any limitations to our First Amendment rights, as well as rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our First Amendment rights. By not rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our First Amendment rights we are on the slippery slope of becoming a subjugated or subservient people.

10/20/20 The Greater Good

The modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to advance their policy goals and social agendas under the belief that they are beneficial for the ‘Greater Good’ of all America and of all Americans. They often justify these actions under a Democratic political theory of the Constitution, as I have written in my Article “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. The question that arises is, what is the ‘Greater Good’ for Americans? Are implementations of social agendas for the ‘Greater Good’? Are myriad rules and regulations for the ‘Greater Good’? Are governmental interventions into all aspects of American society for the ‘Greater Good’? They may, or may not, be for good, but are they for the ‘Greater Good’?

For the ‘Greater Good’ of All Americans, we need not look any further than the Declaration of Independence, as it states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

Therefore, the ‘Greater Good’ of all Americans is for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” that is secured through the “just powers from the consent of the governed “. This is instituted in America by the protection of our “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” as espoused in the Constitution of the United States. It should be noted that the powers of the government are only for the ‘Greater Good’ if they are ‘just’ powers, and these just powers of the Federal government are the “ Limited and Enumerated Powers” as espoused in the Constitution of the United States. Such Limited and Enumerated Powers are not expansive, as I have noted in the “General Welfare” section of the aforementioned article.

As I have also noted in the aforementioned Article, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution were passed to assure that the ‘Greater Good’ originates from the Natural Rights of the people, as the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment was passed to assure that the Federal government did not usurp the Natural Rights of the people, as the Tenth Amendment of the 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.”

The Ninth Amendment assures us that if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution that the right is retained by the people, and not that that the right does not exist. This also reminds us that rights do not originate from the Constitution but from the people. The Tenth Amendment reminds us that any government power not delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution is a power delegated to the States, or to the people, as long as their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights are not infringed upon.

These Natural and Constitutional Rights assure us that the ‘Greater Good’ cannot override our Natural and Constitutional Rights. Any ‘Greater Good’ Law or Regulation that violates our Natural and Constitutional Rights is therefore Unconstitutional. The ‘Greater Good’ must always exist within our Natural and Constitutional Rights; otherwise, it is not for the ‘Greater Good’.

10/19/20 A Lesson from History

From the Wikipedia Article on John Peter Zenger:

John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German printer and journalist in New York City. Zenger printed The New York Weekly Journal. He was accused of libel in 1734 by William Cosby, the royal governor of New York, but the jury acquitted Zenger, who became a symbol for freedom of the press.

In 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal, which voiced opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby. On November 17, 1734, on Cosby's orders, the sheriff arrested Zenger. After a grand jury refused to indict him, the Attorney General Richard Bradley charged him with libel in August 1735.

Zenger's lawyers, Andrew Hamilton and William Smith, Sr., successfully argued that truth is a defense against charges of libel.

Today, we have the allegations of corruption against Vice-President Joe Biden, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, his brother, and his son-in-law utilizing their influence with Vice-President Joe Biden to enrich themselves. There is sufficient veracity to these allegations to be concerned that they may be true. We should all remember that as I have stated in one of my “Principles”:

“There are three sides to every story: one side, the other side, and the truth.”

It should also be remembered that “the truth will set you free” — freedom from false allegations and smear campaigns amongst other freedoms.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden needs to explain his side of these allegations so that the American electorate can make a judgment of the truth, but he has remained silent except to label the allegations as a smear campaign. But perhaps he is remaining silent because he cannot defend the indefensible. You can only equivocate, obfuscate, deflect, or lie when trying to defend the indefensible. To challenge the veracity of these allegations is sufficient if the challenge in of itself has veracity. To simply state that it is a smear campaign is not a sufficient response to adjudge these allegations. Or, to paraphrase Zenger's lawyers, responses of smearing are an insufficient defense to credible allegations.

10/18/20 Trump 2020 A Man vs. A Movement

I have recently viewed a YouTube video, “Trump 2020 A Man vs. A Movement”, that perfectly explains the differences between the modern Democrat Party and the Republic Party. Tom Klingenstein, the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute, explains why 2020 may be the most consequential election since 1860—and why President Trump is the man most uniquely suited to the moment. For those who are concerned about the future of America, this is a must-see video.

10/17/20 Early Voting and Voting by Mail Real-World Examples

As I have stated in my Article, “Voting in America”, I am not in favor of “Early Voting” nor “Voting by Mail”. Recent events have provided some real-world examples of these problems.

Early Voting has led to the issue of Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, his brother, and his son-in-law utilizing their influence with Vice-President Joe Biden to enrich themselves. There is also some credence to the allegation that Joe Biden has also been enriched by their activities. Although these are only allegations (at the moment), there is some veracity to these allegations. If some or all these allegations prove to be true, then we have the possible situation of electing a President who is corrupt. An election that is made possible by the casting of early votes before the American people had the opportunity to adjudge these allegations.

Even if Vice-President Joe Biden is not directly involved in this corruption, it calls into question his discernment, judgment, and lack of sagaciousness of events surrounding him. And if he was personally involved, he has utilized his position of power to influence foreign relations for personal gain, thus putting his own interest above the American peoples’ interest. There is also the question, if he were personally involved, that he could be subject to blackmail by foreign governments that he accepted monies from. Is such a person to be trusted to lead America. I think not.

How many of these early voters would have changed their vote or not voted if they had this information. How much have the 2020 elections been impacted, and how much calling into question the actual will of the American people will result because of this lack of information by early voters. If Vice-President Joe Biden is elected President, it will cast a pall over his administration and call into question all his foreign policy decisions.

Voting by Mail problems has already begun to appear. Incorrect ballots, misaddressed and wrong addressed ballots, duplicate ballots, ineligible voter ballots, discarded ballots in both the receiving and sending of ballots are problems that are already occurring. These problems are not occurring in only dozens or hundreds of ballots but in thousands and tens of thousands of ballots. And we have not even started counting these ballots, the counting of which will be disputed and engendered many legal lawsuits. Lawsuit results that will satisfy no one and call into dispute the election results. A disputed election that will cast a pall over any administration that is elected. A disputed election that will generate more partisan bickering and political obstructionism.

There is already, even before election day, a pall over the 2020 elections because of Early Voting and Voting by Mail. A pall that will not be dispelled by the results of the election. It is well past time that we put an end to Early Voting and Voting by Mail and not allow these problems to occur in the future.

10/15/20 Stakeholder Capitalism is a Form of Socialism on a Small Scale

One of the notions being bandied about is the concept of Stakeholders Capitalism. As Deborah D'Souza has written in her article, “Stakeholder Capitalism” in Investopedia, the main concepts of Stakeholders Capitalism are:

“Stakeholder capitalism is a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders and local communities. Under this system, a company's purpose is to create long-term value and not to maximize profits and enhance shareholder value at the cost of other stakeholder groups.

Supporters of stakeholder capitalism believe that serving the interests of all stakeholders, as opposed to only shareholders, is essential to the long-term success and health of any business. Notably, they make the case for stakeholder capitalism being a sensible business decision in addition to being an ethical choice.”

A very good article that critiques this concept is “The Dangers of ‘Stakeholder Capitalism” By Andrew Stuttaford of National Review, as he states:

“In effect, its advocates are insisting that corporate money and power should be conscripted to force through a social and political agenda — without the bother of going through the ballot box.”

The underlying foundation of Stakeholders Capitalism is the expenditure of Other People's Money to achieve a social goal. The Other People being the Owners and Shareholders of a company, as my Article “Other People’s Money (OPM)” explains. As my article notes, “… it is immoral to take OPM and to give OPM without the permission of the other people”. Stakeholders Capitalism would take the Owners and Shareholders money and expend it not for the benefit of the owners and shareholders but for other people’s benefit. Therefore, Stakeholders Capitalism is immoral.

Presidential candidate Voce-President Joe Biden, and other Democrats and Progressives, have endorsed the concepts of Stakeholders Capitalism. This is not surprising as Stakeholder Capitalism is a form of Socialism on a small scale, and for many Democrats and Progressives, and all Leftists, “Socialism is Acceptable”. However, Socialism (democratic or otherwise) is Serfdom, and any form of socialism is not acceptable in America.

10/14/20 The Supreme Court Nomination

The timing, legitimacy, and process of nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court are heavily questioned by many Democrats and Progressives, but there is no question that it is proper. The Constitution only states that the President will nominate during their term of office, and the Senate will advise and consent on all nominees that the President puts forward. Whether the Senate wishes to, or not wishes to, consider a nomination is a question of Senate prerogatives. The Senate sitting of the nominee of a President has been often, and throughout our history, utilized as a means of checking Presidential powers and for political purposes. Whether you believe that this is a correct or incorrect means is most often dependent on your political persuasions or your opinions on a political issue or concern.

As President Trump is the sitting President of the United States, and the Senate is in session, nominating, advising, and consenting to an open Justice or Judgeship is Constitutional and, therefore, legitimate. To argue otherwise is to utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” or “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” to advance your argument. The only debatable question is of the wisdom or propriety for any President to nominate anyone for any Justice or Judge so late in the election process? The answer to that question is most often dependent on your political persuasions and preferences for who is nominated. The answer of which I shall leave for your deliberation, and to your vote.

As to the threat to packing the Supreme Court if the Democrats obtain the Presidency and the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, this threat is dangerous to our Republic. Congress and the Presidency are the political branches of government that make law and sets policy and enforces the law, subject to the will of the people through their votes. The Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court and other Courts) are only responsible for assuring the Constitutionality of the law and that “Justice and The Rule of Law in America” prevail in America. Consequently, they are to be non-political and not subject to the will of the people, and their only allegiance is to the Constitution and to the fealty of Constitutional laws. It is for this reason that they are given lifetime appointments so that they may judge impartially. To pack the Courts to obtain favorable rulings of the Courts is to make the Judicial Branch a political branch of government. To do so is to endanger "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" and is antithetical to our Constitution.

To question the timing, legitimacy, and process of nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, and to threaten to pack the Supreme Court if she is approved, is an assault on our Constitutional ideals of the independence and non-political nature of the Judiciary Branch of our government. Any politician that impugns the timing, legitimacy, and process of nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court lacks an understanding of our Constitution or who wishes to politicize the Judicial Branch. Any elected politician or any appointed official who does so is not bearing fealty to their sworn Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States” and does not deserve to be an elected or appointed official in America.

Any politician running for elected office needs to clearly state their opinion and position on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, and to the issue of packing the Supreme Court, as this is an issue of our Constitution and Republic that impacts the future course of America. They need to so state their opinion and position before the election so that the American people can make an informed vote on the direction of America. To not so is to exhibit weak leadership more concerned about elections rather than the integrity of our Republic and our Constitutional ideals. Such a politician does not deserve the vote of Americans who believe in our Republic and Constitutional ideals.

As to the other important issues of the 2020 election, I would direct you to my Article “The Real Issues of the 2020 Election” and my Chirp of “10/13/20 What I Am Voting For”, as I believe that it is important for Americans to consider these issues before they cast their votes.

10/13/20 What I Am Voting For

For all of those who would say ‘I can't believe you would vote for President Trump’, I would respond that I am not just voting for him, but I am voting for:

• My right to speak my opinion and not be censored nor canceled.
• The right to worship God and live my religious beliefs without fear.
• Peaceful protests and not mob riots, looting, and arson.
• My right to keep and bear arms.
• Safety and security, law and order, and the Police.
• The next Supreme Court justice and against Supreme Court-packing.
• Secure borders and against sanctuary cities and States.
• The Electoral College.
• The military and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country.
• Every unborn child.
• The triumph of good and the defeat of evil.
• The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
• A Republic form of government as instituted by the Constitution.
• Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (i.e., The American Dream).
• Government of the people, by the people, for the people, rather than of, by, and for the elites and bureaucrats.
• Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All Americans.

I am not just voting for one person, but for the future of my Country! My question to those who would vote for Vice-President Biden is, what are you voting for?

10/12/20 My Collected Quotes

Throughout my Articles and Chirps, I have often quoted myself. While I do not believe that these are great quotes of intellect, reasoning, or wisdom, I believe that they succinctly encapsulate my thoughts on various subjects. Therefore, I have decided to collect my quotes on a web page where both my readers and I can utilize them appropriately. My Collected Quotes can be found by clicking the preceding hyperlink. As to the wisdom that I believe I have accumulated in my life I would direct you to my Article on “Pearls of Wisdom”.

10/11/20 The Problems of Democracy and Majoritarian Rule

Many of my readers are aware that I do not look favorably upon the Democratic Party. I do not believe that the Democratic Party policies and positions are in the best interests of all Americans but are only for the benefit of the various interest groups that support the Democratic Party. I also believe that these policies and positions negatively impact on the Freedoms and Liberties of all Americans. In many cases, the Democratic Party relies on sloganeering and mob passions to achieve their goals. Sloganeering and mob passions that are without intellectual reasoning. When I encounter intellectual reasoning in support of the Democratic Party policies and positions, I take such reasoning seriously, and I apply my own intellectual reasoning to their arguments. I may even, but rarely, modify my own reasoning because of this consideration of their intellectual reasoning. I am also able to determine the flawed “Reasoning” of their arguments.

My new Article, “The Problems of Democracy and Majoritarian Rule”, examines some of this Progressive reasoning and the flaws in their reasoning. It is also an examination of why The Democratic Party is not to be trusted to lead America because they believe in this flawed reasoning.

10/07/20 Responsibility for Elections

Much has been said a written about the issues and concerns about voting. My own Article, “Voting in America”, elaborates on these issues and concerns. The one issue that I did not address in this article is who is responsible for elections. The Constitution clearly states the responsibility for the election of Senators and Representatives, and for the President and Vice-President, as residing in the State Legislatures. My new Article, “Voting Responsibilities” examines their responsibilities to assure free and fair elections in America.

10/06/20 Who Needs the Electoral College?

The answer is that we all do, as I have written about in my Article, “The Electoral College”. This is because the Electoral College is a guarantor of our Freedoms and Liberties and a protector of our Union as a Nation of States. Rather than rehash this article I would direct you to a National Affairs article "In Defense of the Electoral College" by noted historian and Professor Allen Guelzo. As he notes in the beginning of his article:

“There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College. And when a presidential election hands the palm to a candidate who comes in second in the popular vote but first in the Electoral College tally, something deep in our democratic viscera balks and asks why.”

This article definitively answers the question of “Why?”. An article well worth your time to review before you reach an opinion on the Electoral College.

It should be remembered that our Founding Fathers thought highly of the Electoral College and were wary of direct democracy, as evidenced by the following quotes:

"Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

"The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."
- Alexander Hamilton

And many of the other Founding Fathers agreed. The Founding Fathers knew from their studies of history that direct democratic governments often collapse upon themselves in a short period of time. The Electoral College was designed to prevent this collapse from occurring in America.

Finally, as I have noted in the conclusion of my article:

If we ever change from an Electoral Vote System to a Popular Vote System,
we will not be the United States of America, but the United Cities of America.

10/05/20 The New Class War

I have posted a new Article, “The New Class War“,  which examines a new book, “The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite” by Michael Lind. This book dovetails with my “The Classes of Society” Article, in that it delineates these classes in a novel manner. This book is well worth your obtaining, reading, and pondering upon, as it provides a different perspective on the delineation and causes of the Classes in America.

It should be noted that Mr. Lind is no conservative as he has decidedly Liberal/Progressive viewpoints. However, these viewpoints do not interfere with the scholarship of this book. He provides the history and the dynamics of this new overclass and explains the beliefs and reasoning of the overclass while unmasking the faulty reasoning of the overclass.

While I tend to agree with his thesis of the overclass and the working-class, and the unmasking of their faulty reasoning, I tend to disagree with his solution to the problem. His solution is not very practicable and ignores several human and political dynamics. My new Article, “The New Class War” is my response to Mr. Lind on his solution and my ideas on how to resolve this class warfare.

10/04/20 Big Business Social Advertising and Financial Support

I have recently noticed an increase in Big Business brand advertising in which they tout their social conscience to make themselves more appealing to the public. Big business is also touting their financial contributions to social causes to make themselves more appealing to the public. But in doing so, they are promoting social causes on which there is much debate. A debate in which they are taking sides and indirectly trying to influence the public on these social issues. A debate in which they are often promoting some of “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”. A debate that should be a political debate and not subject to commercial advertising nor financial contributions from big business.

Big business is not in business to promote social causes, but they are in business to promote their products and services. To do otherwise is to behave immorally, as I have explained in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. Whether they are doing this because they believe in these social causes, or they are attempting to deflect criticism of themselves, as explained in my Chirp of, “06/13/20 Feeding the Crocodile”, both reasons are immoral.

In doing so, they are also inserting themselves into the political process and indirectly supporting candidates and political parties who advocate the social policies that big business is supporting with this brand advertising and financial contributions. This, along with big business actions of “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?“, is an attempt to mold public opinion and influence elections, which is not a proper function of big business. Such advertising and contributions may also be a form of in-kind contributions to political candidates and political parties, which may be illegal under current campaign finance laws and regulations.

Big businesses should constrict themselves to commercial activities, and they should not be allowed to utilize advertising or financial contributions to advocate for political or social positions. If they cannot constrain themselves, it may be necessary to constrain them by law. A legal constraint that is perilous to Freedoms and Liberties, but without such constraints, their social advertising and financial contributions may be perilous to our democracy.

10/03/20 Colleges and Universities Problems

For the last several decades, we have seen many problems associate with a College or University education. Problems such as high costs, impractical education, and indoctrination rather than education lead the list of the issues and concerns of a College or University degree.

Many College or University graduates are obtaining degrees that have no practical value in the marketplace, and as a result, these graduates are unable to find employment in their chosen field, or they are underemployed or unemployed. The debt that they incur to obtain these impractical degrees, the difficulty of repaying student loans, and the financial and emotional burden of their parents in supporting them in their underemployment or unemployment, is crushing to both the graduate and their parents.

Colleges and Universities need to do a better job of advising students on the practicability and future employment opportunities of their degrees. If you follow your heart in obtaining a College or University degree, then you may tread the path of less opportunity and less productive employment. A college student should consider minoring in their heart and majoring in practicability in obtaining their degree.

Colleges and Universities should have less focus on the Liberal Arts such as social management and administration, social services and programs, and political science and journalistic curriculum, as well as other impractical studies. More practical education in Colleges and Universities on the skills needed to become a productive working-class person is required.  In addition, Colleges and Universities need to refocus on educating their students rather than indoctrinating their students, as I have written in my Article, “Indoctrination versus Education”. Additional emphasis on “Reasoning” skills and abilities of Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense needs to be incorporated as a requirement in a College or University education. Tenure for teachers and professors who indoctrinate rather than educate needs to end.

The crushing debt of acquiring a College or University degree needs to be addressed in the present and future. More oversight on the proper spending of tax dollars to fund tuition or other expenses of a College or University degree needs to be addressed. Giving more tax dollars to Colleges and Universities to cover increase expenses, in which some of these expenses may not be unnecessary for educational purposes, feeds the cycle of increased costs and increased taxpayer dollars to cover these expenses. This cycle must be broken, and Colleges and Universities must operate more effectively and efficiently at a reduced cost. They must also operate for the benefit of students and not for the enrichment of the College and University Administrators, Professors, and their Endowments. Endowments should be utilized for the purposes of education rather than for investment funds, which many Colleges and Universities seem wont to do.

Until Colleges and Universities address high costs, impractical education, and indoctrination rather than education issues and concerns, we will continue to have Colleges and Universities Problems.

10/02/20 One Size Fits All

With the rise of Federal government in the 20th century and the corresponding diminution of State and Local governments' powers, duties, and responsibilities, there has been an increase of one size fits all in Federal laws, rules, and regulations. It cannot be otherwise as it would result in unequal treatment of the States and local governments. An unequal treatment that would be unconstitutional and cause disharmony between the Federal and the State and local governments. Disharmony that would result if one State or Local government thought that it was receiving less Federal benefits than another State or Local government. It would also lead to a much larger federal bureaucracy to administer federal laws, rules, and regulations that differ in different State and Local governments. To believe that a Federal bureaucracy could resolve these differences is to believe in the tooth fairy.

It also leads to the problems of the different issues and concerns between and within the States and Local governments; for example, the people of California, Kansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut have different circumstances and different issues and concerns from each other. They are also different in their political persuasions and opinions on how to resolve their issues and concerns. Yet, expansive Federalism would require that they all be treated alike, and there is only one way, the Federal way, to resolve these issues and concerns.

There is also the issue of the separation of powers between the Federal, State, and Local governments as I have Chirped on “09/16/20 Popular Sovereignty and States Rights”.

One size fits all is also antithetical to the principles of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were cognizant of these differences and created a government that would allow for different solutions in different places. It is also antithetical to the “Limited and Enumerated Powers” of the Federal government if the Federal government imposes solutions that infringe on the separation of powers, duties, and responsibilities between the Federal, State and Local governments.

Therefore, it is important that we cease and desist in creating one size fits all federal laws, rules, and regulations. It is also important that we constrict the Federal government to its Enumerated Powers and allow the State and Local governments to resolve these other issues and concerns, as the States and Local governments are where they properly belong.

10/01/20 Rush to Judgment and Rush to Solutions

In today’s society, we seem to always be Rushing to Judgment and Rushing to Solutions. No sooner than the glare of the camera and the megaphones of microphones are turned on do we promptly rush to judgment. Judgments that are often not well thought out, and judgments that are just as often wrong. And much of these judgments are based on “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”. There is also a corresponding rush to solutions based on these rushes to judgments. A rush to solutions that does not account for all the issues or concerns, nor all the possible solutions, and often leads to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.

As I have stated in one of my “Principles”:

 “There are three sides to every story: one side, the other side, and the truth.”

It is best to discover the truth before making up your mind. If you do not do so, you are rushing to judgment, a rush that often leads you astray and to a wrong conclusion. As to rushing to solutions as one of my “Truisms” states:

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken

And is I have also stated in one of my “Principles”:

“You cannot implement a wrong social policy the right way. For if it is a wrong social policy it will always fail. While the goals of a social policy may be noble the details of its implementation will determine if the goal can be reached (i.e., “The Devil is in the Details”).”
  - Mark Dawson

Consequently, a Rushing to Judgment and a Rushing to Solutions often violates these Truisms and Principles.

Much of these Rushing to Judgment and Rushing to Solutions is based on Impatience. An impatience that seems to be a characteristic of Americans. We, as a nation, are often in a hurry to accomplish something. A hurry that often leads to unintended results, as it takes time to form a proper judgment and to do something right. One of the biggest lessons of my life is to not start something until I have thought it thru as I have explained in two of my “Pearls of Wisdom” of "Think Before You Respond" and "Think Before You Act".

Therefore, it is important that we not Rush to Judgment and not Rush to Solutions, especially on the important issues and concerns facing America. Let us take the time to carefully consider these issues and concerns before we make a judgment and implement a solution. To do otherwise will cause more disruption in American society and governance.

09/30/20 Presidential Debates

Last night’s Presidential Debate was a mess. A mess on all sides; President Trump’s side, Vice-President Biden’s side, and the moderator Chris Wallace’s side. The interruptions, the talking-over, the utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", and the general immoderation of all parties was unworthy of being called a debate, but more like a verbal brawl. Nobody acquitted themselves well, and all parties to this debate were equally responsible, and no one party bears the brunt for this mess. No one who watched these debates came away better informed, nor would they settle or change their minds on which candidate to support.

The reasons for this are many and varied, but the ultimate reason is the systemic failure of the format of the debates.  The Commission on Presidential Debates is archaic and ill-suited for modern presidential politics. As with all such commissions, they have become self-absorbed and pretentious and, therefore, they have also outlived their usefulness. It is time to end the Commission on Presidential Debates and formulate a better format for Presidential Debates.

The current format for Presidential Debates is not conducive to illumination. Besides the journalistic bias (see my Article on "Modern Journalism"), many of the questions are intended to provoke a visceral reaction.  I would suggest we return to the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Three Presidential and one Vice-Presidential debate would be scheduled. For the Presidential Debates one debate on Foreign Policy, one debate on Domestic Policy, and one debate on any other issues. The Vice-Presidential Debate would be for any issue. Each candidate would prepare six questions they want to ask the other candidate on the debate topic. The first candidate would get two minutes to ask their first question, and the other candidate would then get five minutes to respond to the question, with the questioner then getting three minutes to rebut the answer. The other candidate would then get to ask their first question utilizing the same constrictions. This would go back and forth until all six questions from each candidate would be debated. The moderator would only be responsible for assuring the candidates stay within their time constrictions and do not interrupt the other candidate during their allotted time.

I believe that this format would provide a better forum for each candidate to express themselves and bring out the issues that they believe are important for the American people to understand. The questions the candidate asks would also illuminate the character and integrity of the candidate. The answers and rebuttals would further illuminate the American people and allow them to make a better judgment on the candidates. This also puts the debates into the hands of the candidates - where it belongs.

09/29/20 Comparing Apples to Oranges

Analogies abound, statistics and studies thrive, and expert opinions are perfuse in our political and social issues differences. Most of these are done not for the illumination of a topic but for the purposes to obtain a political goal.

False analogies abound as they are often based on an improper comparison. Although they sound good, when you examine their premises and reasoning, they are often based on false premises and improper “Reasoning”. Improper reasoning can be critiqued and dealt with; however, false premises are more difficult to expose and clarify. You should remember that just because a premise is popularly accepted does not make it true and that your feelings about the premise do not give credence to the premise. Only rational reasoning can verify a premise, and even then, a premise may be false due to a lack of knowledge or the uncovering of additional facts that could change or invalidate a premise. It should also be remembered that if you start with a false premise, you will most often end with a false conclusion. When examining an analogy, you should start by examining its premises, as it is a waste of time to critique the reasoning if the premise is false. A false premise, therefore, makes for a false analogy.

The other problem with modern political and social discussion is the lack of time to properly critique an analogy. Most often, the analogy is stated, and the discussion proceeds without the proper deconstruction of the analogy.  This leads to endless and fruitless arguments that do not illuminate the topic nor resolve the issue.

Statistics and Studies are yet other examples of comparing apples to oranges. Often this is a result of using a broad sweep vs. a narrow criterion of the statistics or studies, or a lack of rigorousness of the statistics or study. Studies and statistics often claim to be scientific and rigorous. However, most of them are not as scientific or as rigorous as we may believe. Most studies are based on statistics, and most statistics become studies. But most studies and statistics have issues within them. Issues in statistics of correlation vs. causation, sampling, and confidence level, not to mention risk factors and probabilities, along with a host of other statistical issues as examined in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". Studies are often overly broad, contain invalid premises, and utilize statistics improperly, and therefore they can lead to improper conclusions. Many studies and statistics also contain the "Cognitive Biases" of their authors, which leads them into a false conclusion. When reviewing statistics and studies, you should always be aware that the devil is in the details. Details that, when examined critically, can invalidate the study or statistics.

Studies and statistics are often utilized in political and social discussions and debates to buttress the opinion and arguments of one side, while the studies and statistics of the other side are often ignored. Studies and statistics are often used and abused to justify a political or social point of view. They are, however, often used and abused in all arenas. Therefore, you should be wary of all studies and statistics until you can review them to ascertain their veracity.

Finally, there is the utilization of “Experts” that are apples and oranges, as not all experts are equivalent. Often one expert is pitted against another expert, but the experts are of unequal knowledge, experience, and wisdom or of unequal gravitas (this most often happens in “Modern Journalism” when a journalist interviews two sides of an issue). Also, experts are of different parts of the knowledge spectrum in which may or may not have some overlap with other experts. However, most topics require more than one area of knowledge or expertise that is needed to fully address the topic. Given this problem of overlap and lack of knowledge of areas outside of their expertise, they may not have the full breadth of the knowledge and know-how to fully address a topic. When all of this occurs, it is nearly impossible to ascertain the correctness of their arguments nor reach a considered opinion on the topic. This is not to say that each person cannot express their opinion, but their opinions must be weighed on the balance of knowledge, experience, wisdom and gravitas, and the spectrum of their expertise.

A good example of this is with a history book I have just read. I read some critiques on this history book in which the person(s) critiquing the book compared some of the authors' thoughts with statements by political commentators and activists. This is an apple and orange comparison, as when you are critiquing one academic, you should be utilizing another academic in the same field to critique the author. To not do so is to give unequal weight and authoritativeness to the critics in your critique, which is equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.

When a person makes an analogy, cites statistics and studies, relies upon experts, or assumes false premises without justifying these items, they are making an assertion without evidence, and we should always remember that:

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Christopher Hitchens

Consequently, the utilization of apples and oranges comparisons will often lead you astray. A straying that will lead to false conclusions and, more harmfully to false policies to correct the problems in America. Let us not be led astray but let us utilize rational reasoning to solve the problems in America.

09/28/20 Replacement Article on Rights

I have withdrawn my Human Rights (Dec 2019) and Hierarchy of Rights (Mar 2020) articles, and I have combined them into one new article. This new Article, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights (Sep 2020), examines the foundation of Natural Rights, and how we as Americans have these Natural Rights and how they are protected in our Constitution as Human and Civil Rights in American government and society. This new article is a companion article to my "Constitutional Protection of Rights and Just Laws" Article, as they both deal with the subject of our rights.

09/27/20 Patriotic Education

Patriotic Education is not, and should not be, a ‘Rally 'round the flag’ education. It should be a critique education (a serious examination and judgment of something) that examines both the positives and negatives of history. As I have long been interested in history, especially United States history, and having read many books and articles on U.S. History, I believe that I can bring a dispassionate perspective on U.S. History. I have even written several articles on U.S. History, which can be reviewed at my webpage section, “History Articles”, as well as many “Chirps” that discuss U.S. History. My History Articles, “Condemned to Repeat It”, examines the importance and a perspective on how to approach history, while my Article, “United States History Perspective” provides this perspective on U.S. History.

Sadly, today’s public education on U.S. History does not provide any perspective on U.S. History. Rather than educate their students, they seem more interested in criticizing U.S. History and indoctrinating their students on an anti-American ideology. Most of these educators are not even aware that they are doing this as they themselves have been indoctrinated with this anti-American ideology, as I have written in my Article, “Indoctrination versus Education”. This is a condemnation of College Education in America, as they have seemed to have forgotten the importance of Critical Thinking and Reasoning, as I have written in my Articles “Dialog & Debate” and “Reasoning”, nor do they apply “A Philosophical Approach” when teaching U.S. History.

The most pernicious of these attempts is the New York Times’ 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory, which imposes false narratives on America’s students, and which most historians have condemned as inaccurate and fallacious. And many American school systems are adopting the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory as a basis for their curriculum on U.S. History. To counter this, President Trump has announced the “1776 Commission” to promote patriotic education that will counter this revisionist U.S. History. My only concern about the 1776 Commission is that it not become a ‘Rally 'round the flag’ education but an effort to bring a balanced perspective on U.S. History. If teachers educated, rather than indoctrinated, the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory and the 1776 Commission would not be necessary.

The danger of an improper U.S. History curriculum is to not fully appreciate the uniqueness of U.S. History in the world. A United States history was built on an idea of:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”,

as well as “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” that have been enshrined in our Constitution as:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

We have not always met that ideal, but we strived and continue to strive for that ideal. If we continue to strive for that ideal, and keeping in mind our Human and Constitutional Rights, we can continue to be a beacon of hope and inspiration for:

“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

The current mob actions of rioting, looting, and arson are an indirect result of their participants and supporters not understanding nor appreciating U.S. History. For if they did understand and appreciate U.S. History, they would realize our uniqueness and how America is still the last best hope for the betterment of mankind. They would also understand that the United States has built-in mechanisms that can be utilized to correct the problems in America. If we do not understand and appreciate U.S. History, then we are “Condemned to Repeat It” with all our past faults reinstated. The 1619 Project and Critical race theory, and the crusade against American history, is toxic propaganda and ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together. It will destroy our country.

09/26/20 Sovereign Immunity

In history, the term Sovereign Immunity was used for the right of a King or Prince to do anything they wished as they were the anointed of God, and as such, they were acting on God’s behalf and could do no wrong. Today it is utilized to protect government activities from legal lawsuits. While this protection is not all-encompassing, it is broadly applied. The question is, how broadly should it be applied? Unfortunately, it is often too broadly applied today. The government has the duty and responsibility to protect the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of each person. When it does not do so, then it is a dereliction of duties and responsibilities by the government, and Sovereign Immunity should not apply. The right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness is sacrosanct, and when a government violates these rights, they should not be protected by Sovereign Immunity. To protect the government through the utilization of Sovereign Immunity is to allow the government to do whatever they think is necessary and proper, including infringing on your right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. When the government does not uphold and faithfully execute the laws, they are operating outside the bounds of Sovereign Immunity and should not be protected by Sovereign Immunity. Some current examples in which Sovereign Immunity should not be allowed are:

The current mob actions of rioting, looting, and arson, and the local and State governments inactions to prevent or stop these actions, should allow for those harmed to sue the government for damages. Normally, it would be the mob members that the harmed person would sue. However, by the local or State governments' inaction to prevent or stop these actions, they become complicit in these actions. Complicit as they have a sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and their State Constitutions, as well as faithfully uphold and execute the laws. They should not be allowed to utilize Sovereign Immunity to shield themselves from lawsuits for not upholding their sworn duties and responsibilities, and for the damages resulting from their inactions.

The current Coronavirus Pandemic lockdown orders of State Governors and local Mayors have had severe consequences to the economy of their States and localities. Many people have been harmed economically, and some people have been physically and emotionally harmed by these lockdowns. While many of these lockdown orders may be justified as an emergency response, many of them have been overbroad and overextended so as to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Many of these lockdown orders seem to have no rhyme nor reason to them, and many have no scientific basis, but appear to be the arbitrary exercise of power by the State Governors and local Mayors. The State Governors and local Mayors should not be allowed to utilize Sovereign Immunity to shield themselves from lawsuits for overbroad and overextended lockdown orders.

Today, the bar of Sovereign Immunity is set high for a person to institute a lawsuit against the government, while the bar of Sovereign Immunity is set low for government actions that may infringe upon the rights of its citizens. It is this inequality of the bars that allow for government actions that should not be permissible in a society dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. This is a situation that must be rectified by changing the level of both bars, so they are essentially equivalent. To not do so is to infer the primacy of governmental actions over the primacy of the Natural and Constitutional rights of the people.

If the State Governors and local Mayors were held financially responsible for their actions and inactions, they might become more circumspect in their actions or inactions. Such circumspection that would make them more fully consider the financial impacts of their actions and inactions, and to not infringe on the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens. Many would respond that it is not the State Governors and local Mayors who would bear this financial burden of successful lawsuits, but it would be the taxpayers of these States and localities. While this is true, it provides a reminder to voters that they should vote for candidates that will stand by their oaths to faithfully uphold and execute the laws. To not do so is to invite the State Governors and local Mayors to not only infringe upon your rights but to increase the tax burdens of its citizens for those State Governors and local Mayors who infringe upon your rights.

09/25/20 Constitutional Machinations

With the Impeachment of President Trump, and the current furor of the successor to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bade Ginsberg, the Democrats are up to their usual machinations for the purposes of obtaining or retaining power regardless of Constitutional considerations. Talks of impeaching President Trump and Attorney General Barr, and of the method of successor replacement of Justices and Judges, as well as threats to pack the Supreme Court, are all examples of these machinations. These machinations need to stop as they are harming the integrity of the Constitution and bring disrepute to the Congress of the United States. As such, I would suggest the following Constitutional Amendments to end these machinations:

Article II, Section 4 – On Impeachment of The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The President and Vice President may also be removed from office for failure to perform their duties and responsibilities as explicitly stated in this Constitution. The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States removals shall be initiated by a House of Representatives Article of Impeachment supported by a three-fifths vote of approval by the members of the House of Representatives. All House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment must be submitted to the Senate within ten days of approval for a tribunal of the full Senate to determine if the President, Vice President and any Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office. The removal of a President or Vice President shall be by two-thirds vote of approval by the Senate, or with a three-fifths vote of approval for a Civil Officer, by the full Senate for removal.”

Article II, Section 1 – On the Supreme Court of the United States

“The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court composed of eleven members, one of who will be designated as the Chief Justice of the United States. There shall be ten Appellate Courts for the States and one Appellate Court for the District of Columbia. District Courts will be established as the Congress may from time to time ordain and empower, but a District Court shall be established for the District of Columbia. The President of the United States shall nominate a person to fill Justices and Judges positions within fifteen days that they are created or become vacant. The Senate shall provide advice and consent or non-consent within sixty legislative days of such nomination. The failure of the Senate to provide consent or non-consent within sixty legislative days shall infer the approval of the nominee. At stated Times, all Justices will receive an annual salary and annual pension benefits for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office”

In my Article, “A New U.S. Constitution” I even suggest that we replace Article III of the Constitution on the Judicial Branch with an entirely new Article, which I believe is well worth consideration.  

The passage of the above proposed amendments to the Constitution would put an end to these machinations and settle these questions.

09/24/20 The Madness of the RGB Successor

With the upcoming nomination of the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court we have seen many actions and diatribes to influence the Senate in the performance of its duties to Advise and Consent on a Presidential nomination. Actions and diatribes that are outside the bounds of proper political dissent and harmful to the nation. These actions and diatribes need to cease for us to maintain "A Civil Society" in America.

Threats and Intimidation against a politician, and threats to the safety and security of American people and American cities and neighborhoods, are unacceptable in all cases. They are attacks upon a civil society, and they are also the tactics of bullies. Peaceful assemblies and protests, when done in public areas such as public squares and parks, around public buildings, and in other public places are to be tolerated and even encouraged, as this is a right of all Americans to freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unpeaceful assemblies and protests should never be tolerated as they infringe of the rights of other Americans.

Protest outside politicians’ homes deprive the neighbors of safety and security, and to live in peaceable surroundings, and consequently, are an infringement of the neighbor’s rights. Attacks on persons involved in commercial activities (such as restaurants and shopping grounds) not only are an infringement of a person’s rights but an infringement on the owner’s rights. Threating riots, looting, and arson to achieve a political goal are not only a threat to safety and security, a basic Natural Right, but are also acts of terrorism. To not denounce these acts, and to not put down these acts, are an aiding and abetting of terrorism.

Any politician that succumbs to these intimation tactics nor does not denounce and try to end these actions is not a leader of a free people, but a tool of the mob. A public that accedes to this intimidation is not a public that is dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, but one that is willing to be ruled by the mob.

Packing the Court with addition Justice if the Democrats achieve success in the Presidential, Senate, and House elections of 2020 has also been discussed. But packing the Supreme Court has enormous repercussions, and should not be done lightly and should never be done for political purposes. The Supreme Court needs to be a neutral arbiter on issues of law, and especially Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court should be dedicate to preserving our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, and not to achieving a political or social goal. The Supreme Court should be deciding the issues it faces based on intellectual and legal reasoning and jurisprudence, rather than political considerations. Packing for political purposes destroys any appearance of neutrality and makes the Judicial Branch a political branch. It should also be remembered that if one side that gains control of the Legislative and Executive branch of government can pack the Supreme Court, when the other side that regains control of the Legislative and Executive branch of government can then pack the Supreme Court.

The admission of additional States, in the form of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, with the assumption that they each will send two Democrat Senators to the Senate, has also been raised as a means for the Democrat Party to obtain control of the Senate. If the people of Puerto Rico wish to be admitted as a State than the people of Puerto Rico can petition Congress for admittance. It is not up to Congress to force statehood on Puerto Rico. As to the admittance of the people of the District of Columbia as a State this invokes Constitution issues and concerns. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

“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 the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

Therefore, it may not even be Constitutionally permissible to admit the District of Columbia as a State without a Constitutional Amendment. To admit States for the purposes of political control of the Senate, rather than provide for the people of these proposed States to enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of statehood, is to demean the people of the proposed State as mere pawns in a political battle.

Replacing the Electoral College with a Popular Vote System has also been suggested. As I have written in my Article, “The Electoral College” this is a very bad idea for many reasons, too many reasons to discuss in this Chirp. The main reason being is that it will fracture the United States into metropolitan areas and the other areas, with the other areas receiving far less attention of the Presidential candidates and perhaps leading to a dissolution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers recognized this possibility and designed the Elector College to alleviate this situation. Our Founding Fathers also believe that the Electoral College was the best feature of the Constitution for the protection of personal rights from the tyranny of the majority:



As I concluded in my article on the Electoral College:


The Impeachment of President Trump has also been discussed as a possible course of action. I would be interested in learning how it is possible to impeach a President for performing their duties under the Constitution, as the Constitution requires a President to nominate Justices and Judges when vacancies occur and place no limitations on when these nominations occur. I cannot fathom any basis for impeachment other than an obstructive tactic. An obstructive tactic that cannot succeed as the Senate is capable of confirming a nomination before it addresses any impeachment issue.

There is also talk of obstructing the proceedings of the Senate to delay a vote on the nomination for the RGB successor. Obstruction in politics is as old as politics and is an acceptable tactic if it is done under the rules of the Senate. However, obstruction of a nominee can lead to acrimony that spills over into all actions of the Senate. Our government requires comity to achieve legislative action. Excessive obstruction leads to the loss of comity and can paralyze the functioning of the Senate, which leads to the paralyzation of the Legislative branch of government.

Much of this madness seems to be associated with the issue of abortion, as I have written about in my Articles, “The Abortion Question“ - An examination of the Human Rights of an unborn child, and the issues and concerns regarding abortion, and “The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery“ - An examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War. These madness actions are another good reason that we must reconsider the issue of Abortion in America and reach a definitive policy on abortion.

Threats and Intimidation, Packing the Court, the admission of additional States, replacing the Electoral College, Impeachment of President Trump, and obstructing the proceedings of the Senate, are not the proper means of opposing a nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. None of these actions are acceptable in America. We live in a Democratic-Republic, not subject to the actions of a mob, but subject to the Constitution and Constitutional principles. If we do not maintain the Constitution and these Constitutional principles, then we are doomed as a country to fall into despotism.

09/22/20 Abortion Articles

Abortion is one of the great social issues of our time since the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade of 1973. It is also a question of the fundamental rights of the unborn child. Whether they are Natural or Human Rights that are rights, and they need to be protected rights. I have extracted and edited my Observation on “Social Issues” about Abortion, as this issue has again surfaced as a consequence of the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I have also written a new article that analogizes the debate over abortion to the debate over slavery. These articles are:

• The Abortion Question - An examination of the Human Rights of an unborn child, and the issues and concerns regarding abortion.
• The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery - An examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War.

09/20/20 The Politics of an RBG Successor

As with all things hyperpolitical in today’s society, no sooner than RGB passed away that the questions of the appropriateness of President Trump making a nomination to the Supreme Court to fill her seat has arisen. My Chirp on, “09/19/20 RIP RBG” has answered this question. However, the questions about how to achieve this have also arisen. The usual battle lines have been drawn with the Democrats opposed to a nomination while the Republicans desire a nomination. The political issues regarding this nomination are the focus of this Chirp.

I believe that President Trump should make a nomination and that a counter proposed nomination from candidate Biden should also be made. This would allow for the American electorate to examine the types of Justices that the two candidates would nominate. An issue that the American electorate needs to consider before casting their votes. For those that would counter that this politicizes the Supreme Court, I would respond that this politicization has already occurred, as can be demonstrated in the last few nominations to the Supreme Court and Appellate Judges. I would also argue that this politicization is a result of the outsized role of the Supreme Court in our society that has been occurring for more than half a century in America. The shifting of responsibility for deciding questions of laws, rules, and regulations, and social policy to the Judiciary has resulted in the politicization of the unelected and undemocratic Judiciary when it properly belongs to the Legislative and Executive branches of government subject to the will of the people through elections.

I, however, do not believe that the Senate should vote on President Trump’s nominee until after the election. This would allow the Senate to ascertain the will of the people regarding this issue. This would also allow the American electorate to focus on the Senate candidates to ascertain their positions on Supreme Court nominations, an important consideration when voting for a Senate candidate. Those Senate candidates that do not express their opinions on these nominations are hiding their intentions for political gain, rather than expressing what they think is the proper role of the Judiciary in America.

By placing this issue before the American electorate, the Senate can proceed on the vote for the nominee with the sense of the American electorate. The American people also need to decide on the proper role of the Judiciary in America as we go forward. By placing this issue before the American electorate, the American people can have a voice of how we wish to define the role of the Judiciary in America. This is how it should be in a democratic republic form of government that is America.

09/19/20 RIP RBG

Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) had a long and illustrious career in the law. More importantly, she was a loving wife, mother, and grandmother to her family. It is for this that we should all mournful upon her death, as our familial relations should be the most important aspect of our lives. In this, I extend my sincere condolences to her family.

As to her law career, it is a shining example of what can be achieved by all Americans when they apply themselves. From humble beginnings, sexual discrimination, and possible anti-Semitism, she rose to the pinnacle of her profession. She was a tireless fighter for equality between the sexes and her interpretation of the United States Constitution. While I disagree with her interpretation of the United States Constitution, I agreed with her that the sexes should have an equal opportunity to succeed in their chosen goals and that anti-Semitism should never be tolerated.

With her death, the question of the appropriateness of President Trump making a nomination to the Supreme Court to fill her seat has arisen. In a National Review article, "History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020," By Dan McLaughlin, written before the death of RBG, Mr. McLaughlin examines the historical record of Presidential Supreme Court nominations and Senate confirmations in an election year. Those that wish to commentate upon this history need to review this article to ascertain the historical facts as he has written:

“History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.”
- Dan McLaughlin

As to those that would commentate on the laws and norms of Presidential Supreme Court nominations, I would again direct you to Mr. McLaughlin article:

“There are two types of rules in Washington: laws that allocate power, and norms that reflect how power has traditionally, historically been used. Laws that allocate power are paramount, and particularly dangerous to violate, but there is no such law at issue here. A president can always make a nomination for a Supreme Court vacancy, no matter how late in his term or how many times he has been turned down; the only thing in his way is the Senate.”
- Dan McLaughlin

and

“Norms are crucially important. If parties cannot trust that the other side will abide by established norms of conduct, politics devolves rapidly into a blood sport that quickly loses the capacity to resolve disagreements peaceably within the system. Those norms are derived from tradition and history. So let’s look at the history.”
- Dan McLaughlin

In his article, Mr. McLaughlin looks at the history of Presidential Supreme Court nominations and Senate confirmations in an election year and concludes the historical record supports President Trump making a Supreme Court nomination and the Senate to consider such a nomination. To do otherwise is to ignore the Constitution and the traditional norms, with the result as stated in his conclusion:

“Republicans should not discard the rule of law or traditional norms to achieve their ends, but a Ginsburg vacancy, if one happens, would require Republicans only to act within the law and in accord with tradition. Woe to their future if they shrink from that.”
- Dan McLaughlin

09/18/20 Bribery

The rise of Federal government authority over State and Local governments Rights has been accomplished in large part by the bribery of State and Local governments by the Federal government. This bribery is in the form of the Federal government providing grants or loans to or the direction on how to spend federal funds to State and Local governments. This bribery is also an infringement of State and Local governments' rights as I have Chirped on, “09/16/20 Popular Sovereignty and States Rights”.

For the Federal government to provide this funding means that they are collecting excess taxes from all Americans that are not needed to support the duties and responsibilities of the Federal government. If the State and Local governments are responsible for spending these tax monies, then it is the duty and responsibility of the State and Local Governments and not the Federal government's duties and responsibilities. This concept is known as ‘Federalism’, or the separation of duties and responsibilities between the Federal, State, and Local government. And Federalism is enshrined in the United States Constitution. By directing how State and Local governments spend these monies, they have blurred the lines of Federalism. They have also placed the State and Local governments under the direction of Federal bureaucrats unresponsive to the will of the people as expressed by elections within the State or Local governments. Federal bureaucrats that are only responsive to the will of Congress and the President of the United States, and bureaucrats that are sometimes only responsive to their own desires and predilections.

There is also the issue of shifting the tax burden from the taxpayers of one state to support State and Local government spending in another State. This is a form of ‘Taxation without Representation’, as the taxpayers of a State whose tax payments are being spent in another State or Local government do not get to vote for the politicians of the State or Local government who are spending their taxes. Many claim that this representation is indirect by the voting of Congressional members who represent the taxpayer’s interests of their State when allocating their tax monies to another State or Local government. This rational reminded me of our history in pre-Revolutionary America when the colonists were claiming that Parliament was taxing them without their being represented in Parliament. Parliament responded that they were being represented by the members of Parliament from the counties from which they immigrated. Therefore, they had an indirect representation in Parliament. However, this reasoning was not acceptable to the colonists, as a representation without being able to vote for the members of Parliament is illusionary, as the member of Parliament felt no need to be responsive to these non-voters. This lack of representation in Parliament was one of the driving reasons for the American Revolution, and the current reasoning of indirect Congressional members representation should also not be acceptable.

As to those who would respond that the Federal monies are needed by State and Local governments to provide essential services for their constituents, I would respond that if the Federal government stopped spending and collecting taxes on non-enumerated powers and non-essential services, there would be more money in the taxpayers’ pocket. More money that the State and Local governments could tax to provide these essential services to their citizens. There would also be more control by the citizens on how these tax monies are spent within their State and Local governments. This is how Federalism is supposed to work.

As a result of this Federal bribery of the State and Local Governments, the people are more subservient to Federal politicians and Federal bureaucrats, and not to the will of the people as expressed through the elections of State and Local government officials. This is not a democracy but an oligarchy.

09/17/20 Civil Rights

Civil Rights are those Laws passed by Congress and signed by the President that are necessary to protect our Human and Constitutional Rights. All such civil rights need to be passed and implemented within the framework of the Constitution. This means that the Congress of the United States would pass a law, and then be signed by the President of the United States, before being implemented. This also means that the judiciary cannot create a civil right. The judiciary should be limited to reviewing the civil rights laws, to assure they do not conflict with our constitutional and/or human rights. As such, Civil Rights sit at the bottom of the hierarchy of our Rights of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, as I have written in my Article, “A Hierarchy of Rights”.

Many of these Civil Rights laws are for the protection of non-discrimination based on race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, political affiliation, or other protected status. However, a Civil Right cannot be created that is not a Human or Constitutional Right, for to do so is to extend the Constitution beyond its bounds. An extension that infringes upon the prerogative of the self-governance of the people and the States as stated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and as I have Chirped on, “09/16/20 Popular Sovereignty and States Rights”.

Unfortunately, today many people and politicians are making claims of Civil Rights to pass legislation that is beyond our Human and Constitutional Rights. They often do this by claiming a Human Right that has not pre-existed or acknowledged and may even be fallacious, and which is often done for the advancement of their political agendas. They do this by utilizing the techniques of “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” and “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” to justify these Civil Rights laws. They often cloak these laws with noble and lofty phrases, but such noble and lofty phrases often cloak the infringement of other people’s actual Human and Constitutional Rights, for a fallacious Civil Right often requires the limitation of the actual Human and Constitutional Rights of the people and the States. And you cannot infringe upon one person’s Human and Constitutional Rights without infringing upon all peoples Human and Constitutional Rights.

Therefore, we all need to be careful when a politician or activist makes claims of a Civil Right. We need to be careful to ascertain if it is indeed an actual Civil Right or merely a cloak to achieve a political goal. The means needed to achieve these civil rights are a good indication of the actuality of the Civil Rights, as the implementation of a Civil Rights that requires the violation of another’s Human or Constitutional Rights than it is not an actual Civil Rights.

09/16/20 Popular Sovereignty and States Rights

Popular Sovereignty and States Rights are terms from American history that have a negative connotation, and deservedly so. They were terms that were used to trample the Human and Constitutional rights of many Americans, most especially black slaves. These terms were also utilized for the justification of slavery in America through the Civil War, and until the 13th amendment to the Constitution put an end to slavery in America. These terms continued to be utilized after the Civil War for the purposes of discrimination and Jim Crow laws in American. Whenever Human or Constitutional Rights are violated, it is morally reprehensible and should not be tolerated under the law. Therefore, the terms of Popular Sovereignty and States Rights when utilized to trample the Human and Constitutional rights of Americans is morally reprehensible, and they should not be allowed under the law.

Consequently, these terms have become defined as negatives. However, there is a positive connotation of these terms. A positive connotation that when they are utilized not for discriminatory purposes but for the purposes of governance in America. These terms, when utilized positively, are defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

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.

States Rights are defined as those powers not delegated to the Federal government reside within the State and Local government. Popular Sovereignty is the right of the States and Local governments to govern as they see fit within their jurisdictions, according to the will of the people within their jurisdiction. The caveat is that the State government, the Local government, and the people may not exercise any powers that infringe on the Human and Constitutional rights of any persons within their jurisdiction. When such infringement does not occur, then these terms have a positive connotation.

When Popular Sovereignty and States Rights are utilized positively, they represent the concepts of democracy. They represent the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. As such, it is important that we utilize these terms positively to express the rule of the people and the division of duties and responsibilities between the Federal, State, and Local governments. To not do so is to acquiesce to the authoritativeness of the Federal government in all aspects of the governance of society.

09/15/20 Not Welcome Here

Some State Governors and local Mayors have expressed that President Trump is not welcome within their jurisdictions. They justify these statements on the basis that President Trump is a disrupter and instigator of public unrest. However, this is belayed by the fact that those people involved in the mob actions of rioting, looting, and arson are not President Trump supporters, but are anarchists that oppose President Trump and his supporters. To insist that those persons involved in these rioting, looting, and arson should be brought to justice and that safety and security be restored is not to be a disrupter or instigator of public unrest.

To advocate that a politician is unwelcome is to try to restrict the freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, of the politician and their supporters. It is an attempt to control the flow of information to the electorate and an attempt to stifle the enthusiasm for a candidate, which is an oblique way to suppress the voting for a candidate. This is undemocratic and contrary to the principles of American democracy of free and fair elections in which all Americans can express their opinions.

Those that are unwelcoming of a politician cloak themselves in moral righteousness and intellectual superiority, and that their policy positions are so morally right and intellectually superior that they need not consider any other policy positions. Indeed, they believe that any other policy position should not even be expressed in the public arena and that the American people are incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. Those that reserve the determination of moral rightness or intellectual superiority to themselves or like-minded persons are themselves immoral, as they are intolerant of any moral convictions, intelligent reasoning, or policy positions that are contrary to their own.

And those politicians who put out the unwelcome mat are revealing that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

For the next few weeks, I will be departing from my usual policy of keeping my Chirps pithy. I do so because I will be discussing the issues of the 2020 Presidential campaign, Issues that cannot be discussed pithily. These issues need more elaboration so that the American electorate can make intelligent and wise decisions about whom they wish to elect, and the future course for America.

09/13/20 Final Thoughts on the Elections of 2020

With the advent of early voting in the 2020 elections, I am ending my lengthy Chirps on election issues. I believe that all Americans should carefully consider these issues before they cast their votes. My Chirps on these issues are:

• 09/12/20 A Blue America and A Red America
• 09/11/20 International Relations
• 09/10/20 Do Not Bring the Reasons with You
• 09/09/20 Everything the Left Touches
• 09/08/20 The Biggest Falsehoods in America
• 09/06/20 Political Demeanor
• 09/05/20 Judgeships
• 09/04/20 Taxes
• 09/03/20 Local Control vs. Federal Regulation
• 09/02/20 Tis the Season – Of the Blame Game
• 09/01/20 The Assault on Our Constitutional Rights
• 08/31/20 Insurrection
• 08/27/20 Article on Voting in America
• 08/24/20 The Misuse and Abuse of Science, Statistics, and Studies by Politicians
• 08/21/20 Bringing Us Together
• 08/20/20 Journalism in the 2020 Presidential Election
• 08/19/20 Article on The Real Issues of the 2020 Election:
• The Coronavirus Pandemic Response
• The Economic Recovery
• Safety and Security
  
• The Role of Government
• Mental Fitness

It is time to choose, and choose wisely, on those candidates that that espouse the future direction of America that the voter would like to see. I hope that these Chirps will give you food for thought and provide guidance as to whom to vote for in the 2020 elections.

09/12/20 A Blue America and A Red America

Throughout history, human societies have been structured into two classes; the ruling class and the bureaucrats who support them and a lower class that provides the labor to build the society. It is only in the last three centuries that a new class has arisen: The Middle-Class. A Middle-Class brought forth by Tradesmen and Industrialization, advances in Science and Technology, and the Political Enlightenment. This has resulted in a society that has three classes: An Upper-Class, a Middle-Class, and the Lower-Class, as I have written about in my new Article, “The Classes of Society”.

As I have mentioned in my article, in the past few decades, the Upper-Class and Lower Class have politically aligned to form a Ruling/Bureaucratic and Lower-Class that controls political power in America. This is exhibited by the wealthiest and poorest counties in the United States that have been solidly voting for Democrats, while the Middle-Class counties have been swing-voting between the Democrats and Republicans depending upon the issues. This is a trend that has been increasing in recent times, and a trend that ultimately pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans, leading to more divisiveness in America. Pleas to ‘bring us together’ are often based on one side or the other acquiescing to the policy positions of the other side, rather than finding common ground which most can agree too. This common ground also does not resolve the issue of the role of government in society, a resolution that is necessary to formulated social policy in America.

Today, however, with the rise of President Trump’s Middle-Class populists Republican Party we may be witnessing another realignment of the political orientation of the Classes of American Society. A Democrat Party of the Upper-Class and Lower-Class that wish to retain their wealth and powers while providing the basic needs of the lower class, versus a new Republican Party of the lower Upper-Class, upper Lower-Class, and expanded support of the Middle-Class. A new Republican Party based upon persons that wish to create self-sufficiency and opportunity for all persons who desire to make something for themselves, versus a Democrat Party that relies on the dependency of the Lower-Class on government for their basic needs.

Much of the differences between the two parties are also due to an interpretation of the Constitution, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. This interpretation is not of a Republican Party or a Democratic Party Constitution, but a Republic or a Democratic political theory of the Constitution. This interpretation leads to two different roles of government under the Constitution. Different roles of government that is exemplified by Federal vs. State/Local powers, a large government vs. a small government, an intrusive government vs. a noninterference government, expansive social policies vs. limited social policies, maximal taxation vs. minimal taxation, and majority rule vs. minorities rights. Although most Americans are not cognizant of these different interpretations, they are basing their policy positions and voting on the different governmental roles of these two interpretations.  We are a country in which many are desirous of a Democratic Constitution, while many others are desirous of a Republican Constitution. We have also seen a Democrat Party that wishes to rule, and a Republican Party that wishes to lead, as I have outlined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders", which is also a result of the two different Constitutional interpretations.

Rarely does governmental social policies directly impact the Democrat Upper-Class, as they can hire lawyers and accountants to evade the laws or regulations, or they have special interest carve-outs in the laws or regulations. They also often live in areas that are not directly impacted by the laws or regulations, as I have Chirped on, “07/10/20 Distance Makes the Heart Grow Progressive”. This has resulted in the geographical separation of the Ruling/Bureaucratic and Lower-Class, while the Middle-Class and Lower- Class live in proximity to each other. This can also be seen when reviewing voting patterns based on geography. The urban areas (mostly Lower-Class) tend to vote Democratic, the Rural areas (mostly Middle-Class) tend to vote Republican and the suburban areas (both Upper and Middle Class) that swing vote between the Democrats and Republicans depending upon the issues.

This can also be seen by the term “Flyover Country”, as most of the Upper-Class and Lower-Class lives on the west coast and northeastern coastal areas, with a few Upper-Class and Lower-Class metropolitan areas in-between these coastal areas. As such, we are becoming a nation of city-states rather than local, State, and Federal governments. Throughout history, we have seen that such city-states often devolve into armed conflict between the city-states and their rural citizens and armed conflict between the city-states. Today, we do not have armed conflict, but we do have political combat between and amongst city-states, combat that the Electoral College was created to alleviate, as I have written in my article “The Electoral College”.

Consequently, we are becoming a nation of a Blue America and a Red America. A Blue America which is dependent on government and desirous of more government and a Red America that wants self-sufficiency and less government. A Bule America of the Ruling/Bureaucratic and Lower-Class, and a Red America of the new alignment of the lower Upper-Class, upper Lower-Class, and expanded support of the Middle-Class. A country in which Blue America is desirous of a Democratic Constitution, while Red America wants a Republican Constitution. A Blue America of the Democrat Party policies, and a Red America of the new Republican Party policies. A Blue America and Red America that is a house divided as we were once divided over the issue of slavery. A division on slavery that was only settled by a Civil War. Let us hope that it will not take another Civil War to resolve the differences between a Blue America and a Red America.

Alas, as the differences between of a Blue America and a Red America are mutually exclusive, and often intractable, we may need something on the order of a Civil War to resolve these differences. Let us hope that these differences do not devolve into armed conflict. The current mob actions of rioting, looting, and arson are a preview of what may become of American society, especially if there are counter mob actions against the current mob actions. Let us hope that this does not occur and that safety and security will be restored so that we nay resolve our differences peaceably. Something that the Blue American politicians seem loath to do.

The upcoming 2020 elections may be a turning point in American History, as I have written in the section of “Turning Point – The Present” of my “United States History Perspective” Article. The American electorate needs to be cognizant of this turning point and vote wisely on the future course of America. Let us remember to vote to assure that the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” prevail in America. The American electorate should also remember that you cannot have both a Blue and a Red America, as trying to have it both ways has led us to where we are today in America. An America of A Blue America and A Red America.

09/11/20 International Relations

Under President Trump, for the first time in decades, America has not entered into any armed conflicts. President Trump has also renegotiated several large trade deals, while insisting that our trading partners live up to their other existing deals. He has also insisted that other treaties of alliance be fulfilled and enforced. All of this was done under the Rubicon of placing American’s interests first. In doing so, he has upset the previous accepted rationale of international relationships. Free Trade, which was often unfair trade through currency manipulation and/or state supported and funded businesses, was changed or curtailed to be fairer for all Americans. President Trump is also seeking for America to become less dependent on foreign imports that are essential to our self-sufficiency. America also rejected the concept of leading from behind and started leading from the forefront. Our military was strengthened and became more respected and protective of America’s interests.

This, of course, has upset and put a strain on many of our relationships with other nations, as well as the vested interests in America of those who profit from these relationships. However, President Trump and many others have justified their actions as for the betterment of all Americans. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but we have seen a growth in industries in America that were once stagnant under the old agreements. We have also seen a new respect, or perhaps trepidation, for America’s leadership on the world stage.

With the Coronavirus Pandemic we have also seen a reevaluation of our relationship with China. Our relationship with Russia has also changed because of the sanctions placed upon them by President Trump. Our becoming self-sufficient in energy production has also change the tenor of our relationships with other nations, most notably in the Middle East. And hostile nations and terrorist groups were put on notice that America would no longer tolerate their actions and seek to destroy or kill those organizations and persons involved in these acts of terrorism.

Despite fierce opposition President Trump has begun to control illegal immigration as Americans have begun to realize that illegal immigration can bring with it crime, drugs, disease, and negative economic impacts on Lower-Class Americans. This illegal immigration has also brought about increased governmental spending on social services and other essential government services, as I have Chirped on, “07/17/20 Essential and Non-Essential Spending”. This increase of governmental services has a corresponding increase of taxes to pay for these governmental services. We have also begun to see the impact of excessive Visas and the overstaying of these Visas for the purposes of temporarily business, for tourism, or for a combination of both purposes. We have also seen how other nations, most notably China, have been utilizing Visas to illegally obtain trade secrets, science and technology theft, and sometimes election meddling or espionage. The pernicious influence on our Colleges and Universities of educational Visas has also been illuminated.

In all these actions by President Trump he has altered the previous decades thoughts and opinions about international relationships. And all of this was accomplished with the chagrin and opposition by those persons, organizations, and businesses that profited by the previous arrangements. The question for Americans is if they wish to continue this course of international relations or return to the previous ways of international relations? A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a continuation for this new course, while a vote for Joe Biden is a return to the previous course of international relations.

09/10/20 Do Not Bring the Reasons with You

In the last decade, we have seen the increased fleeing of people in American cities to the suburbs. Whether they leave for crime, taxes, property values, schooling, economic, or other reasons, the people who can afford to move to the suburbs are moving in greater numbers. It is not only people who are moving to the suburbs, but many businesses are also moving to the suburbs. Those that remain are from the lower-class citizens that cannot afford to move and are more likely to be harmed by unemployment because of businesses fleeing. Such fleeing harms the cities, as they have a decreased tax base, and they require more social service for those that remain. It is also placing a strain on suburban governmental services, as an increase in population means an increase in spending on these governmental services. Increased governmental services that require increased taxes to support these services. This cycle is destructive to both the cities and suburbs.

The other problem that the suburbs face is that an influx of population begets an influx of voters. These new voters often do not consider the political reasons for their moving. Voters that will often continue to vote for governmental services and policies that led them to move from the cities. They, therefore, are importing into the suburbs the same problems that caused them to flee the cities. The same problems that will arise in the suburbs if they continue to vote for the same services and policies that caused them to flee the cities. The question is, where will they flee to when these problems inflict the suburbs?

It is important for these new voters to examine their voting, as not to import these problems into the suburbs. An examination that rarely occurs as they reflexive vote for the politicians that espouse the same solutions to these problems that they unsuccessfully implemented in the cities. The biggest examination that is required is of the policy problems that I have written about in my Article on, “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms”, and is often a result of my Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems” illuminates. They should also consider “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” and reevaluate their positions on these topics.

These new voters need to make wiser votes and reject the unwise policies that they fled from. They should also remember that:

“You cannot implement a wrong social policy the right way. For if it is a wrong social policy it will always fail. While the goals of a social policy may be noble the details of its implementation will determine if the goal can be reached (i.e., the devil is in the details).”
  - Mark Dawson

Therefore, let us all not implement the wrong social policies throughout America, while these new suburban voters need to consider the political reasons for their leaving the cities and vote accordingly.

09/09/20 Everything the Left Touches

The history of the Left is to be a destroyer and not a builder. As Dennis Prager wrote more than two years ago in a column, "Whatever the Left Touches It Ruins." He listed eight examples:

• The universities.
• The arts: music, art, and architecture.
• 
  
• Mainstream Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.
• Race relations.
• Women's happiness.
• Children's innocence.
• And, perhaps most disturbingly, America's commitment to free speech.

He has now added the sciences to this list in his new column, “Everything the Left Touches It Ruins. Now Add Science” with good reasoning. I would encourage you to read these columns and examine his reasoning. Today, Science is being perverted by Progressives and Leftists to support their policy agendas rather than discovering scientific truths. And politicians are using this perversion to advance their political agenda as I have Chirped on, “08/24/20 The Misuse and Abuse of Science, Statistics, and Studies by Politicians”.

Whenever the Leftists gains control of a society, it destroys society, and in its place, it implements some form of Socialism. A socialism that begets failed economies, political repressions, mass deaths, and numerous violations of Human Rights. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has drifted to the left, and its policy positions are under the influence of the Leftists in the party. Many of the Democrat Party positions have a decidedly Leftists, and therefore Socialist, orientation. Although they cloak these policy positions in lofty words, slogans, and phrases, along with protestations of social goods, they are policies that are socialistic. This happens because to implement these policy positions requires government control of the actions of people and government control over the economy, which is socialistic.

We need for the Left to stop touching things, and where they have touched things, we need to fix them. The start of this fixing is to remove the Democrat Party from positions of power. The Democrat Party needs to reformulate itself and adopt policy positions that advance “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” rather than for some. We then need to address the pernicious influence of leftism in our society, as Dennis Prager has written. If we do not do so, I fear for the ruination of our country.

I shall end this Chirp with what I have written in the Introduction of my Article, “Socialism (democratic or otherwise) is Serfdom”, as this is the biggest touching that the left wishes to implement:

Democratic Socialism, wealth redistribution, income inequality, tax the rich, occupy Wall Street, free education, free healthcare, etc. is all the same principle – Socialism or "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." To implement these items requires that you take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). And it is accomplished through Government intervention (coercion through threats of fines and/or imprisonment). The government decides what and how much to take, and what and how much to give. This is not the same as taxes, as taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. Therefore, with Socialism, the government is the master of all the citizens, and the citizens are the serfs of the government.

The Socialism model requires that all decisions being made would be, directly or indirectly, made collectively and be applied equally to all members of the society. This would require that a government decide (either through direct democracy or indirect representative democracy) what is best for its citizens (and we all know how good bureaucrats are at deciding what’s best for us), as well as central planning by the government on economic decisions (which has never worked throughout history).

Socialism is immoral as it requires that the will of the majority be imposed upon the minority. If the socialist majority decides that abortion, or alcohol consumption, or drug and marijuana usage, or gambling, or vegetarianism, etc. is wrong and not to be allowed, then those that disagree must acquiesce and accept their decision. There is no freedom or liberty to choose what you believe is right. This freedom to choose is essential to our human rights. As such, Socialism is a violation of human rights.

Socialism is also contrary to human nature. Mankind, as well as all other animal life, is competitive. Animals and we humans compete for food, shelter, and mates, as well as for other reasons. We also compete to improve our and our family’s lot in life. Socialism requires that we repress this competitiveness and act in the best interests of all. Human nature is that part of our psyche that is a result of millions of years of evolution. It is a basic part of all humans. We must all acknowledge our human nature and account for it in our dealings with others, as well as in the creation and administration of social policy. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure. And failure is what is inevitable if you do not account for human nature. Socialism denies or disparages, and sometimes thinks it can eliminate the competitive instinct of human nature. For someone to deny human nature, or not acknowledge human nature, is foolish, and you should not pay attention to fools.

It is also true that Socialism never works in the long run. There is simply not enough earned by those that work and toil to support those that do not work and toil. It stifles the incentive to work and toil and encourages non-work and non-toil. The incentive to invent, innovate, and expand a business decreases as the government takes more of the fruits of your sweat and toil. The economy will stagnate, falter, then collapse the longer Socialism is in-place. This is readily apparent in Europe in the last half of the 20th century, and the first part of the 21st century, as many European nations economies are faltering and collapsing due to the weight of Socialism. The end results of Socialism can be seen in South and Central America as economies have collapsed, and the citizens are impoverished and destitute (Venezuela is an excellent example of the end result of Socialism).

Socialism can also lead to evil. Often, Socialism requires the forceful imposition of its policies. A force that can be injurious and/or deadly. If you oppose socialist policies, or in a minority group within Socialism, you will be repressed, fined, and perhaps imprisoned for your acts or speech of your conscience. One need only look at the history of the 20th century to confirm this. Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Imperial Japan had Socialism as the basis of their economic policies, as explained in my article “Nazism & Fascism”. The history of these ideologies, which were based on Socialism, is mass deaths and murders, starvation, communicable diseases, imprisonment, economic deprivation, and suppression of human rights, the very definition of evil.

Therefore, to implement Socialism also requires that the government restrict the freedoms and liberties of its citizens, as well as violate the human rights of its peoples. So, when you hear someone advocating any form of Socialism, it is to advocate the serfdom of its people, and this should always be resisted and in all places.

09/08/20 The Biggest Falsehoods in America

As I have posted in my Article on “The Biggest Falsehoods in American” I examine the issues that I believe are misrepresented, misreported, and misunderstood in America. If we cannot dispassionately discuss these falsehoods utilizing “Reasoning” in our election cycle that we cannot make informed decisions about the solutions to the problems in America, nor can we elect leaders that will make wise decisions on these problems. In alphabetical order, these biggest falsehoods are:

• Abortion is a Woman’s Choice
• Alcohol & Drug Addiction is a Disease
• Climate Change will Destroy the Earth
• Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Government Can Solve Social Problems
• Gun Control Will Reduce Gun Violence
• Marijuana Usage is Mostly Harmless
• Racism is Prevalent
• Sexual Harassment is Prevalent
• Socialism is Acceptable
• The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

These falsehoods are often accepted as truths of America, especially by the Progressives and Leftists in America. They are taken as givens and espoused by Progressives Commentators, “Mainstream Media”, and “Mainstream Cultural Media”. They are taught and indoctrinated in schools, Colleges, and Universities, and they are even utilized in commercial advertising on television. Big Tech – Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Instagram (a division of Facebook), Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (a division of Google), also utilize these falsehoods as a basis for filtering, tagging, and removing content as “untruthful”, if these falsehoods are challenged on their platforms. People can experience “Cancel Culture” if they do not agree or speak out against these falsehoods. Recently we have seen indoctrination of some of these falsehoods in the workplace and government agencies under the guise of combating an “Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchy Society”. These falsehoods are often buttressed by the use and misuse of statistics, as I have written in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Most insidious is that the Democrat Party has accepted these falsehoods as truths and base their entire policy positions on these falsehoods. This bespeaks of an America that is a dark and gloomy place that needs a “fundamental transformation” to achieve the American Ideals, as I have written in my Article, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Their policy positions are to achieve equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities as I have Chirped on, “07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome”. Such policy positions exacerbate the divisiveness within America, as it pits one group against another group of Americans.

The belief in these falsehoods leads to a distorted viewpoint on American society and American history. To solve the issues that these problems allude too requires that we understand the true nature of these problems. Unfortunately, because of the misinformation on these problems, this is not possible. Politicians and activists are more interested in scoring political points and garnering votes, along with other motivations that interfere with our understanding. Let us all begin to understand the true nature of these problems so that we can work together on solving the real issues of these problems. And let us not succumb to the political rhetoric about these Biggest Falsehoods in America.

09/06/20 Political Demeanor

Many do not like the demeanor of President Trump, and I do not particularly care for the demeanor of President Trump. Many Trump-defecting persons say that their decision to switch alliances stem from the President's combative nature, his crude, often insensitive remarks, and his inability to emote empathy. Much of this lack of empathy is in his public conduct, but his personal interactions, as testified by many, are one of concern and compassion for others.

The President's narcissistic, impulsive nature continues to disturb me, too, but seeing our nation plummet into a socialistic, crime-ridden, economically stagnant society that would come about from leftist-tilting Biden and Harris, who appear unwilling or incapable of stopping it, concerns me much more. Much of the criticisms pf President Trump’s nature may also be of the critics projecting their own nature upon President Trump. Carefully reviewing the commentary and opinions of President Trump’s critics reveals that the critics have a narcissistic view in that they believe that they are always correct, and they often impulsively say whatever they think counters President Trump regardless of facts and without references to past statements by President Trump’s opponents.

President Trump’s apparent narcissistic, impulsive nature may simply be showmanship for the purposes of political messaging. A political messaging that is required to overcome “Modern Journalism”, as Modern Journalism tilts the election in favor of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party as I have Chirped on, “08/20/20 Journalism in the 2020 Presidential Election”. A tilting that requires that Republican politicians not only campaign against their Democrat opponents but also to campaign against the reporting and commentary of modern journalism. A tilting in which President Trump believes that in order to overcome he must be combative and confrontational in his dealings with the press. He also believes that the only way to break through this tilting to reach the American public with his message is to be bellicose with the press and the Democrats.

But the demeanor of most "Democrat Party Leaders" is also offensive, although it is often masked in smooth talking. Their tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" has resulted in the “Divisiveness in America”, and they often compare President Trump to many of the evil leaders and rulers of history. These Democrat Party Leaders often decry President Trump’s demeanor and call for it to end, but they themselves seem uninterested in abating their own political demeanor. Their calls for President Trump to cease his demeanor, along without abating their own political demeanor and the nefarious impacts of Modern Journalism, would result in a decidedly one-sided advantage against President Trump.

If you are concerned by Presidents Trumps demeanor you should be just as concerned by the Democrat Party leader’s demeanor. The question is then are you more concerned about the demeanor of Donald Trump or the direction of America that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would take us? I, for one, am much more concerned about the future direction of America than the demeanor of the candidates. If we can right our course, we can than work on improving our demeanor. But until the course is righted the demeanor will continue.

09/05/20 Judgeships

As I have written in my Article, “Judges, Not Lords”, In modern United States history, the U.S. Supreme Court has played a larger role in society than it traditionally has. Many have looked to the courts to achieve social change, which I believe is injurious to the Constitutional separation of powers. The Supreme Court decisions start with District Court and Appellate Court rulings. As such, the appointment and confirmation of District and Appellate Court Judges, and Supreme Court Justices, have taken greater importance, and many times resulted in quarrelsome and divisiveness within our government.

But this is what occurs when Judges and Justices become involved in questions that should be left to legislators. Judges and Justices should only be involved in determining the facts and four-corners of the Law, and the constitutional rights of the defendants and litigants. The Four Corners of a Law is a legal doctrine that courts use to determine the meaning of a law as represented solely by its textual content. The doctrine states that where there is an ambiguity of terms, the Court must rely on the written instrument solely and cannot consider extraneous evidence. Judges need to remain within the Four Corners of the Law and the Constitution, and only rule on the words and meaning of the Law and the Constitution. If a law is ambiguous or open to misinterpretation or has constitutional implications, they need to narrowly interpret the law and the Constitution or refer the law back to the legislators for improvements or corrections. If they broadly interpret a law or the Constitution, then they stray into areas for which they bear no responsibility nor authority. The misuse of “Stare Decisis” is no excuse for allowing the continuation of a bad law or Constitution interpretation, and they need to correct these problems of a bad law or Constitutional interpretation when they are encountered. They need to leave policy differences, or social changes, to the prerogative of Congress and the Executive branches where it rightfully belongs. To do otherwise is for the Judge to become a legislator, which makes them ‘Lords, Not Judges’.

This is why the appointment and confirmation of Judges and Justice are important, and why it is important to elect a President who nominates and elect Senators who confirm these appointments. It also tells you much about the inclinations of Presidential and Senatorial candidates as to the role of the Judiciary in America. A role that you should be concerned about as it impacts our society in many different ways. This is also an issue of “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”, as each interpretation leads to different types of judging.

It is for this reason that I was pleased by Presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016 releasing a list of potential Supreme Court Justices that he would nominate. This list provided a sense of where Donald Trump stood on the issues of Judgeships in America. This is also the reason that I am displeased with Joe Biden not releasing a list of potential Supreme Court Justices that he would nominate. His failure to do so indicates that he does not want to provide the American people with a sense of where he stands on Judgeships in America.

The lack of Joe Biden releasing a list of potential Justices, and of Senators and Senatorial candidates not commenting on this lack, is also an indication of how impactful Judges and Justices are on American society. Impactful enough that most politicians do not wish for the voters to know where they stand on the issue of Judgeships, as it may change their vote if they had this knowledge. But if the voters knew where they stood by which type of judges they supported, they could make better judgments for whom to elect to nominate and confirm nominations for Judges and Justices.

As to those who would respond that it is improper to question a judicial nominee on a judicial issue, I would agree with them. However, a list of potential Justices is not a questioning of those Judges, but a complement of the quality of their judging. However, it is not improper to question them on their judicial philosophy as to the role of judging when they are nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice or to question any nominee for any judgeship on their judicial philosophy. Questions of their judicial philosophy that sees a judge or justice as one who should only be involved in determining the facts and four-corners of the Law, and the constitutional rights of the defendants and litigants, or one who can broadly interpret the law and the Constitution to achieve a (perceived) social good are proper. For one type of judicial philosophy leads to a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government, while the other judicial philosophy leads to the supremacy of the Judicial Branch over the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

09/04/20 Taxes

Taxes have both a direct and indirect impact on our lives. A direct impact on your wages and salaries, and an indirect impact on the costs of goods and services that you purchase. Federal Income taxes, Federal Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes, as well as State Income and sales taxes, and local (especially Real Estate and School) taxes, along with a myriad of other taxes, directly impact your earnings. Tax increases on businesses that indirectly impact your earnings, as businesses will often increase their prices to compensate for an increase in taxes, taxes that you then indirectly pay. Taxes also impact the overall economy as well, as more or less taxing can slow down or speed up the economy.

Therefore, taxes and tax policies are always an issue in elections. While many Republicans advocate for fewer taxes, many Democrats advocate for more taxes.  As I have written in my Article, “Tax the Rich and Make Them Pay Their Fair Share”, it is not possible to “Tax the Rich” to pay for the policies of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Taxes on all persons must be raised to fund these policies, and these tax increases will not be modest as these policies are not modest.

At least Joe Biden is honest when he says that he is going to raise your taxes. He has to raise your taxes to be able to pay for the policies he is advocating. He has to raise everybody’s taxes to pay for these policies, as there are not enough rich persons or corporate wealth to cover the costs of these policies. Not only will you have less money in your pocket after paying these taxes, but businesses will have to charge more for their goods and service to pay these taxes. Which, of course, means that everything will be more expensive, which reduces the earning power of your wages and salaries.

While many Urban voters are in the lower income tax brackets (or no income tax bracket), they are indirectly impacted by the tax policies of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Larger taxes generally mean a slower economy, which impacts employment, especially employment of the lower class. It also impacts their spending, as they have to pay more for goods and services, which raise their prices to cover these tax increases.

Suburban voters better start paying attention, because the Biden-Harris ticket and the Democratic Party platform that’s been rolled out will hit them like a ton of bricks if they win in November, as a column by Steve Levy “DNC platform should wake up Trump-wary suburbanites – here are 7 reasons why“ has written. In this column, he highlights the following tax impacts of Joe Biden’s and the Democrat Party policy position:

1. Get ready to pay more Taxes
2. Doubling capital gains taxes
3. Estate taxes
4. Raising business taxes
5. Ending the Business Income deduction
6. Overruling Local Zoning
7. Violent Crimes Coming Your Way

Rural voters are impacted in the same manner as both the Urban and Suburban voters are impacted, and many times these impacts are greater in rural areas. Without a broad-based economy such as urban and suburban areas afford, a rural area can be devastated if one sector of their economy is negatively impacted by increased taxes.

The other question of increased taxes is what is the maximum percentage of your income that should be collected in taxes is? The more you pay in taxes, the more you are working for the government, and the less you are working for yourself and your family. In the Middle Ages, one third to one half or more of the labor of a serf went directly to the King or Prince that they lived under. Today, if you combine the local, State, and Federal taxes that you pay, we see this same percentage of taxes collected. As such, have we have become serfs to the government? The question is, then what is the proper percent of taxes to be paid to support the government? The more government services and benefits offered by the government requires a larger percentage of taxes to be paid. Conversely, fewer government services and benefits require less of a percent of taxes to be paid. This is an issue of “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution” as which Constitutional interpretation you favor drives how much taxes you need to collect.

As I have also written in my Article, “Tax the Rich and Make Them Pay Their Fair Share”, the progressive income tax structure is a concern on the percentage of taxes that you pay. A large percentage of Americans pay little or no taxes on their income. When you pay little or no taxes, then any discussion of increasing taxes has little or no direct impact on your life. As such, a large percentage of the American electorate has little or no direct concern on increased taxes, but, perversely, has an interest in increasing taxes on others to support increased benefits for themselves. This split has the effect of pitting one group of Americans (those who pay little or no taxes) against another group of Americans (those that pay taxes). It has the consequence of robbing Peter (those who pay taxes) to pay Paul (those who pay little or no taxes). A split that has a direct impact on elections in America, and a split that divides the Democrat and Republican parties.

Over the last several decades, we have seen the Democrat Party drift to becoming the party of the interests of people who pay little or no taxes, and of the wealthy people who are negligibly impacted by tax increases. Conversely, the Republican Party has become the party of the interests of taxpayers who are directly and negatively impacted by tax increases. We have also seen the Democrat Party try to obscure this divide, while the Republican Party has tried to highlight this divide.

As a result of this divide, the question for the American electorate is, do we want to elect leaders that would impose more taxes (Democrats) or fewer taxes (Republicans) upon the American people? The answer to that question has a direct impact on the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, as more taxes constrict or Freedoms and Liberties, while fewer taxes expand our Freedoms and Liberties. It is also a question, as Abraham Lincoln stated:

"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
- Abraham Lincoln, in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Today, it is not Kings or Slaveholders, but the government that takes the fruit of our labors in taxes and gives it in benefits to those who have not earned it. It is the same tyrannical principle. As to those who would respond that this is being done under the ‘General Welfare’ clause of the Constitution, I would remind them that the General Welfare clause is under the “Limited and Enumerated Powers” of the Constitution. And I can find no Limited and Enumerated power of the Federal Government to take the labor of one person and give it to another person.

09/03/20 Local Control vs. Federal Regulation

The Trump administration recently rescinded the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulations of the Obama administration. They were the first significant regulations since the Fair Housing Act of 1968 requiring federal agencies, particularly HUD, as well as states, counties, and cities to institute non-discriminatory housing policies if they receive HUD funds.

The AFFH not only banned discrimination, but it also required meaningful local governmental actions to undo what the Federal government determined were decades of federal, state, and local discriminatory policies and practices that resulted in segregated communities. As with all Federal regulation “The Devil is in the Details”, and the AFFH has many devils. As Stanley Kurtz has written in his National Review article, “Attention America’s Suburbs: You Have Just Been Annexed”:

“The plan has three elements: 1) Inhibit suburban growth, and when possible encourage suburban re-migration to cities. This can be achieved, for example, through regional growth boundaries (as in Portland), or by relative neglect of highway-building and repair in favor of public transportation. 2) Force the urban poor into the suburbs through the imposition of low-income housing quotas. 3) Institute “regional tax-base sharing,” where a state forces upper-middle-class suburbs to transfer tax revenue to nearby cities and less-well-off inner-ring suburbs (as in Minneapolis/St. Paul).”

The ramifications of implementing AFFH are widespread. Local taxes would have to be raised to build low-income housing, school taxes would have to be raised to pay for the influx of school age children, taxes would have to be raised to pay for increased governmental services such as firefighting, policing, code enforcement /zoning, and public works. All these tax increases would be necessary due to the inflow of new low-income residents.

More insidious is the impacts on the quality of life on the residents. Most people moved to the suburbs to escape the problems of the cities. With AFFH you would bring the problems of the cities to the suburbs. Those that could afford to move from the AFFH suburbs to other locales would do so, while those who remained would see their property values decrease.

Most insidious is that it would negate local control of local government from the residents of the local government. A regional agency would be formed to administer the AFFH regulations, which would not be directly elected by the people, nor responsive to the will of the people. A regional authority that would be formed which would be only responsive to the Federal bureaucrats who administer AFFH.

The AFFH is an assault on our democratic-republic form of governance. A democratic-republic form of governance based on local, State, and Federal authorities with limited duties and responsibilities, that are responsive to the will of the voters of these authorities.

Thankfully, President Trump has rescinded the AFFH. However, Joe Biden has promised to reinstitute the AFFH and extend the AFFH powers. Therefore, all voters should consider the AFFH implications when the cast their votes. A vote for Joe Biden is an approval and institution of AFFH, while a vote for Donald Trump is a rejection of AFFH.

09/02/20 Tis the Season – Of the Blame Game

With the 2020 Presidential elections now in full swing, we have seriously entered into the season of the blame game. A season of improper “Dialog & Debate”, the misuse of “Statistics” and “Public Polling”, and the espousing of “Lies and Beliefs”. A season in which we shall have more “Divisiveness in America”, and the extensive utilization of the tactics of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" of political opponents. A season in which each side blames the others for the problems in America and each side credits themselves for that which is good in America.

Although both Democrats and Republicans engage in these tactics, the Democrats voice are more effective as they have a louder voice for these tactics as a result of “Modern Journalism”, and as I have Chirped on, “08/20/20 Journalism in the 2020 Presidential Election”. The Democrats often utilize lofty words and phrases and often state noble goals, but they like to obscure their actual policy positions as they know that “The Devil is in the Details”, and many of their details are highly controversial.

Also, the Democrats often espouse “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” to advance their political agenda and fail to account for the lessons of history, as I have outlined in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”. They also like to proclaim that they will bring Americans together, as I have Chirped on, “08/21/20 Bringing Us Together”. Their claims of togetherness, noble goals, and words and phrases that do not match their tactics nor match their deeds.

Some of the blame is properly placed, most especially in the current mob actions of rioting, looting, assaults, and arson in many cities. It is the Democrat leaders in these cities and States that are allowing and sometimes encouraging these actions. Mob actions that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the citizens of these States, and it is the local and State Democrat leaders who are responsible for the inactions. It is also true that the Democrat Leadership at all levels of government, Federal, State, and local, have not roundly condemned these actions and called for them to cease. These mob actions are assaults on the Constitutional Rights of the people caught in them. They they need to cease and be roundly condemned by all politicians and leaders who have sworn an Oath of Office to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States, as I have stated in my Chip of, “08/31/20 Insurrection”. Indeed, in the 2020 Democrat National Convention, these mob actions were not even addressed.

If you listened to Democrats at their 2020 Presidential Convention, you would think that America is a dark and gloomy place, filled with systemic racism, police misconduct, injustice, patriarchal hierarchies, Coronavirus dread, economic calamity, oppressions, and inequalities. They paint a dystopian picture of America, with the only salvation being the election of Democrats. It is no wonder that they appeared angry and depressed, as everybody should be angry and depresses in a dystopia. While some small part of these ills may be true, it is mostly true in those places in America that have been under Democrat Party control for decades. This is in large part as a result as my Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems” illuminates, and as a consequence of my Article on, “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms”.

If you listened to Republicans at their 2020 Presidential Convention, you would think that America is nothing but a land of hope and opportunity. America is a land of opportunity, but it does have its problems. However, the problems of America can be addressed through peaceful actions by its citizens and its leaders. America is still the best hope of humanity, and America is still the best place to achieve “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. America is also a work in progress, as we have not also met our ideals, but we are constantly striving to meet these ideals.

The Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of not embracing these ideals, but this is mainly a clash of interpretation of “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution” by the two parties. As I have outlined in this article, there are two different interpretations of the Constitution. A difference that leads to different roles of governance in America. Different roles of government that is exemplified by Federal vs. State powers, a large government vs. a small government, an intrusive government vs. a noninterference government, expansive social policies vs. limited social policies, maximal taxation vs. minimal taxation, and majority rule vs. minorities rights.

But such a clash may be helpful to America in resolving our differences, if it is done in a respectful manner and with a rational debate as I have outlined in my Articles, “Dialog & Debate” and “Reasoning”. However, this has not been the case in the last several decades, as each side has drawn battle lines and will cede nothing to the other side. But in the case of the larger issues regarding the role of government and the preservation of our Human and Constitutional rights these battle lines are important to be delineated for Americans to decide the future course of America. Much as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War delineated the issues of governance and slavery (as I have written in my Articles, “The Meaning of the American Revolution” and “The Meaning of the American Civil War”), we need to delineate and choose whether we want “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution” that clearly defines the role of government in society. Until one side triumphs over the other side, we can expect the battle to continue. As for the smaller issues, we can hope that some comprise can be achieved, but I do not have much hope as the resolution to this clash determines how we will govern and what policy positions to implement.

Legislation is advanced not for the purpose of solving America’s’ problems but for political advantage and political gamesmanship. Arguments for or against this legislation are based on feelings rather than thinking. Feelings that can, and often, lead you astray and could be harmful to American society. The costs and benefits of such legislation, nor the “The Law of Unintended Consequences” is considered when advancing this legislation. The increased deficits and national debt incurred because of this legislation do not seem to factor into the debates. An increase in the deficit and debt that shifts the cost of spending to future generations of Americans. Laws, rules, and regulations are promulgated by career politicians or career bureaucrats, and they are often based on political factors rather than what is best for America, nor what is economically practicable. Special interest groups have more sway over the formation of these laws, rules, and regulations then the interests of the common person.

While the Republican Party has special interest groups, their strategy to obtain votes and gain political power is not based on the tactics of pitting one group against another group, nor for the benefit of one group over another group. They support interest groups when they believe that the interest group agenda fits within their governing philosophy. However, The Democratic Party’s entire strategy and tactics is to pit one group against another, promising one benefit or another for each group, or special treatments for one group over another. Their promises that are difficult and expensive to achieve, as well as having serious consequences on American society.

My hope is also fading because I have noticed that the Democrats are taking a reflexive approach and polarizing tactics in their battles with President Trump and the Republicans. No tactics are out of bounds with the Democrats. Tactics of the personal destruction of anyone who supports or works for President Trump, a bogus Russian Collusion Investigation and ludicrous Impeachment proceedings, blaming President Trump for the deaths in the Coronavirus Pandemic, and now placing the blame for the mob actions upon President Trump and the Republicans. The Democrats have also forgotten or ignored the importance of "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings", and they will ruin or destroy any person or any entity who may oppose them in order to achieve their goals.

The Democrat leaders have also exhibited a propensity to rule rather than lead, as I have outlined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They have also demonstrated a reflex that whatever is wrong with America is President Trump’s fault, as, according to Democrats, he is always wrong, mostly bad, and sometimes evil. I am reminded of the song in the movie ‘Horse Feathers’, “I'm Against It“, with Groucho Marx as WAGSTAFF.

[WAGSTAFF]
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it
No matter what it is or who commenced it
I'm against it
Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood:
Whatever it is, I'm against it
And even when you've changed it or condensed it
I'm against it
I'm opposed to it
On general principles, I'm opposed to it
[STUDENTS]
He's opposed to it
In fact, indeed, he's opposed to it
[WAGSTAFF]
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night till morn
"Whatever it is, I'm against it."
And I've been yelling since I first commenced it
I'm against it

The Democratic Party has become the party of ‘I'm against it’, with ‘it’ being President Trump. They are a party running on the tactics of opposition to everything that President Trump is in favor of, and a party that does not espouse their policies, but instead runs on lofty words and platitudes that bear little relationship to reality. Indeed, they try to mask their policy positions from the American electorate, as their policies are often anathema to the public when they become known. An against it and masking that that does not forebode well for America if they are elected. And their entire 2020 election campaign seems to be of the blame game.

09/01/20 The Assault on Our Constitutional Rights

Along with the mob actions as stated in my Chip of, “08/31/20 Insurrection”, in today’s society, we are also seeing an assault on our Constitutional rights, an assault the likes of which we have not seen since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. An infringement on the Bill of Rights, I have written about in my Article “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”, and my Chirps of, “07/25/20 The Free Exercise of Our Rights” and “07/15/20 Ministry of Truth”. We have also forgotten the true meaning of these rights, as I have also expounded upon in my articles of:

• “The Meaning of the 1st and 2nd Amendments”
• “The Meaning of the 3rd through 8th Amendments”
• “The Meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments”
• “The Meaning of the 13th through 15th Amendments”

We Americans treasure our rights and often invoke them, especially those rights incorporated into the Bill of Rights and the 13th through 15th Amendments to the Constitution. However, what good are rights if you cannot exercise them? And by ‘cannot exercise them, I mean the fear of exercising them. The free exercise of our rights requires freedom from fear of intimidation and harm in exercising our rights for these rights to exist. Not only the freedom of fear of governmental actions, but the freedom of fear from individuals, groups, and entities actions.

This is often done by utilizing "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" to smear a person, and the “Cancel Culture” utilized to ruin a person. The fears of such actions that effectively prohibit the free exercise of our free speech rights, as I discussed in my Chirp of “07/25/20 The Free Exercise of Our Rights”. I have also written on this topic in the subsection “The Right of Free Speech” of my aforementioned History Article, “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”.

Your right to free speech is also being limited by Big Tech – Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Instagram (a division of Facebook), Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (a division of Google) – a limitation which has moved into overdrive in their Standards and Practices divisions as I have outlined in my Chirp, “08/07/20 Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?”. This overdrive is a result of the 2020 Presidential election and is directed at anyone who would disagree with their political viewpoint, a viewpoint that has a decidedly progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party oriented. Their suppression of contrary viewpoints has serious consequences on our society.

Peaceable assembly is no longer peaceable, as demonstrated by the current mob actions of rioting, looting, assaults, and arson in many cities. These mob actions are an assault on our Constitutional rights as I have aforementioned in my Chirp of “08/31/20 Insurrection”.

Religious Freedom is also under assault, for if you practice your religious freedom outside of your home or place of worship, you can be condemned or limited, and indeed you are subject to “Cancel Culture” if you exercise your right to Religious Freedom. Religion is not only what you practice in your home or place of worship, but in how you conduct your everyday life. Religious conduct that many want to limit or constrict. All under the guise of ‘tolerance’, a tolerance that they do not wish to extend to persons that exercise their Religious Freedoms in their everyday life, as I have written in the subsection “The Right to Practice Religion” of my aforementioned History Article, “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”.

Your right to keep and bear arms has been under assault for several decades. An assault led by calls of commonsense gun control, limitations on the purchase of types of firearms and accouterments, and regulations on the purchase of firearms and ammunition. An assault as I have written in the subsection “The Right to Bear Arms” of my aforementioned History Article, “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”. As we do not regulate or restrict our Freedom of Speech, why should we be able to restrict or regulate our Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The restrictions and regulations on both of these rights that are antithetical to the purpose and intent of the Constitution.

As to the other Constitutional Rights that I mentioned in the first paragraph of this Chirp, I would direct you to the aforementioned hyperlinked articles on these topics.

All of these assaults are a result of “Modern American Fascism”. Modern Fascism does not want to be confused or confronted by the facts. They only want what they want without any questioning as to the human rights impacts or wisdom of doing what they want. Unpleasant facts and truths that contravene their beliefs are to be ignored or obfuscated away. Double talk, smoke and mirrors, illogic, or unreason are to be utilized by modern Fascism in achieving their goals. They often accuse those that oppose them as being Nazis or Fascists due to the evil connotations of these labels, without the modern fascists understanding the true meaning of these labels.

I am reminded of the "Forrest Gump' movie line "Stupid is as stupid does".  Therefore "Fascism is as fascism does". Because Fascism has such a bad reputation and connotation in today’s society, Modern Fascism does not recognize that they are fascists. Instead, they have given themselves a new name – “Modern Progressives” or “Leftists”.  But make no mistake, Modern Progressives and Leftists are Modern Fascists, because Modern Progressives and Leftists do as Fascism does.

These Assaults on Our Constitutional Rights need to cease, and roundly condemned by all freedom-loving Americans. They also need to be vigorously opposed by all politicians and leaders in our local, State, and Federal government. If these politicians and leaders cannot do so, they are unfit to lead a people dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. If they cannot meet their duty and responsibility to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States, they need to be removed from office.

08/31/20 Insurrection

The current mob actions of rioting, looting, assaults, and arson in many cities are well passed the limits of a peaceable assembly to protest injustices in America. They have become insurrections against the legal and lawful authority of the State and local governments, and indeed, are directed at the legal and lawful authority of the Federal government. They no longer wish to correct injustices but to overthrow our republican government. And they must stop, and Law and Order restored, and the Constitutional rights of all the citizens are protected. The question is how to best end these mob actions within the Constitution and the Laws of the Land.

The “Insurrection Act of 1807”, is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335; amended 2006, 2007) that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

The Insurrection Act provides a "statutory exception" to the “Posse Comitatus Act” of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States. Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. The Insurrection Act has been invoked twenty-two times throughout United States history.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as explained in my Article “The Meaning to the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution”, was intended to assure the Constitutional rights of the citizens within a State. With the mob actions that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the citizens of these States, the mob actions, and the inaction of the local and State governments, are violating the 14th Amendment, as well as other parts of the Constitution.

Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

In addition, Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Under the Constitution, all levels of government have a duty and responsibility to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States. They also have the duty and responsibility to assure “the equal protection of the laws” for all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. As the mob does not have a Republican Form of Government, their actions are a form of succession or rebellion from the United States, and the people within the mobs' sphere of actions are not equally protected under the law, the actions of the mob are Unconstitutional. The words and deeds, and the inactions of the Mayors and the Governors where mob actions are occurring demonstrate their lack of fealty to the Constitution and, therefore, require a response from the Federal government. This lack of fealty to the Constitution should also be the basis for the removal from office of the Mayor and Governor under Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Therefore, all levels of government have the duty and responsibility under Article IV Section 4 of the Constitutional to end the actions of the mob forthwith, and to remove such persons from office who did not meet their duty and responsibility to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States under Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The mob, if peaceable, can pressure Legislators to make, amend, or rescind laws that it thinks are needed to assure justice in America. They can also challenge laws in a Court of Law if they think that such laws are unconstitutional. This is the republican way of effecting change in America. Rioting, looting, assaults, and arson by a mob are unacceptable means of effecting change in America.

It is well past time for the President of the United States to invoke the Insurrection Act and enforce the 14th Amendment protections of the Constitutional rights of the citizens within a State. To not do so is to fuel the insurrection and endanger our republican form of government.

08/30/20 Common Sense

Throughout my Chirps and Articles, I have mentioned applying common sense, but common sense can lead you astray. What most people mean by “Common Sense” is common knowledge and sensible responses. But common knowledge may not be so common amongst many people, or sensible responses may differ among reasonable people. I have excepted my “Common Sense” subsection from my “Life” Article for your review and consideration.

08/29/20 Let Them Boycott

No one is saying athletes should not have social consciences or forums to express their political views. But the game is not such a forum, not if they expect people to attend or tune in. An excellent article, “Let Them Boycott!” By Andrew C. McCarthy on August 29, 2020 examines this issue. I would encourage all to read this article, especially professional athletes.

08/28/20 My History Questions

To discover a person’s knowledge of American History, I often as them a question that is illuminative of their knowledge. I ask them what the history, purpose, and reasoning of the 3/5 clause and the skirting of the issue of slavery in the creation of the U.S. Constitution? If they give me a satisfactory explanation, I then ask them why the extinction of slavery did not occur as they expected? I will finally ask them why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves?

Most people do not have a good answer to these questions, as they are unknowledgeable about American history. Many Progressives, and most Leftist, give an answer that is bereft of historical knowledge and is often irrational. Their explanation often reeks of Political Correctness rather that knowledgeable intellectual reasoning.

For the answer to these questions I would direct you to my Article, “Slavery in the United States Constitution”.

08/27/20 Voting in America

Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me,
Other times I can barely see.
Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
- From the Grateful Dead – Truckin'

And what a long, strange trip it’s been regarding voting rights in the United States. From “Free white landholders with a religious affiliation” to “One Person, One Vote”, it has been a tortuous journey full of twists and turns, and sometimes backsliding, to reach where we are today. The litany of voting rights abuses, of disenfranchisement, and of voter suppression and intimidation, “We the People of the United States”, have been through it all regarding voting rights. We have become much better with regard to voting in America, but there is always room for improvement. My new Article, “Voting in America” examines these problems. The topics that I cover are:

• Protecting Your Right to Vote
• Protecting the Integrity of the Vote
• Proper Maintenance of Voter Rolls
• Suppression of the Vote
• Voter Identification
• Election Day Voter Registration
• Voting by Mail
• Early Voting
• Internet Voting
• Poll Watching vs. Poll Intimidation
• Voting Age

This is a rather long article, but as the problems are many, varied, and intricate, it is necessarily long.

As to the charge that the Postal system is being manipulated to influence the election, there is no veracity to these charges that the Trump administration is trying to ‘rig’ the vote via the Postal system. It is yet another conspiracy theory propagated by Democratic Party leaders to smear the Trump administration, and perhaps laying the groundwork for charges of an unfair election if the Democrats lose the election. No matter how the election turns out, the losing side will utilize the charges of voter fraud by mail-in votes to delegitimize the winning side. A delegitimization that will further exacerbate the divisiveness in America.

08/24/20 The Misuse and Abuse of Science, Statistics, and Studies by Politicians

My early childhood love of Science Fiction led to my adult love of Science and Technology. I satisfied my love of technology by “My Varied Computer Career”, and my love of science was satisfied with my extensive readings and viewership of scientific documentaries. (most of which were on the Physical Sciences and its history). Much of the knowledge that I have gained I have written about in the “Science Articles” section of this website. I am a firm believer that science is the best way of explaining the physical properties and physical laws of the universe, which contributes to the advancement of humanity. Being knowledgeable about Science, I am also keenly aware of the problems and issues of utilizing science. Not only the problems and issues within science but with the problems and issues of utilizing science for public policy. Many of the problems and issues within science I have explained in my Article, "Scientific Consensus and Settled Science", as well as other of my Science articles. Many of the issues of utilizing science for public policy are because of the politicians and general public’s misunderstanding of the meaning of scientific consensus and settled science, which I have also illuminated in this article. It is to the issues and problems of Science in Public Policy that I write this Chirp. First, however, a brief recap of my “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science” article.

In science, it should be remembered that nothing is settled. A scientific theory is simply the best explanation that fits all the known facts based on observations and experiments. New facts from observations and experiments, or discrepancies in older facts, or unexplained phenomena in a scientific theory leads to a reevaluation of the theory. Until new knowledge is obtained, that is in variance with a Scientific Theory; the theory can be considered scientifically settled, but subject to modification or replacement as warranted by the discovery of new facts.

However, a consensus in Science is only an indication of a majority opinion, an opinion that can be as wrong as it could be right. And scientific consensus can lead you astray, as it has been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong as new facts are obtained, or new scientific hypotheses are proposed. Therefore, never interpret a scientific consensus as something that is scientifically settled. Always be wary of anyone, including scientists, who claim the authority of Scientific Consensus or that something is Scientifically Settled, as they are most probably wrong. Only when all the observations and experiments have confirmed a scientific hypothesis is it elevated to a Scientific Theory. A Scientific Theory that you can believe is scientifically settled, but always be wary as a new observation or experiment that may overturn settled science.

As to Statistics and Studies, they can be and are often done improperly. They are also often misinterpreted or misused as I have written in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". Knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing studies or statistics is crucial to discovering the truth. Studies and Statistics can show anything. For every study or statistics that show something, there is another's study or statistics that show the opposite. This is because every study or statistics has an inherent bias of the person or persons conducting the study or statistics or the person or organization that commissioned the study or statistics. A very good person conducting the study or statistics recognizes their biases and compensates for them, to ensure that the study or statistics is as accurate as possible. Having been the recipient of many studies (and the author of a few), I can attest to this fact. Therefore, you should be very wary when a person says, "Studies Show" or “Statistics Show”. You should always carefully look into the study or statistics to determine who the authors are, who commissioned the study or statistics and examine the study or statistics for any inherent biases.

When a politician makes a claim of “Scientific Consensus” or “Settled Science”, it is readily apparent to anyone who knows Science, and the issues of consensus or settled science, that the politician has no idea of what they are saying. This no idea of what they are saying by politicians, unfortunately, applies to technological issues as well.  It is all pre-canned quips, slogans, or pithy sayings when they speak, and it is usually done for the purposes of grandstanding. Their questioning of scientific witnesses in committee hearings also reveals a lack of understanding of Science and Technology by politicians. Also, when a politician utilizes ‘Studies’ or ‘Statistics’, you be assured that they have gotten it wrong, and it is usually done for the purposes of advancing their political agenda. As the vast majority of people have little understanding of statistics, or the ability to understand statistics, we can be certain that statistics will be misinterpreted or misused. Also, most people have no understanding of the methodology or  “Reasoning” utilized within ‘Studies’, which impacts their veracity. Therefore, the saying “Studies Show” or “Statistics Show” is almost meaningless unless you examine the content of the study or statistics with a knowledgeable and critical eye.

Joe Biden, and the "Democrat Party Leaders", often claim that they are the party of science. They often make utterances of listening to the ‘Science’ or ‘Scientists’, and they make claims of ‘Scientific Consensus’ or ‘Settled Science’ in defending their policy positions. Yet, they do not listen too nor pay heed to any science that contradicts their policy positions. Often, they do not even acknowledge the existence of any science that contradicts their policy positions. Consequently, they are only the party of the science that supports their policy positions. When the Democrats dismiss Republicans as anti-science for listening to other scientific voices, the Democrats are being anti-science in their dismissal.

This is especially pernicious when Joe Biden, and the Democrat Party Leaders, speak about the Coronavirus Pandemic. They often make scientific claims without attribution to the scientists, and I have yet to see or hear of any press conference in which they stand on stage with these scientists to explain and take questioning on their positions in regards to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Without doing so, the American public has no basis for judging the veracity of their scientific claims. President Trump, on the other hand, has had many press conferences with scientists and doctors on stage to explain his and their scientific positions on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Science cannot stand alone or supreme in the creation of public policy. For scientific answers often have impacts on the economic, sociological, psychological, physiological, and political lives of Americans. Impacts that need to be analyzed when considering the answers of science. A costs and benefits analysis that combines science, economic, sociological, psychological, physiological, and political impacts need to be done before any public policy is implemented. To not do so is foolhardy and could lead to calamitous public policy.

Therefore, the American public needs to take with a grain of salt the claims of ‘Science’ or ‘Scientists’, and ‘Scientific Consensus’, or ‘Settled Science” by politicians. Indeed, they should discount the politicians' claims without scientific attribution or the questioning of the scientists. To not do so leads to bad public policy, which may be harmful to America and the American people.

08/23/20 UAPs and UFOs

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), a.k.a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) are in the news. And much of the reporting is CRAP (Completely Ridiculous Alien Piffle), as Michael Shermer explains in his Scientific American article. In my Article, “Science vs. Science-Fiction”, I explain some of the difficulties of interstellar space travel, and why the Science in Science-Fiction is often not possible. In my article, I point out that ‘The Immensity of Space and Time’, the ‘Energy’ required to do so, and ‘That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen’ make the problems of traveling between the stars a daunting task. A task in which no alien civilization would undertake unless there were great benefits derived from undertaking this task.

The explanations of UAPs needs to be undertaken for scientific purpose, not for the purpose of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) as many would wish for. In my Article, “Intelligent Life in the Universe”, I point out the many issues in regard to this subject. The current reevaluation of UAPs by the Federal government does not seem to address these issues, but instead only focuses on Earthbound sightings of UAPs. Yet, these issues need to be addressed to provide a foundation for understanding the possible scientific explanations of UAPs. Therefore, let us cut out the CRAP and focus on the scientific explanations of UAPs.

08/21/20 Bringing Us Together

Joe Biden accepted the Democratic Party's nomination to be their candidate for President of the United States, stating that: "It's time for us -- for We the People -- to come together." As I have written upon on my Chirp of “07/24/20 Bring Us Together”, the only togetherness that Joe Biden is interested in is the togetherness of the Progressives and Leftists. How will Joe Biden bring together the people who believe that Abortion is immoral, in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in Free Speech Rights for all viewpoints, and In Law and Order, among many other issues that divide our country? He has shown no path that reconciles these differences, but he has shown a path that will alienate many Americans from his governance and our government. Joe Biden has shown that he is uninterested in the viewpoints of moderates and conservative. Indeed, he wants moderates and conservative to be silent and acquiesce to the Progressive and Leftist viewpoints. In the pre-Convention process, he has conceded his policy positions to the Leftists, and rarely gives anything but lip service to moderates while often showing disdain for conservatives. He has shown no propensity to moderate anyone in the Democratic Party, and he will adopt any policy position that pleases, and garners votes, from Leftists. It has become so bad that there are now little policy differences between Progressives and Leftists.

Bringing us together is not possible until Americans decide on the proper role of government, as I have outlined in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. As I have outlined in this article, there are two different interpretations of the Constitution. A difference that leads to different roles of governance in America. Different roles of government that is exemplified by Federal vs. State powers, a large government vs. a small government, an intrusive government vs. a noninterference government, expansive social policies vs. limited social policies, maximal taxation vs. minimal taxation, and majority rule vs. minorities rights.

The Democrats' penchant for wielding government institutions against their foes, the application of laws based on political views, and the smear campaigns and character assassination against those that do not agree with them is not a means of bringing us together. Through lies and deceit, Democrats have weaponized government, criminalized dissent, and launched conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory to wield against anyone who had the audacity to go to work and serve in a duly elected president’s administration.

The Democrats most often attack the messenger while ignoring the message. They do so by the utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", which has resulted in the “Divisiveness in America”. Add to this their disdain of the Constitutional limitations of their powers, and their propensity to rule rather than lead (as in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders"), the legacy of the Democrats’ in the last few decades is of divisiveness. Indeed, the tactics of divisiveness that was on full display at the Democrat National Convention of 2020.

Therefore, it is not possible for Joe Biden and the Democrats to bring us together until they abandon these tactics. An abandonment of these tactics in which they have shown no willingness to undertake.  

08/20/20 Journalism in the 2020 Presidential Election

As I have written about in my Article, “Modern Journalism”, today’s journalism has dropped any concerns of impartiality, objectivism, and non-partisanship, and morphed into a wing of the Democrat Party and support of Progressive/Leftists policies. This has become readily apparent, to any intelligent person, in their reporting and commentary on the 2020 Presidential Election.

Most readily apparent is in their treatment of Presidential candidate Joe Biden and the Democrat Party politicians and policy positions. Some examples of this are:

• Their apathy about the lack of press conferences by Joe Biden, and the unconcern about the softball questioning in interviews by non-journalists (when they are given).
• Their non-challenging of the veracity of Joe Biden’s and Democrat Party Politicians' statements, and simply reporting these statements as if they were factual or true.
• Their portraying of Joe Biden as a moderate when he espouses, as Bernie Sanders has stated, the most Progressive policy positions in American history.
• Their portraying Kamala Harris as a centrist or pragmatic moderate when, in fact, she has, according to GovTrack,[i] earned a more progressive rating than Bernie Sanders.
• Their lack of reporting on Joe Biden’s past record of legislation and policy positions, which is mostly contradictory to his current policy positions.
• Their lack of investigative reporting of the accumulation of wealth by the Biden family after Joe Biden was elected Vice President. An accumulation of wealth which is (seemingly) indicative of influence peddling by members of his family.
• Their gushing approval of all those who support Joe Biden and Democrat Party politicians, and those who support the Democrat Party policy positions.
• Their utilization of Public Polling in their reporting that has become ubiquitous and is nefarious in today’s society. Polling has also become notoriously inaccurate as well for a variety of reasons, as I have outlined in this article.
• Their misuse of science and statistics in the supporting Joe Biden and Democrat Party politician’s policy position (a misuse for which I am preparing a future Chirp).
• Their non-questioning of Joe Biden’s Mental fitness to hold the office of The President.

This is counterposed by their reporting and commentary of Donald Trump and Republican Party politicians and policy positions. This is a disservice to the American people, as they are only being provided with one-sided or biased information on the important issues of our time. This leads to the American electorate in making an uninformed decision in their voting and thus making unwise decisions on the future of America. This also tilts the election in favor of Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, a tilting that requires that Republican politicians not only campaign against their Democrat opponents but also to campaign against the reporting and commentary of modern journalism. Such tilting that adds to the divisiveness that beset Americans, which makes it more difficult to reach a bipartisan compromise on the issues facing Americans. A tilting that is harmful to the American Republic and is a disservice by modern journalism to the American electorate.

The American electorate needs to ignore Modern Journalism and consider the “The Real Issues of the 2020 Election”, as I have written in my Article of this title. Until the American electorate does this I fear for the future of America.

[i] According to GovTrack, the nonpartisan government transparency watchdog, Harris’s record in the Senate, is in fact, more liberal than that of self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. Harris was, apparently, the least likely of all Democratic senators to join in any bipartisan bills.

08/19/20 The Real Issues of the 2020 Election

As we are now fully into the Presidential Election of 2020, I would implore all Americans to consider the most important issues facing America. There are only five big issues regarding the Presidential Election of 2020. They are The Coronavirus Pandemic Response, The Economic Recovery, Safety and Security, The Role of Government, and Mental Fitness. Another Issue is the Mental Fitness of Joe Biden to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of the President. My new Article, “The Real Issues of the 2020 Election” examines these issues.

08/18/20 The American Ideals

The American Ideals, as I have written in my Article, “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, are:

The Freedom from oppression by Government and Cancel Culture, and the Freedom to live a safe and secure life as humanly possible. The Liberty to make your own choices about your life so long as these choices do not infringe upon another American’s Liberties. The Equality of Opportunity to pursue your goals of education, career, property, and personal happiness. And Justice that is blind and treats all individuals alike.

Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All are the founding principles of our government. But these principles can only be preserved through eternal vigilance to preserve them by a free and just people. All Americans must dedicate themselves to these principles for all to have Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All.

As we enter the heart of the Presidential election of 2020, we need to remember our American Ideals and vote for the President, and other candidates, that best expresses these American Ideals. To not do so is to endanger these American Ideals, which endangers our way of life. Therefore, vote and vote wisely based on these American Ideals.

08/17/20 The Divisions at the Constitutional Convention

As I mentioned in my Article, “The Constitutional Founding Fathers Goals” they all knew that they needed a better form of government than The Articles of Confederation. To achieve this goal, they knew that accommodation and compromise were required between themselves, as each founder had their own ideas and concerns about a new government. My new History Article, “The Divisions at the Constitutional Convention” examines these divisions.

Today the main divisions are between Urban, Suburban, and Rural areas of the country, as exemplified by the phrases “The Acela Corridor States”, “The Left Coast States”, and “The Flyover States”. This division is mainly because of constitutional interpretation, as I have written in my Article, “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. An interpretation of the Constitution in which Liberals/Progressive have different opinions than Conservatives, with Moderates swinging between these two interpretations depending upon the issue.

Until these Constitutional interpretations are resolved in favor of one or the other interpretation, we will continue to see divisions in America. Divisions in which neither side wishes to make an accommodation or compromise. But, perhaps, there should be little accommodation or compromise as each interpretation leads to a different role of government in our society, which impacts the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” of all Americans. An interpretation and the role of government that needs to be resolved as we go forward in America.

08/16/20 Our National Treasures

National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Monuments are our common national heritage. A heritage that needs to be preserved for future generations. But preserved does not automatically mean pristine. These National Treasures need to be maintained in a thoughtful and wise manner. Maintenance that by its very nature alters the pristine but preserves the nature of these National Treasures.

Due to modern geological technologies, we have determined that many of these National Treasures contain, or are surrounded by, exploitable natural resources. The question is then should we allow this exploitation or forbid or constrain this exploitation to preserve these National Treasures. The Pebble Mine proposal at the Katmai National Park and Preserve (as outlined in the article, “Katmai National Park and Preserve Vs. The Pebble Mine”) is an example of this issue.

My personal belief is that we should forbid this exploitation in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges and constrain this exploitation around these and other National Treasures. To not do so is to run the risk of damaging these National Treasures, the damage that may not be reversible. Unless there is a national emergency or national imperative that we do so (such as in my Chirp, “07/15/19 Rare Earth Minerals “), we should not do so. National Forests may be the exception to this rule, as there are 155 National Forests containing almost 190 million acres of land. These lands comprise 8.5 percent of the total land area of the United States, an area about the size of Texas. In the case of National Forests, we should carefully and wisely determine if this exploitation should be permitted.

As to the Pebble Mine proposal, I believe that this exploitation should be forbidden. There is no national emergency or national imperative for this mine, and the risk of damage is too great to allow this mine. I would, therefore, encourage all Americans to oppose this mine and to voice their opposition to their elected representatives and President Trump.

08/10/20 You Have Become That Which You Abhorred

Liberals and Progressives look back with pride on what they believe are their accomplishments of the late 20^th century; the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Sexual Revolution, and their Anti-War Activism. These actions significantly enhanced the American ideals of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All individuals. But it should be remembered that some of these accomplishments would not have occurred without the (at least tacit) support of many moderates and some conservatives. All of these accomplishments occurred with the American people’s realization of their shortcomings and willingness to change to better achieve these American ideals.

The ideals of non-discrimination based on race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, political affiliation, or other protected status were established. The right to speak your mind without recriminations (“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”) was promulgated by court decisions. The ability to freely express your sexuality and engage in sexual activities of your choosing was recognized. The Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community was also recognized. The peaceable opposition to War and the support of Peace became conventional and acceptable activities. And all of this was beneficial to all Americans.

In the 21^st century, however, many Liberals became Progressives and some Progressives became Leftists. These newfound Progressives and Leftists have forgotten the ideals that they previously so nobly fought for. Group identity, Social Justice, and Equal Outcomes rather than Equal Opportunities have replaced Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Justice for the individual. Cancel Culture has replaced Free Speech, and suppression of contrary Progressive and Leftists' thoughts and opinions is acceptable. Sexual identity and sexual freedom have morphed into no recognition of any sexual differences. Mob violence, rather than peaceable assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances, is now permissible. These, and a host of other activities contrary to the American ideals, especially our Bill of Rights ideals, are now acceptable to Progressives and Leftists.

In their zeal to build upon these accomplishments of the late 20^th century, Liberals and Progressives in the 21^st century are ignoring these American ideals to advance their agendas. They are also ignoring the history of America in striving to obtain these ideals. We have not always met these ideals, but we strived and continue to strive for these ideals. Progressive and Leftists in America today condemn America for not meeting our ideals, and in their condemnation, they wish to overthrow our American ideals and replace them with other (mostly utopian) ideals.

In all of their current actions, today’s Progressives and Leftists have become that which they had previously abhorred. They have forgotten that their original accomplishments were in the striving for the American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. In its place, they are now striving for a replacement of these ideals with other ideals that have not been proven to be effective in the advancement to the betterment of humanity. The history of mankind has shown that when societies attempt to change dramatically, they most often change for the worse. Let us continue to advance our American ideals in a thoughtful and deliberate manner to make our country better and not worse. I fear that to do otherwise will result in an America that will suffer greatly.

08/09/30 Ode to My Computer and Cell Phone

Ah, my personal computer and cell phone have also become my personal friends and companions. They are nearby when I wake in the morning, nearby when I go to sleep at night, and nearby throughout the day. They are always available when I need them, and they (mostly) never fail me. I can type my most personal thoughts, and they never contradict nor criticizes me (except for my spelling and grammar). They open the whole world for me through the internet, and they allow me to communicate with others through e-mail or text messaging. They have become indispensable in my life.

Trustworthy and reliable, I can always depend upon my computer and cell phone to serve my needs. But they are cold-hearted companions, as they provide no love nor judgment of my person, character, or thoughts. They also provide no comfort when I am in distress nor any praise when I accomplish something.

However, their cold hardness reminds me of the importance of human love and companionship. Although human love and companionship are not always available, reliable, trustworthy, or uncritical, it is much more important than my computer or cell phone. So, I would say to my loves or friends, if I seem more attached to my computer or cell phone, you can be assured that they are secondary to my attachment to you. And so, it should be for all that utilize computers and cell phones. Remember and cherish your loves and friendships and give them much more important than your computer or cell phone.

08/08/20 A Most Terrible Disease

I am not a doctor, I am not a psychologist, and I am not a medical professional. What I am is a son who watched his mother descend into dementia. In my mother’s early eighties, she started to exhibit signs of mental deterioration. Most of her family and friends attributed it to ‘Senior Moments’. My mother was never very sharp, but she was always fully functional. But it soon became apparent that it was more than senior moments, and that she was becoming nonfunctional. Her forgetfulness became constant, and she started making post-it notes to remind herself to do everyday tasks. She would go on long walks and get lost, and she had difficulty making coherent statements. My father was cognizant of this, but my mother refused to listen to him. Indeed, my mother became very defensive and argumentative, something that she never was beforehand. She thought that she was the same as she ever was, and she refused to acknowledge that she was having problems. When her driving became erratic, and as I had Power of Attorney, I checked with the local police about her interactions with them (which were numerous and troubling but nothing illegal), I decided to trick her into a mental acuity test at a local geriatric center. A mental acuity test that she failed. The doctors informed her and me that her driver’s license was immediately suspended, and she would not be allowed to drive. They also suggest that she be limited to activities around the home, and if she wanted to go anywhere else, she needed adult supervision. Food shopping, attending church, visiting friends, financial transactions, and even home cleaning and cooking required adult supervision. It was at this point that my mother started exhibiting signs of paranoia that became worse over time. An incident occurred in which the police took her to the local hospital, and the hospital psychiatric department evaluated her and determined that she was a danger to herself and others. At this point, she was forced into a nursing home, which thankfully was a good nursing home that took excellent care of her for the next several years. It was due to their good care that, thankfully, her paranoia ceased. But they were years in the nursing home in which she descended into total dementia. Ten years after the mental acuity test, she finally died of natural causes. But she had mentally passed away many years before she died.

My mother’s mother also suffered from dementia, as had a sister and brother of hers. I, therefore, expect that I may eventually succumb to dementia. I am not afraid to die, as I have written about in my Observation on “Death”. I do, however, apprehend the possibility of dementia. As I believe that my true self is in my mental state and that if I lose my mental state that I am not myself, I apprehend losing my mental state. I also do not wish to burden my family with the emotional strain of watching me slip into dementia. However, as I know that I have no control over this, I will have to just accept what happens.

As many of you are aware, I am not in favor of the Democratic Party policies or politics, as I believe that they are antithetic to American ideals. As such, I am not in favor of Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy. I believe that he is the wrong person, at the wrong time, to lead America. But I had also believed since the start of the Presidential election cycle that he has exhibited the same characteristics as my mother when she started entering into dementia. And I believe that he has gotten worse as the election cycle has progressed. I, therefore, believe that he needs to leave his basement and reveal himself to the American electorate, and to face tough questioning by journalists to determine his fitness to lead America. The Presidential Debates need to start before anyone casts their votes so that the voters can judge for themselves the fitness of Joe Biden to be President. I also believe that he should take an independent mental acuity test to determine if he is indeed entering into or in a dementia state.

The American people need to see and hear for themselves, as well as hear the opinion of medical experts, rather than the assurances of Joe Biden and his campaign staff and supporters that he is mentally fit. So, I would say to Joe Biden, C’mon Man, the American people need to ascertain your mental fitness to hold the office of the Presidency before they cast their votes.

08/07/20 Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?

Big Tech – Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Instagram (a division of Facebook), Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (a division of Google) – have moved into overdrive on their Standards and Practices divisions as I have outlined in my Chirp, “07/15/20 Ministry of Truth”. This overdrive is a result of the 2020 Presidential election and is directed at anyone who would disagree with their political viewpoint, a viewpoint that has a decidedly progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party orientation. Their suppression of contrary viewpoints has serious consequences on our society. My new Article, “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?” examines this suppression and its consequences.

08/06/20 The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings

As we remember the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago today, we must ponder on the morality of these bombings. But as we ponder, we must do so in its historical context. My new Article, “The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings” examines the morality of these atomic bombings in their historical context.

08/05/20 Who Pays for Large Lawsuit Settlements?

I generally do not pay attention to commercials on television. However, I have noticed that there has been an increase of television ads that solicit persons to join class action lawsuits. Mesothelioma, Zantac, Talcum Powder, Boy Scouts, Roundup, etc. are some of the most common solicitations. The question and comment that I often ask myself is ‘Who actually pays for these lawsuits, and who benefits the most from these lawsuits?’. In all of life there are positive and negative consequences for all actions. Therefore, the question is what are the positives and negative of these lawsuits? My new Article, “Who Pays for Large Lawsuit Settlements?” discusses this issue.

08/04/20 Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems

As I mention in my Chirp, “06/10/20 The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms”, the problems within America are not Systemic Racism. However, there is a systemic problem in America, a Systemic problem that impacts the Black community more than the other communities. This problem is the Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problem. The decline of the two-parent family, the failure of public education, and the loss of faith in God and the American ideals have contributed to the decline of America much more than any “Systemic Racism” has. The combination of all three problems is the main cause of the problems in America. My new Article, “Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problem”, examines this problem.

08/03/20 Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male

Equal pay for equal work, the opportunity for advancement based on your skills and abilities, and personal choice in the balance of your personal and professional life are not feminist values, they are human values. And everybody should support them for all people regardless of gender, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status, or disability.

Unfortunately, modern feminism has taken a turn from these values in that they wish to create special privileges based on the female gender. Many of these items I have touched on in other observations and will not be repeated here. But I must state that modern-day feminist has little interest in men or the needs of men. They seem to be only concerned with the professional, emotional, and physical needs of women and seem to be only interested in motherhood if it is single motherhood. Men play little part in their worldview, and the small part they play is considered unimportant. The Feminine Mystique is to be elevated, and the Male Psyche is to be devalued and, in many cases, belittled or mocked.

My extracted Article from my Observations, “Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male”, examines this issue in more detail.

08/02/20 A Religion of Peace

Islam is ‘A Religion of Peace’ according to many of its followers, supporters, and proponents. But is it a religion that espouses ‘Natural Rights’ for its followers and other persons? Sadly, this is too often not the case, or has been said:

“Personally, I have nothing against Islam. It's a perfectly good religion ... as long as we forget the suicide bombers, the use of human shields, gays being thrown off buildings, women being stoned to death, little girls being disfigured by acid for wanting an education, women sent to prison for being gang raped, honor killings, soldiers set on fire in cages, genital mutilation and artists being murdered for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed. Other than that, it's a swell religion.”
- Wayne Allyn Root

When someone comments that only a small percentage of Muslims engage in these actions you should remind them that a small percentage of a large number is many Muslims. A large enough number of Muslims that can inflict terrible damage to their society, and to the rest of the world. You can also be fairly certain that the victims of such atrocities feel little comfort that is only a small percentage of Muslims that commit these atrocities.

Pointing to the words in the Koran that espouse peace does not compensate for the actions of many Muslims that are unpeaceful. For it is deeds, not words, that define the true nature of a religion. And all religions need to espouse and practice Natural Rights to be considered peaceful. Unfortunately, Islam is often a religion that practices a subservience or subjugation to the will of Islam and its self-appointed Mullahs. A subservience or subjugation not only for its followers but for all people that reside within a Muslim society. A subservience or subjugation often brought about not by a peaceful conversion to Islam but by the force of arms. Until Muslims can purge themselves of their unpeaceful propensities they pose a danger to other Muslims and to the rest of humanity. A danger that should not be tolerated and, indeed, needs to be eliminated for Islam to truly be ‘A Religion of Peace’.

08/01/20 The Rev. Mark Dawson

Having pondered and given much thought, as well as writing Articles on “Religion“, I now believe that I am deserving of the title of ‘Reverend,’ as I am as least as worthy of the title as the Rev. Al Sharpton. Having the same theological qualifications as the Rev. Al Sharpton (in both cases – none), I believe I am as deserving of the title “Reverend’ title as Al Sharpton claims. The difference between the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Mark Dawson is that Rev. Sharpton knows how to use religion to achieve his goals, while the Rev. Dawson knows how to utilize religion to understand the righteousness of goals.

The righteousness of those that reserve the determination of moral rightness to themselves or like-minded persons are themselves immoral, as they are intolerant of any moral convictions or actions that are contrary to their own. As they often believe they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. We can only say with confidence that the best moral righteousness is in the Ten Commandments of the Bible, as examined in my Article, “The Ten Commandments”. As a believer of the righteousness of the Ten Commandments, and one who has pondered these commandments and tried to live my life by them, I believe I am entitled to preach upon them. As such, the title of ‘Reverend” is an appropriate mantle for myself.

07/30/20 The Evasion of Duties and Responsibilities

Before entering an elected or appointed office in the Federal government, each person must take an Oath of Office. An Oath of Office that not only binds them to their duties but impresses upon them a responsibility to “… defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”. My new Article, “The Evasion of Duties and Responsibilities” examines how many elected and appointed officials are shirking their responsibilities to the Constitution.

07/29/20 A Star Chamber

A Star Chamber was a former English court that became notorious for its arbitrary methods and severe punishments. With the witness testimony of Attorney General William Barr at yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, we witnessed a Star Chamber in action.

The House Democrats were not interested in taking testimony, but only making statements and asking rhetorical questions. Whenever Attorney General Barr attempted to respond to their statements or questions, they cut him off with the phrase “reclaim my time”, and then gaveled down his response. Consequently, this was not testimony, but harassment and haranguing of a witness as suitable to a Star Chamber. No witness to any House or Senate hearings should be cut off from responding to statements and questions. To not allow a witness to respond is to allow for Congresspersons to make assertions, allegations, and accusations without veracity, and to not hear contrary evidence or a reasonable rebuttal. This is not the way for Congress to gather the facts and determine the truth, but it is a way for political grandstanding. Political grandstanding is to be expected outside of hearings, but within a Congressional hearing, the gathering of the facts and the determination of the truths is the purpose of a hearing.

To behave in such a way is to debase the purpose of a hearing, and indeed, it debases Congress. In addition, what Executive Officer would want to testify under such circumstances, and what other persons would want to testify or serve their government under such circumstances. The House needs to change their rules, and abide by these changed rules, that a witness gets to respond, without interruption, and within a reasonable time limit, to any statement or question from a House member. It is not only a good policy to do so, but it is also good decorum to do so. If the witness is not afforded this decorum, then it is fitting for them to refuse to give testimony or to end the questioning and leave the committee hearing.

Thank goodness the House of Representatives Star Chamber cannot melt out severe punishments, but the House Democrats need to be punished for turning the House into a Star Chamber.

07/28/20 Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures

The issues and concerns of Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures on election campaigns are complex, entwined, and have far-reaching effects on our elections and our democracy. My new Article “Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures” examines these issues and concerns.

07/26/30 The Infirmities of Old Age

As I have entered into my senior years, I have experienced many of the Infirmities of old age. Digestive problems and excessive flatulence, increased tiredness and nap time, more frequent urination and defecation, and back and joint aches and pains have entered my life. The problems of impairment of seeing, hearing, and smell, hand/foot coordination, reduced heart and lung functionality, along with the difficulties of performing manual labor and more perceived dangers of automobile driving and navigation, are all symptoms of getting older. Most disconcerting are those occurrences of forgetfulness and mental lapses (i.e., Senior Moments). All people have some or most of these infirmities as they get older, but as the saying goes, ‘Getting old is better than the alternative of death’. But death will come upon me as I have written about in the ”Death” section of my “Life“ Observation.

I write this Chirp not as a complaint but as a warning to others getting older, and a plea for the younger in the understanding of these infirmities, as they have not yet experienced these problems. Understanding by people of all ages as to the Infirmities of Old Age can lead to more kindness to those that suffer these infirmities at any age. Therefore, all should be more kind, polite, and respectful to people of all ages that suffer from infirmities, as sometime in your life, you will suffer infirmities that you will be grateful for the understanding of others.

07/25/20 The Free Exercise of Our Rights

We Americans treasure our rights and often invoke them, especially those rights incorporated into the Bill of Rights and the 14^th Amendments to the Constitution. However, what good are rights if you cannot exercise them? And by ‘cannot exercise them,’ I mean the fear of exercising them. "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" utilized to smear a person, and the “Cancel Culture” utilized to ruin a person, are the fears that effectively prohibit the free exercise of our rights. The free exercise of our rights requires freedom from fear of intimidation and harm in exercising our rights for these rights to exist. Not only the freedom of fear of governmental actions, but the freedom of fear from individuals, groups, and entities actions.

As the Declaration of Independence has stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

No person in America should be afraid to exercise their self-evident unalienable rights, especially those rights enumerated in the Constitution. If you are afraid to exercise your rights, and because of that fear you do not exercise your rights, then you do not have these rights.

Alas, this is not the case today. The governmental actions of the Coronavirus lockdowns that are applied unequally and arbitrarily, the possibility of fines and/or incarceration for exercising your rights to peaceable assembly, the criminal prosecutions (a.k.a. persecutions) of the right to bear arms for the protection of yourself, your family, and your property, the restrictions on religious activities outside of your home or place of worship, and the inactions of many government officials to protect your life, liberty, and property have demonstrated the capriciousness of these rights in the eyes of many government officials.

More insidious is the actions of individuals, groups, and entities against those who would exercise their rights. The mob actions against individuals and businesses, and the Cancel Culture against individuals and businesses who would disagree with the mob sentiments, is meant to install fear and to silence those who would disagree with the mob. It is also done to extort tacit approval and/or financial support for the mob's actions. And all of this is to the detriment of a person exercising their rights, and therefore a violation of their rights.

Consequently, these fears of exercising your rights are being utilized to make Americans subservient to the will of the government or to the mob. This subservience is antithetical to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and is an assault on our natural rights. All freedom-loving Americans must stand up for their rights, or as has been said:

“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”
- Thomas Paine in The Crisis

It is past time that Americans put aside our fears and stand up for our rights. Otherwise, we shall become a subjugated or subservient people that can be directed or controlled by the government or the mob. If we do not stand up for our rights now, it may result in another American Revolution to restore our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All“.

07/24/20 Bring Us Together

The only togetherness that Joe Biden is interested in is the togetherness of the Progressives and Leftists. Joe Biden has shown that he is uninterested in the viewpoints of moderates and conservative. Indeed, he wants moderates and conservative to be silent and acquiesce to the Progressive and Leftist viewpoints. In the pre-General Election process, he has conceded his policy positions to the Leftists, and rarely gives anything but lip service to moderates while often showing disdain for conservatives. He has shown no propensity to moderate anyone in the Democratic Party, and he will adopt any policy position that pleases, and garners votes, from Leftists. It has become so bad that there are now little policy differences between Progressives and Leftists.

Despite his media advertising to the contrary, he will not bring us together, but he will divide America between Progressives/Leftists and all other Americans. And all the other Americans represent approximately two-thirds of the population. If he should win the Presidency, the only means he can implement his agenda is by rulership, as I have written about in my Article, “To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders”.

How will Joe Biden bring together the people who believe that Abortion is immoral, in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and In Law and Order, amongst many other issues that divide our country? He has shown no path that reconciles these differences, but he has shown a path that will alienate many Americans from his governance and our government.

The hubris of Joe Biden and the Progressives and Leftist that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled. The American people are neither subjugated nor subservient, and they will defend their Freedoms and Liberties if they are pushed too far.

When deciding on how to vote, you should put aside the rhetoric of the candidates and focus on the policy positions of the candidates. Do not fall for lofty words and slogans as they are often empty words and empty slogans. You should adjudge a candidate much more on their deeds rather than their words.  You should also decide on how to vote on what policy positions that you want America to implement, and on which candidate best espouses the ideals of America of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

07/23/20 Priesthoods with Acolytes

Much public policy and laws are formulated by the scholarship of Universities or Think Tanks. Think Tanks often have a perspective or policy position on their areas of interest, while in the past, Universities often had diverse viewpoints. These diverse viewpoints of Universities were instituted by the hiring of professors of different viewpoints and opinions, allowing them to research, discuss, dialog, and debate each other to uncover the facts and, hopefully, discover some truths.

However, this diversity has disappeared in the last several decades, especially in the Social Sciences. The process of hiring and bestowing tenure on professors has morphed into a lack of diversity. Often a committee of the current professors in the department determines who will be hired and tenured. Many of these committees are composed of like-minded professors who hire like-minded academics. Like-minded, in the social sciences, often means a progressive or leftist viewpoint. After many decades of hiring like-minded academics, you have a department of like-minded professors that has no diversity of viewpoints and opinions. As professors believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct in hiring like-minded persons and rejecting any academic who does not share their viewpoints or opinions.

This situation is made worse by the knowledge that it exists, and many non-like-minded academics do not apply for a professorship but search out career opportunities outside of the University. It also means that the students that they are teaching are receiving a like-minded education. A like-minded education that does not enrich a student’s knowledge or critical thinking abilities but, indeed, leads to the conformity of thought on a Progressive or Leftist basis. This leads to having a Priesthood with Acolytes instead of professors with students who learn critical thinking skills with “Reasoning”.

It also leads to Scholars testifying on public policy and legislation, which are of one viewpoint – the Progressive/Leftists viewpoint. A viewpoint that often leads to inappropriate or impracticable laws or regulations that impact all Americans. Therefore, whenever a politician defers too or cites academics or scholars to support their policy positions, you can most often be assured that they are supporting a Progressive or Leftist policy position, and many times the politician is an acolyte.

07/22/20 Politics as a Career Path

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a republic in which our representatives would come from the common people who were successful in life. These persons would set aside a portion of there life to serve the public and then retire back to their private lives. Unfortunately, this vision never materialized in real life. Almost from the beginning of our government, many people decided to make elected public service a career goal. This practice has accelerated in our republic so as that most of our elected politicians are career politicians.

Given the time, effort, and monies required to run for public office, much of a politician’s life is spent on electioneering rather than legislation. Also, many legislative decisions are based on reelection considerations rather than the merits of the legislation. This has contributed to the gridlock and recriminations in politics rather than solving the problems of America. This has also led to the cronyism and coziness of special interest groups who support elected politicians in the hopes and expectations of influencing government actions. Politics as a career path also has the problems of the career politician not directly experiencing the issues and concerns of ordinary Americans in their daily lives. While a politician may be able to hear the concerns of their constituents, this is no substitute for directly experiencing these concerns.

Term limits have been proposed as a solution to this problem. Much has been said on the pros and cons of restricting the terms of an office held by elected officials. Many of the arguments for term limits are counterbalanced by arguments against term limits. This balancing is not dispositive for or against term limits, and I need not reiterate these arguments as much more knowledgeable, and experienced people have done this better than I could. I will, however, give my opinion. Given the current state of politics in the United States, I believe that term limits are necessary. We have, for over two hundred years, been without term limits. This had led to career politicians that are more interested in retaining or advancing in elected office than in solving the issues facing America. And this has led to gridlock and obstructionism in our legislative process.

However, I have a slightly different approach to term limits then what has been discussed, as I would have limitations of successive term limits. I would support a Constitutional amendment that would limit a member of the House of Representatives from holding office for no more than seven consecutive terms of two years (a total of 14 years). I would limit a member of the Senate from holding office for no more than three consecutive terms of six years (a total of 18 years). After those limits have been met, the elected official would have to stand down and not run for reelection for the office they hold. After they have been out of the office for two years, they could run for election for the same office. They could also immediately run for election to a different office, or they could serve as an appointed official in the government.

While the solution of term limits is not an impediment for career politicians, the lack of term limits is an incentive for career politicians. Given that we have been without term limits for over two hundred years, it may be time to try the alternative of term limits to alleviate some of the problems of having career politicians.

07/21/20 The Elites

If you gather a thousand Ivy League or other top-tiered university graduates and a thousand successful small farmers, you will find much more intelligence and wisdom amongst the farmers than the graduates. This can also be said of any Progressive group in comparison to any other grouping of Americans. It is most definitely true for any Leftists groups, as it is impossible to find any intelligence and wisdom amongst any Leftists. As one of my “Truisms” states:

"True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!"
 - Mark Dawson

Most Ivy League or other top-tiered university graduates have not encountered many bitter experiences in their lives, while most small farmers encounter much bitter experience throughout their lives. And the farmers must consider these bitter experiences to minimize future bitterness in their lives. This is a major difference between living a privileged life and living a working-class life. While most Ivy League or other top-tiered university graduates do work hard, they work in an environment that affords them opportunities and advancement that are not available to most people. As such, they often believe that their knowledge and experience give them special wisdom that makes them better than most people. They believe that they are elite as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior that they are consequently always correct. They have forgotten the wisdom of:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
 - Benjamin Franklin

Or as the great Nobel laureate economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek often talked about elites and their "pretense of knowledge." These are people who believe that they have the ability and knowledge to organize society in a way better than people left to their own devices -- what Hayek called the fatal conceit. Their vision requires the use of the coercive powers of government to be effectuated.

The attitudes expressed by the Democratic Party leaders show that they are not the party that trusts the people, but the party that believes in the intellectual and cultural elites’ abilities. Their solutions to the issues and concerns of most Americans would require the coercive powers of government to be effectual. An attitude that demonstrates that they believe that they have an elite ability and knowledge to organize society in a better way. They often cloak themselves in moral righteousness and intellectual superiority to achieve their goals. Consequently, they do not trust Americans to make their own choices, and they would limit the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans to make their own choices to those choices that they approve.

The Democratic Party leaders have forgotten that no side is morally right nor intellectually superior. They will not concede that all sides of an issue have something to contribute to the problems facing America. They will not incorporate any ideas into their policies that are not their idea, and they believe that they can impose their ideas on Americans, as stated in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". The hubris of the "Democrat Party Leaders" that think that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

07/20/20 Ah, Youth

Approximately 4 million persons in the United States turned eighteen years of age in the year 2018. In 2018 the Armed Forces of the United States saw 170,900 people enlist. Therefore, whenever you hear someone say ‘If you are old enough to go to war, then you are old enough to drink or vote” you should remember that 4 million persons are asking for the benefits of the sacrifices of 170,900 people.

Over the last several decades, we have seen the educational achievements of our young people precipitously decline. Over the last several decades, we have also seen the push for more younger people to vote. It seems quite nonsensical that we should want more voters who are less educated to vote. Unless, of course, you wish to garner the votes of the uneducated.

We know as a scientific fact that the human brain does not fully develop until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to develop is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is responsible for most "higher-order" or intellectual brain functions such as thinking, reasoning, judging, planning, voluntary movement, and overall behavior. These are the traits that we want of an intelligent voter, but these are the traits that are not fully developed in the brain at this younger age. Consequently, with the push to garner the votes of the young, this is a push that garners more votes of those not physiologically capable of casting an intelligent vote. It seems quite nonsensical that we should want more voters who are less intelligently capable of voting. Unless, of course, you wish to garner the votes of the intellectually incapable.

Much of the social activism we have seen is by young people. Most of the mob violence that we have recently seen has been instigated and carried out by young persons. Young people whose educational achievements are in decline, and whose brains are physiologically immature. Many of these young people have also exhibited the propensities as I have Chirped about in, “08/14/19 The Intellectual Yet Idiot and Skin In The Game”. Given the preceding, the question is why should we pay much heed to these young people, and why should we tolerate their uncivil and sometimes criminal actions? Only a fool pays attention to fools. Let us not be foolish!

07/19/20 True Wisdom

As I have stated in my “Pearls of Wisdom “ section "A Wise Person":

“Wisdom is the ability to apply your knowledge, your experience, your reasoning, and your common sense into your words and deeds. And wisdom is also the ability to listen to others who are intelligent and wise and incorporate their intelligence and wisdom into your own.”

and

“… you may also discover that wisdom can be a burden. A burden because you will recognize your own and society's shortcomings. You will no longer accept excuses for yourself and others but will recognize the reasons for what is happening in your life and society. This wisdom will help you to better understand how to improve your own life and society if you should decide to apply this wisdom. And applying this wisdom will help set you free to experience life to its fullest. You should also remember the following quote as you obtain wisdom:”

Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them,
he cannot free himself from them.
 - Albert Camus

We should all remember what true wisdom is, and we should all strive to obtain wisdom as well as Knowledge, “Reasoning”, Skills, and Abilities.

07/18/20 Reasons and Excuses

Most people have conflated reasons and excuses, but they are much different and should be so thought of. Reasons are a rational motive for a belief or action, while Excuses are a defense of some behavior or some failure to keep a promise. Most people think that they have good reasons for doing or not doing something, but in most cases, their reasons are, in actuality, an excuse to do or not do something. As I have stated in my “Pearls of Wisdom “, "Do Not Accept Excuses but be Acceptable of Reasons":

“Many people conflate excuses and reasons, but they are not the same. Excuses are usually justifications for words or deeds, while reasons are usually explanations for words or deeds. Excuses are generally emotionally based, while reasons are generally intellectually based. Excuses are easy to come by, but reasoning requires the effort of intelligent thinking.

Excuses are generally utilized to explain bad behavior or poor decisions. People can usually determine when you are making a poor excuse, or when you have a good reason. Usually, excuses are not accepted by others for your bad behavior or poor decisions, but usually good reasons are accepted. Reasons also make it easier for people to understand your words and deeds and perhaps forgive your words and deeds if they have had negative repercussions.

You should apply this pearl to not only to another's words and deeds but to your own words and deeds. Think about what you are contemplating doing or saying, or what you have already done or said, and separate the excuses from the reasons. If you do this, you will have a better understanding of yourself, and it will probably lead to your making better decisions in the future.”

07/17/20 Essential and Non-Essential Spending

During the Coronavirus Pandemic shutdowns, Governors and Mayors were quick to declare what governmental services and private businesses were considered essential and non-essential. Those businesses and governmental agencies that were determined non-essential had to stop operations, while essential business and governmental agencies had to make many changes and take precautions to continue to operate. The Governors' and Mayors' determinations of essential and non-essential had economic impacts on all businesses and governmental agencies. Business and individual incomes declined, and because of these declines, the tax revenues from businesses and individuals decreased, while more and different governmental expenditures increased to combat the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The Coronavirus Pandemic recovery will require both businesses and governments to reallocate their spending to meet the demands of the precautions of social contacting. These businesses and Governors and Mayors will need to determine what spending in their budgets is essential or non-essential and adjust their budgets accordingly. There need to be large increases in cleaning and disinfection services as well as reasonable and prudent precautions for both employees and people who occupy and visit these business and government facilities.

I have no doubt of the business leaders to make these adjustments as they have often done this in the past. However, I have serious doubts about government leaders to make these adjustments, as they very rarely have made adjustments in the past, but instead relied on increased tax revenues and increased spending. It is these adjustments by the government that is the focus of this Chirp.

Raising taxes to increase tax revenues to fund these increased costs is not a viable option, as raising taxes during an economic recovery depresses the economic recovery. It also often results in fewer taxes being collected as people adjust their behavior to reduce their tax burden. It will require that governmental leaders differentiate between essential and non-essential government services and increase the funding for essential services while decreasing or defunding non-essential government services. Something which politicians are loath to do as they are reluctant to make hard choices.

For a State or Local government to reallocate funding means that some people will be negatively impacted, while other people will have little or increased positive impacts. Politicians are all in favor of having enhanced positive impacts but are opposed to negative impacts. There is the specter of their not being reelected by making these choices, and to most politicians, their reelection is of primary importance.

As a result, many State and Local politicians, and their supporters and special interest groups, have started to call on more Federal funding to assist the State and Local governments to meet their funding for the Coronavirus Pandemic recovery. However, increase Federal funding requires increased Federal taxes or Federal deficit spending, both of which have a negative impact on the economy. By calling for increased Federal funding, the State and Local governments are also shifting the responsibilities and tax burdens to the taxpayers of other States or Localities, with the other States or Localities taxpayers having no say in the election of the politicians that would spend their taxes (i.e., No Taxation Without Representation).

I am opposed to increased Federal funding unless and until the State or Local governments take the actions to differentiate between essential and non-essential government services and increase the funding for essential services while decreasing or defunding non-essential government services. This, of course, will result in political gamesmanship as hard choices will have to be made. To this is say, ‘Let the Games Begin’ and ‘Let the Chips Fall Where They May’.

07/16/20 The Different Sides of the Same Coin

I have posted two new Articles that discuss “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”, and “The Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers”. These two articles are the different sides of the same coin – the coin of Constitutional interpretation.

In the Republican or Democrat Constitution article, I do not mean a Republican Party or a Democratic Party Constitution, but a Republic or a Democratic political theory of the Constitution. A Political Theory pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in The Constitution of the United States. The differences between a Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution Political Theory are illuminated in this article.

In the Rule of Lawyers article, I have written about the torturous and convoluted reasoning in reaching decisions on the Constitutionality of a Law. About how Judges and Lawyers often use their own proclivities on as to how to interpret the Law and the Constitution. Their interpretations are often driven by the legal theories of Judicial Interpretation, of which two major legal theories, Living Constitution and Originalism, are at opposition perspectives of Judicial Interpretations of the Constitution.

In the Presidential election of 2020, we have perhaps the most starkly different candidates that reflect these two different Political Theories. The electorate of the United States will not only be deciding on a candidate but also be deciding on our future form of governance. A consequential decision that we have not faced since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. We will be deciding on whether we want the Rule of Law or the Rule of Lawyers, and a Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution.

07/15/20 Ministry of Truth

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, TED Talks, Google, and a gaggle of other social media websites have all established standards departments. The violations of their standards will run you afoul with them, and your account will be suspended, or your posts removed, or at the very least, your posts will be tagged as factually incorrect or untruthful. These standards used to be for violations of derogatory language, pornography, and incitement to violence, but they have morphed into other matters. Most recently, they have morphed into fact-checking and truth-telling. However, hard facts are easy to check, while many other facts are debatable. The truth, however, is highly subject to interpretation and is often disputable. Consequently, these standards departments have become arbiters of facts and truths with such arbitration being subjective to and at the capriciousness of the arbitrators. They also tend to be based on the political persuasions of the arbiters, which is most often Progressive and Leftists.

This is reminiscent of George Orwell's 1949 futuristic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:

The Ministries of Love, Peace, Plenty, and Truth are ministries in George Orwell's 1949 futuristic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, set in Oceania. Despite the name, no actual "ministers" are mentioned in the book, and all public attention is focused on the idealized figurehead Big Brother.

The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.

The Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania.

As well as administering "truth", the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events.

At the time that this book was written, the concern was that the government would become corrupt, coercive, and oppressive to the people. It was not envisioned that it would be large companies that would fill this role. All of these activities are an infringement on the Free Speech rights of the people. Not only have large companies engaged in these activities, but the news media seems to be following suit. Many “facts’ and much “truth” are disputable and debatable, and all reasonable voices must be heard to resolve the facts and truths. A consensus is not a resolution, as most consensus has been overturned as new information is obtained. To stifle facts and truths that you disagree with is injurious to the progress of humanity, and it will always result in the detriment to people, society, government, and the beneficial advancement of humankind.

07/14/20 Public Polling

With the increase of public polling in this Presidential election I would like to reiterate some pithy quotes on public polling:

“A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.”
- Chinese proverb

"Just as it would be madness to settle on medical treatment for the body of a person by taking an opinion poll of the neighbors, so it is irrational to prescribe for the body politic by polling the opinions of the people at large."
- Plato

"A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought."
- Warren Buffett

"I utilize polls to determine how much convincing I need to do."
- Ronald Reagan

"I did not enter the labor Party forty-seven years ago to have our manifesto written by Dr. Mori, Dr. Gallup and Mr. Harris."
- Tony Benn

"If you are guided by opinion polls, you are not practicing leadership -- you are practicing followership."
- Margaret Thatcher

For more of my thoughts on polling, I would direct you to my Article, "Public Polling".

07/13/20 Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned by Laura Hollis is an article that examines the lessons of current events that teach us about what we're facing in our future. These lessons are:

1. Our governments are shockingly weak.
2. Never give up your Second Amendment rights.
3. The media is relentlessly biased and deceitful.
4. No one can survive the ideological purity tests that are being administered.
5. Ah, Marxism! The only example of perfect diversity.
6. The highest praise for Marxism comes from those who have never lived under it.
7. Yes, it can happen here.
8. It isn't about President Donald Trump.

As we approach the November election and beyond, it is vital that we understand these lessons to help us make decisions about the future of America.

07/12/20 My Pithy Statements

As I have mentioned in my Chirp of, “06/23/20 Quotes of Wisdom,” one of my “Truisms” is:

“The world is full of quotes, but not so many quotes of wisdom.”
- Mark Dawson

I have also composed a few pity statements that I utilize when discussing a topic.

“Be careful in what you say to people, as most people are not interested in hearing the facts or truth, they are only interested in hearing their own opinions reinforced.”
 - Mark Dawson

"I refuse to talk before I have thought."
- Mark Dawson

"I am trying to get you to think, but all you seem to want to do is argue."
 - Mark Dawson

"I'd rather be factually correct than politically correct."
- Mark Dawson

"I’d rather live with the rashness of speech than with the foolhardiness of action."
- Mark Dawson

"It always helps to know where you are going so that you may plan on how to get there."
 - Mark Dawson

"Just because you "believe" something to be true does not mean that you "know" something is true, and just because someone says something is true doesn’t make it true."  
- Mark Dawson

“Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils.”
- Mark Dawson

If you keep these pithy statements in your arsenal, then you may have a more rational discussion.

07/11/20 According to Whom?

Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted (SIXHIRB) are all pejorative terms. Most of these terms, if not all, are directed at conservatives by progressives and leftists. But who gets to determine if a term is applicable to a person? Apparently, it is a progressive or leftists who decides if one (or more) of these terms is applicable to a person. The criteria that they seem to utilize is that the definition of being a sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, or bigoted person is someone who disagrees with the Progressive and Leftists policy positions on their issues and concerns. As Progressives and Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, then their definitions must be correct.

Under this definition, I am a proud SIXHIRB person, and I shall remain so, as I am opposed to most of the Progressive and all the Leftists policy positions.

07/10/20 Distance Makes the Heart Grow Progressive

As the age-old adage states – “Distance makes the heart grow fonder”, so too does the further you are from the actual problems in America, the more Progressive or Leftists you become. The economic and social gap between the people experiencing the problems, and the Progressive and Leftists who advocate and agitate for change to solve these problems, is quite a distance. A distance that separates them from the consequences of the change that they advocate. Or, as has been said:

“In California, it became hip for wealthy leftists to promote socialism from their Malibu, Menlo Park or Mill Valley enclaves -- while still living as privileged capitalists. Meanwhile, it proved nearly impossible for the middle classes of Stockton and Bakersfield to cope with the reality of crushing taxes and terrible social services.”
- Victor Davis Hanson

To which I might add that these Progressive policies have done very little to solve the problems in lower-class America.

When we observe the mobs that currently plague America, a deeper look into the participants of these mobs highlights this distance. While some of the mobs have been composed of lower-class individuals, many of these mob participants have come from the upper-class and their family members. Both of these groups of mob participants, in their actions of rioting, looting, arson, and destruction, are not personally impacted by their actions, but they do have a negative impact on the lower- and middle-class individuals in the immediate surroundings of the mob. Most of these mobs feel that they are agitating for a good; however, these mobs have forgotten that:

“It is much more important to do good than to feel good.”
- Mark Dawson

and

"Well done is better than well said."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Rioting, looting, arson, and destruction are not doing good, even for a worthy goal, for the ends do not justify the means. Financial or verbal support for those that engage in such actions may make you feel good, but they rarely accomplish any actual good and quite often end up in doing harm.

If you feel good without doing good, you are simply engaging in a narcissistic emotion. As an article in Psychology Today explains, “Why Is Doing Good More Important Than Feeling Good?” also has an impact on our well-being.

When we read or listen to a Progressive or Leftist agitating for change, we should keep in mind how distant they are from the consequence of the change. The more distant they are from the change, the warier we should be of the change they advocate, as the changes they advocate will often not directly impact them.

07/09/20 The Party of Divisiveness

American is more divisive today than it has been for several decades. The question of the reasons for this divisiveness is important to be answered to mend this divide. Many have blamed President Trump and Republican leaders for this divisiveness, while many have blamed the "Democrat Party Leaders" for this divisiveness. And they both share in this blame. But the underlying reasons for this divisiveness are the people who believe in “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”, and those who espouse these falsehoods.

When you believe something to be true, you act upon these beliefs. If these beliefs are unfounded, then you will take foolhardy actions. As to your beliefs, you should always remember one of my “Truisms”:

"Just because you "believe" something to be true does not mean that you "know" something is true, and just because someone says something is true doesn’t make it true."   
- Mark Dawson

We no longer discuss issues and concerns within America based on “Reasoning” and with proper “Dialog & Debate”, but instead argue for the purposes of political gamesmanship and political power. We no longer try to persuade Americans as to our opinions but try to impose our opinions on Americans. Name-calling, pejoratives, and sloganeering are substituted for polite and respectful speech. Compromising and bilateralism are considered a sign of weakness and are not tolerated within the political sphere. Legislation is stalled or discarded if it does not implement one side or the other policy positions. And most importantly, we have forgotten the meaning of Free Speech in America. This is the root cause of divisiveness in America.

While President Trump and Republican leaders have engaged in these activities, it is the Democrat Party Leaders that have utilized this as a strategy and tactic for the purposes of political gain, as I have noted in several of my Chirps. The Democrat Party has exhibited that no compromise or bipartisanship is no be allowed, and their attitude toward legislation appears to be that if it does contain all that they want, then the legislation is not to be considered and scuttled. It is also true that the modern Democrat Party is structured on identity politics, and the pitting of one group against another to win votes and achieve political power. Victimhood is also part and parcel of the Democrat Party divisiveness strategy. The Democrat Party has forgotten the ideals and meaning of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” in America, and have seen to embrace a redefinition of our ideals as I have Chirped on, “07/04/30 The Bill of Rights as Envisioned by Progressives and Leftists”.

Every election has been described as the most important election of our time. This is usually just rhetoric, but unfortunately, in the next election, this is proving to be true based on today’s divisiveness. We stand at a fork in United States history. Will we preserve our ideals of Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All, or will we redefine these ideals to embrace the Democrat Party progressive/leftists envisionment of these ideals. An envisionment, that if implemented, will have enormous repercussions in and on America.

07/08/20 The Natural Right to Defend Yourself

Everybody has a natural right to defend their person, their family, and their property. This is one of the main reasons that the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted. In today’s society, we expect that the primary means of defense is by law enforcement through police actions. However, if the police are delayed, or fail to protect, your person, family, and your property, you have the Natural Right to defend yourself through force of arms. These defensive measure does not permit you to be an aggressor, but it does allow you to respond to threats to your person, family, and property.

Whether the threat comes through criminal activities, riots, looting, or arson, you have the Natural Right of the defense of arms.

07/07/20 A Conversation and A Dialog

In today’s tumultuous times, many people are calling for a conversation or dialog on the problems that beset America. These calls often ring hollow as the people that are calling for this rarely wish to engage with anyone who would disagree with them. The reason for this is encapsulated in two of my “Truisms”:

“Be careful in what you say to people, as most people are not interested in hearing the facts or truth, they are only interested in hearing their own opinions reinforced.”
  - Mark Dawson

“Most people don't really think about what they think about. They bring their own viewpoints and prejudices to their thinking to reinforce what they already believe. They rarely consider alternate viewpoints, and almost never consider both the negative and positive consequences of what they think or believe. And it is the very rare person who looks for the unintended consequences of what they think or believe.”
- Mark Dawson

Often they do not consider that the impacts of the changes they are advocating, as outlined in my Articles “Change and/or New” and the impacts of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, as well as another of my Truisms:

“You cannot implement a wrong social policy the right way. For if it is a wrong social policy it will always fail. While the goals of a social policy may be noble the details of its implementation will determine if the goal can be reached (i.e., the devil is in the details).”
  - Mark Dawson

A wrong social policy can be defined as one that infringes on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of another. When conversing or dialoguing these human rights violations rarely enter the conversion or dialog, and when they do address Human Rights it is usually only on one side of the double-entry ledger as in another of my Truisms:

"Life is like a double-entry ledger. For everything that happens there are both positives and negatives, especially for anything that you say or do."
- Mark Dawson

It is not possible to implement the Human Rights of one person by restricting the Human Rights of another person. And these Human Rights restrictions are often the devil in the details.

Just as often, those people calling for a conversation or dialog are not interested in “Reasoning” nor proper “Dialog & Debate”. Facts and figures are utilized in these conversations or dialogs without any veracity or skepticism as to their accuracy, or too their possible misinterpretation. They simply wish to express their facts and opinions without refutation and to have their social policy implemented without questioning.

Often, when confronted with refutation, they resort to pejoratives or negative adjectives for the person refuting their opinion. Those that utilize pejoratives or negative adjectives during a conversation or dialog are bereft of intelligence and reasoning. They are to be pitied, but they should not be listened too, as they are contributing nothing to the conversation or dialog but unreasoned emotional appeals or anger. This is not the proper way to have a conversation or dialog, but it is the best way to end a conversation or dialog.

Finally, conversation or dialog is important to have, but only as a prelude to actions. Without action, you have nothing but words that disappear into the ether. A disappearance that does nothing to solve the problems in America.

07/06/20 Perfection

"Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best."
  - Mark Dawson

This pity statement not only applies to a person but also applies to society. For no society is perfect, and all societies should strive to do better. It is also not wise to judge a person or society based on perfection, as perfection is an ideal, an ideal that is to be strived for but is unattainable as it is reserved to God.

If you judge people or a society by perfection, then all people and all societies will be judged to be wanting. The judgments you should make is if a person or society strives to be their best. This striving, for an individual, needs to be a judgment on their intelligence, knowledge, skills, and abilities. If they are trying to maximize these items, they should be judged positively. This striving, for society, is if they are trying to implement, preserve, protect, and defend the Natural Rights of the people so as to achieve “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, as well as Equality of Opportunity for all their people.

The history of America has been one of imperfection. But it has also been one of striving to correct these imperfections. Judging America by where we have started and where we are currently demonstrates that we are a society striving to be our best, and the best that world history has ever achieved. Your judgment should be that while we still have many imperfections to correct, we have done well in correcting many of our imperfections. To judge us as being imperfect is a false judgment.

Such a false judgment also leads to the divisiveness we have seen in today’s society. We would all be better off if we recognized the goodness of our striving and our attempts to correct our imperfections.

07/05/20 My Message to Americans

In these troubled times the most important thing you can do with your life is encapsulated in “My Message to Americans” in which the topics are:

• Get an Education.
• Pick a Career Path that Suits You.
• Create a Family.
• Become Religious or Spiritual.
• Cooperate with the Police.

If you keep these messages, then you can lead a fulfilling life. There would also be much less troubled times if these messages were followed by all people.

07/04/20 The Bill of Rights as Envisioned by Progressives and Leftists

With the current turmoil in the United States, and the action of the mob with the acquiescence of many Democrat Politicians, Journalist, and Progressive Commentators, as well as some Republican Politicians I have decided to rewrite the Bill of Rights based on their words and deeds as follows:

* * * * *

The Freedom of Religion shall be restricted to a person’s home, church, synagogue, mosque, or temple of religion. All public speech and displays of religiosity shall be prohibited. The religiosity of a person shall be a determinate of the suitability for a person to hold public office.

The Freedom of Speech shall be allowed for all speech that is not offensive to someone or some group, nor allowed for any speech that challenges progressive/leftists public policies.

The Freedom of the Press shall not be constrained by libelous or slanderous statements of the press, nor of others libelous or slanderous statements reported by the press. Nor shall the Freedom of the Press be constrained by any statements that are false.

The Right of the People to assemble shall not be constrained by the actions of the people of rioting, looting, and arson during such assemblies.

The Right of the People to require the Government to provide reparations for perceived past, present, or future harm shall not be limited in any manner.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for the purposes of hunting shall not be infringed. All other purposes of arms shall be constricted and regulated as the government sees fit.

No Armed Forces of the United States will be utilized within the United States for any reason whatsoever.

The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, e-mails and texts, and property, against searches and seizures, shall not be infringed unless the government believes that such items are being utilized for nefarious purposes, or by another person making allegations of nefarious purposes.

Equality under the law shall be enforced except for Politicians, the Wealthy, the Powerful, or Politically Protected Groups.

When a person has been accused of nefarious actions, they will be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. All statements of nefarious actions shall be taken at face value. The seriousness of the alleged nefarious actions shall be a determinate of the suitability for a person to hold public office.

The policing of the laws shall be an optional duty and responsibility of a Municipal Government.

An impartial jury shall be required, by a jury tainted by prosecutorial and law enforcement statements and actions shall not be considered partial.

No bail shall be required, and all persons who have been arrested shall be released until their hearing or trial.

The Rights Retained by the People may be constricted by Presidential, Governors, and Mayoral decrees in the times of National, State, or local emergencies, with such decrees of emergencies as so declared by the President, Governors, and Mayors.

All Federal laws, rules, and regulations shall be subservient to State approval, and all State laws, rules, and regulations shall be subservient to local governments' approval.

The Right to Vote shall not be restricted by any requirement of the legality of the vote.

Also, there shall be no border controls, restrictions, nor deportation of any person who illegally entered the United States, and all declarations by illegal immigrants shall be taken at face value.

* * * * *

The above rewrite would be humorous if it were not so grounded in today’s reality. And this reality is dangerous to the American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

07/03/20 U.S. Holidays

The national U.S. holidays that we celebrate are a mishmash of days that have also lost much of their meaning.  I would propose a refashioning of these holidays that would commemorate the ideals of America. Before you begin your commemorations and celebrations you should always remember and learn from our history of the meanings of these days. My list of new United States National Holidays is as follows:

• New Year’s Day - January 1st
• Civil Rights Day - Third Monday of January
• Presidents Day - Second Monday of February
• Constitution Day - March 4th
• Memorial Day - Last Monday of May
• Independence Day - July 4th
• Labor Day - First Monday of September
• Voting Day - The day of a General Election
• Veterans Day - Second Monday of November
• Thanksgiving Day - Fourth Thursday of November
• Abolition Day - December 6th
• Christmas Day - December 25th

For more on these proposed holidays, and their importance to Americans, I would direct you to my Article “U.S. Holidays”.

07/02/20 Black Leaders Matter

Black Leaders Matter, but leadership can take you in different, and sometimes opposite directions. One direction is for Equality of Opportunity, and the other direction is for Equality of Outcome as my Chirp of, “07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome” discusses. And so, it is with most of today’s black leaders. The vast majority of black leaders seem to be concerned with Equality of Outcome, while only a small minority are concerned by Equality of Opportunity. But Equality of Outcome leaves you dependent and subservient to others, while Equality of Opportunity provides you with Freedom and Liberty.

“Entitlements “, “Reparations“, “Social Justice”, and other government interventions in your life diminish your Freedoms and Liberties. Some government intervention is needful and necessary, but excessive governmental interventions are often diminishing of a person. And all governmental actions suffer from “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, which means that some harm may come of them.

When Black Leaders espouse Equality of Outcome, it often requires that they control your life. To achieve equal outcomes, they must control the results of your life, and this often happens by controlling the processes of your life. Many of these Black Leaders have also obtained political power and wealth through this espousal and control. Much of this political power and wealth that they have gained would have to cede to the people if they espoused Equality of Opportunity.

This is most pernicious for those Black Leaders that claim the titles of Reverends or Pastors of the Christian faith but espouse Equality of Outcome. A Reverend or Pastors' first duty is to God, which in the Christian faith means to obey and follow God’s laws. This means first and foremost to follow “The Ten Commandments“ and to remember the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”. They also must espouse peaceable actions and forgiveness as peace and forgiveness was a tenant of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They have also forgotten that the Bible instructs us that the ”Sins of the fathers are not vested upon the sons”. Unfortunately, many religious Black Leaders have forgotten the true meaning of these Commandments, the Golden Rule, peaceable actions, forgiveness, and the sins of the father and have twisted their meanings to achieve their goals.

Therefore, beware of governmental actions in your life as they often diminish you. Beware of those Black Leaders who espouse governmental actions in your life, as they often espouse these actions to gain control of your life. And more importantly, choose to follow Black Leaders who espouse your taking control of your life through Equality of Opportunity.

07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome

Equality of Opportunity is to allow for a person to flourish based on their intellect, motivations, talents, skills, and abilities, unencumbered by artificial constraints. As all people have different intellect, motivations, talents, skills, and abilities, the outcomes of their efforts will always be different.

Equality of Outcome, although it is not always clearly defined, it usually describes as a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material or status inequalities between individuals in a society.

Equality of Opportunity requires freedom and liberty to pursue your own goals and be responsible for your successes or failures, while Equality of Outcome requires that others determine your goals and your success. Equality of Opportunity means that each of us will have different achievements and the wealth or status of our achievements. Equality of Outcome requires others to decide our achievements and our wealth and status.

Equality of Opportunity is the result of recognizing the natural rights of a person, while Equality of Outcome requires the compliance or submission of a person to the dictates of others. Equality of Opportunity is a goal of a democratic society, while Equality of Outcome can only be achieved through some form of socialism or despotism.

To make a judgment based on the outcomes of a person or group is to not recognize the opportunity of the person or group. The only just judgment of a person or group is to determine if a person or group has had their Equality of Opportunity constricted in some manner. If this constriction has occurred, then a redress of their grievance is appropriate.

Consequently, Equality of Opportunity is an ideal of America, while Equality of Outcome is antithetical to the ideals of America.

06/30/20 Is It Racism or Is It Risk Avoidance?

There are many allegations of racism and racist actions by Americans in their everyday actions. The question is, are these actions, if true, are motivated by racism or risk avoidance for the purposes of self-protection? The following examples are illuminative of this question:

The first example is of a white person(s) walking down the street in an urban area in the dark of the night. They observe a group of young black persons coming toward them, and they then walk to the other side of the street to avoid them. Did they do so because of racism or risk avoidance?

The second example is a storekeeper observing some young black person(s) wandering through their store. If they paid closer attention to them, did they do so because of racism or risk avoidance?

There are many more examples of black persons being considered a greater risk and the actions of those that take precautions to reduce the risks to themselves. Many of the most egregious examples are in the interactions of the police and black persons. These egregious police examples could be minimized if both the police and the suspect treated each other politely and respectfully. But this respectfulness must be a bilateral, or one party or the other may behave egregiously.

In these examples, the statistics show that there is a greater risk of uncivil or criminal actions by the young black person(s). Although this increased risk is not significant, it is significant if uncivil or criminal actions happen to you. Are you prudent to avoid personal harm, or are you a racist?

I understand the hurt feelings and loss of dignity of those peaceful black persons who intend no harm. It is humiliating for a peaceful black person to be considered a greater risk. It is humiliating, but is it racism? The answer to this problem is not more anti-discrimination laws, as people will always take actions that reduce their personal risks. The answer is more self and group discipline by blacks to not engage in uncivil or criminal actions. If the public perceives no greater harm than they will not take greater precautions, and allegations of racism would subside.

However, with greater risks, it is foolish not to take greater precautions. It is not racism to do so; it is risk avoidance.

06/29/20 Are They Mad and Are They Crazy?

He madness of mobs is a well-known phenomenon throughout history. The madness of the current mobs in the United States is also well known. Such mob madness involves no rational thought and is indeed driven by passion and anger and are the actions of people mad at someone or something. There is also no doubt, as demonstrated by their words and deeds, that the members of these mobs have little intellectual acuity, nor are they knowledgeable of history. The mob members believe in their indoctrination by “The Biggest Falsehoods in America,” and they have not examined all the facts or truths of American. They are also blinded by one perspective of America rather than examining all perspectives about America.

A peaceful mob is a protest, while an unpeaceful mob is a riot. When this mob madness devolves to property destruction, looting, or arson, then the mob is involved in criminal actions, and it has become a riot. Even if only a small percentage of a mob becomes involved in criminal activities, the other percentage of the mob bears moral responsibility for the criminal actions that occur. This moral responsibility is in that they have allowed for, or sustained the conditions, for criminal actions. A protest has a responsibility to maintain peace within the protest. If the protest cannot maintain peace, then the police need to restore peace, and the peaceful members of the protest need to disperse to allow the police to restore the peace. Once peace has been restored, then the protests can reformulate and advocate for reforms to achieve their goals.

Throughout history, riots have never solved the problems, and they often make the situation worse. And very rarely do riots obtain the outcome for which they were intended. Some of the greatest human rights violations have occurred during or were the result of riots. Some of these riots have produced years or decades of misery, and some of these riots have engendered the most calamitous reign of power in human history. Societies have collapsed as the result of riots, and the remains of the society have been of privation, the rule of force, and the subjugation of the people.

The question of company sponsorships of organizations that support or encourage riots is, are they mad, or are they simply crazy? The very existence of, and continued operations of companies, requires that “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" is maintained in America. Rioting endangers these principles, and successful rioting abolishes these principles. The very existence of companies is a stake, yet some companies provide moral and financial assistance to organizations that would ultimately end their existence or, at the minimum, reduce their revenues and profits to endanger their existence. Even the vacuous support of these organizations endangers their company, as it allows for a false narrative to be established that could result in significant changes in America that would impact their company.

Perhaps these companies are just engaging in feeding the crocodile as explained in my Chirp of, “06/13/20 Feeding the Crocodile”. If they are doing so, I will remind them that the crocodile is always hungry for more, and the crocodile will always end up eating them. If others are supporting these organizations for the purposes of feeding the crocodile, the same warning applies. If you believe that these organizations that support riots will fix the problems, then you are either mad, crazy, or at the very least delusional. The rest of us should not listen to and, indeed, oppose those that are mad, crazy, or delusional.

06/28/20 Decision Points in Life

Michael Lindell is an American inventor, businessman, and entrepreneur. He is the founder and CEO of My Pillow, Inc., and is sometimes referred to as "the My Pillow guy". He has been promoting his biography, "What Are The Odds? From Crack Addict to CEO" that is now available.

While promoting his book, he makes several statements that should be examined. Statements such as “use mathematics to prove the existence of God’ and “What are the odds?” need to be examined. My new Article, “Decision Points in Life”, examines these statements and how the probabilities of making better or poorer decisions effects your chances in the making for a better or poorer life.

06/27/20 Other People’s Money (OPM)

In today's society, it has become very easy to spend Other People's Money, especially in government funding, but also in commerce. My new Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”, examines this issue.

06/26/20 Tax the Rich

My new Article examines the complex meanings and implications of “Tax the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share“. Those that utilize these phrases rarely understand these meanings, complications, and implications, and this article examines these issues and concerns.

06/25/20 The Value of Money

What is the value of money? Money by itself is just high-quality paper with fancy engraving, and as such, has little value in of itself. Electronic money is just a series of numbers on a computer which has almost no value in of itself. It is what the money represents that is its value. For it represents the labor of a person to obtain the money. Whether that labor is of a physical or mental effort, it represents the value of your labor. When you purchase goods or services, you are exchanging your labor for another’s labor. When you exchange monies, you are exchanging your labor for another’s labor. When the government collects taxes, they are expropriating your labor. Whether these taxes are used or misused for the purposes of government, these taxes represent your labor.

When you accept “Entitlements“ from the government, you are accepting the labor from another person, except if you are accepting benefits from an entitlement that you have paid into. Even then, if you accept more monies that you paid into the entitlement, you are accepting the labor from another person.

You should, therefore, always equate money with labor. If you think of money as labor, then you can better judge if the goods or services received are worth the labor that you spent to obtain these goods or services. Thinking of money as hours (or minutes) of labor also helps you make a better decision as to whether you wish to obtain these goods or services. Thinking of taxes as your hours of labor also helps you to make a better judgment as to the efficacy of government spending.

06/24/30 Principles

Along with my “06/22/20 Quotes of Wisdom” I have formulated several principles of my life that I always keep in mind in my everyday dealings with people. If you practice these Principles regularly, they become easier to practice in your life.

• A smart person knows what to say, a wise person knows whether or not, and how to say it. Try to be a wise person.
• Always be careful with your non-verbal communication. It says much more about you than your words.
• Be careful in what you say to people, as most people are not interested in hearing the facts or truth. They are usually only interested in hearing their own opinions reinforced.
• Be careful what you ask for from others - you may get it.
• Before speaking your mind always consider what is to be gained or lost.
• Comment only on those things you really know something about.
• If you are given the responsibility you must have the authority, for responsibility without authority is an illusion.
• Life is like a double-entry ledger. For everything that happens there are both positives and negatives. Be prepared for both the positives and negatives in your dealings with others.
• Never ask a question unless you are prepared to deal with the answer.
• Polite and Respectful speech is the only form of acceptable communication.
• Remember to love people and use things, rather than to love things and use people.
• Self-deprecating humor is the best form of humor in dealing with others.
• The first step in solving a problem is for everyone to recognize that there is a problem.
• There are always unintended and unknown consequences for all we say and do. Be prepared to deal with these unintended and unknown consequences when they occur, and do not disclaim responsibility for them.
• There are three sides to every story: one side, the other side, and the truth. It is best to discover the truth before making up your mind.
• There are things that we know, things that we know we don't know, and things that we don't know that we don't know. Be aware of all of these things in your dealings with others.
• You cannot control what others think, say, or do. You can only control what you think, say, or do.
• You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room.
• You should always mean what you say and say what you mean.

The above Chips are part of my collection of "Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules" that are within my Article on “Life”.

06/23/20 Quotes of Wisdom

One of my “Truisms” is:

“The world is full of quotes, but not so many quotes of wisdom.”
- Mark Dawson

With this in mind, I have decided to list some of my favorite quotes of wisdom:

• “Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best.”
  - Mark Dawson
• “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
  - The Bible - Leviticus 19:18
• "Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin
• “Well done is better than well said.”
  - Benjamin Franklin
• "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
  - Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism
• “Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them.”
  - Albert Camus
• “Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.”
  -  Jackson Brown, Jr.
• “Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.”
  - Thomas Paine
• “The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.”
  - Henry Ford
• "You are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice."
   - Ezra Taft Benson
• “You cannot control what others think, say, or do. You can only control what you think, say, or do.”
  - Mark Dawson
• "Explore beyond your boundaries. For the journey will expand your knowledge, and then perhaps lead you to wisdom."
  - Mark Dawson
• "Life is neither fair nor unfair. Life is what it is. To deal with life, other than for what it is, is foolhardy and wasteful."
  - Mark Dawson
• "True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!"
  - Mark Dawson

For more on my wisdom I would direct you to my Article “Pearls of Wisdom”.

06/22/20 Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How are the questions that journalism students are taught that they must ask and answer before they compose their reporting. Good reporting requires that these questions be answered before accurate journalism is complete. However, these questions should not be limited to journalism, as they should be asked and answered in all intellectual activities. Whenever you think about or investigate a topic or subject, these are the questions you should try to answer before you formulate an opinion or conclusion.

In asking and answering these questions, you need to consult several sources and diverse viewpoints to reach a sound opinion or conclusion. Without doing so, you will reach an erroneous opinion or conclusion. Once you have sufficient answers to these questions, you should then apply “Reasoning” to the answers to reach a sound opinion or conclusion. Otherwise, you are allowing others to think for you, or you are being swayed by the emotional appeals of others.

06/21/20 New Religion Articles

I have added two new Articles in my “Religion“ section. The first new article is a rewording and reexamination of “The Ten Commandments”, while the second article is an examination of “God’s Forgiveness”.

06/20/20 Burning Books

The removal or destruction of public statues, the canceling of television shows, the censoring of movies and songs, the painting over public murals, the restrictions on or removal of social media posts, and the removal of signs or displays deemed offensive by the Progressives and the Left are all equivalent to book burning. I do not expect that we will actually burn books in a public display, but I do expect that books deemed offensive by the Progressives and the Left will soon be removed from libraries and bookstores. These actions have no place in America and are antithetical to Freedom and Liberty and are an assault on our Natural Rights. They are also an attempt to suppress or rewrite our history, a condemnation and suppression that I have written about in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It“.

The mob and their supporters have loudly proclaimed the false narratives of "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", “Racism is Prevalent”, “06/08/30 Systemic Police Bias”, as well as other “The Biggest Falsehoods in America” as justifications for their actions and the above reactions to the mob actions. However, no attention is paid to the actual problems as I have Chirped on, “06/10/20 The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms”.

These are all actions and reactions that are part of my Chirp on “06/15/20 The Destruction of America”. The actions and reactions are also symptomatic of my Chirps on “06/16/20 Madness, Madness, Madness” and “06/13/20 Feeding the Crocodile”. If we allow these actions and reactions to continue, we will allow for the destruction of America. This destruction, for the most part, is not being done by the government, but by the actions of mobs and the acquiescence to the mob with the tacit approval of government elected and appointed officials. Much of Corporate America has also acquiesced to the actions and reactions of the mob and has shown no fidelity to the ideals of America. The Mainstream Media reporting and the Mainstream Cultural Media responses have been appalling in their inaccuracies and incompleteness and are symptomatic of “Modern Journalism“.

Elected Officials, more interested in currying favor with their interest groups and obtaining campaign contributions and election support from them and Corporate America, rather than doing what is best for all the American people, bears a large burden for creating and not resolving these problems.

Corporate America, more interested in profits and pandering rather than helping to resolve these problems through increased employment opportunities, bears a large burden for creating these problems. Corporate America outsourced its manufacturing and production capabilities to other countries to increase profits, outsourcing that is responsible for the loss of employment in lower-class and middle-class persons, but most especially the diverse lower-class population of our country. Outsourcing that has also endangered the health and safety of all Americans, as examined in my Pandemic Chirp on “03/24/20 Made in the U.S.A.” Corporate America that has profited by our Freedoms and Liberties and is now is willing to restrict them by pandering to the mob's actions and reactions.

Finally, the American electorate bears the ultimate responsibility for creating and not resolving the problems in America. By continuing to vote for politicians that are not interested in solving the problems of common Americans, but are more interested in obtaining and retaining power and currying the favor of interest groups and Corporate America, they allow these problems to germinate and fester.

Another mob action is necessary to right our course in America. A mob of voters on election day that will reject these actions and reactions by electing politicians who will not pander to the mob, but politicians that will realistically confront and solve the problems in America.

06/19/20 Mind Reading, Divining Motivations, Dog Whistle Accusations, and Strawmen

No one truly knows how another person truly thinks and feels. The only thing we can know about another person is the words and deeds of the other person. Anyone who believes that they are able to perceive another’s thoughts or feelings is either deluding themselves or projecting their own thoughts and feelings upon another. When this is done in the political arena is often done for political gain rather than understanding. This political gain is most often accomplished by means of Mind Reading, Divining Motivations, accusations of Dog Whistling, and Strawmen of their opponents.

When one party restates what another has said, they are often utilizing Mind Reading or Divining Motivations in their restatements. Often this restatement is done by putting words into someone’s mouth, then criticizing the words that were put into their mouths. This technique is to rephrase or restate what someone has said in the most negative connotation possible or to add negative motivations into another’s mouth. The person who put the words into another’s mouth then goes on to criticize the words they put into someone’s mouth. This is a dishonest and despicable tactic and a wholly inappropriate manner of debating political issues. It is often done to "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person actually said. It is your responsibility to only speak your own thoughts and reasoning, or to quote the words of another person, then to “Criticism vs. Critique” the actual words of the other person. After both sides have laid out their reasoning and conclusions, then it is fair to critique the others' reasoning or conclusions, based on what they have stated, not what you have stated for them.

Accusations of Dog Whistling are another means to imply nefarious motivations to another. When someone claims that another is Dog Whistling, it is done to cast aspersions on the person and those that would listen to the person. Dog Whistling accusations are also an attempt to silence or limit another’s speech. To control another’s speech is an attempt to control the discussion, dialog, or debate, and to not allow contrary opinions to be voiced. And those who would attempt to control another’s speech often have the desire to control others' thinking (which is an example of my divining the motivation of others).

Another technique is to Strawman another’s words. A strawman that is a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. These strawman arguments are often simplifications or extreme polarization of the other’s words. Strawmen do not accurately reflect what a person has said, as they allow for no middle positions or subtleties nor nuances of their positions. Middle positions or subtleties and nuances that are important to fully understand what is being said.

Those that engage in the techniques of Mind Reading, Divining Motivations, accusations of Dog Whistles, and Strawman do not want to inform the public but sway the public to their opinions. Shame on them for doing so, and shame on you for allowing them to do so. We should all remember that this is done to "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person actually said. We should all guard against allowing these techniques to sway us, and we should all be very wary of those that utilize these techniques.

06/18/20 The Rule of Law rather than The Rule of The Supreme Court

Congress in 1964 passed the Civil Rights Act that includes Title VII provisions on employment protections in America. Congress declared it “unlawful ... for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Title VII’s plain text does not include sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County on Title VII protections in employment, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of sex in America. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has changed the legal definition of sex. It is no longer male or female but now is Male, Female, Homosexual, and Transgendered. Many may wish that Title VII did include gays or transgender, including myself. In fact, members of Congress have introduced legislation many times over the last half-century to change the statute to do exactly that. For reasons of politics this has not occurred, but for reasons of good social policy, this should occur. I would, therefore. Encourage all Americans to support this change to Title VII.

To properly enforce this Supreme Court ruling would require that employers gather information on the sexual orientation of applicants and employees (through “The Law of Unintended Consequences”). This definition of sex may also ripple into other policies not related to Title VII (i.e., Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and others). Ultimately, this may lead to governments gathering information on the sexual orientation of all Americans.

This ruling does not address the issue of Religious Liberty in the hiring of employees in religious institutions or religious companies. It also impacts our freedoms of association as well as other "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". As usual, in these cases, the rights of one group (i.e., Homosexual and Transgendered) are pitted against another group (i.e., Religious Groups and other groups), which conflict with each other. This conflict of groups has been a dynamic in American history. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton has ignored this conflict. Their decision also ignored the consequences of enforcement. To ignore this, conflict or consequences is not to resolve this conflict or consequences. Therefore, we can expect a multitude of lawsuits about this conflict or consequences because of the Bostock v. Clayton County ruling.

This ruling is also an excellent example of my Article “Judges, Not Lords“ in that the Supreme Court has substituted the Rule of Law for The Rule of The Supreme Court. Social policy is only to be implemented by laws created by Legislators and signed into law by the President or Governor, and only if the law is deemed Constitutional. To do so otherwise is to transfer social policy decisions from the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, to the unelected courts. This transfer is an assault on the Constitution and the rights of the people to govern themselves in a Democratic Republic. We must redress this unbalancing of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial to preserve the American principles of self-government and the protection of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

06/17/20 Essential Duties and Responsibilities of Municipal Government

What are the differences between essential and non-essential services of a municipal or local government? Essential services are defined as those minimal services that must be fully provided for and achieved within a municipality or local government. All other services are to be considered as non-essential. All non-essential services are only to be provided if they are legal and proper functions of government, as enacted by legislative authority, and as budgetary constraints allow. A concise list of these essential services is:

1. Maintain the Rule of Law through proper policing and law administration.
2. Provide protection from calamities such as fire prevention and suppression, and infrastructure safety inspections.
3. Provide for sanitary conditions of water, sewer, and waste management.
4. Provide health services for disease control and food and drink safety.
5. Provide infrastructure and management for the movement of peoples and materials (roadways, bridges, tunnels, waterways. public transportation, etc.).
6. Provide for the primary and secondary education of its youth to assure the minimal knowledge and skills necessary to become future productive members of society.
7. Assure for the proper and legal voting in elections.
8. Assure equal treatment for all in the provisioning of these services.

Until all these essential services are provided, no non-essential services can be implemented nor funded. The problem in doing so is that many would expand the boundaries of essential services to include non-essential services. This is an expansion of minimal services to maximal services. It is the definition of these minimal boundaries that are often the foundation of political debates as to the role of government in society. Whether these essential services are to be provided by municipal employees, non-governmental organizations, or contracted to private companies is also a question that is debatable, but beyond the scope of this Chirp.

The boundaries of essential services, and the limits of non-essential services, must be defined to assure that the Freedoms and Liberties of the people are not infringed upon by the government. Or to paraphrase another famous statement – To be essential, or to be non-essential, that is the question. Let us determine the proper answer to this question and let us not bow to the tyranny of the majority in determining these answers.

06/16/20 Madness, Madness, Madness

Is America slipping into madness or the quality of being rash and foolish? I am reminded of the end of the movie “The Bridge on the River Kwai” when the camp doctor is observing the Japanese, British, and the American dead, and the destruction of the bridge and train, he started crying out “Madness, Madness, Madness” to describe the scene. If we do not stop the madness on the left and the right, I am afraid that we will be viewing the death and destruction of American civil society.

The belief in Political Correctness, the ability of individuals to hold disparate ideas, the sway of emotional appeals, the polarization of us versus them that I have written about in my last few Chirps is now prevalent in America. All of these are signs of madness or at the very minimum of America becoming rash and foolish.

The lack of “Reasoning”, utilizing "Formal and Informal Logic", and with the awareness of "Logical Fallacies", and "Cognitive Biases" of our thinking are driving us into madness. We have too few politicians and leaders that are willing to yell ‘Stop and Think Before Acting’, and too few people that are willing to stop and think. Political leaders more concerned about political power are driving us like a stampede of cattle to enact their agendas.

Rashness and foolishness have occurred throughout American history. However, some leaders have arisen to lead us out of this rashness and foolishness. Where are the leaders of today that can do this? Unfortunately, none have so far appeared. Some have tried, but their efforts are being drowned out by the madness. The personal destruction that I have written about in my Chirp of ”06/14/20 The Destruction of America” has frightened many people from speaking out and becoming the leaders that we require. However, courage is required to become the forceful leader that we need to end this madness. Always remember that:

"True Courage is doing the right thing, at the right time, regardless of personal consequences."
   - Mark Dawson

It is time to stop the madness. It is time to stop the rash and foolish actions. It is time to stop and think before acting. It is time for us to take reasonable actions rather than emotional actions. It is time to stop personal destruction so that reasonable and intelligent leaders can arise. If we do not do so, then we shall go mad and destroy the American ideals of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

06/15/20 The Destruction of America

America is being destroyed by Leftism. Not only the physical destruction that has occurred because of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis but the personal destruction of any who would speak out against these acts. People who speak out against these acts of rioting, looting, and arson are losing their jobs, businesses, and their reputations for daring to disagree with Leftists. No longer is free speech tolerated, but indeed, it is to be suppressed. Those who would speak out against these acts and Leftists policy positions are to be destroyed. Not only are moderates and conservatives to be destroyed, but liberals and progressives who disagree with the Left are now being destroyed. Anyone who is not of my Chirp of “06/12/20 The Left Pole” is to be destroyed. They are not to be ostracized but to be destroyed, for no tolerance of any opinion but the Leftist opinion is to be allowed.

There is a noun for those that would destroy others that disagree with them. That noun is “Fascists”, and Fascism is best expressed by one of the quotes of its leading proponents:

" We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them."
- Benito Mussolini

This destruction is antithetical to the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the people. This destruction can only lead to tyranny, a tyranny that controls what people can do or say. It also reveals a hubris:

"The hubris of a government that believes they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled."
- Mark Dawson

A free people can only exist when they have “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. This Destruction in America is the destruction of these ideals. It is reminiscent of the “Reign of Terror” after the “French Revolution”. A Reign of Terror that destroys all in its path. It is time for the people to rise up and destroy the destroyers before this Reign of Terror descends upon us. Leftists are not engaged in acts of civil disobedience, but acts of civil revolution that are actions against "A Civil Society" and are, indeed, acts of evil. We should all remember that:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke

It is time for all good people to act and not allow for the triumph of evil. We are now speeding down this slippery slope to destruction at a speed that may be difficult, if not impossible, to stop. If we allow this Destruction of America to continue, I fear that we will suffer the same fate as the “Fall of the Western Roman Empire”. Or, as it has been said:

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
- Abraham Lincoln

To allow for this Destruction of America is to also allow for the end of the American experiment as expressed in The Gettysburg Address:

 “… and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
- Abraham Lincoln

06/14/20 Federal Intervention in CHAZ

CHAZ is the acronym for the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” an area of about six blocks in Seattle ceded to protesters. Much debate has occurred as to the legality of this action, and for the proper Local, State, and Federal government response to CHAZ. In these debates, we have had references to various Federal laws that would be appropriate for any response by the Federal government. However, I have not heard any discussion on the Constitutional responsibilities for intervention.

Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

In addition, Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Under the Constitution, all levels of government have a duty and responsibility to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States. They also have the duty and responsibility to assure “the equal protection of the laws” for all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. As CHAZ does not have a Republican Form of Government, their actions are a form of succession or rebellion from the United States, and the people within CHAZ are not equally protected under the law, the actions of CHAZ are Unconstitutional. The words and deeds, and the inactions of the Mayor of Seattle and the Governor of Washington demonstrate their lack of fealty to the Constitution and, therefore, require a response from the Federal government. This lack of fealty to the Constitution should also be the basis for the removal from office of the Mayor and Governor under Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Therefore, all levels of government have the duty and responsibility under Article IV Section 4 of the Constitutional to end the actions of CHAZ forthwith, and to remove such persons from office who did not meet their duty and responsibility to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States under Amendment XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

06/13/20 Feeding the Crocodile

To placate or appease a mob is often done to quell the passions of the mob. Just as often it leads to the following metaphor:

“Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.”
- Winston Churchill

The statements and actions of many on the rioting, looting, and arson that has occurred because of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis are a perfect example of this metaphor. The calls by our leaders for systemic changes are often done for the purpose of feeding the crocodile, or for the purpose of obtaining and retaining political power. However, feeding a crocodile does not solve the problems, but only postpones the day of reckoning and makes the day of reckoning direr. Placing politicians in power who feed the crocodile is dangerous, as they often institute policies to feed the crocodile.

Appeasement to the demands of one’s opponents is often the means of feeding the crocodile. As the wars of the 20^th century have so vividly demonstrated, such appeasement often leads to a larger war. Larger wars that result in more deaths, destruction, and injuries than that which would have occurred otherwise. Appeasement is never the solution to feeding the crocodile, but solving the problem is the solution.

One of the newest ways of feeding the crocodile is by kneeling. In all human cultures and societies throughout history, the act of kneeling or bowing down was an act of submission. The beaten or downtrodden person demonstrates their submission to another by kneeling or bowing down to their conqueror or oppressor. Consequently, the symbolic act of kneeling or bowing down to another is a symbolic act of submission to the will of the other person, and not a symbolic act of solidarity with another person. If one wishes to express solidarity with another, one should stand shoulder to shoulder with another person(s) in peaceful moments of thoughtful introspection or prayer. The Judeo-Christian culture is that a person should only kneel or bow to God. For in the Judeo-Christian culture, all people are to be considered equal and not to be submissive to another.

The false narratives of an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", “Racism is Prevalent” as well as other “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”, and my Chirp of “06/08/30 Systemic Police Bias”, as the root cause of our problems in America continues to feed the crocodile. It is time to stop feeding the crocodile. It is time to face the realities in America based on facts and reasoning and not emotional appeals. Calls for "Change and/or New" can be dangerous if not based on intellectual "Reasoning". To utilize emotional appeals rather than intellectual reasoning will not solve our problems but only exacerbate the problems.

It is time to stop the rioting, looting, and arson. It is time to return to an "A Civil Society" and one that institutes “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. To not do so is to place into pearl “… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

06/12/20 The Left Pole

When you are standing on the North Pole, all directions are to the south. When you are on the Political Left, all contrary policy positions are to the Political Right. Therefore, any deviances to the Left policy positions are labeled Conservative or Right-Wing. No variances of their policy positions are allowed, as no shades of grey are permitted. As such, you are either for them, or you are against them.

Consequently, it is not possible to have "A Civil Society", and incivility is expected to achieve their policy goals. Their reasoning is they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct, as stated in my Chirp of “04/01/19 The Creed of Progressives and Leftists”. Therefore, incivility is permitted to achieve their ideal of a just society.

This is being played out in of the rioting, looting, and arson that occurred with the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis. Peaceful protests should be encouraged to right this wrong in the present and future; however, rioting, looting, and arson are not acceptable. But they seem to be acceptable to the left, as evidenced by their non-condemnation of these activities, and sometimes outright support and assistance for the looting, rioting, and arson.

The Virtue-Signaling of the Mainstream Media, Progressive Commentators, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Democrat politicians that is often accomplished by means discussed in my Chirp of “06/08/20 Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning”, reveals that they live on the Left Pole. The Left Pole in which everything rotates around them and their policies.

06/11/20 Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning

We have often seen reporting of actors and actresses, celebrities, fine artists, musicians, poets and writers, producers, directors, and scriptwriters, sportsmen and sportswomen, etc. supporting or expressing their viewpoints on subjects or situations that are topics of discussions under current consideration. And, all too often, these viewpoints seem to be one-sided, the side of Politically Correct thought. Rarely have we seen thoughtful or reasoned statements by these personages. Indeed, if you listen or read any further comments by these personages, you will discover statements bereft of thoughtfulness or “Reasoning”. These personages’ statements are rarely challenged, especially at the time of their making these statements. Reporters or interviewers are not interested in challenging these personages, as these personages may become upset with them and not speak to them in the future. But most often, it is because the reporters or interviewers are in agreement with these statements.

I refer to this reporting as Parrot Praising. It is the parroting of politically correct thought for the purpose of praising politically correct thought. The Mainstream Cultural Media, supported by the Mainstream Media, is at the forefront of Parrot Praising. This Parrot Praise is only for Politically Correct thought, and not for reasoned thought. Indeed, nonpolitically correct thought is often derided in what I refer to as Parrot Condemning. Consequently, this Parrot Praising is hooray for their side, while Parrot Condemning is booing the other side. One of the most insidious forms of Parrot Praising is giving awards to those who Parrot Praise or Parrot Condemn. These awards are often given by Liberals and Progressives to Liberals and Progressives, at which time the award recipient often Parrot Praises or Parrot Condemns. This Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning is also a means of Virtue Signaling of what they believe is their moral and intellectually superior opinions, as examined in my Chirp of “04/01/19 The Creed of Progressives and Leftists”. Parrot Condemning is also for the purpose of trying to silence anyone who would disagree with the Parrot Praising. This Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning is not a thoughtful discussion on the issues or concerns, but an attempt to sway public opinion for one side and against the other side.

This Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning reflects negatively on those who make these statements, as it demonstrates their lack of intellectual acuity. Often, these statements are emotional responses rather than reasoned responses. You should, therefore, ignore the Parrot Praising and Parrot Condemning, and instead think about the reasoned statements of these personages (which in most cases means that you will not have to think at all).

06/10/20 The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms

In the wake of the rioting, looting, and arson that has occurred as a result of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis the cries of "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", “Racism is Prevalent” as well as other “The Biggest Falsehoods in America”, and my Chirp of “06/08/30 Systemic Police Bias” have abounded. Calls for systemic changes in America have proliferated. Proposed changes to “Social Policy” and “Entitlements“ will soon follow, usually without consideration of the repercussions of "Change and/or New" and “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. My new Article, “The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms” examines these issues.

06/09/20 Defund the Police Movement

Every locality or municipality is free to choose how they enforce the law, as long as this enforcement is Constitutional and not in violation of "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". What type of policing, how many police and the amount of funding for the police is their prerogative? The only caveat is that the natural rights of the people are protected, for, without this protection, society will deteriorate into chaos, as the people will take the law into their own hands to protect their natural rights.

The calls for defunding the police or replacing the police by another form of policing runs the risk of this deterioration. This deterioration must be guarded against by whatever actions the locality or municipality undertakes to change their policing. If it does deteriorate, the State and Federal officials may be forced into action to protect the Natural, Constitution, and Civil Rights of the people. This action would most likely be in the form of armed forces patrolling the streets of a locality or municipality, as expressed in my Chirp of, “06/07/20 Suppression of Rioting, Looting, and Arson”. Armed Forces patrolling the streets of America is not a proper way to achieve law enforcement, although it may be necessary if this deterioration occurs.

Law and Order are one of the essential duties and responsibilities of any government. Without Law and Order, it is not possible for a society to function properly. Not only would there be social unrest, but the localities or municipalities' economy would collapse without Law and Order. Small businesses that supply goods and services to the people could not function without Law and Order. Large businesses would be wary of locating in these localities or municipalities due to the possibility of rioting, looting, and arson. This would, of course, lead to deprivations of the basic needs of a person to survive. A mass exodus of the people from these localities or municipalities would follow as they searched for theses needs elsewhere. Other localities or municipalities would have to absorb these people, which would put a strain on these other localities or municipalities' resources.

In changing our policing we should remember the British “Peelian principles” of policing. Nine principles that were set out in the "General Instructions" issued to every new police officer in the British Metropolitan Police from 1829 onward. The nine principles are as follows:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Let us, therefore, be very wary of changing our law enforcement until we can be assured that Law and Order for all will prevail after the change. Let us not delude ourselves with false hopes and expectations that the change will be for the better. In making any changes, we must be practical and realistic about the change. To not do so would impact the “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

06/08/20 Systemic Police Bias

The rioting, looting, and arson that is occurring because of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis are supposedly about systemic police abuse of blacks in America. The question is, what is the statistical facts about systemic police racism, and how much systemic police bias belief is based on inflammatory rhetoric? Heather MacDonald’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about the myth of systemic police racism, which is grounded in multiple studies, which she cites, is illuminative:

This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

Therefore, we can conclude that systemic police bias is more of a belief based on inflammatory rhetoric, unsupported by the statistical facts. Changing laws, rules, and regulations based on unsupported facts is always a path to more problems. Let us, instead, vigorously prosecute those police actions that are a violation of the law.

06/07/20 Suppression of Rioting, Looting, and Arson

There has been much discussion about utilizing the Armed Forces of the United States to suppress the rioting, looting, and arson that has occurred as a result of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis. This would be a perilous decision, but not an unprecedented decision. Several times in our past history, we have utilized or Armed Forces to suppress rioting. The most famous examples of this are the Whiskey Rebellion (July 1794) and the New York City draft riots of the Civil War (July 13–16, 1863).

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the will and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway. The whiskey tax was repealed in the early 1800s during the Jefferson administration. Historian Carol Berkin argues that the episode, in the long run, strengthened American nationalism because the people appreciated how well Washington handled the rebels without resorting to tyranny.

The New York City draft riots (July 13–16, 1863), sometimes referred to as the Manhattan draft riots and known at the time as Draft Week, were violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan, widely regarded as the culmination of white working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots remain the largest civil and most racially charged urban disturbance in American history. The use of Armed Forces in times of a National Emergency to suppress rioting was firmly established by this action.

However, there are limits to the utilization of Armed Forces within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. This act was designed so that the Armed Forces could not be utilized to impose tyranny upon the people of the United States. Some have interpreted the Posse Comitatus Act as meaning that no Armed Forces may be utilized for any actions within the United States, while others interpret this act as limiting the usage of Armed Forces to only National Emergency situations.

Federal troops have a long history of domestic roles, including occupying secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction and putting down major urban riots. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of active-duty personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, riot suppression, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.

In the situation of Riot Suppression, the normal actions to accomplish this suppression are the Governor of the State where this is occurring to call into duty the National Guard of the State to assist local authorities in the suppression of rioting, looting, and arson. Rioting, looting, and arson are a violation of the Natural, Constitution, and Civil Rights of those people who are directly impacted by the rioting, looting, and arson. The failure of a Governor to suppress rioting, looting, and arson is an abdication of their duties and responsibilities. However, if the Governor does not call into duty the National Guard, the question is then “What is the Federal Governments responsibility in suppressing rioting, looting, and arson?’.  

As the Natural, Constitution, and Civil Rights of those people directly impacted by the rioting, looting, and arson are being violated, the Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that these rights are protected and restored. Therefore, if the Federal government declares a National Emergency because of this rioting, looting, and arson, they have a duty and responsibility to suppress this rioting, looting, and arson.

The peaceful protests that occurred because of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis are an exercise in our free speech rights. The rioting, looting, and arson that is occurring is a violation of our rights and an act of rebellion against civil law. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Federal government to utilize Federal Armed Forces to protect and restore our rights. Care must be taken to assure that Armed Forces to not violate our rights, but to not protect our rights is a violation of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.

06/06/20 I Would Not Want to be the President

A friend of mine once stated that he would not want to be the President of the United States, but he would not mind being the Emperor of the United States. As I got older, more observant, and wiser, I have agreed more and more with this sentiment.

The President of the United States endures much in the performance of his duties. Constant criticisms, aspersions, backbiting, disparagements, denigrations, revilements, detractions, vilifications, and vituperations are the lot of The President. The hidden agendas of administration officials, and the bureaucrats stymying of his policies, directions, and executive orders are part in parcel of this job. The inability to get the cooperation of Congress to pass needful and necessary laws and the constant Judicial reviews of his actions makes it exceedingly difficult to govern the country. The political horse-trading and deals required to advance his agenda are not the skills and abilities that I possess nor that which I want to possess. I would, therefore, much rather be an Emperor that decrees and is obeyed by all.

But, alas, there is not much possibility that this will ever happen. Therefore, I have decided I would like another position in the government that we appear to be drifting toward. I would like to be Chief Arbiter of Truth and the Protector Against Hate Speech. The duties and responsibilities of this position would be to fact check and flag any statements made on social media that were contrary to the truth. This position would also be responsible for scrubbing any social media comments that are deemed to be hate speech. As this is a large task, it would require a large bureaucracy to fulfill its responsibilities. I believe that the last two decades of my observations and analysis of this phenomenon would make me eminently qualified to lead this effort.

I know that this is a huge task with heavy responsibilities, but it is a task I am willing to undertake for the benefit of all Americans. The importance and weight of this responsibility would always weigh upon me. And I would always be cognizant of the aphorism ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’. I would, therefore, tread very lightly and remember that it is foolish, and dangerous, to constrict the free speech rights of a people dedicated to Liberty and Freedom. I, therefore, would expect that the sum total of the truth tagging and speech scrubbing that I would act upon is zero, as zero is the proper amount of truth tagging and speech scrubbing that is appropriate in America.

06/06/20 My Coming Out of the Closet

During my Coronavirus Pandemic at home sheltering, I have had more opportunity to think and ponder on my being. One of my ruminations is on how much I love women. Not only a sexual love but the emotional and intellectual love of women. But I also realized how much I did not understand women. I, therefore, decided to self-identify as a woman to gain a better understanding of women. During this self-identification process, I realized that I was still sexually attracted to women while being a woman. Consequentially, I realized that I was also a lesbian woman. I have, therefore, decided to come out of the closet and admit to my being a lesbian.

Now that I have admitted my true being, I feel much better after my coming out of the closet as a lesbian. I would ask all to respect my decision on self-identifying as a woman and being a lesbian woman. I ask for your toleration and acceptance of my lesbianism, and to not use my being a lesbian as a basis of judgment for anything that I have written. And please remember that in any comments that you should make, you should remember that you are now speaking to a lady.

06/05/20 Indemnification

I have written a new Article on “Indemnification” that examines the issue of the compensation of those who have been harmed as a result of rioting. Rioting such as we have seen as a result of the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis. The rioting that does much more harm than good, and rioting that is fraught with moral, ethical, and financial concerns.

06/04/20 Vigilantism

Some politicians have derided those persons who utilize firearms to protect themselves from looters and rioters as vigilantism. But vigilantism is when one or more persons seek out another to exact revenge or retribution for perceived injustices. However, it is not vigilantism if you are protecting your person or property, but an exercise of your natural right to afford yourself of such protection. Your first recourse should be to allow the police officers to provide such protection, but if the police officers are unable or choose not to provide this protection, then you have the natural right to protect your person or property.

When the police stand down or withdraw this protection, when other law officers release violent criminals onto the streets, when politicians do not act against looters and rioters, then they are in dereliction of their duties and responsibilities, and they are culpable for the violation of your natural rights. Consequently, they are not fit to be leaders of a people dedicated to “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. Until the police, law officers, and politicians enforce the law, people must exercise their natural rights to preserve their freedoms and liberties.

06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top

In 1910 the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead” the editor, George William Russell, wrote a piece about legislation that included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”

As can be deduced by any intelligent and critical observer, nothing has changed since this quote was originated, and I suspect that this quote has been true throughout history. Indeed, it has become even worse since the 20^th century progressed. In the 21^st century, the experts on top modus operandi have become entrenched. The bureaucrats, the technocrats, the policy wonks, and a host of others claiming to be experts want to be decision-makers for governmental and social policies in America. And politicians often defer to these experts to disclaim responsibility for the bad results of their decisions.

What we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong. Wrong because they lack sufficient knowledge of all aspects of an issue, wrong because the facts they rely on are incorrect, wrong because they have an unrealistic belief in the accuracy of their statistics and modeling, and most importantly, they are wrong because they lack wisdom. And sometimes, the experts have hidden agendas for their expert opinions. Hidden agendas to accomplish what they believe to be good for Americans, but that they believe Americans cannot fully understand the good they wish to achieve.

The reason we elect politicians should be for them to make wise judgments based on expert opinions and the voice of the people. Politicians also often pick and choose experts that agree with their political agenda, and just as often discount experts that disagree with their political agenda. We should also expect politicians to be leery of expert opinions and to make their own judgments. And we should expect these politicians to take responsibility for their decisions. But the American people also have a responsibility. The responsibility to elect wise politicians and hold them accountable for their decisions. If the politicians and electorate cannot take on this responsibility, then we will continue to have experts on top.

06/02/20 What if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Used Violence?

One of the great triumphs of human rights of the latter half of the 20^th century was the Civil Rights movement. This Civil Rights movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a protest against racism and bigotry that was systemic in America. It changed Americans' attitudes about black people as well as other racial groups and shamed America for its past actions of racism and bigotry. America progressed from one of bigotry and racism to an America that was by and large nonracist. Although vestiges of racism and discrimination still exist in America, when it rears its ugly head, it is condemned and prosecuted as a violation of Civil Rights, and in some cases, criminal prosecutions are initiated.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to accomplish this feat through non-violent protests, and in doing so, he was able to coalesce support from non-black Americans for his cause. A coalescence that was an unstoppable force for the betterment of America. The question of this chirp is, ‘Would this have been possible if violence had been utilized to archive this laudable goal?’. The answer is – of course not! Violence pits one group of people against another. Violence inevitably leads to violations of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and the disunion of "A Civil Society". Violence never solves a problem but exacerbates the problem. And violence is often counterproductive to the goals of those who turn to violence. The only time violence is acceptable is to overthrow a government that violates the human rights of its people and to institute a just government that preserves human rights.

The racial violence we have seen in America post the Civil Rights movement has not been productive in eliminating the vestiges of racism and discrimination in America. Instead of coalescence to solve these problems, we have pitted one group of people against other groups of people. The destruction of personal property and physical injuries to some people has increased the divisions in America. It has stalled the bipartisanship needed to resolve the problems of the vestiges of racism and discrimination in America.

And this divisiveness is being manipulated by some for the purposes of their political agenda. It is much easier to stir up the mob to obtain your goals rather than appeal to the better angels of our nature. The rush to do something to solve this problem is often a rush to judgment, and the creation of unjust laws, unjust laws that often do not solve the problem but often create more divisiveness in America. Only with proper “Dialog & Debate” and “Reasoning” can we hope to resolve the problems of the vestiges of racism and discrimination that still exist in America.

This violence must stop forthwith, by whatever means legal and proper, for us to address the problems that led to the violence. The people engaging in the violence must be arrested and prosecuted, for to not do so is a violation of the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All Americans.

06/01/20 Does Might Make Right

Is might right, or is might just the power to do what you will? Might is never right but might be necessary when utilized for a just purpose. In a time of crisis, it may be necessary for might to establish order and to save lives, but might should always be tempered by mercy. For if it is not tempered, it becomes repressive and a violation of human rights.

Might is necessary for the enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration of criminal actions. However, the utilization of might is only justified when just laws are being implemented, and only when the might is applied justly.

For non-criminal actions, the application of might is almost always wrong, but there are shades of grey for this application of might. This is elucidative in the actions we have taken to curb the Coronavirus Pandemic. The government has applied its might to combat the Coronavirus Pandemic, but this might have caused much harm to many people. Is the application of this might justified in this case, or has the might been unjustly applied?

How much harm can the government inflict upon the people to combat a national emergency? Has the application of governmental might been necessary and evenhanded? Is the harm inflicted on the people greater than the harm of the emergency? Is the government responsible for indemnifying the people harmed by its actions? How much might should the government have to intervene in the personal and economic affairs of the people? What are the limits of government might and the natural rights of the people? These questions and answers of governmental might during the Coronavirus Pandemic will be debated for decades to come.

We should learn the lessons of the Coronavirus Pandemic and apply these lessons to future governmental actions. And the voice of the people, not just politicians, governmental officials, and the judiciary need to be involved in this debate. The people need to speak out and direct their elected and appointed officials to give prominence to the people’s concerns, and not just governmental concerns. And the people need to be concerned that “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” is the foremost criterion when we formulate answers.

05/31/20 Accountants and Bookkeepers Oh My

Many people like to deride accountants and bookkeepers as bean counters, unconcerned by the human element in their tasks. There is some truth to this aphorism, but only for those accountants and bookkeepers that have forgotten the purpose of accounting and bookkeeping. As a good accountant friend of mine has often stated, “It is not the numbers that are important, but what the numbers tell us that is important”. The numbers often tell us both good and bad things about commercial or governmental activities. If the numbers tell us good things, then we should continue doing the good things, and perhaps even try to do more of these things and do them better. If the numbers tell us bad things, then we need to correct these things or find a better way to do the bad thing. In some cases, it is not possible to fix something due to systemic or external factors, and it becomes necessary to cease doing the bad thing.

A good accountant or bookkeeper will attempt to foresee problems by analyzing the entire situation to try to help correct any bad things they may uncover. A bad accountant or bookkeeper will not foresee problems until they occur and, therefore, will not be able to correct the bad things before they negatively impact the entire situation. A bad accountant or bookkeeper will focus only on the detail of the problem without looking at the entire situation. A good accountant or bookkeeper knows that focusing on the detail of the problem often has (negative) repercussions for the entire situation.

Unfortunately, it is when we try to fix the bad things that we often run into the human element. For fixing something often has a direct impact on those people impacted by the fix. But to not fix it often has a larger human impact than if we had not fixed the problem. In correcting the bad things, people are often reassigned, reallocated, relocated, or perhaps lose their jobs. However, if you do not correct the bad things, then more people could be negatively impacted. Think about the difference between closing an underperforming division in a company and the closing of an entire company due to not correcting the bad things of the underperforming division.

We should, therefore, not deride a good accountant or bookkeeper as they are performing a very necessary function. The function of a good accountant or bookkeeper is of assuring that the good things continue unabated or fixing or ceasing to do bad things before they become undue problems. All of this is done by a good accountant or bookkeeper to assure the continued smooth operation of commercial or governmental activities. A bad accountant or bookkeeper should be reminded of the purpose of accounting and bookkeeping is to help understand the numbers and the entire situation, and try to fix any problems that can be foreseen.

05/30/20 Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

With the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis, the inevitable reactions have occurred. Some of these reactions are justified, some are not, and some are absurd and counterproductive. Any deaths because of police actions are serious and worthy of an impartial investigation to determine if the police officers have acted wrongly. If an investigation determines wrongful actions, then those involved are deserving of prosecution for criminal or civil rights violations of the law.

While these investigations are being conducted, we must always be cognizant of due process and the rule of law for both the victim and the police officers involved. For without this, it is possible that a miscarriage of justice may occur. If there is a rush to judgment and charging, then it is possible for evidence or testimony to be suppressed at trial, and this could result in a miscarriage of justice for the victim. A miscarriage of justice for the police officers involved could also occur if exculpatory evidence is not obtained, overlooked, ignored, or suppressed in a rush to judgment. If the prosecutors rush to judgment, then the results could be a legal lynching. The passions of the mob cannot be satiated at the expense of due process and the rule of law. To do so is to risk a miscarriage of justice for both the victim and the police officers. It should be remembered that you cannot arrest someone that you think has violated the law unless the arrest occurs during the commission of a crime, but an arrest after the commission of a crime only occurs after legal authorities have determined a possible violation of the law. The Prima Facie case against the police officers in the George Floyd death is overwhelming, but the legal case against the police officers needs to be established, and all the evidence and testimony needs to be obtained before any arrests and prosecutions can occur. I believe that this is the reason that the arrest of the police officers in the death of George Floyd has been delayed. But these arrests should occur expeditiously after the prosecutors establish the evidence of a crime by the police officers.

As to the passions of the mob, the mob should be passionate when injustice occurs. It is the American way for a passionate mob to protest injustices. It is also, unfortunately, the American way for some mob members to become violent in their passions. But mob violence is antithetical to the principles of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". For a mob to destroy or steal the property of another, and perhaps physically harm another, is not a cry for justice but an act of revenge for perceived injustices in America. Revenge that is, indeed, counterproductive to their pleas for justice and for the righting of wrongs. It also dilutes their message and allows for some to ignore their pleas for justice as just an excuse to loot. Looting in such cases always results in the longer-lasting detriment to the community where the looting occurs. Unpunished looting and the non-protection of the safety and property of all persons is an aberrance of law and justice. As the owners of the property have paid taxes to the government, and part of such taxes is for the maintenance of law and order, they have been deprived of the protections for which they have paid. This is a breach of the compact between the people and their government, and a failure of the government to meet its duties and responsibilities.

This type of situation also brings forth the rabble-rousing of politicians and activists to decry “Racism” and “Discrimination” in American. However, these racism and discrimination cries are often not supported by facts but by emotional appeals. Racism and discrimination charges against the police that are divisive for political gain and are often disingenuous, as they are anecdotical and unsupported by facts as adumbrated in the Wikipedia article “Police use of deadly force in the United States”. These police racism and discrimination cries by politicians and activists often make the situation worse rather than correct the problems of police racism and discrimination in America. Although we have made great strides in combating police racism and discrimination in America, there is always more that can be done to combat police racism and discrimination in America. These cries of racism and discrimination increase the “Divisiveness in America“, and inhibit our ability to overcome all racism and discrimination in America.

Therefore, we should all be concerned about the death of George Floyd by police actions in Minneapolis. We should all be concerned about justice for both the victim and the police officers in this case. To not be concerned about this case is to not be concerned about Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All in America.

05/28/20 The Non-Apology Apology

How often have we witnessed a politician, celebrity, or another noteworthy person issue an apology for something stupid that they have said or written, or perhaps for their hypocritical actions? And how often is the apology just as offensive as the original offense? Too often to recount in this Chirp. The apology often proclaims that they were misquoted or taken out of context, or they were misunderstood even when the plain meaning was obvious. Sometimes they even resort to denial, until the evidence is definitive. They also often utilize the technique of spinning their statements as meaning something other than what was said, written, or done. They even try to deflect the criticism upon the critic or to blame a third party for their statements. They just as often say they accept responsibility for their statements, but then immediately try to negate their responsibility. The excuse that both sides do it is not an excuse, as neither side should be doing it.

This Non-Apology Apology is usually driven by their inability to admit that they erred, or to cover your ass, or simply their egotistical tendencies. However, we all should remember that all of us make mistakes throughout our lives. We should also remember that:

Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best.
 - Mark Dawson

and

“To err is human; to forgive, divine.”
- Alexander Pope in "Essay on Criticism"

Therefore, it is always better to issue a sincere apology and ask for forgiveness. Most people are willing to forgive after a sincere apology but will not be forgiving without a sincere apology. If a politician, celebrity, or other noteworthy person issue a Non-Apology Apology, they exhibit a character flaw for which they should be rebuked.

05/27/20 Journalists Did Not Get Played, They Were Willing Players

With the journalistic false narratives (or as President Trump has labeled it “Fake News”) of the Russian Collusion, Impeachment, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and other personages involved with the candidate and President Trump, many have commented that the journalist got “played” by members of the Obama administration. However, they were not played, but they were willing players in this false narrative. Journalists have resorted to reporting that which they have not verified, but that which they want or hope to be true. Much of this can be attributed to grandstanding, hype, and ratings, but much of it can be attributed to the political biases of the journalists.

Many, but not all the Mainstream Media, simply parroted what they were told by the Obama officials. And the Obama officials knew that they would be willing parrots as journalists have so amply demonstrated by their other interactions with the Obama administration. The journalistic responsibility to assure the veracity of the sources and the facts were ignored and, therefore, they have failed in their responsibilities as journalists. They also exhibited no sense of skepticism, which is crucial to journalistic professionalism. Journalists have also forgotten that it is the responsibility of those making an assertion to prove their assertion, and journalists have a responsibility to hold them to account for their assertions (see my chirp of “02/05/20 Assertions are the Question”). The approaches that journalists have utilized for the above mentioned false narratives are an excellent example of “Modern Journalism”, as I have previously written.

As a result of their reporting, they have damaged or destroyed the reputations of those personages mentioned in their false narrative. Some have even been put in legal jeopardy, and many have been financially harmed by these false narratives. Not only have they damaged personages, but they have politically inhibited the duly elected President Trump administration. Political debates on the issues and concerns of our time are a requirement of a robust democracy. To examine the pros and cons of the issue is to, hopefully, make for better laws and the administration of laws. But when this debate centers around false narratives, then we can expect that not much good will take place and, indeed, it may be harmful to our society.

These journalism actions and inactions have also emboldened Democrat politicians to make false statements, as they can expect journalists to not challenge their statements. The outright lies of Congressman Adam Schiff, the misrepresentations of Congressman Jerry Nadler, and the outrageous assertions of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer were for the purpose of damaging President Trump and his administration. They were not for the purpose of challenging the Trump administration, but for the purpose of impeding the Trump administration. These statements were much more than lies, as they were often “Damned Lies”, as explained in my Article “Lies and Beliefs”. Some of these false assertions have also crossed over the line into Slanders and Libels, which are difficult to adjudicate as the Constitution affords protection against Congressional members in the performance of their duties. However, journalists must accurately and fully report these false assertions to the public so that the electorate can pass judgment on these false statements, and the politicians who make these false assertions.

This also begs the question of ‘What other reporting is a false narrative?’. Regarding the Trump administration reporting, we can expect that much of it is a false narrative. I have no problem with journalists challenging the Trump administration, but these challenges need to be based on facts and “Reasoning”, and not false narratives nor emotional appeals. I do have a big problem with journalists not challenging the opponents of the Trump administration. For not challenging the opponents of the Trump administration is to allow for false narratives to be regarded as truths. These journalistic actions and inactions also endanger our republic. If the electorate is swayed by false narratives, they cannot make responsible electoral decisions. And if they cannot trust government officials in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government because of these false narratives, then proper and just governance is not possible.

Consequently, modern journalism has become not one of reporting but parroting a story that they want to be true. If journalists can be played or be players, they are not meeting their professional responsibilities as journalists. As such, modern journalism is not a bastion for the protection of the people from unconstitutional or illegal governmental actions, but one of supporting governmental actions for which they concur or opposing governmental actions for which they disagree.

05/25/20 The Party of Hamilton, Not Jefferson-Jackson

Political parties evolve and change policies as the times change. Unfortunately, their monikers tend to remain the same. The Republicans are often called The Party of Lincoln, while the Democrats are often called The Party of Jefferson-Jackson. Yet, these monikers to not reflect the policies of these personages, nor could they as the current times are much different than the times of these personages. Yet some general principles of governance remain. Whether a society is to be governed by a top-down or bottom-up approach is one of these general principles. In America, this is reflected by the precept of a strong national government involved in the everyday affairs of the people or the precept of a strong local/state government that is involved in the everyday affairs of the people. This dichotomy is reflected in the policy positions and organization of the Democrat and Republican parties.

The Democrats believe in a strong Federal government that has direct interactions with the people of the country, while the Republicans believe that strong interaction with the people should occur at the Local then State governments. As such, the Democrats more closely reflect the governing principles of Alexander Hamilton, while the Republicans more closely reflect the governing principles of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, while the governing principles of Abraham Lincoln are often between these dichotomies.

The tensions between these two dichotomies can often be advantageous for governance, but disadvantageous for the natural rights of the people. A top-down governing structure is advantageous for the implementation of social policy goals, but the effectuation of this implementation may infringe on the natural rights of some or all the people. A bottom-up governing structure makes it more difficult to achieve social policy goals but affords more protection for the natural rights of some or all the people. The history of mankind has shown that top-down governance results in monarchy, tyranny, rulers, or other forms of oppressive governance that is unresponsive to the natural rights of the people. A bottom-up governing structure often results in anarchy, which leads to the violation of the natural rights of the people. Our Constitution was formulated to try to balance the needs of governance with the natural tights of the people. It is important that we maintain this balance for the wellbeing of our society.

If one side or the other gains dominance of governance, then the other side must be ineffectual. This dominance is not only in the dominance of governance but the dominance within a party. When a party becomes rigid in their policies, they often become intolerant of any opposition to their policies. When they become rigid, they often institute a power structure within their party to maintain the discipline to advance their policy positions, and they exhibit little or no cooperation nor bipartisanship with those that would disagree with them. The party becomes one of rulers, rather than of leaders, to achieve their policy goals.

And so, it is, with the current Democrat Party. They believe that their policy positions are so morally right and intellectually superior that they cannot cooperate or compromise, nor exhibit bipartisanship, with anything or anyone that differs with their policies. Nor do they feel constrained by the limitations of government as embodied in the United States Constitution if it would interfere with obtaining their social policies. It should be remembered that no side is morally right nor intellectually superior, and the Constitution was created to protect the principles of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”.  It is for these principles that our society was formulated and endures.

On this Memorial Day, we should remember the ultimate sacrifice of those that gave their lives for these principles. We should also remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, delivered at the Dedication of the Cemetery at the Battlefield of Gettysburg:

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“

05/24/20 The Sins of the Past

In today’s America, we are as concerned about putting right the sins of our past as we are concerned about doing right in the present and future. But the sins of the past are of the past and are often impossible to indemnify in the present or future. The sins of the present need to be put right and not allowed in the future.

You should indemnify the individuals harmed by present sins, rather than indemnifying a group of descendants harmed by our past sins. For if you indemnify a group, it is usually to the detriment of another group. If you elevate or give preferential treatment to one group over another group, then you are demoting or discriminating against another group. As taught in the Bible, the sins of the fathers are not borne by the sons. Therefore, the burdens of the sins of the past are to be borne by those people in the past who have sinned, and not by those people of the present who have not sinned. “Equality for all” should be the bedrock principle in our governmental policies and how we deal with each other.

For more than fifty years, we in America have been trying to indemnify descendants of people in the present who have not been directly harmed by the sins of our past. This has led to feelings of victimization, despair, and despondence by those group members whose forefathers suffered by the sins of our past. It has also led them to feel that they are disenfranchised and that they cannot be contributing members of our society. These feelings had led to schisms in our society to the detriment of all of society.

Instead of anguishing over the sins of our past, we should learn from them and attempt to not sin in our present and future. We do this by striving to preserve and protect our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and providing opportunities for all. Let us, therefore, strive to assure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed and are not sinned against in our present and future. We have not always been perfect in this, nor are we perfect in this today, nor will we be perfect in this in the future, but we should always remember that:

Perfection is reserved for God; humans should strive to do their best.
  - Mark Dawson

05/23/20 Courts, Not Star Chambers

With the prosecutor dropping the charges against Michael Flynn, and Judge Emmet Sullivan subsequent actions of appointing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) judge to advise him along with allowing other amicus briefs the question arises 'What is the role and focus of a judge in judicial proceedings?'. First and foremost, a judge needs to be neutral, favoring neither the defendant nor the prosecution. The judge needs to assure that the judicial rules of procedure and evidence be adhered too. A judge also must not interject their beliefs and opinions into the legal proceedings. All their judicial decisions must be made in accordance with these considerations.

Sadly, Judge Emmet Sullivan has failed to meet these obligations. His previous statements made during the proceedings have shown that he is not neutral. His actions in appointing amicus curiae, which are not authorized in criminal cases as determined by previous judicial rulings on procedures and affirmed by Supreme Court decisions, are contradictory to criminal judicial proceedings, as explained by Andrew C. McCarthy and Jonathan Turley. He has even issued rulings that contradict his own previous rulings in other cases. His actions are more of a Star Chamber - A former English court that became notorious for its arbitrary methods and severe punishments – than a court of law. Equal justice under law is jeopardized if this is to be allowed.

An emergency Writ of Mandamus compelling him to execute his duties has been filed. Based on his words and deeds during this judicial proceeding, this writ should be granted forthwith. The integrity of the court is a stake, and if his amicus actions are allowed, then established judicial procedures are upended with deleterious impacts on future judicial proceedings.

Also, sadly, his words and deeds are illuminative of the politicization of courts that we have observed in the last several decades, as outlined in my Article "Judges, Not Lords". This politicization needs to end for us to ensure that our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" reign supreme in America.

05/22/20 The Real Election Collusion

Much has been said about the allegations of the Russian influence on the 2016 election, and the collusion of the Russians with the Trump campaign. Practically all of what has been said has turned out to be baseless and untrue. These comments by the Mainstream Media, Progressive Commentators, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Democrat politicians were not for the purpose of uncovering the truth. They were, instead, for the purpose of influencing elections and for the purpose of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" the Trump administration. The following examples are indicative of their attempts to influence elections:

• The public lies told by President Obama’s officials about President Trump and members of his campaign, transition, and administration team, belied by their private testimony under oath, were for the purposes of influencing the 2018 and 2020 elections.
• The FISA Court abuses were not only reprehensive, if not outright illegal, but they were an attempt at influencing the 2018 elections as well as crippling the Trump administration for future election purposes.
• The Muller investigation of Russian Collusion allegations that took an exceedingly long time to resolve, despite their knowing there was no collusion early in the investigation, was for the purpose of influencing the 2018 elections.
• The dearth of reporting, or misreporting, and obfuscations on the Michael Flynn prosecutorial misconduct is for the purpose of influencing the 2020 elections.
• The lack of indignation on the spying on the Trump 2016 campaign, transition, and the early stages of his administration is for the purpose of influencing the 2020 elections.
• The Impeachment of President Trump was so unsubstantial as to be transparent for the purpose of influencing the 2020 elections.
• The Coronavirus Pandemic accusations and reporting, as outlined in my “Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps”, are so biased and one-sided as to be for the purpose of influencing the 2020 elections.

All of these influencing actions had a far greater and more negative impact on our election than anything the Russians’ did to influence our elections. And all of this could not have been possible if not for the cooperation and collusion of the Mainstream Media, Progressive Commentators, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Democrat politicians. The failure of accurate and factual reporting, challenging journalistic questioning of the opponents of President Trump, and outright maleficence by the parties involved in this collusion poses a danger to our republic. Influencing an election through facts and truth is laudable, while influencing an election through falsehoods and deceptions is despicable. Opinions, if based on facts and truths are acceptable, but opinions not based on facts and truths are reprehensible.

Consequently, the Real Election Collusion is between the Democrats and the Mainstream Media to influence the 2020 elections against President Trump. If such collusion is successful, then we have a crisis in our republic. A crisis of lack of information, misinformation, and outright lies and deceptions that do not allow the voters to make informed decisions in the 2020 elections.

05/21/20 Was It Sabotage or Was It A Consequence?

Recently, a New Jersey gym owner defied the Governors’ order and reopened his business after he took precautions to ensure the health and safety of his staff and members from the Coronavirus. Two days after opening the gym, the toilets overflowed, and he had to close the gym to clean up the mess it made. This begs the question about the overflow, ‘Was It Sabotage or Was It A Consequence?’. Did some government officials order the sewage lines closed, or did the sewer lines clog because of disuse during the lockdown?

I can envision that the sewer line sediments dried and hardened from a lack of water flow during the lockdown, causing blockage when they began to be reused. However, if it was sabotage, then this bespeaks of an out of control government, and the deliberate destruction of personal property without due process of law. If it was a consequence of disuse, then we must ask ourselves what other physical consequences may result from the prolonged lockdown of a business. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), electrical and mechanical equipment, water line cracks or joints leaks, doors and windows being stuck from disuse or structural settlements, and other potential physical problems may result from disuse. All of this could take time and monies to repair, time and monies that business owners can ill afford after the prolonged lockdown.

These problems would be a result of “The Law of Unintended Consequences” from the lockdown. This also raises the question of what other unintended consequences are the result of a prolonged lockdown? Answers to these questions will have unintended repercussions that will impact the reopening of our economy. All locked down business owners must be aware of potential physical problems from restarting their business after the lockdown, and perhaps indemnified for the repair costs incurred because of the lockdown.

05/20/20 Respect vs. Respectfully

I have often mentioned that we should treat all people politely and respectfully. In doing so, the question arises if we should respect all people? The answer is – No, not all people are deserving of respect, but all persons should be treated politely and respectfully.

People who live a legal, moral, and ethical life are deserving of respect. People who have not lived a legal, moral, and ethical life, but have repented and reformed their life, ae also worthy of our respect. Respect is also earned by the accomplishment of a person, depending on the manner of the accomplishment. o be accomplished through legal, moral, and ethical means is worthy of respect, but any other means is worthy of disrespect.

People who treat you and others respectfully are deserving of respectful treatment. You should also remember that being Polite and Respectful is a reflection on your character and not a statement of respect for the other person you treat respectfully.

05/19/20 Movie Commentaries

I have created a web page "Movie Commentaries" that contains my comments and critiques of individual movies that I believe have been overlooked or underrated by the public and movie critics. When I watch a movie, I first watch it for its entertainment value, including the acting and supporting cast, the direction, the cinematography, and the music score. Afterward, I think about the underlying meaning of a movie. I prefer movies that have a very human element in them. Movies that deal with human passions or human conflicts. As such, the scripts for the movies I prefer are essential. Without a good script, it cannot be a good movie. If it does not have a good dialogue, or the dialogue doesn't ring true, then it cannot make my list. For more Movies and Television that I believe meets this criteria I would direct you to my Article “That's Entertainment”. I make no claims that all these movies are great movies (although many of them are great), but I do claim that they are enjoyable movies.

05/18/20 Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society

Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchy Society, and variations of this statement, have been utilized by critics of our society to besmirch America and Americans. Usually spoken so as to fundamentally transform our society to the critics’ vision of a more just society. A more just society is a laudable goal, but the means to achieve a more just society often results in more injustice and most often ends in failure. A failure that is due to the critics not recognizing human nature or human history. If you do not recognize human nature or learn from the lessons of human history, then any change you may make is doomed to failure. My new Article, “Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchy Society”, examines this topic in more detail.

05/17/20 Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage Within Ourselves

Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage are essential to becoming fully human. For without these items, you cannot be fully functional within yourselves and within society.

Without discovering the facts, you cannot discover the truth, and without applying “Reasoning” to the facts, you cannot reach the truth. And this is true not only for topics, issues, and concerns, but for the truth about yourself, the truth about your family, the truth about your friends, the truth about your neighbors, the truth about your co-workers, and the truth about your society. Truth based not on what you want to believe but truth based on the facts and reasoning. For any other means of reaching the truth is not truth but an illusion. When discussing the truth that you have uncovered, you should always keep in mind:

Doubt a little of your own infallibility.
  - Benjamin Franklin

and

You'll never get confused if you simply tell the truth. Then you don't have to remember what you have said, and you never forget what you have said. And you won't get in trouble for telling a lie if you have told the truth.
  - Mark Dawson

We must be honest about ourselves, about others, and about society to become a better person and assist others and society in becoming better. We must honestly examine our own shortcomings, failures, and flaws before we can become honest about ourselves or society. We all have shortcomings, failures, and flaws that we need to correct, and we need to be honest about ourselves before we are honest about others and society. However, be forewarned that honesty has a price. The price of:

Man is always prey to his truths.
Once he has admitted them,
he cannot free himself from them.
  - Albert Camus

We must have the character to act upon the truths and honesty that we have uncovered. The character to be true unto yourself. The character to “Be the Better Person”. Character in your public and private life. The character to not only act legally but to do the moral and ethical thing in all that you do. Not only the big things in your life but the little things as well. For the accumulation of little things builds your character for the bigger things. Do not be a character but be a person of character. And remember:

Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.
  -  H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Courage to do the right thing is required to be fully functional within yourselves and within society. For without courage, it matters not how much Truth, Honesty, and Character you exhibit. Courage to speak and act upon the Truth, Honesty, Character you have accumulated. As has been truly said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke.

Not only will evil triumph but also the unjust, immoral, and unethical behavior of others will triumph without you exhibiting courage in the face of their misdeeds. Also, remember:

True Courage is doing the right thing, at the right time, regardless of personal consequences.
   - Mark Dawson

If we build our life on Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage, we will build a better life for ourselves and for all.

05/16/20 Voter Fraud

Every citizen of the United States who is legally eligible to vote should be permitted to vote. And no impediment of their legal right to vote should be permitted as I have stated in my Article "Voting in America". Any person or persons who would impede a person’s vote needs to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And all governmental laws, rules, regulations, and procedures should be crafted to assure a person’s legal right to vote. Without the integrity of the vote, you have corrupted the democratic process and the will of the people. Regarding this, a key phrase in the above statement is “legally eligible to vote”. If a person is not legally eligible to vote, they need to be stopped from voting. For if they are allowed to vote, then the vote they illegal cast negates the vote of a legally eligible voter on the opposite side of an issue or candidate, which effectively disenfranchises the legally eligible voter. And this violation should be treated as harshly as you would treat a person or persons who impedes a legal voter.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party seems to not be too concerned about the legality of the voter. While Democrats have been vigorous in their opposition to impediments to voting, they have hampered efforts to assure the legality of a voter. They often claim that this is to assure that there is no “Voter Suppression” occurring. But “Voter Suppression” is different than “legally eligible to vote”. They should concentrate their efforts on “Protecting Your Right to Vote” through appropriate legislation and enforcement. To not assure the “legally eligible to vote” is to allow for an unfair election and the corruption of the democratic process. It also places the illegal voter “Above the Law” in that they can violate the law by casting an illegal vote.

As a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic, many politicians have expressed concern about health safety in voting in the upcoming election. And many Democratic politicians have suggested mail-in votes as a safety measure. Many States have already instituted Mail-in voting with mixed results.  As RealClear Politics has reported, “28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections”. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. Surely, such a large number of missing ballots may have had an impact on the outcome of many elections.

Article I Section. 4. Of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Therefore, it is up to the State Legislators to determine the election procedures. But this does not give them the right to institute election procedures that are susceptible to fraud. The election procedures in many states have been changed to make it easier to vote. Mail-in voting, early voting, election day voter registration, registering to vote outside of the registrars’ offices, and more have been instituted for the laudable goal to make it easier to vote. However, good intentions do not make for good laws, as many of these changes have also made it easier to commit election fraud. Voter fraud than can, and sometimes, change the outcome of an election. Fraud that anecdotally tends to favor the Democrat candidates. There is no proof of this fraud, as such proofs are exceeding difficult to obtain, but difficult to obtain does not mean that they do not occur. Remember, "Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence". We, therefore, should not change our election laws on the assumption that if you cannot prove voter fraud has occurred or will occur, you can presume that it has or will not occurred, and change the election laws based on this assumption.

Until we can assure the integrity of the vote, we need to be very careful and circumspect in the changes to our voting laws. We should also reexamine all current election laws to assure that only legally eligible voters are registered and vote, as well as for the protection against election fraud. For making it easier to vote often makes it easier to commit voter fraud.

05/15/20 Gettysburg Address in Words and in Crux

In my discussion with my friends on the topics I have written about some of my friends have requested that I skip my words and reasoning and proceed to the crux of the matter. I am loath to do this as I have explained in my Article “A Philosophical Approach”. Rather than recapitulate the reasons for my loathing, I thought that I could humorously demonstrate this point by utilizing an illustration of the Gettysburg Address, in both words and in the crux.

First, the words and the reasoning:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
- President Abraham Lincoln - November 19, 1863

And now the crux in a PowerPoint Presentation:

I think that we can all agree that the words and reasoning have a much more significant intellectual and emotional impact. It is for this reason that I prefer to discuss my words and reasoning rather than go to the crux of the matter.

05/14/20 Lawgiver-in-Chief – Part II

As I mentioned in my Chirp of “05/12/20 Lawgiver-in-Chief – Part I”, Nancy Pelosi does not legislate but utilizes an autocratic approach of rulership. I also mentioned that major legislation is written in secret by herself and a small cadre of advisors and Democrat legislators. This legislation also contains extensive spending or governmental actions on her other social policy goals unrelated to the goals of the legislation. Her current proposed legislation for Coronavirus Pandemic relief (the “Heroes Act”) is a perfect example of her approach to legislating. This three trillion-dollar, crafted in secret, spending bill, is so loaded with unrelated spending, tax reliefs, pork barrel allocations, special interests’ provisions, and unrelated social engineering as to be mind-boggling audacious. There is neither the time or space for me to unpeel these items, and I will leave it to other persons more qualified to illuminate the problems with this legislation.

Consequently, this boondoggle legislation does more harm than good to our society. As too her reasoning of why this legislation is important for Coronavirus Pandemic relief, I am reminded of the quote:

“I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers— that of laughter”
 - Charles L. Black

This bill could not have been a more satirical parody of what I had written about her approach to legislation. When she proposes serious legislation, done through normal legislative procedures, then she should be taken seriously. Until this is done, we should utilize our prerogative to laugh. Consequently, her proposed legislation should be strongly criticized and ridiculed, and then be consigned to the dustbin of history.

05/13/20 The Most Consequential Election of Our Times

In the last several decades we have heard the hue and cry that this election is the most consequential election of our time. This is because governmental actions have become so intrusive in our political, social, and economic spheres of life that this intrusion makes for every election to be consequential. It is, indeed, a sad state of affairs that in a society dedicated to Freedom and Liberty that this governmental intrusion has become significant. For such governmental intrusion often encroaches on the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the individual.

However, the upcoming election may indeed be the most crucial election of our time. This is a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic and our responses to this pandemic. These responses have illuminated the differences in the approach to governance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. Politicians on both sides have revealed their true stripes on this question. The President, Governors, Mayors, Judges, and other governmental officials’ responses to the Coronavirus Pandemic responses demonstrated their priorities and their approach to governance.  

Executive orders without legislative approvals, executive orders that do not take into consideration our rights, and executive orders sans significant judicial reviews reveal a propensity for rulership rather than leadership. Occasionally, our rights need to be curtailed in an emergency, but their curtailment must be limited in scope and of short duration. This curtailment must cease as quickly as possible, and the people harmed by such curtailment must be indemnified for the harm caused by the curtailment. Executive orders that extend weeks or months are beyond the scope of Executive powers, and are often injurious to the economy and deleterious to our rights, as outlined in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps of “05/04/20 First Came Rights” and “05/07/20 Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Fundamental Rights”. If such Executive powers are necessary, they should be preceded by quickened Legislative approval and expedited Judicial review. To not do so is to allow for arbitrary and capricious Executive authority.

In general, the Republican leaders have less supportive of, and more concerned about, these executive orders. Democratic leaders, on the other hand, tend to support these executive orders and seem not so concerned about their impacts on our rights or our economy. It is also true that the most restrictive executive orders originated from Democrat politicians (although some Republicans have done so). As to the argument that Democrat leaders are more concerned about our lives and safety I would respond to this argument by directing you to my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirp “05/03/20 Wait Until It’s Safe”. Both sides are concerned about our lives and safety, but only one side has exhibited concerns about our Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights as well as the harmful economic impacts of our responses. And all of these concerns need to be addressed to appropriately respond to the Coronavirus Pandemic emergency.

In this next election, and subsequent elections, we shall choose whether we want leaders or rulers. We will decide whether the rights of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society, and if government has control of our economy. If we choose leaders then we will preserve our Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights. If we choose rulers then we shall be subservient to governmental powers. We need to choose wisely in these elections, and with consideration about the future course of our society. As for me, I will decide based on the current actions of our politicians, and whether they have exhibited leadership rather than rulership.

05/12/20 Lawgiver-in-Chief - Part I

Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, not the Lawgiver in Chief. Her actions, since obtaining the Speakership, have demonstrated that she is not interested in legislating but in utilizing an autocratic approach to leadership. Major legislation is written in secret by herself and a small cadre of advisors and Democrat legislators. She then presents this legislation to the House for an up or down vote, not for legislative drafting and review. This is exhibited most notoriously in her statement, “You have to pass it to see what’s in it.” in the Obamacare legislation and in the crafting of the Coronavirus Pandemic relief bills. She seems more concerned with playing the blame game, as expressed in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirp  “05/02/20 To Play the Blame Game or to Learn from Experience”, than correcting the issues and problems. She also appoints Democrat members to key House Committees that will recapitulate, rather than review and modifying the legislation that she proposes. She decides what and what will not be investigated by the House committees, and the parameters of the investigation. These investigative parameters are often constrictive to play the blame game rather than uncover the full extent of the problem and propose legislation to correct the problem.

House rules are promulgated to achieve her goals that are contrary to the historical rules and precedents of the House of Representatives, most notoriously in the Impeachment of President Trump, as espoused in my Articles “The true meaning of the Senate vote on the Impeachment of President Trump” and “Impeachment Consequences”. These rules are also contrary to "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings". The Coronavirus Pandemic legislation and other legislation she proposes contains extensive spending or governmental actions on her other social policy goals unrelated to the Coronavirus Pandemic (see my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirp “04/01/20 Politics and A Serious Crisis Go to Waste”), or to the goals of the other legislation. Throughout these actions, no Republican legislators are involved in this process, and no Republican legislative involvement is allowed.

Her dismissive attitudes to those that disagree with her, and to the journalists who occasionally dispute her, are another indication of her autocratic approach. These dismissive attitudes are also an attempt to stifle opposition to her actions, rather than offer an explanation or justification for her actions. Her negotiations with the Senate are more intimidation than they are negotiations. Her autocratic approach to the Senate is best expressed in the idiom “My way or the highway” and in an unspoken ultimatum of "take it or leave it". If she cannot get her way in the Senate, she threatens to hold up or stop the legislation. Legislation that is crucial to not only our current Coronavirus Pandemic and its economic impacts, but to other legislation that is necessary and needful.

Consequently, under her Speakership, there is no representative democracy, but only one-person rule. The peoples' voice, through their elective representatives, is muted. A muting that also makes it very difficult for voters to make an informed judgment as to who to vote for in the next election. It is not leadership but rulership that she is exhibiting. All of this is contrary to a representative government and is antithetical to the principles of the Constitution.

05/11/20 It’s Not Treason, It’s Sedition

With the release of some of the documentation regarding the Russian Collusion investigations (including the Michael Flynn prosecution), which reveals possible illegal activities of the FBI and some Justice Department officials, many have described their actions as “Treason”. If these allegations are true, their actions were not Treasonous, but they were Seditious.

Article III Section. 3. Of the United States Constitution defines Treason as:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

As such, their actions were not treasonous as they do not meet this definition. However, their actions were seditious as they were illegal actions demonstrating resistance to lawful authority and the undertaking of unlawful machinations by government personnel, which tended to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government and the violation of the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of their targets. Sedition is a more apropos description of what they were doing.

Their alleged actions were an assault on "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" by people who swore an oath to uphold and administer the law. In doing so, they abridged or violated the Constitution of the United States. These actions make them dangerous to the principles of "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All". Their higher loyalty should have been to the United States Constitution and its principles, rather than what they believed was best for the country. An individual or group of individuals within the government cannot determine by themselves as to what they believe is best for the country. That is up to the American people to decide, by their duly elected or appointed officials of the United States.

Resistance to governmental authority in a democratic and duly elected and the instituted government is an acceptable response for a free people if it is done lawfully. If resistance is done unlawfully, then prosecutions are warranted for the offenders. Resistance to a government that is undemocratic or tyrannical is a duty of the people so oppressed. Resistance by government officials and employees in a democracy, in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, is unacceptable. When you are a government official or employee in a democracy, you give up your right to resist when you are performing your governmental duties and responsibilities. All governmental officials and employees have a duty to carry out all the lawful actions of the government. If they believe them to be unlawful actions, they need to challenge these actions with the proper oversight authorities (i.e., Legal Counsels, Inspector Generals, Review Boards, etc.), or by reporting these actions to Legislative authorities for their consideration, or, as a final resort challenge them in a court of law. They can also speak out after they leave their place of employment, consistent within the boundaries of their employment constraints. But they cannot resist what they believe are unlawful actions in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. However, they can resign their position and then resist what they believe are unlawful actions by the government. To have such resistance in a democracy, by government officials and employees in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, is an act of sedition.

As to the actions of government officials and employees in the Russian Collusion investigations, they should be investigated to determine if they were unlawful actions, and if it is so determined, they should be prosecuted. If found guilty, they should be appropriately punished for their machinations. If guilty, their machinations were an assault on our Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, for they have maximally assaulted the rights of all the American people.

05/10/20 My Truth

Many times, you will hear someone claim that something is “My Truth”. However, there is no such thing as my truth. The truth is based on facts and “Reasoning”, for without facts and reasoning, you cannot reach the truth. When someone claims my truth, they mean my experience. My experience is a historical statement and not a statement of truth. The facts that led to my experience may be true, and many times they are not true as the entire circumstances may be unknown, but they are not “The Truth”. For the truth is more than true statements.

It is never possible to claim truth without the facts being correct. Once you obtain the correct facts and apply sound reasoning, you may be able to reach the truth. However, your facts could be incorrect or incomplete, or your reasoning could be faulty, in which case the truth you conclude would be wrong.

Consequently, anyone who claims, “My Truth”, is not cognizant of “The Truth”, and most assuredly, they have not obtained the correct facts or applied sound reasoning. Therefore, you can confidently ignore or reject “My Truth” as “The Truth”.

05/09/20 Speaking Truth to Power

Many people like to clothe themselves in the robe of honor of “Speaking Truth to Power”. But let us remember that these robes only exist if there is truth. And the truth is based on facts and “Reasoning”, for without facts and reasoning you cannot reach the truth. If you do not have the truth, then your robes are like the Emperors New Clothing – an illusion. Therefore, you must always examine the truth before you allow someone to clothe themselves in speaking truth to power. As for me, I am more interested in speaking truth, rather than truth to power.

05/08/20 Social Justice

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
- Leviticus 19:15 ESV

Equality under the Law has been recognized since Biblical time as necessary to achieve Justice. And without justice, there can be no Freedom or Liberty. All must be treated as equals under the law. This means that within the jurisdiction of the law, all must be treated equally. It does not mean that each jurisdiction must apply the same laws as another jurisdiction (i.e., a traffic violation within a jurisdiction must be applied equally within the jurisdiction, but another jurisdiction traffic law cannot be applied to any other jurisdiction).

When you place an adjective in front of the word “Justice” you no longer have true Justice- you have favoritism (i.e., “Adjective Justice”). Adjectives such as social justice, environmental justice, workers justice, gender justice, tax-payer Justice, and voter justice, to name a few, require one party to be favored over another. Favoritism destroys the concept of “Equal Justice Under Law” and erodes Liberty and Freedom to the point where it is a meaningless concept. Within the judicial process, all must be treated as equals.

05/07/20 Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Fundamental Rights

In my writings, I often reference Natural Rights and Human Rights, and occasionally reference Fundamental Rights. But the question is, what are the differences between these rights? Natural Rights and Human Rights are different terms for the same thing. Fundamental Rights are those Natural Rights and Human Rights that are enumerated in our Constitution, as constituted mainly in the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments, and the 14^th amendment to the Constitution. Natural Rights were mostly utilized by our Founding Fathers and several generations prior and preceding them. Gradually the term Human Rights superseded the term Natural Rights. Fundamental Rights is the term utilized in our Judicial system to reference Human Rights enshrined in our Constitution. However, our Human Rights are not limited to our Fundamental Rights, as the 9^th Amendment to the Constitution makes abundantly clear.

Natural Rights and Human Rights are integral to each person, and they are too numerous to list. The anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, ... or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices, if these personal choices do infringe on the Human Rights of others. And these Human Rights are free from government interference or government permission. They are essential to assuring our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Occasionally, Human Rights need to be curtailed in an emergency, but their curtailment must be limited in scope and of short duration. This curtailment must cease as quickly as possible, and the people harmed by such curtailment must be indemnified for the harm caused by the curtailment. To not do so is to allow for the infringement of Human Rights for specious reasons. It is a Human Right for the people to protest these curtailments and seek to redress these curtailments. To prohibit these protests is to institute tyrannical rule over the people. We also should always remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 - Benjamin Franklin

Let us, therefore, be incredibly careful and circumspect when we think about curtailing Human Rights.

For more on these Fundamental Rights in regard to the Coronavirus Pandemic, I would direct you to the “U.S. Constitution shredded by dangerous elected officials” by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

05/02/20 Short-Term and Long-Term Memory Loss

There is an affliction infecting many politicians, leaders, commentators, and journalists, Short-Term and Long-Term Memory Loss, that has become predominant as a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic. My chirp of “01/17/20 Marque de Queensberry Rules vs. a Barroom Brawl” is one of the manifestations of short-term memory loss. The other manifestations of this affliction are the inability to recall the previous statements or actions by politicians, leaders, commentators, and journalists that conflict with their current statements.

When politicians, leaders, and commentators suffer short-term or long-term memory loss it is usually because of political gamesmanship, political gamesmanship that has afflicted politicians, leaders, and commentators for time immemorial. It is the tool and trade of politicians, leaders, and commentators for the purposes of gaining and retaining power. In the past, the cure for this affliction was honest journalism that exposes their short-term or long-term memory loss.

When a journalist suffers short-term or long-term memory loss, they become instruments of propaganda and are dangerous to society. The people no longer have the ability to critique a politician, leader, or commentator, based on their past and present statements and actions, except by researching their statements and actions on their own volition. Research that is impracticable given the time and effort that would be required. This short-term or long-term memory loss by journalists undercuts the people’s ability to make rational decisions and wise choices as outlined in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirp of “04/05/20 The Madness of Crowds and Their Manipulators”.

It is essential to combat short-term or long-term memory loss, as people need to make a judgment on the qualifications of their politicians, leaders, and commentators. Judgments that are based on their past and present statements and actions. All politicians, leaders, and commentators make mistakes, as they are human, and humans make mistakes. However, the quantity and caliber of their mistakes are essential in deciding their future fitness to hold elective office or be in positions of leadership, or to provide commentation. It is fine for a politician, leader, or commentator to change their mind, as long as they explain the reasoning for changing their mind. For as a wise old sage has said:

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”
  - Benjamin Franklin

For politicians, leaders, and commentators to change their mind, without explaining their reasoning, is often an indicator of political gamesmanship. The reasoning for changing their minds is often an indicator of the intelligence or wisdom of the politicians, leaders, and commentators. That is why journalists need to critique the past and present statements and actions of politicians, leaders, and commentators and require that politicians, leaders, and commentators explain their reasoning for a change of mind. A journalist has the duty to expose the "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" of political gamesmanship, and utilize the standards of “Dialog & Debate” to critique the statements and actions of politicians, leaders, and commentators.

For if the people have no rational and historical basis for judging politicians, leaders, and commentators, they cannot make an intelligent or wise decision on whom they wish to be their elected politicians or leaders, and which commentators they need to heed.

05/01/20 Think – Not Decide

Many critics would point out that I don’t provide sufficient information on a topic to assist in making a decision, to which I would plead – “Guilty”. There are two reasons for this. The first is that I know that I do not have enough knowledge, experience, or skills to provide detailed information. That is why I often hyperlink to web articles or provide book references that provide more detailed information. The second reason why is that my goal is not to provide information to reach a decision, but to provide enough information for the reader to think about, and perhaps research, the topic.

My secondary goal is to illuminate the core issues and concerns about the topic and to remove the "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" surrounding the topic. I utilize “Reasoning” rather than emotional responses when examining a topic, and I also utilize my guidelines on “Dialog & Debate” when writing on a topic. Being succinct in my writings is one of my goals, but discovering the truth is my ultimate objective.

As to my qualification to comment on a topic, I would respond that I am a thinking human being, that knows and applies “Reasoning” to my thoughts and someone who examines and researches a topic before commenting on a topic. Everybody brings the own intellect, knowledge, experience, and perspective to a discussion. A thoughtful person tries to reason outside of these factors to reach the truth. Hopefully, my thoughts will allow the reader to think and discover the truth about the topics I discuss, and help guide them in deciding on their own thoughts and reasoning.

04/30/20 Appeals to Authority

During our dialogs, disputations, and debates with others, we often resort to Appeals to Authority. Yet, Appeals to Authority is a common type of “Formal fallacy” (and “List of logical fallacies“), fallacies as outlined in my Article on "Reasoning". When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority." As such, it is not possible for someone to refute the argument without knowing and refuting the authority's argument. We also have as “Cognitive bias” (and “List of Cognitive Biases“), as also outlined in my Article on "Reasoning", that makes us susceptible to an Appeal to Authority.

Scientists, Statisticians, Mathematicians, Academics, Economists, Pollsters, Commentators, or anyone educated or accredited in some field of knowledge. i.e., "authorities" who are making a statement or expressing an opinion are all human, and all humans make mistakes or can be just plain wrong, as outlined in my Article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Using an Appeal to Authority during the course of dialogue or debate is usually an indicator of the unreasonableness or weakness of your argument. It also tends to absolve the person making the argument of proving their assertions as I have written in my Chirp "02/05/20 Assertions are the Question".

Statistics can be wrong or misinterpreted, studies can be biased or incomplete, the hard sciences can be incorrect or misunderstood, the soft sciences can be amiss or imperfect, and experts are not infallible, and experts often disagree with each other. Many times, the experts are wrong, especially when opining outside of their areas of expertise. They are most often wrong within their expertise when they utilize knowledge or experience from outside their expertise to formulate their statements or opinions. And all areas of expertise are impacted by matters outside their area of expertise.

Use authorities as references rather than proofs. You should always remember that "experts should be on tap, not on top."

04/27/20 Bankruptcy of States

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that states should be able to declare bankruptcy, much as cities have been allowed to do in the past decade. Whether this is advisable or the prudent thing for a State to do is not the issue of the Chirp. The issue is the morality of expecting the citizens of one state to pay the debts of another state. It is also the issue of responsibility, the responsibility of the citizens of a state to fund and pay the debts that they have incurred.

The people of a State elect their legislators and Governors who pass and enact taxes and expenditures. As such, the debts of a state are the responsibility of the legislators and Governors, and ultimately the people who elected them, and it is the people of the State who are responsible for paying their state debts. To expect the people of another state to pay their debts is to shift this burden to people who were not responsible for incurring the debt. After all, you would not expect your neighbor to help pay off your debts that were a result of your spending. It is also antithetical to the “No Taxation Without Representation” slogan that was a basis for the American Revolution. For if the people of one state pay the debts of another state, in which they had no representation, then you are taxing them without their having had any representation in the enactment of taxes and expenditures in the state that incurred the debt. If this were to occur, then there would be no check on a state to tax and spend responsibly, as they could expect that the people of other states would bail-out their irresponsible behavior.

If a State declared bankruptcy, then they would have to cede authority to tax and spend to a Bankruptcy Court. Courts that would act with the powers of a legislator or executive. This is also antithetical to representative democracy, but this is the price they pay for behaving irresponsibly. The mitigating factor is that the Federal branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) would have to maintain oversight and take corrective actions of the Bankruptcy Court to assure the Constitutional rights of the people of the state are not abrogated. This has been done before by the Federal government, although obliquely, in the Era of Reconstruction after the Civil War.

The objection that the Federal government has a responsibility to assist in the debts that occurred as a result of the Coronavirus Pandemic is a valid objection. The Federal government, of course, has a responsibility to assist the State government in paying the debts that were incurred as a result of Federal actions in the Coronavirus Pandemic. But it is only those debts that were incurred as a result of Federal actions during the Coronavirus Pandemic that the Federal government has responsibility. To utilize the Coronavirus Pandemic to pay off other state debts not related to the Coronavirus Pandemic is an abuse of responsibility.

As for me, I highly object to paying the debts of another state as I am committed to the concept of:

“No Taxation Without Representation.”

04/25/20 A Philosophical Approach - Update

I have updated my Article “A Philosophical Approach”, that adds some additional thoughts on this topic.

04/12/20 Classical Music Snippets

I have added a section to my Article "Classical Music Appreciation". This section "Classical Music Snippets" are a collection of excerpts of great Classical Music to highlight a topic. They are also an excellent means to whet your appetite for Classical Music as follows:

• 7 Famous "Spectacular" Classical Pieces
• 7 Stunning String Pieces
• 7 Hauntingly Beautiful Nocturne Pieces
• 7 Achingly Beautiful Melodies from Great Piano Concertos
• 8 Enchanting Melodies from Great Cello Concertos
• 9 Unforgettably Beautiful Melodies from Symphonies
• 10 Favorite Opera Overtures
• 10 Great Symphonic Poems
• 10 Most Beautiful Classical Cello Pieces
• 10 Most Beautiful "Serenade" Pieces
• 13 Great Fiery & Intense Classical Piano Pieces
• 15 Deliciously Melancholy Classical Pieces
• 15 Unforgettable Violin Pieces
• 20 Most Romantic Piano Pieces ~ Classical (not "The Classical Era")
• 65 Classical Music Masterpieces Everyone Knows, But Not Everybody Knows Their Titles

For more Classical Music snippets I would suggest you visit the YouTube channel Melodious Heart.

04/11/20 A Philosophical Mind

Many people assume that if someone has a Philosophical Mind that they have studied Philosophy. But this is not the case. A Philosophical Mind is one that approaches thinking in a rational manner. A Philosophical Mind utilizes a manner and methodology that allows them to reach a sound conclusion. A Philosophical Mind gathers information and facts to assure that they are correct and complete. A Philosophical Mind then organizes this information and facts in a reasonable manner, utilizing formal and informal logic to reach a conclusion. A Philosophical Mind examines their reasoning to eliminate Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases. Therefore, a Philosophical Mind provides the best possible answer for the issue or concern it examines, assuming that the information and facts are correct and complete. The only response to a philosophical argument is to challenge the reasoning of the argument or the correctness or completeness of the information and facts. Any conclusions or beliefs that you entertain, without a philosophical argument in support, have no basis in fact nor reasoning. No other response to a philosophical argument, except a counter philosophical argument, is reasonable nor acceptable. Or to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens:

“What can be asserted without a philosophical basic can be dismissed without a philosophical basis.”

There can be no agreement to disagree unless both parties have a philosophical basis, or both parties are arguing on a non-philosophical basis. And to argue on a non-philosophical basis most often leads to the wrong conclusion.

When reading my webpages, you will notice that I often take a philosophical approach to discuss issues and concerns. But why do I take a philosophical approach? The answer is because Philosophy teaches you how to think, not what to think. I also believe that a philosophical approach is the best means to resolve the issues and concerns that beset modern America. My Article “A Philosophical Approach” explains my thoughts on this subject.

04/10/20 Some Problems and Some Answers

Life is neither fair nor unfair. Life is what it is. To deal with life, other than for what it is, is foolhardy and wasteful. In this world, as regards to reproduction, the male is the inseminator, and the female is the incubator. It is neither fair nor unfair that you are male or female. Rather it is by random chance you ended up male or female.

In regard to male-female differences, 93% of workplace fatalities are men, as men usually perform more dangerous jobs, more physically demanding jobs, and jobs that are outdoors. Men tend to work more hours per week than women. Men live an average of 6 years less than a woman. While 78% of suicides are men, suicide attempts are between two and four times more frequent among females. In 2017, men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women. Therefore, suicide attempts by a woman are a cry for help, while suicide attempts by a man is a goal.

Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, single motherhood is now becoming the new “norm”. This prevalence is due in part to the growing trend of children born outside marriage — a societal trend that was virtually unheard of decades ago. About 4 out of 10 children were born to unwed mothers. Nearly two-thirds were born to mothers under the age of 30. Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 16.4 million — are being raised without a father. Of all single-parent families in the U.S., single mothers make up the vast majority.

Regarding boys' need for fathers, in 2008, then-Sen. Obama told an audience: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit a crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools; and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Women’s suffrage movement leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as “infanticide” and “child murder.” Alice Paul, an American suffragist, feminist, and women's rights activist, famously called abortion the “ultimate exploitation of women”. “Abortion is profoundly anti-woman,” Mother Teresa of Calcutta pointed out. “Three-quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.”

The answer to unwanted babies is not abortion but a responsible sexual activity that does not result in pregnancy. The answer to unwed mothers is not more governmental social policies but for men to take responsibility for impregnation and be prepared to marry the mother of their children. The solution to fatherless children is for a man to help raise their children and guide them to becoming responsible adults. To be a man is not the ability to impregnate a woman but to assume the responsibility for your actions, both sexual and non-sexual. As for suicide, the answer is for everyone to be mindful of the sanctity of human life, including their own life, then seeking help for serious problems in their life. We all, family, friends, and coworkers, should become more cognizant of other people’s problems and reach out to provide assistance for those that need help.

Obviously, the means we are taking to resolve these problems is not working and insane, as insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Perhaps it is time that we take a different approach to resolve these problems. An approach that emphasizes the importance of living a moral and ethical life and caring for others.

04/09/20 Feeling Good Vs. Doing Good

I have added a new Pearl of Wisdom, “Do Good Before You Feel Good”. Most Americans have good intentions when they think about how to help their fellow Americans. Most Americans, however, often judge their results based on how they feel good about what they're doing, and rarely look at the results of what they are doing. The difference between feeling good and doing good is often profound. This is best illustrated by a true story from my own life.

Several years ago, I was at a client site when the owner mentioned that her son, who had just started college, was considering leaving college to seek employment and make money. She was distressed, as she knew that this was not a wise decision in the long run. As he was working there that day, on a part-time basis, she asked if I could say something to him. I thought about how to best approach her son, as I am a person without a college degree, and understood the possible negative effects of him dropping out of college.

I could have just spoken to him for a few moments and told him I think he was making a wrong decision. This would have made me feel good about the situation. However, I decided I wanted to do good about the situation. Therefore, I took him aside and had a 20-minute discussion about what life would be like without a college degree in today's world. I explained to him it would be difficult to find a job, keep a job, advance his career on the job, he would receive lower pay then others that were doing his job, and he would constantly have to perform at 110% to be somewhat equal with his other college-educated coworkers, in the eyes of his management.

I further explained I understood his desire for employment and to earn money a start enjoying life. I also agreed with him that his efforts to earn a college degree might not be appropriate for the employment that he secured. I told him that he should instead think of a college degree as a ticket to success. If you had that ticket, you could board the train to success and utilize that ticket in continuing his success. Even though the college degree he earned may not be appropriate to his employment, it would open doors for him that would be closed without a college degree.

I encouraged him to stay in college, get his ticket, and find employment in something that he would be interested in doing. In addition, the time he spent in college could be the most enjoyable period of his life, and he would make many friends and associations that could last throughout his life.

In taking the time to do this, I not only felt good about what I had done, but I had hoped that I would do good, and he would remain in college. I am happy to report that he did indeed decide to remain in college, get his degree, and find employment in something that he wanted to do. I am unhappy to report that several months after he found employment, he was involved in a fatal car accident. This was a great loss for his family, friends, coworkers, and all those that knew him. He was a fine young man, well-liked by all who would have been a positive influence on all those around him. It is in his memory that I dedicate this Chirp.

Therefore, it is much more important that you do good rather than feel good. We would all become better persons, and our society would benefit if we were all careful to do good and then feel good after we have done good.

04/08/20 To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders

A person or body of people who rules or commands is not exercising leadership. A person or body of people who lead a group through example and persuasion are leaders. Sometimes rulers are necessary, such as in times of war, national emergencies, or regional or local disasters. Yet, in such situations, the rulers must relinquish their command after such times have ended. To do otherwise is to entrench despotism or tyrannical rule upon a person(s) or peoples.

The most important, and most consequential, rulership or leadership is at the governmental level. My new Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders" examines these issues and concerns in regards to our current politicians' words and deeds.

04/06/20 Independence of Executive Powers

The hew and cry by many Democratic leaders for Independent Agencies or Authorities, independent Inspector Generals, or any independent executive powers are not only wrongheaded but unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States in Article. II, Section. 1. states:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

There is no allowance in the Constitution for any independence of any governmental executive authority outside of the President. The only independence in the Constitution is within the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches Constitutionally delegated responsibilities. All people who work for the United States government must be responsible to one of these three branches of government. Any government authority that executes the law is responsible to the Executive Branch led by the President. Anyone who is responsible for the creation of the laws is responsible to the Legislative branch, and anyone who exercises judicial powers is responsible to the Judicial Branch. To create authorities and governmental employees not responsible to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches is to create a fourth branch of government, a non-responsible and unaccountable branch, which is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

As such, there is nothing independent in the actions of anyone who serves in the Executive Branch. They are responsible and accountable to the President of the United States, and they serve at the will of the President, and they are only subject to Senate confirmation for officers of the Executive Branch.

It is wrongheaded because those who work for the government must be held responsible and accountable to the leadership of the different branches of government. Without this responsibility and accountability, we do not have a representative government subject to the will and approval of the people of the United States expressed through elections or appointments by the Senate. If these people or agencies were truly independent, they would become De Facto dictators within their areas of responsibility. Dictators that are antithetical to the Constitution.

The call for independence makes for great politics but bad governance, as well as being unconstitutional. As such, those that call for independence of executive powers should be admonished and ignored.

O4/05/20 Another Epidemic Challenging America

Another epidemic has swept over the country in the last few years, a psychological epidemic known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS). A selective epidemic that only seems to infect liberals, progressives, leftists, Democrats, and journalists. Some of these people are immune, but most of them are infected. Its symptoms are that whatever President Trump supports must be wrong, and whatever President Trump opposes must be right. The manifestations of TDS are a belief in the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Impeachment Constitutional Crisis, and now the Coronavirus Responses of President Trump.

One of the consequences of TDS is short-term memory loss. Words and deeds of TDS sufferers are quickly forgotten, especially when they are counter their current words and deeds. The TDS infection of the journalist has led them to not confront and explain theirs, and other TDS infected words and deeds of the (recent) past. This leads to obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered, and susceptible to accepting mistaken conclusions, as explained in my Chirp on “04/01/19 Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”. This also leads to the problems that I have outlined in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirp of “04/05/20 The Madness of Crowds and Their Manipulators”.

All Americans need to purge themselves of TDS and examine the positions of President Trump in a rational manner. Critiquing of President Trump’s position based on rationality is helpful and acceptable. Responding to President Trump’s positions based upon TDS infection is harmful and should be unacceptable.

04/02/20 Coronavirus Pandemic

I have extracted my Chirps about the Coronavirus Pandemic and incorporated them in a longer article that examines the Coronavirus Pandemic. This Article “Coronavirus Pandemic“ should be read in order to understand the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Please check back regularly, as I will be adding new sections to this article throughout the Coronavirus Pandemic and its aftershocks.

03/30/20 The Wit and Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin

Throughout my writings and my life I have often and repeatedly quoted the wit and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. He is my favorite historical personage, and I have even written an Article on “The Life and Contributions of Benjamin Franklin ”. Two of his sayings that I have adopted as guiding principles for my life are part of my “Pearls of Wisdom” as "Be Prepared to Change Your Mind". These quotes are:

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

and

“Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”

Adopting these guiding principles in your life not only makes you a better person but also assist you in your dealings with others. For if you can change your mind then you can be accepting of another person changing their mind. If you accept that you are fallible, then you can accept the fallibility of others. If the change of mind and fallibility of the other person is reasonable then it will be understandable by you. This understandability will also make for a more harmonious relationship between you and the other person. It will also help you to understand when a public person or politician changes their mind or has a failure. If their change of mind or failure is reasonable or understandable, and not for advantageous purposes nor a turpitude failing, then it may become more acceptable to you. All of this will also help you to “Be the Better Person”.

03/29/20 A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Socrates once famously said:

"An Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living"

Socrates was wrong. An unexamined life can be worth living if it is lived in a legal, moral, and ethical way. However, an examined life is a more fulfilling life. If you examine your life, you will learn more about yourself, your strengths, and your weaknesses, and have a better understanding of yourself and what is happening around you. However, too much examination can lead to self-pity, depression (not clinical depression as this is a medical condition), egotism, or narcissism, traits that I particularly disdain.

I would also add my own thoughts:

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste,
and a mind that is not fully utilized is a wasted mind."

and

"I tried to get them to think, but all they wanted to do was argue."

Most people do not fully utilize their minds excepts perhaps in the conduct of their employment (and not always). Thinking can be difficult, time consuming, tiring, and stressful. Also, the stresses and strains of daily life make it difficult to allocate the time and energy necessary to think. It is much easier to be entertained than it is to think. Under these circumstances it is easy to postpone thinking about something to a later time. But for many this postponement is indefinite and sometimes never occurs. You also have to allocated the time and effort need to learn the proper method of thinking as outlined in my Article on "Reasoning". Good thinking also requires good and extensive reading, which also requires time and effort. My Article “Further Readings and Literature” is a good starting point for readings. If you do not take the time and effort to read and think, and learn how to think, then you are wasting your mind. Not only are you wasting your mind, but you will indubitably make decisions that will adversely impact yourself, your family, you employer, and society.

Most people believe that they have thought about the things that they discuss or argue about. But they usually have not given it much reasoned thought, but they have given it much emotional notions. Many (if not most) of today's political debate is about feelings. But feelings do not make for good policy. Facts, intelligence, and reasoning, i.e., thinking, should be utilized to create policy, with feelings being used as a supplement to your thinking. Anyone who engages in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" during a discussion or argument is not thinking but feeling. Always remember that the only good way to create public policy is by an open and honest discussion of the issues based on facts, intelligence, and reasoning. All sides of an issue should be heard and debated to assure that the best public policy is implemented. To do so otherwise creates more problems than it solves, and often leads to partisanship and acrimony.

It is for these reasons that I have dedicate myself to thinking, rather than feeling, on the issues and topics that I have written upon. And I will do so "With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning". My feelings are predicated on my thoughts, but I will mostly write about my thoughts instead of my feelings. And when I think and write I always remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

and

“Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”

03/28/20 Freedom of the Press?

The Press has the freedom to report on anything they wish, in any manner they wish, as long as they do not with malice slander or libel a person. The American people have the right to ignore, complain, challenge, mock, or belittle the Press as they should so choose, as long as they do not with malice slander or libel a newsperson. It is not an abridgment of the Freedom of the Press for the American people to do so, but an exercise of the Freedom of Speech by the American people. And by the American people, I mean all people, from the President to an unemployed person, the American people have this right. What the American people may not do is to restrict the Freedom of the Press.

And, no, President Trump exercising his Free Speech rights does not pose a danger to the Freedom of the Press. It is only when his speech becomes actions that it becomes a danger. To date, President Trump has not taken any actions that endanger the Freedom of the Press. Criticism and critique are not a danger, and pointing out misleading or false information is not a danger, and refusing to cooperate with a journalist or media organizations that practice irresponsible journalism is not a danger. But irresponsible journalism is a danger to the American people. Dangerous in that the American people need responsible journalism to provide them with accurate and comprehensive information for them to make informed and responsible decisions.

The last several decades have seen the decline of responsible journalism. Journalism that has become advocacy instead of reporting. Journalism that is biased and mostly one-sided. Journalism that is often inaccurate or misleading. Journalism that is more concerned with being first rather than being correct. Journalism that is more concerned with readership and viewership numbers than accurate and comprehensive information. Journalism that provides more hype and sensationalism than context and circumstance. This modern journalism is more of a danger to the Freedom of the Press than is the Freedom of Speech then is exercised against modern journalism.

Until journalism self-corrects and returns to responsible reporting, it poses a danger to the American people. A danger in that the American people and its leadership will make unwise decisions based on irresponsible journalism, rather than a somber review of the facts and the truths of a situation. For more on this issue, I would direct you to my Article “Modern Journalism”.

03/25/20 Soulful Classical Music

I have compiled a list of my favorite calming soulful Classical Music. In these troubled times we should take a break, relax, and enjoy some simple pleasures. Hopefully, this "Classical Soulful Music" list can accomplish this goal.

03/18/20 Constitutional Protection of Rights and Just Laws

In another Article, "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" I examine the hierarchy of rights and the interrelationship of these rights. My new Article "Constitutional Protection of Rights and Just Laws” examines how these rights are protected in the U.S. Constitution.

03/16/20 A Hierarchy of Rights

Much has been said about the rights of a U.S. citizen. In my view, U.S. Citizens have a hierarchy of rights. They are:

1. Human (or Natural) Rights
2. Constitutional Rights
3. Civil Rights

 My new Article "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" examines this hierarchy and the interrelationship of these rights.

03/15/20 Limited and Enumerated Powers

The U.S. Constitution specifies the limited and enumerated powers of the Federal Government. It does so to assure that the Federal Government will not encroach on the rights of the states and the people. My new Article “Limited and Enumerated Powers” examines these powers and their application in today’s society.

03/09/20 Judges, Not Lords

Each branch of the Government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, take an oath of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, and each branch needs to uphold the Constitution as it sees fit. As each branch is co-equal to each other, all three branches have the duty and responsibility to enforce the Constitution. No one branch is supreme in their duty or responsibility to enforce the Constitution. The Supreme Court is only supreme within the Judicial branch. My new Article “Judges, Not Lords” examines the role of Judges in our Constitutional system.

03/03/20 It Shouldn't Matter Who the President Is

Freedom lovers everywhere are biting their nails during the election season, wondering how the damage can be limited. Depending on who gains control, we could have trade wars, nationalized health care, the pillaging of Wall Street and Main Street, more wars in the Middle East, a VAT tax, surveillance of your smartphone, mass deportations, internment camps, and worse.

Read that sentence slowly in a deep voice and it sounds like the trailer to a dystopian film.

And it doesn't have to.

So begins an article by Jeffrey A. Tucker which he published on March 2, 2016. It was true then and it is true now. I would encourage all to read this article in the Foundation of Economic Education. His perspective will give you a better understanding of how it seems that every Presidential election in modern history has become ‘The most important election in our lifetime’.

03/02/20 Attorney General William Barr

As in all things political today Attorney General William Barr has both his detractors and supporters, and all differentiations in between. His detractors have utilized the techniques of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" to characterize him, while his supporters have been tepid in his defense. I am generally supportive of Attorney General Barr as I believe that he is trying to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances. The question is then ‘What is the right thing he believes in?’. To gain a better understanding of Attorney General Barr I would direct you to some of his speeches where he expounds upon his perspectives. These speeches show a very thoughtful man with keen insights on today’s society while providing a historical perspective. They are:

• Politics is everywhere.  It is omnipresent.  Why is that?
• The Constitution’s Approach to Executive Power
• Religious Liberty in America

These thoughtful remarks are why I believe that Attorney General Barr is the right person to lead the Justice Department today.

03/01/20 If You Don’t Have Anything to Say, Say Nothing

I have updated my “Pearls of Wisdom” as follows:

If You Don’t Have Anything to Say, Say Nothing

Many feel the need to join or start a conversation to be sociable. Often, however, we tend to comment on the topic without much thought, knowledge, or experience on the topic. Usually this results in revealing our ignorance of the topic. When we are ignorant of the topic an inquiry of those who are not ignorant of the topic is the best approach in joining or starting a conversation. Sometimes, however, it is best to say nothing but to listen attentively. This does not make you unsociable but wise. It will also increase your scope of knowledge if you pay attention to those that are knowledgeable of the topic. The trick, however, is determining who in the conversation is or is not ignorant of the topic, then paying no heed to those that are ignorant of the topic. In any conversation you join or start you should always remember my other Pearl of Wisdom “Always Be Polite and Respectful”, especially when you are ignorant of the topic.

This is a Pearl of Wisdom that I utilize in writing my Chirps, Articles, and Observations. If I don’t have anything to say I will say nothing. Consequently, there are many topics that I do not write about, as I believe that I have nothing to contribute to the topic through my ignorance of the topic. I am also aware of my limitations, and only write what I know, as I have commented upon in another Pearl of Wisdom “Know Your Limitations”.

02/29/30 Now That's Music

You are all probably aware that I am a lover of Classical Music. What you may not be aware of is that I also love other genres of music, particularly Rock N’ Roll. I have not commented on these genres because I believe that I have nothing to contribute to this discussion that other, more knowledgeable, and qualified persons have said. However, I have decided to create lists "Now That's Music" of my favorite music in these genres.

02/24/20 Movies Gems

My Article “That's Entertainment” and Chirp “Movies and Television with Meaning” mainly deals with big movies with big meanings or big entertainment value. There are some movies, however, that deal with smaller but no less important subjects. They usually deal with the human condition and focus on individuals and life’s conundrums. I, therefore, have compiled a shortlist of these movies that reflect these human conditions.

• Back to School (1986)
• Breaker Morant (1980)
• Nobody's Fool (1994)
• Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)
• She's All That (1999)
• Strictly Ballroom (1992)
• The Counterfeit Traitor (1962)
• The Haunting (1963)
• The Red Shoes (1948)
• The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966)
• They Might Be Giants (1971)
• Will Penny (1967)

02/23/20 The Greatest Teamwork

Many, if not most, human activities require teamwork to achieve a goal. This is apparent in the sports arena, but entertainment (movies, television, concerts, etc.) also requires extensive teamwork to meet their goals. It is also true for any business, tradesmen, or governmental activities to have effective teamwork to meet their goals. Individual efforts within a team are important to achieve the goal, but most often a team is necessary to support the individual efforts. There are some fields in which the individual effort is paramount for success, mostly in the creative arts and sole-independent contract businesses, but teamwork is the normative. Whenever we see a team performance that excels, we often see excellence. Those efforts that lack effective teamwork are often average or mediocre in achieving their goals. It is true that most often when a team succeeds everyone in the team succeeds, but it is also often true that if an individual team member fails the team will often fail. I have watched and participated in many team efforts, in many different arena’s, over many years. I have been impressed, and disappointed, by many of these team efforts.

The question arises as to which teamwork is most important to achieve success. Many argue that it is team sports, and which team sport, requires the most teamwork to succeed. There is no doubt that team sports require great teamwork to succeed, but many team sports have a great individual teammate(s) that can carry the team to success. This is true for many other team activities where an individual can compensate for others in the team and propel them to success. The question is “Which team requires every member of the team to excel in order to achieve their goal?”. There are a few answers to this question, but the one answer that stands out is an orchestra.

An orchestra, both large and small, requires that each individual team member excel in order to create beautiful music. When one or more members of an orchestra fail to perform to high expectations the quality of the music suffers. This is what differentiates a great orchestra from all the others. It is immediately recognizable when you attend an orchestral performance. Great music, when performed greatly, is immediately fully satisfying. However, when it is not performed well it leaves the listener unsatisfied. Most modern symphonic orchestras have approximately one hundred members. One hundred members, under the direction of one conductor, in which everyone needs to perform well and in teamwork to create beautiful and satisfying music.

This is one of the reasons that I enjoy Classical Music, not only for the great music, but for the great performances, and the teamwork exhibited in performing the music. For more of my thoughts about Classical Music please review my Articles "Classical Music Appreciation" and "Classical Music Chirps".

02/22/20 Know Your Limitations and Prioritize Your Life

I have updated my “Pearls of Wisdom” as follows:

Know Your Limitations

As Dirty Harry said in the movie of the same name “A man’s got to know his limitations”. We must all know our limitations and work within them and ask for assistance when we reach them. Know your skills and abilities, your knowledge, experience, and intelligence, and know what you don’t know and what skills and abilities that you do not have. When you don’t have the skills and abilities, or the knowledge, experience, and intelligence, do not be afraid to ask someone who is capable for their assistance. It is not a sign of weakness to do so, and indeed, it is a sign of strength to do so.

Strength to admit to your limitations, strength to ask for assistance, and strength to utilize another’s capabilities to achieve your goal is not a weakness. You will also gain skills and abilities and increase your knowledge, experience, and intelligence in doing so. If you don’t know your limitations and attempt to do something beyond your limitations, you will often fail to reach your goal. Achieving the goal should be the most important objective. Just be careful that the person you ask for assistance has the proper skills and abilities, or the knowledge, experience, and intelligence to assist you.

You should also be prepared to acknowledge and credit the person(s) who assisted you. To do so will gain you the respect of those around you, and perhaps a good friendship of those who assisted you.

Prioritize Your Life

The way we priorities our activities is one of the means in which we can judge a person’s character. The more you prioritize something the more important it is to you. Yet, often we do not prioritize our activities but place them into categories of necessities or convenience and then give them no order of precedence. Necessities are important and often need to be done as quickly as possible. Conveniences, however, are what defines what is important to us and it is a reflection on our character. Self, family, friends, work, and leisure is often the categories that we utilize to prioritize.

What you do, and the order in which you do it, is a determinative factor in your character. For you will be judged by what you do, not by what you say. This requires that you think about and decide what is important in your life, and then prioritize what you do. Sometimes you may be too tired to act upon a priority. However, being too tired to do something is often a poor excuse, but not a good reason, for not doing something that is a priority. If you are indeed too tired, then you need to act upon your priority after you have rested. To not do so is a reflection of your character. Other excuses are also utilized to not do something. The question you need to ask yourself is ‘Is this just a poor excuse or a good reason to not do something?’. A good reason for not doing something is acceptable, but a poor excuse is never acceptable.

Therefore, prioritize your life to reflect what is important in your life. Then act upon your priorities in the order of importance. This prioritization and action are a true reflection of your character.

02/21/20 Bring Us Together

The Democrat Presidential candidates like to say that they can bring us together and unite the country. To this I would ask them three questions on how they would bring us together:

1. How will you bring the pro-life and pro-choice proponents together?
2. How will you bring the people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms together with the people who believe in gun control?
3. How will you bring together the people who believe in legal immigration but oppose illegal immigration with those that believe in open borders?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions as there is no answer for them. The typical Democrat answer is that they would implement common-sense solutions. But whose common sense will they utilize – the conservatives or the liberal/progressives’ common sense? They would also reply that they would change the tone of the rhetoric. But the tone is mostly coming from the left side of the political spectrum as they often shout down and disrupt the free speech rights of their opponents. Just as you should not mollify a misbehaving child in a supermarket or department store you should not mollify the shouters and disruptors in an effort to bring us together and unite the country.

Therefore, when a Democrat candidate speaks of bringing us together and uniting us, what they actually mean is for all those that oppose their policy positions to drop their opposition and remain silent. This is not bringing people together but ignoring or suppressing the free speech rights of those who disagree with the Democrat policy positions.

02/20/20 Stupid Is as Stupid Does

“Stupid is as stupid does” is a quote from the movie “Forest Gump”. This phrase underlies an important truth; that you should be judged by your actions and not as much by your speech. Speech may be significant, but actions are definitive. Until speech is transformed into actions speech is nothing but words. Words that can express ideas that can be critiqued or criticized, but not a judgment of a person’s character. Actions are a judgment on a person’s character and define what a person truly is.

Therefore, it can also be stated unequivocally that “Fascism is as Fascism does”. Consequently, if you employ fascist tactics then you are a fascist. Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Fascism is best expressed by quotes of its leading proponent, Benito Mussolini:

• "The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state."
• "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
• "We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them."

The first two points are indicative of an authorial regime that wishes to control people and society, while the third point is revelatory of their method to accomplish their goals. And, unfortunately, modern American Leftism is utilizing the third point as its tactic to suppress those that disagree with them in order to achieve the goals of the first two points. Shouting down or obstructing free speech, violent protests, destruction of personal property, and economic boycotts are a means that modern American Leftism uses to destroy their opponents. Not to disagree with them but to destroy them. For those who would say that Fascism is not left-wing ideology I would direct you to my Article “Nazism and Fascism” that refutes this belief.

Many would claim that these tactics are a legitimate response in order to not tolerate the intolerant. But as my Chip “To Not Tolerate the Intolerant” elaborates this is a fallacious argument. An argument that has pernicious repercussions. For those that would say that these protesters are anti-fascist I would direct you to my Article “Modern American Fascism” which refutes this argument.

People who employ these tactics lack emotional control and intellectual acuity to reasonable defend their positions. They should be pitied, but not tolerated. For they are destructive to free speech and, consequently, antithetical to "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All".

02/19/20 Impeachment Consequences

My final Article on impeachment has been posted. This Article “Impeachment Consequences” deals with the future consequences of impeachment to our Republic. Consequences that may be far-reaching and perverse to our Constitutional Republic. Some consequences that can be foreseen, and other consequences that cannot be foreseen as I have explained in my Article “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. This article examines the consequences of what I can foresee, and calls into question the unforeseen consequences.

02/18/20 The Great Divergence

Western Civilization has been characterized as imperialism, slavery, and wars, but nearly all major civilizations enslaved people, built empires and made war. Stanford historian Niall Ferguson on PragerU has pointed out the differences between Western Civilization and other civilizations known by economists as The Great Divergence. They are:

1. Economic and political competition.
2. The Scientific Revolution.
3. The rule of law and representative government.
4. Modern medicine.
5. The consumer society.
6. The work ethic.

This thought-provoking, five-and-a-half-minute video, should give pause to all and for all to be thankful for what Western Civilization has bestowed upon the world.

02/16/20 Sociologies and Ideologies

Liberalism/Progressivism and Conservatism are sociologies, not ideologies. An ideology is a coherent set of ideas about how the political world should function. Sociology is a system of ideas and beliefs that are not necessarily coherent and maybe even contradictory – held by people who flock together and interact with each other. Therefore, the Democrat and Republican Parties are sociologies. Sociologies that are based on an ideology of governance as I have expounded upon in three of my recent articles. Like a Classical concerto, these Articles need to be played (read) in order to understand the full meaning of the music (governance). These Articles are; “The Foundation of the Rights of the Common Man”, “There is Nothing democratic About the Democrat Party” and “Have We Lost Our Way?”.

The “Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research” has some interesting articles on this subject;

• “What Is Classical Liberalism?”
• “What is Modern Liberalism?”
• “Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism”

I would recommend you read and ponder these articles.

02/15/20 Extracted Articles for Perusal and Reference

I have extracted three Articles from my Observations for your ease of perusal and reference purposes. They are:

Dialog & Debate (Feb 2020) - In today's political environment Dialog and Debate have degenerate into the employment of tactics, tactics that do not provide illumination but instead generate heat. This is done to generate political points for electioneering purposes rather than an examination of the issue to reach an understanding. I, therefore, have extracted my Observation on Dialog and Debate for your illumination of these tactics.

Modern Journalism (Feb 2020) - Media Bias is so widespread today that it is widely recognized by the general public, and even journalists comment upon their lack of support by the general public. This is supported by all public polling, and even though I am not a believer in public polling, I can see this in how the public does not respond to journalism reporting. This article examines the reasons for journalisms' decline.

Reasoning (Feb 2020) - To properly reason you need to understand Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense. These must always be ascertained and incorporated for a rational debate to occur. You must also be aware of how to utilize common sense appropriately. This article is an outline of Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense.

02/14/20 Intersectionality

Intersectionality is the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

Intersectionality is all in how you categorize it. There are many ways in which you can Ven Diagram or Hierarchically Structure intersectionality. When discussing the intersectionality of groups of people we could Hierarchically Structure them as follows:

Black --> Female --> Homosexual --> Uneducated --> Lower Class --> Unmarried --> Mother --> Unhealthy --> Unhandsome --> Progressive = INDIVIDUAL

White --> Male  --> Heterosexual --> Educated  --> Middle Class --> Married --> Father --> Healthy --> Attractive --> Conservative = INDIVIDUAL

No matter how you structure intersectionality, at the core of a Ven Diagram or the base of a Hierarchically Structure, is an individual. To ignore the core or base in your intersectionality makes it incomplete and subject to misinterpretation. To utilize intersectionality without accounting for the core or base is to engage in “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”. To create a Law or Social Policy not based on the core or base dooms the Law or Social Policy to failure.

Consequently, whenever someone speaks of intersectionality I think of the individual. This is how my Chirps, Articles, and Observations are focused; on the individual. The individual Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and Civil Rights that are instituted to preserve the individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Therefore, we should not allow intersectionality to infringe on these rights.

02/13/20 Do the Ends Justify the Means?

When do the ends justify the means?  This can be a very difficult question to answer, and it is often not black or white. Almost always the answer is no but is some cases it can be yes. My new Article "Do the Ends Justify the Means?" broadly addresses this question.

02/12/20 The Intellectual, Emotional, and Physical Strains of Writing

In writing these Articles and Chirps I have attempted to assure that the information I present is factual and accurate. I, therefore, expend time and effort in researching to obtain the facts and achieve accuracy. The process of writing for me is an intellectual, emotional, and physical strain. I have, therefore, written a short Article “The Intellectual, Emotional, and Physical Strains of Writing” that explains my research efforts, and the intellectual, emotional, and physical strains of writing these Articles and Chirps.

02/11/20 Sloganeering versus Governance

The Democrat Party slogan “the party of the people” has actually become “the party of special interest groups”, while the slogan of the Republican Party “The Grand Old Party” is more apt to be “the party of common man rights”. Of course, this is an over-simplification of both the Democrat and Republican parties, but it has a broad streak of truth for both parties. But a slogan does not imply any truth to the slogan. You must look behind the slogan to determine the truth of a slogan. This is especially true when dealing with political slogans. If you look behind a political slogan to determine what it means for how they would govern then my simplification of the Democrat and Republican parties’ slogans makes more sense.

Three of my recent Articles have expounded on the issues of governance by the Democrat and Republican parties’. Like a Classical concerto, they need to be played (read) in order to understand the full meaning of the music (governance). These Articles are; “The Foundation of the Rights of the Common Man”, “There is Nothing democratic About the Democrat Party” and “Have We Lost Our Way?”. I believe that this will be good reading, and lead to good thinking.

02/10/20 Who is Divisive?

When a Republican or a Conservative state their policies they are often called divisive, while Democrats and Liberal/Progressives are often called inclusive. But who is actually divisive or inclusive? It often depends on your definition of divisive/inclusive and your political viewpoint.  If you mean inclusive to be when a person agrees and supports your policy position, then of course your opponent who disagrees and opposes your policy position must be divisive. But divisiveness or inclusiveness rarely cannot be judged solely on a policy position, as all policy positions have both inclusive and divisive elements.

What can be judged as divisiveness or inclusiveness is the language utilized to describe your opponent. The use of pejoratives to describe your opponent is often the best means to determine divisiveness or inclusiveness as I have discussed in my Article “Divisiveness in America”. The utilization of pejoratives as a means to “The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate)” someone that you disagree with. To utilize the Three D’s is not inclusive, and is indeed the most divisive approach that can be taken.

02/09/20 Words and Terms as Weapons, Not for Comprehension

It is quite common for politicians and political commentators to utilize words and terms when discussing an issue or concern. But if they are unfamiliar with the true meaning of the words or terms then they are utilizing the word or term as a weapon, not to make their comments comprehensible. This most frequently occurs when they are discussing Constitutional issues and concerns.

There is great meaning behind the words and terms that describes the principles of the Constitution. Meanings that are essential to how we live and govern ourselves. It is critical to understand, then apply, what these words and terms mean. Without this understanding you will misinterpret the Constitution and apply it incorrectly.

If politicians and political commentators are unaware of the true meaning of the words or terms and they are utilizing them they are demonstrating their ignorance. If they are aware of the true meaning of the word or term and are utilizing them inappropriately then they are being deliberately misleading. And you should not pay attention to ignorant or misleading persons. You can, therefore, be assured that when I utilize a word or term that I understand its true meaning, and I utilize the word or term for comprehension purposes.

02/08/20 Its Never Over

With the acquittal of President Trump in the Senate Impeachment trial this phase of their resistance (not loyal opposition) to President Trump is over. If they have not after three years gotten over that President Trump was duly elected, that President Trump did not collude with the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election, and that President Trump was not guilty of the Impeachment Articles then it will never be over. The Democrats enmity, and indeed hatred, of President Trump will never be over. Their behavior, and misbehavior, during the recent State on the Union address by President Trump is also indicative of their enmity. And they have shown a lack of will power to put this enmity behind them and come to terms with the election of President Trump.

If they can do this, they can proceed with the business of the governance of the United States. But, alas, I do not expect this to happen. With the coming 2020 Presidential election you can expect more displays of the enmity and hatred, rather than governance.  The only way it will ever be over is for the American people to remove the Democrat Party from the reins of power in an overwhelming manner. It is only this removal that will force them to reassess their tactics and approach to governance and then we can proceed with the regular order of doing the business of governance.

02/07/20 What to Think and Not How to Think

Today we have two generations of Americans who have been indoctrinated in that they have been educated on what to think, rather than how to think. How to think requires that you know how to determine what are the correct and pertinent facts, how to logically reason, how to apply informal and formal logic, and how to root out Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases. The best way to achieve this is by utilizing “A Philosophical Approach” when thinking.

The modern educational system in America does not teach you how to do these things, and American culture rewards what we think without being critical of how we think. In America if you say the right things you will be praised, and if you do not say the right things you are scorned. But nowhere do we praise, or scorn, based on how a person thinks. Indeed, we very rarely attempt to examine how we think to determine the quality of the thinking. Too often we utilize phrases and slogans in place of intellectual and reasoned thinking. Often, our discussions and debates are a hooray for our side spectacle. Very rarely does anybody question the thinking process but counterpoints with opposite phrases and slogans.

Until we begin to question the line of reasoning we will be engaged in argumentation rather than the resolution to the issues and concerns that beset us.

02/06/20 When is a Question an Assertion?

The answer, of course, is when it is a loaded question. A loaded question (also known as a Complex question fallacy) is a question that contains controversial or unjustified assumptions (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Questions such as “When did you stop beating your wife?”, “Why do you continue to steal?”, etc. are obviously loaded. The most insidious of these loaded questions, however, is when the question has assumptions built into the question that is not obvious. These questions presume facts or truths that have not been proven. And unobvious loaded questions abound today (and many journalist questions are unobvious loaded questions).

The only proper way to answer loaded questions is by challenging the assumptions. But this gives the appearance of not answering or dodging the question, which often redounds negatively on the person answering the question. It is also true that challenging a question can take (considerably) more time than a simple answer would take. Challenging the question's assumptions should and needs to be done to properly answer a loaded question.

The other answer to this question is when a question is formulated in a manner that requires someone to prove a negative. One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative (i.e. prove you didn't say or do something).  Historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s to occur, summary executions to take place, as well as many other violations of human rights. It has also led to falsehoods to be introduced into science, law, philosophy, morality, and ethics. No one is required to prove a negative, therefore, refusing to answer negative loaded question presumes nothing and cannot be utilized for any purposes.

Therefore, a loaded question should not be answered directly. It is the unobvious loaded question that has built-in assumptions or a presumption of guilt that should especially not be answered. They should always be challenged as a loaded question by the party being asked the question. Refusing to answer a loaded question presumes nothing and cannot be utilized for any purposes. The time it takes to challenge a loaded question should not be considered detrimental to the person who answers, and indeed, should be redounded positively on the person who answers as it is often a positive reflection on their intelligence and knowledge.

02/05/20 Assertions are the Question

The person asserting something has the responsibility of proving their assertion is correct. The person disputing the assertion has no responsibility to prove the other person’s assertion is incorrect. Too often, in today’s political debates, one side or the other makes an assertion without justifying their assertion. Indeed, they often imply or retort that the other side must prove them wrong. Assertions also contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. The deconstruction of an assertion to determine the validity of the assertion may take considerable time and effort. Unless an assertion is not disputable it should be questioned to determine if it contains any of these problems. Generally, the assertion of facts is indisputable. However, the meaning of these facts is often disputable. Therefore, when someone makes an assertion about the meaning of the facts you need to carefully examine the assertion to determine its validity.

In all science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion. Otherwise, we could end up with the following absurd situation:

Someone could assert that Martians eat garbage and urinate gasoline. If they did not have to prove their assertion, but someone had to disprove their assertion, then the following would be necessary to disprove the assertion. The person disproving the assertion would have to prove there is no such thing as Martians, or if there were Martians prove that they did not eat garbage, and if there were Martians that ate garbage they would have to prove that they did not urinate gasoline.

Obviously, it is not possible to prove or disprove these things. Therefore, the person who asserts something bears the burden of proving that their assertion is correct. Consequently, you must always challenge a person who asserts something to prove their assertion is correct, and their proof must be based upon “Reasoning” rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion.

As Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." To agree to disagree requires that both sides must present cogent arguments, explanations, or reasoning for their assertions. Otherwise, it is not possible to disagree with the party that does present a cogent argument, explanation, or reasoning, you can only dismiss their assertion. You may also fall in the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. You should, therefore, challenge a person who asserts something to prove their assertion. If they can offer no reasonable proof for an assertion, then their assertion can be simply dismissed. Otherwise, you get into the situation that "if you cannot prove that they are wrong then they must be right", which is obviously a fallacious statement.

02/04/20 A Philosophical Approach

When reading my webpages, you will notice that I often take a philosophical approach to discuss issues and concerns. But why do I take a philosophical approach? The answer is because Philosophy teaches you how to think, not what to think. I also believe that a philosophical approach is the best means to resolve the issues and concerns that beset modern America. My new Article “A Philosophical Approach” explains my reasoning.

02/03/20 Have We Lost Our Way?

America was founded on the ideals of "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All". Along with the ideas of representative government, due process, the rule of law, property, and contracts. It has been a long and incomplete struggle to achieve these ideals and ideas in America. In the history of the United States, there were abuses and shortcomings of these ideals and ideas because this was a struggle that had initial defects and setbacks during its advancement. My new Article “Have We Lost Our Way?” examines these ideals and ideas in modern American governance and society.

02/02/20 There is Nothing democratic About the Democrat Party

All political organizations are Oligarchies, including the Democrat and Republican Parties. The difference is in the power structure of the leadership of the parties. Does the power structure rule from the top-down or lead from the bottom-up? My new Article “There Is Nothing democratic About the Democrat Party” examines this topic as it relates to the current Democrat and Republican Parties.

02/01/20 Welcome to the Conservative and Republican World Professor Dershowitz

With his presentation on the Constitutional Issues in the Impeachment of Donald Trump Professor Dershowitz is facing the wrath and fury of the Democrats, the Mainstream Media (MSM), and the Mainstream Cultural Media (MCM). A wrath and fury that seeks to “The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate” and  “Putting Words into Another’s Mouth and a False Dichotomy” for anyone who would disagree with them. Even a noted liberal and supporter of the Democrat Party such as Professor Alan Dershowitz, or Professor Jonathan Turley, who would deviate from their orthodoxy is not immune from their wrath and fury.

To which I say to Professor Dershowitz and Professor Turley; welcome to the world that the Conservatives and Republicans have been living in for the last several decades.

01/31/20 Resolution on the Impeachment of President Trump

With the anticipated end to the Impeachment of President Trump, the Senate will have to pass a resolution of its verdict. Given all that I have read and heard, as well as all I have written in my previous articles, I have created a resolution “Impeachment Senate Trial V“ that I believe the Senate should pass.

01/30/20 New Witnesses at the Senate Impeachment Trial

The new battle cry at the Impeachment of President Trump is the call for new witnesses. The Democrats' reasoning for new witnesses is for the facts and truth needs to be revealed. The Republicans' reasoning against new witnesses it is not their responsibility to investigate, only to make a judgment on the facts presented. As usual, both sides have gotten it wrong. The real battle is “are the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump Constitutional as Professor Dershowitz has laid out in his testimony? My new Article "Impeachment Senate Trial IV" are my thoughts on this topic.

01/27/20 The Foundation of the Rights of the Common Man

Where did the ideals of Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Equal Justice for All, as we now understand them come from? What about the ideas of representative government, the rule of law, equal justice, property, and contracts? My new Article "The Foundation of the Rights of the Common Man" examines where these ideals and ideas came from.

01/26/20 Movies and Television with Meaning

Movies and television can be many things, but it most important that they be entertaining. But movies and television can contain messages that can do more than entertain. They can inform and illuminate the human condition. Movies and television such as these are important for their dialog, what they meant, and how they changed your perspective. Movies and television can also have a great impact on our lives and can shape our vision of the world and world events. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but mostly not at all.

Many movies and television can do this, but only a few do it thoroughly and excellently. Most of these movies and television that do this are dependent on their script and are often derided for their extensive dialog. In many cases this is true but is some cases it is not. Or, as a movie critic once said about the movie “The Lion in Winter” – “Talk, talk, talk, and talk. But what magnificent talk.”

Therefore, I have decided to compile a short list of movies that have impacted my life:

• A Man for all Seasons (1966)
• Becket (1964)
• Bridge of Spies (2015)
• Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
• Cheyenne Autumn (1964)
• Citizen Kane (1941)
• Doctor Zhivago (1965)
• Dr. Strangelove (1964)
• Gettysburg (TV Movie) (1993)
• Groundhog Day (1993)
• In the Heat of Night (1967)
• Inherit the Wind (1960)
• Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
• Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
• Lord of War(2005)
• October Sky (1999)
• On the Waterfront (1954)
• Paths of Glory (1957)
• Remember the Titans (2000)
• Schindler's List (1993)
• Shane (1953)
• The Americanization of Emily (1964)
• The Big Country (1958)
• The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
• The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
• The Lion in Winter (1968)
• The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
• The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)
• The Quiet Man (1952)
• The Searchers (1956)
• The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965)
• The Stranger (1946)
• The Train (1964)
• To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
• Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)
• Zulu (1964)

I would encourage all to take the time to watch these movies and think about their messages. For more movies that I consider thoughtful or entertaining I would direct you to my Article “That’s Entertainment”.

01/25/20 Senate Vote on Impeachment

I have written a new Article on "The true meaning of the Senate vote on the Impeachment of President Trump". This short article, written as a speech to the Senate, does not delve into any of the details of impeachment. It instead ponders its Constitutional impacts and on the future consequences of impeachment.

01/23/20 The Goose and the Gander

Liberal/Progressives, and most especially Leftists, gave forgotten how to disagree with people who dispute them. They think that to disagree allows them to be disparaging, that criticism rather than critiquing is the best means of addressing their adversaries, and that to dismiss their adversaries rather than to answer them is the proper way to disagree with them.

As I have Chirped on,"12/16/19 Polite and Respectful, with Facts, Intelligent, and Reasoning", pejoratives and reputational accusations by Liberal/Progressives are often the common means to assail their adversaries, and they have forgotten how to conduct a respectful and reasonable as I have examined in my Article, "Dialog and Debate". Liberal/Progressives believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior that they are, of course, always correct. And to be always correct means that those that disagree with them are unintelligent, uneducated, immoral, and therefore wrong and that their adversaries can be dismissed and disregarded because they are wrong.

The Liberal/Progressives always require that their adversaries be factual and reasonable, prove their facts and assumptions, and be non-hypocritical, while they themselves have no responsibility for meeting their own standards. Liberal/Progressives often concentrate on the style of their adversaries in order to deflect from the substance of their arguments. And due to Political Correctness, they determine what is the appropriate style which gives them the advantage.

And Liberal/Progressives have no long-term memory. They will say what is politically expedient at the moment while forgetting that they have said things in the past that are diametrically opposed to their current comments. A good example of this is in their protestations for a fair Senate Impeachment Trial while there were no remonstrations about an unfair House Impeachment Investigation. This is because “Fair” is a word that they utilize to mean whatever is advantageous to Liberal/Progressives is fair, and whatever is advantageous to their adversaries is unfair.

As to the charge that the Liberal/Progressives adversaries utilize these same tactics this is true. The difference is that the Liberal/Progressives have been utilizing these tactics, by both their leaders and followers, for decades (see my “Marque de Queensberry Rules vs a Barroom Brawl” Chirp for more information), and in a vitriolic manner. While as to the adversaries of Liberal/Progressives this has become more frequent in the recent past but is much less vitriolic, especially by the leadership.

For Liberal/Progressives “What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander” has morphed into “Do as I say and not as I do”. It’s past time to Cook the Liberal/Progressives Goose and stop this nonsense.

01/20/20 The Constitutional Founding Fathers Goals

To understand why the Constitution was drafted and adopted you need to understand the historical governmental and socio-economic environment at the time of the founding, and the fears of the Constitutional Founding Fathers due to this environment. The American Constitution was formulated and passed to institute a Continental Republic for several reasons:

• Preserve the Freedoms and Liberties of its Citizens
• Keep Foreign Powers at Bay
• Keep Aggressive States in Line
• Keep the Military in Control
• Right the Bad Economy
• Keep the Slave States On-Board

My new Article on this subject examines the historical governmental and socio-economic environment of this time, and the  "Constitutional Founding Fathers Goals".

01/19/20 Should the Civil Service be Abolished?

My new article examines how the Civil Service was created with the presumption that civil service employees would be responsive to Executive authority and policy, and would put the interests of the people of the United States above their own interests, and how this is no longer the case. This Article “Should the Civil Service be Abolished?” examines the pernicious effects of the modern attitude of many civil servants.

01/18/20 Calm and Collected

Both my wife and I received some minor disturbing news recently. While talking it over with my wife she remarked how calm and collected I was about the news. She then asked how I could remain so calm and collected. This gave me pause to think about why I could remain calm and collected. I, of course, recalled my “Pearls of Wisdom” in formulating my answer to her. But my response revealed that I had additional Pearls of Wisdom that I needed to elucidate. I have, therefore, update my article to contain these new Pearls of Wisdom. I hope that you will reread, or read for the first time, these Pearls as they can be beneficial to your life.

01/17/20 Marque de Queensberry Rules vs a Barroom Brawl

The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, also known as Queensbury Rules, is a code of generally accepted rules in the sport of boxing. A Barroom Brawl is a conflict with no rules. And both are practiced, by all sides, in politics. All is fair in love, war, and politics is the phrase often utilized to express this.

The Democrat Party only fights by the political Marque de Queensberry Rules when it is to their advantage. Otherwise, they engage in a political Barroom Brawl which is usually to their advantage (given the liberal/progressive leanings of the mainstream media – see my Article "Modern Journalism" and “Slander & Libel on Social Media and Journalism”). The Republican Party, until recently, occasionally engaged in a political Barroom Brawl but most often utilized the political Marque de Queensberry rules. This was mainly done by Republicans due to their fear of being pilloried by the mainstream media.

However, all of this has changed with the campaign and election of President Trump.  President Trump is a barroom brawler, but only after someone has started the barroom brawl. This is one of the reasons why the Democrats, the Mainstream Media, and their supporters hate (sic) him. They no longer can dictate the rules of the fight nor the Politically Correct language of the fight. President Trump’s tweeting and rallies can bypass the traditional means of communicating to the public, which is biased against him, and he speaks directly to the public with his tweets and rallies. His sometimes crude and rude language draws attention to what he is saying or tweeting and therefore spreads his message.

I do not particularly care for the words or tones of his tweets, but I understand the need for them. It is the leveling of the playing field and provides the means to even the fight between Democrats and the Republicans, and the Conservatives and the Liberals/Progressives. For too long this fight has been lopsided in favor of the Democrats and Liberals/Progressives, as they have enjoyed the support of the Mainstream Media and Cultural Media. This has inured the American public to the Liberals/Progressives viewpoints rather than examining the substance of their viewpoints.

Some claim that President Trump is not acting “Presidential”, but the last Republican President, George W. Bush, who acted presidential was pilloried by his opponents in an uncivil manner. This pillorying hampered the George W. Bush agenda and compromised his ability to implement his agenda and policies. He would often have to unduly compromise and temporize his agenda and policies as a result of this pillorying. President Trump does not wish this happen to him, as he believes that his agenda and policies or critical to righting the course of America which he believes foundered and decline under the previous administrations.

I believe that President Trump should act and speak more presidential, but only after journalist and his critics act and speak more journalistically and reasonably. I would much prefer "A Civil Society", but uncivility must sometimes be utilized against uncivility to counter the perverse impacts of pillorying.

01/16/20 What They Said and What They Meant

It is an all too common occurrence in today's political environment that a politician will say something, and then shortly thereafter their spokesperson will clarify the statement, or their supporters will explain what they really meant. Usually, the clarification or explanation is not an elucidation but an attempt to deflect the political harm the statement may have invoked. And this is often done by utilizing the technique of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" or "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning".

If this tactic is successful it lets the politician off the hook for what they have said. But they should remain on the hook until they themselves clarify their statement. Hopefully, this would also force them to think about what they said, and perhaps, think about what they are saying before they say it. To accept a clarifying statement or explanation, other than by the politician who spoke it, has a perverse effect. The perverse effect of not being sure of where a politician really stands on an issue or policy and their position is open to interpretation by the words of others. An interpretation that is usually not what their position really is but in being a nebulous position.

I expect that this tactic will continue to occur if we continue to allow this tactic to be successful. Let us, therefore, not be acceptable of this tactic, but instead examine what they really said and leave what they meant to the listeners' discernment.

01/14/20 Libertarians and Republicans, Democrats and Leftists

I am a registered Republican, although I am actually “A Constitutionalist Conservative” with a Libertarian streak. So why am I not a Libertarian instead of a Republican? Because I choose to have an impact on my beliefs. The Libertarian Party is small, but growing, but has no real impact on governmental laws and policies as it has insufficient numbers to have any impact. I would much prefer a Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party that would pull the party in its direction, much like the leftists have pulled the Democratic party to the left. This is a pragmatic decision on my part.

But some would ask “What about the centrists and bipartisanship?”. I believe that our country is at a point where it needs to decide which direction it wishes to become. It needs both the left and right wings to elucidate their positions so that we can decide on our direction. To equivocate and then proceed in a left or right, and sometimes both directions, will not help us to reach a decision. It will only continue the partisan bickering and stalemates we have seen in the last twenty years. And it is the centrists and the bipartisan who have brought this about by their unwillingness to make a clear decision.

This is why the 2020 Presidential elections may be consequential. The left has pulled the Democrat Party to the left, and President Trump has pulled the Republican Party to the right. A clear choice may become available to the American people so that they may decide which direction they wish to proceed. The centrists need to decide where they wish this country to go in order to end this stalemate. So, I say let the games begin and let us make a clear decision on our future direction.

01/13/20 Should the FISA Court be Eliminated

With FBI Director Christopher Wray submitting his reform plan to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) after a scathing inspector general report found 17 errors in the FBI’s surveillance applications, some have called for the elimination of FISA court as unconstitutional. In the article “Ball of Collusion and FISA Reform”, By Andrew C. McCarthy, he has suggested that the FISA Court should be eliminated. He makes a cogent argument for its elimination and it is a persuasive read. However, he makes a suggestion for an alternative that I believe is impracticable. He argues for stronger Congressional oversight instead of a FISC Court. Given what we have seen with the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees hearings on Impeachment in the partisanship, lack of due process, and the ignoring of the rule of law I doubt that a House Committee would conduct proper oversight. I am unsure whether a Senate Committee could also do this given the current rancor that exists in the Senate. We would probably have a deadlock on decisions by these committees leading to negative consequences regarding the purposes for which the FISA Court was created to address.

Postscript – The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has stunned court-watchers by selecting David Kris -- a former Obama administration lawyer to oversee the FBI's implementation of reforms in the wake of a damning Department of Justice inspector general report last year. David Kris had written extensively in support of the FBI's surveillance practices prior to the DOJ Inspector General’s report. Davis Kris had also panned the now-vindicated 2018 memo produced by House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes' panel, which asserted a series of surveillance abuses by the FBI against former Trump aide Carter Page. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz later substantiated Nunes' claims, noting that the FBI had made numerous materially false representations to the FISC (see Jonathan Turley's article "FISA Court Selects Lawyer Who Vehemently Denied FBI Misled FISA To Oversee FBI Reforms)".

A federal judge will disqualify or recuse themselves from a case, as per the United States Code (the Judicial Code) under the "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge" standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. These standards state that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned". The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed opinions concerning its outcome. Using the same standards for disqualification or recusal of a federal judge David Kris should never have been appointed to this position.

It is hard to think of a worse appointment to oversee the FBI’s FISC reforms. David Kris lacks the credibility and impartiality to perform these reforms, and the American people should be suspicious of his reform efforts. We need a fair-minded person with the impartiality and integrity to reform the FBI’s FISC standards and procedures. David Kris is not this person. David Kris was wrong about the FBI's surveillance practices, he was wrong about Nunes' claims, and now he is expected to put right what he was wrong about by overseeing the FBI reforms of FISC practices. Two wrongs don’t make him right for this responsibility. If this appointment stands then I would support the elimination of the FISA Court. 

01/12/20 Is it Impeachable?

I have recently finished reading the book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” 3rd Edition by Robert G. Natelson. A very interesting and informative book that is full of information that even many experts don't know. From it, you will learn; The Constitution’s hidden meanings. Many of its words and phrases meant something different in the 18th century than they do today. How the founders wanted the Constitution interpreted. Is it really a “living” document? How the original Constitution protected your rights. What a privilege is, and how it is different from a right. How the framers were ahead of their time in respecting women and minorities.

Robert G. Natelson's meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been relied on repeatedly in the U.S. Supreme Court, both by justices and by the parties. Professor Natelson was a law professor for 25 years at three different universities. He taught Constitutional Law, Advanced Constitutional, Constitutional History, and First Amendment courses. He is now the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, Colorado.

In Chapter 11 of this book, “Removal from Office”, I read a very good summary of the grounds for impeachment:

“… the Constitutional grounds for impeachment may be summarized as (1) treason, (2) bribery, or (3) other breaches of public trust – such as serious violations of the law, disloyalty, self-dealing, abuse of power, failing to account for funds, and negligence to performance of duty. That negligence was a ground for impeachment demonstrates that an official might be removed for failure to act properly as well as for acting wrongfully.”

The question then is “Has President Trump met any of these grounds for impeachment?”. I would only hope that you keep two things in mind when considering the impeachment of President Trump. They are:

In judicial proceedings there is the concept of if two equally reasonable explanations of a defendant’s actions are given, one in favor of the defendant and one detrimental to the defendant, then the favorable explanation must be utilized to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This is done because the prosecutor has a burden to prove the detrimental reason. To believe that a defendant acted in one way or another is insufficient. You must prove by direct evidence or direct witness testimony the reason the defendant acted the way they did. If you cannot prove one reason or the other reason for the defendant’s actions, then you must find for the defendant’s reason. Without proof of the detrimental reason for the defendant’s actions then the defendant’s reasonable explanation must be presumed to be the real reason for their actions.

To claim that invoking Executive privilege is Obstruction of Justice would mean that every President has obstructed justice, as every President has invoked Executive Privilege. When a President makes this claim, and Congress disagrees, the normal course of action is for Congress to negotiate with the President or to bring the matter to the courts for adjudication. It should be remembered that too adjudicate before a court on a dispute of law is not obstructing justice, it is upholding justice. To not cooperate with the court’s adjudication by refusing to produce witnesses, or to not respond to or withholding information the court has ordered, or when you lose the dispute and refuse to obey the ruling of the court, can you be considered to be obstructing justice. To claim otherwise is a Non-Sequitur.

Given the above can it be said that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense?  For this answer, and more on my Impeachment thoughts, I would direct you my Articles on “Impeachment”.

01/10/20 The Devil is in the Details

The Devil is in the Details is a truism that must always be remembered when considering an issue in our personal, work-related, or public lives. My new Article "The Devil is in the Details"  considers four devils; The Bottom Line, The Debatable, The Verbal versus the Written, and The Philosophical versus the Practicable.

01/09/20 Witnesses for the Impeachment Trial

Whether to allow new witnesses to testify in the Senate Trial of President Trump’s Senate Impeachment trial is more than a question of evidence or fairness. It is also a Constitutional question as to the roles and responsibilities of the House and Senate in Impeachment. My new Article “Impeachment Senate Trial II” examines this question.

01/07/20 The Age of Empowerment

In my Article “Cult of Youth” I examine today's fascination with youth. The main point is that the brain does not mature until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to mature is the prefrontal lobes that are responsible for decision making. The ability to ponder your decisions, to think of the future consequences of our decisions, and to postpone immediate gratification for future benefits is the final step in brain maturation. As such, until this happens you will make unwise decisions.

That is why it is so difficult to reason with the young, to get them to consider the future consequences of their decisions, and to check their impulses. And the people who would take advantage of the young know this, and they know how to utilize this to take advantage of the young. Advertisers, businesspeople, artists, entertainers, filmmakers, music makers, tobacconist and alcohol and drug dealers, activists, and politicians are aware of this. That is why they target youth for what they are pitching. They want them to consume their product and services, or to support their agenda. They also know that if you get the young to fall for this that it will stay with them for many more years, and perhaps a lifetime. It takes a lot of knowledge, intelligence, thought, reasoning, and experience to change the habits and predilections of your youth. This is why we see such a cult of youth in today's society and the extolment of youth. The exploiters want to hook them and lead them to where they want them to go.

And this situation is exacerbated by our current culture and educational system. Too often they try to get to believe something rather than think about something. And far too often youth is not taught how to think but what to think. This is dangerous not only for the individual but for society as a whole. Dangerous to the individual for self-obvious reasons, and dangerous to society as we allow these immature minds to influence laws and social policy through social activism and elections. And perhaps the most dangerous to the welfare of society is the politicians and activists who would exploit the youth of America. The ability to sway the youth to elect a candidate, or support a policy position or law, could be the deciding factor in an election or the implementation of a social policy or law. Abstract thinking and thoughtful analysis, mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events are critical to assure that the most helpful and least harmful social policy or law is enacted. I believe our Founding Fathers intuitively knew this about youth, and that was why the put an age requirement in the Constitution for holding public office.

Given above I would seriously suggest that we raise the age of adult consent closer to 22, rather than the current 18 years (or proposed 16 years) that it currently is. And we should also tell the politicians, activists, political and social commentators, and journalists to knock it off regarding extolling youth. You are not extolling them but exploiting them.

01/06/20 And the Show Goes On

Due to the lack of Impeachment activities, I have not felt the need to write another article on this subject. However, this lack of Impeachment activities needs to be commented upon. Comments that I do not believe that I have anything to contribute beyond what has been said by the following distinguished legal scholars:

• “Pelosi’s Half Right Constitutional Claim Leaves The House All Wrong” by Jonathan Turley
• “Democratic impeachment case collapses under weight of time” by Jonathan Turley
• “Democrats Debate Whether Trump Has Been Impeached” by Alan M. Dershowitz
• “Joe Biden is right — and so was President Trump” by Alan Dershowitz

All three of these columns encapsulates the current impeachment inactivities.

01/05/20 To be or not to be a Programmer?

Uncle Joe Biden has suggested that coal miners learn to be programmers after he shuts down the coal industry – an unwise shutdown in of itself. Not only was this disrespectful to the coal mining industry but it was also disrespectful to all programmers. It implied that anybody could be a programmer. Having spent fifty years in the Information Technology business I can assure all that not everybody can be a programmer. It takes a certain intelligence, ability, and talent to be a programmer. Intelligence, ability, and talent that is distinct and not something that everybody processes. It also takes a certain lifestyle that elevates the grind of programming above other personal activities. Coming in early and working late, working nights and weekends, eating and snacking at your computer, and the depreciating of social interactions because of this are common to computer programming (they aren’t known as geeks for no reason).

Therefore, Uncle Joe Biden has not only disrespected coal miners, but he has also disrespect programmers. And both groups should be offended by his remarks.

01/04/20 Poisoning the Well

President Trump's deadly airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad's international airport has provoked many remarks by Democrats and their supporters that President Trump did not consult with Congress before this action. Under normal circumstances, this consultation would have probably occurred. But these are not normal circumstances. And the unusual circumstances are “Impeachment”.

The conduct of Congress involving impeachment has shown that Congress cannot be trusted to render a fair and impartial assessment of anything that President Trump does. The rush to judgment, lack of Due Process, and the failure to abide by the Rule of Law by Congress has demonstrated Congress’s untrustworthiness. The selective leaking of testimony harmful to President Trump has shown that Congress cannot keep quiet where quietude is needed. The concealment of testimony favorable to President Trump has shown that Congress cannot be impartial. Both the leaking and concealment of impeachment testimony evidences that the Democrats are so partisan that they lack the requisite reasonableness required to act dispassionately.

There have also been lamenting by Democrats and their supporters that President Trump did not share with Congress the intelligence that led him to take these actions. But intelligence such as this is “actionable” intelligence. As such, it contains information about who General Soleimani was plotting with, where the plots were originating, what the targets were, and the dates and times of the plots to commit terrorism. Intelligence that is useful to thwart future terrorism. This intelligence cannot be shared with a Congress that cannot be trusted to keep it secret, nor should it be shared.

There has also been carping by Democrats and their supporters that President Trump has no plan for what may occur after this military action. Not revealing a strategic plan to Congress or the public does not mean that there is no strategic plan. There may, or may not, be a plan. However, revealing a strategic plan is not wise. It gives your enemies the ability to counter and thwart your plan which is not a very wise move. It also gives your political opponents fuel for the fire to criticize your plan which may make it more difficult to carry out the plan.

Under these circumstances how can President Trump trust that Congress will keep secret plans for military actions, let alone the intelligence that led to the need for military action, and the after-action plan? He cannot, and should not, consult with Congress under these circumstances. Consultation with Congress, where intelligence, military actions, and after-action plans could, and probably would, be leaked could mean disruption or disorder of the military action which could lead to unnecessary deaths or injuries to those involved in the military action, and perhaps the disruption of the sources and methods utilized to obtain this intelligence. Revealing the after-action plan could compromise the plan and make it unworkable. This is a dangerous situation where the President cannot share military actions, intelligence and after-action plans with Congress. Military actions, intelligence, and after-action plans that are critical to assuring the safety and welfare of all Americans wherever they may be.

Therefore, the Democrats have poisoned the well through their partisan impeachment, and they have only themselves to blame.

01/03/20 Giving the Devil His Due

“Be careful what you wish for; you may receive it.”, “Rue the Day”, and “Giving the Devil His Due” are idioms that we are all familiar with and elucidate kernels of human truths.

Be careful what you wish for as you may, and probably will, encounter “The Law of Unintended Consequences". The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended, in its outcomes of unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks, and perverse results. 

Many of us, and society, have “Rued the Day” when we have abandoned our principles to achieve a goal. Whether this goal was accepting some bad to accomplish a good, done for convenience or to avoid inconvenience, or doing the popular rather than the principled, we have compromised or temporized. And we often later regret this decision. As I have stated in my “Pearls of Wisdom”; “Doing the right thing for all” and “Doing the Right Thing for Yourself” is most often doing the best thing, no matter how difficult it is to do.

In “A Man for All Seasons” Sir Thomas More debates his son-in-law on “Giving the Devil His Due”:

In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

“Giving the Devil His Due” in America is accomplished by "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". These principles are critical to preserve our Freedoms, Liberties, and safety. Not just for the good or bad person, not for the guilty or innocent person, not for the strong or weak person, not for the rich or poor person, not for the powerful or powerless person, but for all persons.

So, let us “Be careful what we wish for” and “Give the Devil His Due” to preserve these principles, or we may “Rue the Day” when we abandon these principles.

01/02/20 Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

I have consolidated and rewritten several of my Miscellaneous Articles in a new section "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". These articles examine the issues that I believe are misrepresented, misreported, and misunderstood in America. To solve these problems requires that we understand the true nature of these problems. Unfortunately, because of the misinformation on these problems, this is not possible. Politicians, Activists, and Journalists are more interested in scoring political points, along with other motivations, that interfere with our understanding. Let us all begin to understand the true nature of these problems so that we can work together on solving these problems. I would highly recommend that you read this articles to gain a better understanding of these Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics:

• Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave (Nov 2018) - Knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing studies or statistics is crucial to discovering the truth.
• The Biggest Falsehoods in America (September 2019) - This article examines the issues that I believe are misrepresented, misreported, and misunderstood in America.
• Nazism and Fascism (Jan 2019) - An examination of the political and social basis of Nazism and Fascism.
• Socialism is Acceptable - (Dec 2019) - The various way in which Socialism is Immoral, and the vices and virtues of Socialism and Capitalism.
• Slavery and Discrimination rooted in Party Politics - (Dec 2019) - The Civil War - Slavery vs Freedom. North vs South, Industrial vs Agricultural, Union vs Succession are the common reasons given for the Civil War. There is great truth in these reasons, but the commonality of these reasons is Democrat vs. Republican party politics. This article looks at the history of this subject.
• The Debt of Slavery and Discriminations - (Dec 2019) - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude has existed throughout human history in all parts of the world. Slavery and Involuntary Servitude were in existence from the very discovery of America by Western Civilizations. This article cannot possibly go into the history of slavery in America, but I wish to comment on some specifics that are germane to the discussion of the Debt of Slavery and Discrimination.

01/01/20 Imperialism

I thought I would start the new decade out with a bang. So here it goes:

Imperialism has a well-deserved bad reputation, as Imperialism was utilized to exploit the wealth of the conquered and suppress the human rights of the conquered people, to the benefit of the conquers. Imperialism of this type should never again be allowed.

However, Socialism, Communism, Dictatorships, Monarchs, Oligarchies, and One Rule governments are no better. In all these forms of government, the Natural Rights of its citizens are violated, and poverty and destitution run rampant. The misery and suffering of its citizens are heartrending.

Today we have eliminated Imperialism, but we have many governments that have a facade of self-rule but are no better for their people. And in a global economy and the free flow of peoples across nations, this is dangerous. Dangerous in that it creates economic instability and breeds Terrorism. Terrorism in a form that not only impacts small groups of people but could also impact an entire nation(s). Nuclear, biological, chemical, financial, communications, transportation, and other forms of broadband terrorism could devastate the world.  This situation must be recognized and addressed.

Perhaps it is time we establish a new form of Imperialism. Imperialism not for the benefit of the conquerors but for the benefit of the conquered. The benefit of establishing Democratic-Republic institutions, the Rule of Law, and a free and capitalistic economy for the conquered. This would not only establish the Natural Rights of its citizens but also alleviate the poverty and destitution within the conquered nation.

OUTRAGEOUS, Outrageous, many of you are probably thinking! And I agree. It is outrageous, and deliberately so. But hopefully, many of you are now thinking about this problem. And perhaps this thinking will lead to some possible solutions to this problem. I can hope, but I do not expect, we will address this problem.

12/31/19 A House Divided

As we close this year, I would like to reflect on a speech that Illinois Senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln gave in Springfield, Illinois on June 16, 1858, in which he warned about a divided nation. This warning was not about a civil war that may occur, but a warning about not deciding, as a people, on which direction to take on an issue of great moral and civil importance. The beginning of this speech is very telling:

 “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.”

Today in America we seem to have more, wider, and deeper divisions than since the Civil War except, perhaps, the Civil Rights–Vietnam War era. Abortion, Global Warming, Gun Control, Immigration, Impeachment, and Judicial Appointees are but some of the issues that deeply divide America. The meaning and practice of "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" are in question. And these divisions are becoming wider and deeper in America. We, as a people, must take stock and decide on these issues. And these decisions cannot equivocate nor be compromises but must be definitive or we risk becoming ‘A house divided against itself that cannot stand’.

The 2020 Presidential election is the best means to achieve this definitiveness, as we have a Democratic Party that has become more leftist and a Republican Party that has drifted more to the right of the political spectrum. The centrist must definitively decide which direction we should proceed or be responsible for the continued partisanship and rancor that exists and perhaps, ultimately, lead to a great civil unrest that would collapse our house.

02/29/19 The Village Idiot’s Representative

In America all groups deserve representatives in Congress. I have reached the conclusion that our Village Idiots also require representation. Fortunately, they already have a representative. I would hereby nominate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the official representative of the Village Idiots of America for the reasons I have explained in my Chirp about her. Let us pass a Congressional Resolution in the new year that officially names her The Village Idiots Representative.

12/28/19 Que Sera, Sera

Que Sera, Sera is a song written by the team of Jay Livingston and Ray Evans that was first published in 1956, and most famously sung by Doris Day in the movie “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. A beautifully simple lyrics and music that has inspired many people. My Article “Que Sera, Sera” explains my interpretation of this song.

12/27/19 The Philosophical versus the Practicable

In my Articles and Observations, I have often waxed philosophically along with being practicable. This can often lead you to believe that there is a dichotomy in my thoughts. But there is no such dichotomy. Before I become practicable, I will muse philosophically, then base my practicability on my philosophical thoughts. If there is a dichotomy between the two, I will try to first resolve it philosophically before being practicable. Sometimes, however, the philosophical cannot be practicable, or the practicable conflicts with the philosophical. Its called life. In such cases, I try to determine what is more important of the legal, moral, or ethical thing to do. This may not always be perfect, but what in life is perfect? I simply try to do my best given the circumstances. When this happens, I often find myself humming “Que Sera Sera”.

Update -I have updated my thoughts on this subject and added additional thoughts in a new Article "The Devil is in the Details". The Devil is in the Details is a truism that must always be remembered when considering an issue in our personal, work-related, or public lives. My new article considers four devils; The Bottom Line, The Debatable, The Verbal versus the Written, and The Philosophical versus the Practicable.

12/26/19 Human Rights, The Bill of Rights, and The Four Freedoms

A recent discussion at my cigar lounge has led me to meditate on the articles in which I have expounded on these subjects. The result is that I have modified and aggregated my articles on these subjects. These updated Articles "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", “The Bill of Rights”, and “The Four Freedoms” should be read in order to comprehend my thoughts on these subjects.

12/19/19 Impeachment Senate Trial I addendum

In my "Impeachment Senate Trial I" Article I explained my disagreements with an abbreviated Senate trial. After viewing and pondering the speech Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell gave on the Senate floor about the House Articles of Impeachment I found myself remembering one of my “Pearls of Wisdom - Be Prepared to Change Your Mind” and the words of wisdom of Benjamin Franklin on changing your mind. I have, therefore, changed my mind. You can read my Addendum on this change of mind here.

12/16/19 Polite and Respectful, with Facts, Intelligent, and Reasoning

I have often commented on the importance of being polite and respectful. The reason that I think it is important is not only for a "A Civil Society" but it is important for your own sake. If you can be polite and respectful you can feel good about yourself and have more self-confidence. If you also expended the effort to “Be the Better Person” you will feel even better about yourself. If you utilize "With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" while being polite and respectful so much the better. If you have done all these things in your interactions with others you can walk away, despite what may occur, knowing that you have done the right thing. Remorse, shame, and guilt cannot burden you if you have been polite and respectful.

Polite and respectful doesn’t mean that you should not hurt someone else’s feelings. After all, someone, somewhere will have their feelings hurt by what anyone says. That others feelings will be hurt is not a valid reason for not saying something as I have explained in my “04/01/19 I don’t care if your feelings are hurt” Chirp as reiterated below:

“I don’t care if your feelings are hurt, as long as I am expressing reasonable and intelligent positions in a polite and respectful manner and doing so in an honest and truthful way. I care about my spouse, parents, and children’s feelings, and perhaps my other family and friends’ feelings may be, and I am sensitive to their feelings. However, I have no control over what you do, think, and feel. I can only control what I do, think and feel. Your response to what I may say and do is a reflection on your thoughts and feelings, not on my thoughts and feelings. You may also be misinterpreting what I do or say, or perhaps I may be miscommunicating. If I am miscommunicating something, I will accept a critique but not criticism (see my “Criticism vs. Critique” Chirp), and I will try to do better or restate my thoughts. But for you to say that your feelings are hurt is not a valid objection or argument to what I do or say. Only a reasonable and intelligent response, done in a polite and respectful manner, and doing so in an honest and truthful way, is a valid response to what I do or say. To make hurt feelings a valid response will result in the shutting down of free speech, as someone, somewhere, feelings may be hurt by what is being said or done, and nobody will be able to say or do anything.”

You should remember that being Polite and Respectful, with Facts, Intelligent, and Reasoning is a reflection on your character and intelligence and not a statement of approval or disapproval of the other person's character or intelligence.

12/15/19 If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot

Hypocrisy runs rampant in Washington D.C... So rampant that it is hardly worth mentioning. It is part and parcel of being a politician and has even effects appointed officials and bureaucrats as well. I expect nothing else from these people. However, I would hope that honest journalists, political commentators, and academics and scholars would a least try to resist hypocrisy. Alas, this is usually not to be. So, when I listen or read these people's comments I always apply my rule of thumb “If the shoe were on the other foot” to determine the non-hypocrisy of these people.

It is a very simple rule to apply and make a judgment. Whenever I hear them comment or write something, I simply ask myself if they were talking or writing about someone of the opposite party affiliation, opposite political ideology, or opposite policy position would they say the same thing. If the answer is “No” then I realize they are being hypocritical. If the answer is “Yes” then they are being honest. I pay attention and consider the honest persons' opinions and laugh at the hypocritical persons. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for my own sanity, I find myself laughing much more than considering.

I am not so much disturbed by this from most of the people involved, but I am disturbed by this from academics and scholars. Academics and scholars have a responsibility to their profession to be reasonable and honest, and to fail in this responsibility is to fail in their profession. As to honest political commentators, I make note of who they are and try to consider their viewpoints no matter what positions they may take. As for honest journalists I have given up all hope as they are few and far between (but there are still some of them out there).

Therefore, I would suggest that we all apply the rule of thumb “If the shoe were on the other foot” when paying attention to political commentary from all.

12/14/19 Inspector General Report

The" Inspector General Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" has been released. As I expected this report has the shortcomings that I explained in my Chirp on “Inspector Generals”. My new Article “The Inspector General Report on FISA Applications” examines my concerns about this report.

12/13/19 Impeachment Hearings IV

From Quid Quo Pro to Bribery, to Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice the Impeachment bandwagon rolls on. The current Articles of Impeachment that are being drafted reveal the House Democrats lack comprehension or understanding of their Constitutional responsibilities, or their willingness to ignore these responsibilities to achieve a political goal. Either way, they do not reflect well on the House Democrats. The two main Articles of Impeachment deal with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice. My new article "Impeachment Hearings IV" comments on this topic.

12/12/19 Impeachment Senate Trial I

Suggestions have been made, mostly by Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Lindsey Graham, that the Senate trial of the Impeachment of President Trump be an abbreviated effort until the Senators can determine the guilt or innocence of President Trump. I strongly disagree! I have written a short Article "Impeachment Senate Trial I" that explains my disagreements.

12/11/19 The Fire of Mankind

Fire – unexpected and uncontrollable is a primal fear of all animal species. No species knew when or where a fire would occur, and when it occurred it was uncontrollable. The be afraid of fire, and to flee from fire, was necessary for survival. To this day this is true for all but one species- Hominoidae, and one genus – homo. My new science Article "The Fire of Mankind" examines fire in the importance of human evolution.

12/10/19 Cyberterrorism

The commercial, financial, and economic structure of the 21^st century is dependent on computers, electronic communications, and other forms of information technology (i.e. Cyber). All of these forms of cyber technology are subject to hacking, malware, and information terrorism. Whether it is the stealing, modifying, or the creation of false information, the taking over or disabling of computers, the disruption of electronic communications, or the false control of other computerized controlled technology they are all subject to cyberterrorism.

The FBI defines "cyber terrorism" as “premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. NATO defines cyberterrorism as "[a] cyberattack using or exploiting computer or communication networks to cause sufficient destruction or disruption to generate fear or to intimidate a society into an ideological goal”.

However you may define cyberterrorism it is an existential threat, for it could not only destroy the world’s economy but do incredible damage to the world’s infrastructure. It must be rooted out and destroyed where it may occur. And because it can be done from afar it respects no national boundaries or limitations. All countries must combat cyberterrorism, and those countries that do not should be severely punished and forced, including militarily, into cooperation.

Just as in the latter half of the 20^th century we were concerned that we would blow ourselves up in a nuclear war, in the 21^st century we should be concerned that we will crash ourselves down via cyberterrorism.

12/09/19 A Constitutionalist

Constitutional Conservatives and Constitutional Liberals place their constitutionalism before their conservatism or liberalism. They are constitutionalist first, and they attempt to fit their policies within the constitutional framework. What they have in common is their commitment to "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", “Equal Protections”, and the “Justice and The Rule of Law in America “ as fundamental principles. They also believe that the Constitution is the best framework for the establishment and continuance of a “Democratic-Republic”.

Unfortunately, however, many conservatives and most liberals/progressives/leftists do not embrace these fundamental principles. They are more interested in achieving their policy goals than they are in following these principles. They deem their ends as justified so therefore the means are warranted. They often cloak themselves in moral righteousness or intellectual superiority, never doubting their own infallibility, nor consider “The Law of Unintended Consequences“ of their actions. As a result, they are antithetical to these principles.

But these principles are necessary for “A Just Government and a Just Society”. We need more Constitutional Conservatives and Constitutional Liberals, and for them to join forces and insist on the preservation of these principles, to preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, and Equal Justice for All".

12/08/19 A Democratic-Republic

Most people claim that we are a democracy, but we are not! We are a Democratic-Republic. A Democracy is a doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. A Republic is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a select body of citizens who make policies and laws for all the people.

The idea behind a Democratic-Republic is that people get to elect their leaders (democratic), and the leaders set laws and policies for the people (republic). This is done to assure that the mob passions of the people are tempered by the dispassionate reasoning of the leaders. This, hopefully, will assure that wise policies and laws are created, and that the rights of the minority are protected against the majority rule.

While this has not always worked well in the United States, it has worked sufficiently well to create a stable government. History has taught us that governments that are only Democratic have dissolved rather quickly as the people segregate into groups pitted against each other, and the majority group imposing its will on the minority groups, leading to civil unrest and even civil war. History has also taught us that governments that are a Republic without being elected by the people tend to become despotic, which were eventually overthrown by the people or conquered by another people. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of this history and tried to prevent this situation.

One of the ways they accomplished this was to establish a Democratic-Republic form of government. They also established “Three branches of government” with a “Balance of Power” between the branches. Another way they did this was to establish an “Electoral College” for the election of a national leader who would represent all the people throughout the entire nation. Finally, they established “Justice and The Rule of Law in America”.But these four items do not stand alone, as they are interdependent upon each other, and you must have all of these items intact for a stable government. Take away or significantly modify any one of them and the others will fail. The reasons for this are many and varied but have been touched upon in my hyperlinked articles. 

The reason for this Chirp is a warning. A warning that when a politician advocates for the significant change or elimination of one of these items they are impacting the stability of our government. Let us all remember all this so that we may preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, and Justice for All".

12/07/19 Inspector Generals

With the imminent release of the Judicial Department Inspector Generals report on the origins of the probe of President Trump’s campaign, transition, and administration I would like to comment on Inspector General’s duties and responsibilities in general. The Inspector General position is an important position that assists in discovering maladministration, maleficence, and corruption within Executive departments and agencies. However, it has several limitations that prevent it from doing a thorough job.

The Inspector General can only investigate the actions of the current employees of the individual departments and agencies for which they are responsible. If an employee leaves government service they cannot be compelled to be interviewed by the Inspector General. This allows for the possibility of an employee to escape an Inspector General review of their actions while they were employed by the government.

The Inspector General cannot interview employees of other departments and agencies for which they are not responsible. Therefore, if an employee within a department or agency works in concert with an employee of another department or agency they cannot interview the other department or agency employee. They must request an Inspector General review from the Inspector General of the other departments and agencies. These two limitations make it difficult, if not impossible, to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation.

This is why I have proposed that we create a Department of Inspector Generals that would combine all the current Inspector Generals into one department responsible to the President. Special protections and the duties and responsibilities of Inspector Generals in regard to the auditing of Executive Branch operations and personnel will be afforded by Congressional legislation, and the person interviewed shall have due process rights as defined by Congressional legislation.

12/06/19 Impeachment Hearings III 

I have just posted a new article on what constitutes “Treason, Bribery, and High crimes and misdemeanors?” as the House Judiciary Committee first hearing examines. This Article “Impeachment Hearings III” examines my perspective on the answers to this question.

Sidechirp:

With Professor Jonathan Turley’s intellectual and reasoned testimony (both spoken and written) in opposition to the current impeachment he has written in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday "Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record,".

This is a perfect example of my Article “Modern American Fascism”, in that if you disagree with the left you need to be scorned and/or destroyed. All Americans should stand up for anyone’s Freedom of Speech, even speech that you disagree with.

11/22/19 Impeachment II

I have written a new Article on Impeachment Hearings II. As we have seen a parade of appointed officials and civil servants testify. But they seem to be testifying as to their opinions, presumptions, or inferences, while not much evidence is attested. This article examines the evidence, opinions, presumptions, and inferences regarding Impeachment.

11/21/19 Evidence

For justice to prevail you must have a just process. A just process in which Direct evidence is admitted, Circumstantial evidence is admitted if proven, Hearsay is only allowed under strict exceptions, and Presumptions are permitted in some (narrow) situations. This can be defined as follows:

• Direct Evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.
• Circumstantial Evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.
• Hearsay is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings unless one of nearly thirty exemptions or exceptions applies.
• Presumptions in the law of evidence is a particular fact can be made without the aid of proof in some situations. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing party in a court trial. There are two types of presumption: rebuttable presumption and conclusive presumption. A rebuttable presumption is assumed true until a person proves otherwise (for example the presumption of innocence). In contrast, a conclusive (or irrebuttable) presumption cannot be refuted in any case (such as the defense of infancy in some legal systems).

In a just process, direct evidence reigns supreme while all the other evidence is supplemental. If the direct evidence contradicts the other evidence the direct evidence is the basis of proof and the other evidence may be disregarded.

11/19/19 What Sign are You?

For millennia astrologers have been casting charts to determine the future of a person or events. This is often done by plotting the positions of the stars and planets relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at their birth or at the time of significant events in their life. It is claimed by astrologers that there is a force in the universe that acts upon a person and influences their life based on these positions. However, only “The Fundamental Properties and Constants of the Universe” are known to science, and there are only “The Four Forces of Nature” known to science. My new Science Article "What Sign are You" examines Astrology in respect to these fundamental properties, constants, and forces.

11/18/19 Classical Music Chirps

I have added a new section to this web site "Classical Music Chirps which are paragraph sized succinct comments, and recommendations for listening to some of the most understandable and enjoyable Classical Music by all who listen to it, even those who are not all that interested in Classical Music. I hope that you will take the time and enjoy this Classical Music.

11/17/19 The Law of Unintended Consequences

I have often mentioned The Law of Unintended Consequences in many of my articles. So often that I have decided to make it a separate Article on "The Law of Unintended Consequences” for easier reference. I have also made several improvements to this short article. I hope you will reread this improved article.

11/16/19 Passions

"Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", “A Just Government and a Just Society”, and “Justice and The Rule of Law” are my biggest passions. I believe that all three are necessary for Freedom and Liberty to exist. And Freedom and Liberty are essential to be fully human. As a result, I have a passion for American History, as seen in my Articles on “History”.

I am also passionate about applying my “Pearls of Wisdom” in my life. Knowledge and Reasoning in all I say and do are very important to me. This topic is examined in my Articles “Wisdom” and “Reasoning”.

Science and God are also passions of mine. I am a firm believer that science is the best way of explaining the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. I also am a firm believer that God created our universe and established its physical properties and physical laws. And I see no conflict between the views of Science and God. Science is the explanation of how God created the universe, and God is the explanation of why we have the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. Science cannot prove, or disprove, the existence of God, as God is outside the realm of science. For more on these passions see my Articles on “Science” and “Religion”.

Classical Music is another passion of mine. For more about why this is so, I would direct you to my rumination “Classical Music Appreciation”.

When it comes to the above passions, and your assaults upon them, I live by the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me”, because I will fight back if I believe that you are violating them.

I have interests in many other things, but not the passion for them as I do for those that I have spoken above.

11/15/19 Impeachment

I have, and will continue to, create a series of articles in which I examine impeachment and the current impeachment of President Trump. I would suggest that you review them from top to bottom to get a fuller understanding of my thoughts. The Chirp "Hearsay/Gossip" that follows should also be reviewed for a better understanding of my thoughts.

• Impeachable Offenses (Oct 2019 update) - My thoughts on Impeachment, and how it relates to President Clinton and President Trump.
• Impeachment Resolution (Oct 2019) - A companion piece to my Impeachable Offenses Article that examines the Resolution of the House of Representatives regarding the “impeachment” of President Trump.
• Impeachment Hearings I (Nov 2019) - The real question for the Impeachment Hearings  is if President Trump was “Upholding the Rule of Law” or “Violating the Rule of Law”, and if these are impeachable offenses as this article explains.

11/14/19 Hearsay/Gossip

Verbal Hearsay (heard through another rather than directly) is the legal term that is equivalent to everyday gossip. And Verbal Hearsay/Gossip is notoriously unreliable, lacking in facts, and often untrue. It may also rise to the level of Defamation, Slander and Libel. As explained in the Wikipedia article on “Hearsay in United States law”:

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introducing hearsay statements during applicable federal court proceedings, unless one of nearly thirty exemptions or exceptions applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as:

A statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (F.R.E. 801(c)).

The "declarant" is the person who makes the out-of-court statement. (F.R.E. 801(b)).

Hearsay evidence may be admitted under these exemptions, but only in support of direct evidence. Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to convict a person and must be supported by direct evidence, in order to be introduced and considered.

At one point in the Impeachment hearing of President Trump, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) even appeared to embrace hearsay testimony, claiming that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct" and that "countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed exceptions to hearsay."

While it is true that hearsay evidence can be utilized to convict a person, it can only be utilized in support of direct evidence, when submitted under the exemption rule, and it is insufficient by itself to convict a person. Therefore, Rep. Mike Quigley's statement is misleading. This statement is an excellent example of my Chirp on “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”.

11/13/19 Pearls of Wisdom

I have decided to create a collection of the "Pearls of Wisdom" that I have learned throughout my life. As such, I have withdrawn my previous Chirp on Pearls of Wisdom and I have incorporated this Chirp into this new collection.

I have very little wisdom of my own, but I have learned much wisdom from my readings, listening to’s, and viewings. As we pass through life, we often encounter pearls of wisdom. Whether it be from something we have read, heard, or watched we are often struck by this wisdom. We often make a vow to ourselves to remember and apply these pearls of wisdom, and we often many times forget or not apply these pearls of wisdom. But pearls of wisdom should not only be remembered but consciously incorporated into our lives in our words and deeds. I have made this collection to remind myself of these Pearls, and to provide whatever wisdom I can to my readers.

11/10/18 Real Climate Science

As many of you are aware, I am lukewarm (sic) and skeptical of Man-Made Climate change, as my “Climate Change” Science Article explains. One of the reasons for my skepticism is the use of statistics in Climate Change. One other such skeptic is Tony Heller. He is not a climate scientist. (Neither is Al Gore or Bill Nye, the Science Guy.) Heller is a Computer Scientist and Geologist who enjoys digging into data. He has a website, realclimatescience.com, which examines the use, and misuse, of statistics in Climate Change. This website is well worth reviewing, and his YouTube video My Gift to Climate Alarmists is well worth the watch. In this video, he demonstrates just how charts are manipulated by climate alarmists.

I have also updated my Science Article “Climate Change” to incorporate some of his points, as well as credit him for the excellent work he is doing.

11/09/19 To Be Right or Not to Be Wrong

“To be, or not to be, that is the question” as William Shakespeare has written in Hamlet, or as Benjamin Franklin has written:

“Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong.”

A friend of mine recently commented that I was trying too hard to be right. However, I realize that you can never be right as you can never have complete knowledge on any subject that would allow you to be right. I have always thought of myself as trying to never be in the wrong. Never in the wrong as I will not discuss or write on any issue that I believe that I do not have sufficient knowledge upon. When I do discuss or write on an issue, I try to never be in the wrong, but I realize that I may be wrong. I therefore remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin whenever I discuss or write anything:

“Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”

and

"of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise."

11/08/19 Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?

Artificial Intelligence implies that no human intervention is required to produce human-like intelligent capabilities from Artificial Intelligence. It is this broad definition of Artificial Intelligence that I wish to examine in my new Science Article "Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?". This article attempts to explore the boundaries of Artificial Intelligence and provide insights into the answers to the question of “Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?”. This will be done by providing several examples of the nuisances of the problems that highlight the issues of Artificial Intelligence.

11/06/19 You Can Do and Say Whatever you Want

My new Article “You Can Do and Say Whatever you Want” is about the propriety of what people do or say. Truth and facts should always be the basis of what you do or say. But truth and facts seem to play little part in today’s partisan political environment. This article examines truth, facts, and propriety in what people do or say.

11/05/19 Dr. Thomas Sowell

Dr. Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist and social theorist who is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Dr. Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He writes from a libertarian conservative perspective, and he has written more than thirty books (a number of which have been reprinted in revised editions), and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics and political science.

If you are looking for fact-based, intellectual reasoning, and wisdom, on Economics and Statistics and Governmental and Social policy based on them I would highly recommend the following books by Dr. Sowell:

• Basic Economics
• Economic Facts and Fallacies
• The Thomas Sowell Reader
• Discrimination and Disparities
• Intellectuals and Race
• Intellectuals and Society

Dr. Sowell’s writings have provided me unique insights into economics and statistics in the formation of governmental and social policies. He has shown how statistics can be interpreted and utilized, as well as misconstrued and misused by even the most well intended and intelligent persons (including economists and statisticians, as well as politicians).

11/03/19 The Deep State

I do not particularly care for the term “Deep State”, but it is a useful moniker. It conjures up images of an organized cabal within the government intent on nefarious goals. There is nothing in government operations that can be this organized and focused, especially across government agency lines that would suggest a cabal, let alone a secret ruling class that directs the goals of the cabal.

Instead, there is an attitude amongst many supervisors and bureaucrats within the Executive Branch that they serve the people directly by determining what is best for the people, and they use many subterfuges to accomplish what they perceive as best for the American people. They believe that the President, Cabinet Secretaries, Department Heads, and Officials are only there for a limited time, while the supervisors and bureaucrats are there for the duration of their careers. They, therefore, believe that they have the discretion to enforce or ignore Executive orders and directions from the President, Cabinet Secretaries, Department Heads, and Officials as they see fit for what is best for the American people. In reality, this is an assault on democracy, as they are not upholding the ideals of democracy but subverting democracy to achieve their goals.

All Executive branch supervisors and bureaucrats are there to serve the people as expressed through the election of a President of the United States to lawfully carry out presidential duties and responsibilities. All Executive Orders and directions from the President, Cabinet Secretaries, Department Heads, and Officials need to be obeyed and enforced until such time as they have been adjudicated by the courts as being unlawful, or Congress passes laws that contravene or modify these Executive Orders and directions. If these supervisors and bureaucrats have a problem with the Executive Orders and directions, they only have limited choices in how they carry out their duties and responsibilities.

The first choice is to faithfully carry out the Executive Orders and directions until such time as the courts determine them unlawful, or Congress passes laws that contravene or modify these Executive Orders and directions. The next choice is for them to resign their jobs as a matter of conscientious objection, then work within the political process to have these Executive Orders and directions changed or overturned. Finally, they can work to have these Executive Orders and directions changed within the governmental processes for change, while at the same time faithfully carrying out the Executive Orders and directions.

To do anything other than these three items is to thwart the democratic process of the election of a President. If these supervisors and bureaucrats choose to do otherwise, they need to be disciplined and perhaps removed from their jobs. But as they have Civil Service protections for their jobs there is little that can be done to discipline them under current Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations. These current Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations need to be modified so that officials and bureaucrats who engage in this conduct can be disciplined and perhaps removed from their jobs.

For supervisors and bureaucrats to do so otherwise is to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, convoluted into a government of the people, by supervisors and bureaucrats, and for the people. For “by the people” is “by” the elected President, members of Congress, and the appointed and Senate-confirmed Judges and Justices, Cabinet Secretaries, Department Heads, and Officials. All other Executive Branch government employees must faithfully follow the Executive Orders and directions of the President, Cabinet Secretaries, Department Heads, and Officials.

11/01/19 Do Poems and Lyrics Contain Truths?

Poems and lyrics are many times beautiful and emotional. They reveal the thoughts and feelings of the author/composer. But do they contain truths? They may, but not always, nor often. For the truth to be revealed you must apply facts and "Reasoning." And poems and lyrics are not composed of facts or reasoning. Poems and Lyrics are written to reveal a truth or persuade you of a truth, and they often encapsulate a truth, but they are insufficient to establish a truth. Poems and lyrics often contain what the author/composer believes to be a truth, but “believe” is not the same as “true”. To establish a truth, you must apply facts and reasoning. Therefore, let a poem and lyric be a guide to truth, but not be a definitive proof of truth.

11/01/19 Lessons Learned from Books, Television, Movies, and Plays

Most books, television, movies, and plays follow “The 90/10 Rule”, in that 90% are crap and 10% are worthwhile. And their worth is in what it teaches us about life. However, you must be careful that you learn the proper lessons from books, television, movies, and plays. It should be remembered that many books, television, movies, and plays are fiction, and as such, they need to be carefully analyzed before you incorporate a lesson learned into your life. Even non-fiction books, television, movies, and plays should be analyzed for their accuracy and veracity before you incorporate a lesson learned into your life.

While many people do understand the proper lessons, they rarely apply what they have learned from books, television, movies, and plays. The lessons learned are not remembered and applied in their personal life and social interactions, let alone to society as a whole. When a situation occurs that is apropos to the lessons learned from the books, television, movies, and plays they rarely think about what they have learned when they decide to do or say something. This is a shame, as it could help you make a better decision if you recalled the lesson learned.

I have often taken what I have learned from books, television, movies, and plays and applied it to my “Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules” that guide my “Life” as I have written on this website. This is why you will see many quotes from books, television, movies, and plays in my Articles and Observations. But you must be careful to learn the right lessons from books, television, movies, and plays. For if you learn the wrong lesson you will apply the wrong decisions to your life.

10/31/19 Impeachment Resolution

In a companion piece to my “Impeachment” Article I examine the Resolution of the House of Representatives regarding the “impeachment” of President Trump. I would encourage all to read this Article “Impeachment Resolution” to understand the underlying societal impacts of this resolution.

10/29/19 Analogizing and Conflating

To conflate (the process of joining together, combining into one) or to analogize (make an analogy by drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect) are proper techniques of debate, if they are utilized properly. However, in today’s political debates they are often used improperly, as they are not conflated or analogized properly. My new Article “Analogizing and Conflating” examines this issue.

10/28/19 Lynching

Lynching has a very sad and sorry history in the United States. Most often lynching was done for racial purposes, but sometimes for other purposes. No matter why it is done it is wrong. Wrong not only because it deprives someone of their life, but wrong because it deprives all of us of “Justice and The Rule of Law in America”, as lynching is defined as putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law. It is also an excellent example of mob rule at its worse.

The use of the word “Lynching” also evokes a visceral emotional response for those groups (mostly Black Americans) that have been negatively impacted by lynching. Therefore, you should use the word “lynching” very carefully. But “lynching” is a perfectly good word to use if it is used appropriately.

Both sides of the political spectrum have utilized the word “lynching” to describe certain actions and words by the other side. In many cases this use of the word “lynching” was appropriate, but in some cases, it was not. When it is utilized inappropriately than it is right to condemn the person who utilized it inappropriately.

With all the brouhaha of President Trump calling the current “impeachment” process a “lynching,” it should be remembered that several Democratic leaders called the Impeachment of President Clinton a “lynching”. In both cases the word “lynching” was utilized to describe what each party thought was an injustice being perpetrated by the other party. However, during the impeachment and trial of President Clinton the rights of President Clinton, and the Democrats, were scrupulously protected, and as such the word “lynching” was inappropriate. In the current “impeachment” of President Trump the rights of President Trump and the Republicans have not been protected (see my Article on “Impeachable Offenses”). Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for President Trump to use the word “lynching” to describe his "impeachment" process.

It should also be remembered that the Democrats have utilized many visceral emotional words and terms about President Trump throughout his brief political career, and many times President Trump has responded in kind. Almost always the Democrats have condemned his words and terms while remaining silent on their own, or their supporters, words and terms. With this silence, the Democrats seem to be saying “We can utilize any word or term to describe President Trump, but President Trumps can only utilize words or terms that we approve of”.

This is most certainly not fair play, and indeed, is an attempt by the Democrats to try to silence or demonize President Trump. Given the bitter partisan divide over President Trump, I do not expect this to change. And I do not expect President Trump to stop, as this would disarm himself and make the visceral emotional words and terms one-sided. It would, however, be appropriate for the (fake) news media to point out this bi- partisan utilization of visceral emotional words and terms. Given my Article on "Modern Journalism", journalist disapproval of President Trump, and journalists' current lack of professionalism, I do not expect this to happen.

10/27/19 A Wise Person

Wisdom is the ability to apply your knowledge, your experience, your reasoning, and your common sense into your words, deeds, and behavior. And wisdom is also the ability to listen to others who are intelligent and wise and incorporate their intelligence and wisdom into your own. Not all intelligent persons are wise. An intelligent person knows what to say, a wise person knows whether or not, and how to say it. You should try to be a wise person.  My new Article "A Wise Person" examines wisdom in this context.

10/26/19 Article Improvements

While re-reading my Articles on “Impeachment” and “The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings” I became dissatisfied with the organization and structure of these articles. I also realized that I had left out several points that needed to be included. I, therefore, have rewritten these articles to correct these deficiencies. I would suggest to all that have read the original articles to re-read the updated articles, and for those who have not read these articles to take the time to read the updated articles.

10/25/19 True North: The Principles of Conservatism

The Heritage Foundation formulates policies that promote free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles, nor are our recommendations ever influenced by donations or outside political pressure. 

1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of ones labor.
2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.
3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.
4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.
5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.
6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.
7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation. 
9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.
10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.
12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.
13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.
14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.

To which I say - Amen.

10/24/19 To Serve or to Rule?

Many times, a politician or bureaucrat has stated that they are serving their constituents or the public. But the many laws, regulations, rules, and procedures they pass or implement seem more to rule the public rather than serve the public. The question is then “Are the serving the public or are they ruling the public?”. If they do this without preserving our Freedom From - Liberty To, then the answer must be they are more interested in ruling the public rather than serving the public. To preserve our Freedoms and Liberties, which are our Human Rights, we must maintain a “A Just Government and a Just Society”, or we shall be ruled rather than served by politicians or bureaucrats.

10/23/19 To Serve Mankind

In a famous Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Mankind” an alien race visits Earth and brings peace, health, and prosperity to mankind, all the while carrying a book titled “To Serve Mankind” which they do not share with mankind. A linguist purloins the book, translates it, and discovers that “It’s a cookbook”.

Many times, we have heard a politician or bureaucrat described as a Public Servant, or Serving the Public, or Dedicated to Public Service. Usually they are doing this while earning a good salary, with good employment benefits and a beneficial pension plan.The question is then are they serving the public for the public benefit, or are they following a cookbook for their own benefit?

10/22/19 R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

I have written a new Article “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.”.  It is natural to respect someone who behaves in a Legal, Moral and Ethical manner. But what of respect for those who falter or for politicians? This article examines this issue.

10/20/19 Elizabeth Warren is as much as a Capitalist as she is a Native American

Presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wants to break apart the economy and put it back together in her own way, host of "Making Money" Charles Payne has said. Here are just some of Warren’s many frightening socialist plans for the United States as Justin Haskins has written:

• Warren has endorsed the “Just Society” proposal of socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
• Warren has proposed what she calls The Accountable Capitalism Act.
• Warren has also proposed imposing a single-payer health care system.
• Warren has proposed spending trillions of dollars to cancel college student loan debt for 42 million Americans.
• Warren, like Sanders, was one of the original cosponsors of Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.
• Warren also wants to spend $500 billion over 10 years to build millions of new housing units.

"These proposals – and the incredibly high tax increases needed to fund them – would push the U.S. closer than ever to full-blown Marxism, and they are without any doubt in line with socialist principles. This is why self-described socialists like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have embraced or even proposed the vast majority of them.

With Halloween just around the corner, millions of children will be dressing up for one night pretending to be all sorts of characters. Warren has stopped pretending to be a Native American, but pretends every day to be a capitalist – while she knows very well that she’s a socialist through and through.”

For the sake of our country and the American people, let’s hope voters see through Warren’s masquerade. Even if you confiscated 90% of the net wealth of the people who are worth more than 1 million dollars there would only be enough money to pay for about one year of what she proposes. After one year there would no longer be any wealth to confiscate and the tax burden to pay for these programs would fall (heavily) on the middle class."

Don’t be fooled by what a political candidate says, no matter how attractive it may appear to be. You need to discover the details of their plan, and how it is to be implemented, to determine the full impacts of the plan. And remember that a plan without the costs and the means to pay for the costs is not a plan, it is a wish list.

10/19/19 Justice and The Rule of Law in America

I have updated my Article on “The Rule of Law” and retitled it to “Justice and The Rule of Law in America” (Oct 2019). This is a longer than usual article on my thoughts on this subject. However, it has five parts that are shorter and can be read independently from each other. These are my thoughts on this subject:

• Just Process - Without Just Process, there can be no Justice. But a Just Process requires that several concepts and tenets be enforced for Justice to prosper.
• Just Charging – The process of Justice begins with a Just Charge, for without being charged justly you cannot have Justice.
• Just Trials - A Just Trial is essential for Justice. The rights of the defendant must be preserved, but the interests of the victim and their families must also be served.
• Just Sentencing - We should also remember that laws are meaningless if there are no consequences or deterrence for violating them. This requires a Just Sentence.
• Just Imprisonment and Parole - Finally, Imprisonments and Paroles must be justly applied. Not only for the inmates but for society and the victims as well.

10/16/19 A World of Words versus the World as It Is

In today’s world we seem much more concerned about what someone says but pay far too little attention to what one does. But word meanings are malleable and can mean different things to different people, and different things at different places and at different times. The consequences for words are also variable ranging from invoking feelings, both good and bad, to incitement for political actions and perhaps to physical violence.  These, in turn, can cause behavior that is not in the best interests of a person or a society. Actions, however, are much more precise and have direct and indirect consequences. It is much more important what someone does, and the consequences of their deeds, than what they may say.

Words are often combined with statistics to achieve a political or social goal. But statistics and the words associated with them are often used incorrectly as outlined in my Articles “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave” and "Public Polling". And when statistics and the words used to describe them are utilized improperly, they can lead to terrible consequences. Therefore, we must make sure that the statistics, and the words used to describe them, are utilized properly. Unfortunately, this is not often the case in today’s heated political climate.

My new Article "A World of Words versus the World as It Is" is an examination of the (mis)use of statistics, and the words used to describe statistics, in today's political environment.

10/14/19 Doing Nothing Illegal

How often have you heard the phrase that someone has “Done Nothing Illegal”? I applaud those who have done nothing illegal. But life is more than legal versus illegal. One can live a perfectly legal life and at the same time one can live an immoral and unethical life. This is because the law can only deal with actions that cause direct harm to someone or society. There are many instances, however, where legal activities are clearly unethical or immoral. And the law cannot deal with unethical or immoral actions as they often do not cause direct harm, and they are notoriously difficult to define and codify.

The question is then how we are to judge immoral or unethical actions. After all, who are you to judge the actions of others. The answers to these questions in another Article of mine “Who are you to judge?”. Using the standards in this article It is perfectly fine to judge the actions of others.

A good example of this is the actions of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine and China. While these actions may or may not be illegal, they are clearly unethical. Hunter Biden brought no knowledge, experience, or capabilities to the Ukrainian and Chinese businesses that hired him. All he brought was his familial relationship with his father, a powerful and influential political personage. As such, he did not earn what he obtained, but simply latched on his connection to his father. It is clearly unethical for Hunter Biden to profit simply through a political connection, as it was unethical for Joe Biden to allow his son to profit from his political influence. It is for this unethical activity that Joe and Hunter Biden should be judged by the American people. As to its legality or illegality it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to determine what should or should not be done under the law.

10/13/19 Math is More than Numbers

On the surface, math (and statistics) may seem like it's all about numbers and formulas. However, this versatile subject is about much more than just counting, adding, and subtracting. Discover why math is more than numbers and find out how it contributes to the development of valuable skills in problem solving, critical thinking, language, and more. My new Article  "Math (and statistical mathematics) is More than Numbers" explores this subject.

Mathematics (and statistical mathematics) cannot solve every problem. Some problems have so many constants and variables as to be unsolvable. And as one of Murphy’s Laws state; Variables won't, constants aren't. There is also the problem of what we know, what we don’t know, and what we don’t know that we don’t know as discussed in my Article “Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave”. Therefore, keep in mind when someone (even an expert) utilizes mathematics or statistics they are more probably wrong than they are probably right, especially in the use of math or statistics in regard to social policy (for more about utilizing statistics within social policy I would recommend the book “Discrimination and Disparities” by Thomas Sowell).

10/09/19 Is There Intelligent Life Out There? 

I have extracted a section from a previous Science Article and created a new Science Article on the subject "Intelligent Life in the Universe". I would encourage you to read this article as this issue is not as simple as it appears at first glance.

10/06/19 Elder Humor

Having recently joined the ranks of senior citizenship and the retired I have posted some of my favorite "Elder Humor". Read and weep, but remember that getting older can be hell but the alternative is worse.

10/04/19 Impeachment

I have posted a new Article on "Impeachment" which is my thoughts on Impeachment, and how it relates to President Clinton and President Trump.

10/03/19 A touch of Computer Humor

I have just posted some new humor "Computer One Liners" and "Computer Humor". As a retired computer consultant I can attest to the drollness and veracity of this humor.

09/25/19 The Biggest Falsehoods in American

I have posted a new Article on “The Biggest Falsehoods in American” which examines the issues that I believe are misrepresented, misreported, and misunderstood in America. In alphabetical order they are:

• Abortion is a Woman’s Choice
• Alcohol & Drug Addiction is a Disease
• Climate Change will Destroy the Earth
• Equal Pay for Equal Work.
• Government Can Solve Social Problems
• Gun Control Will Reduce Gun Violence
• Marijuana Usage is Mostly Harmless
• Racism is Prevalent
• Sexual Harassment is Prevalent
• Socialism is Acceptable

To solve these problems requires that we understand the true nature of these problems. Unfortunately, because of the misinformation on these problems this is not possible. Politicians and activist are more interested in scoring political points, along with other motivations, that interfere with our understanding. Let us all begin to understand the true nature of these problems so that we can work together on solving these problems.

09/23/19 Indoctrination versus Education

I have posted a new Article "Indoctrination versus Education" which is an examination of one of the biggest failures in our educational system. The failure to educate our youth to become knowledgeable, intelligent, and reasonable on social, economic, or political issues. Issues such as Climate Change, Gun Control, Racism, Social Justice, etc. in which they are Indoctrinated not Educated. Read and weep for this failure.

For more of my thoughts on Education I would direct you to my Article "Public Education".

09/21/19 Witty Quotes About Science and Math Topics

I have just posted some new humor on "Witty Quotes About Science and Math Topics". Check them out and tickle your funny bode.

09/19/19 Humor

The importance of humor cannot be understated. For humor provides the ability to laugh at yourself and with others. An ability that is cathartic for yourself and society. When we laugh together, we can discuss the issues and concerns of society in a more harmonious manner. Therefore, I have created a new section "Humor" on my website to tickle your funny bone.

09/19/19 A Just Government and a Just Society

A Just Government and a Just Society is a new Article I have posted. The question of the role of government and society, and what constitutes a just government and society, has bedeviled mankind for millennia. This article examines what constitutes a Just Government and a Just Society.

09/18/19 Democrat Party Scheming

In my Chirp “04/01/19 The Creed of Progressives and Leftists” I postulated the motives of Progressives and Leftists – “The Creed of Progressives and Leftists is that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. To oppose them not only makes you wrong, but it also means that you are evil. “. As the Democratic Party has become a party of Progressives and Leftists, they have adopted this creed. This adoption is readily apparent, to any objective observer, of the current Democratic presidential candidates’ positions and policies. My other Chirp on, “09/06/19 That’s Not an Ideology, That’s a Theology”, points out that their political ideology has morphed into a theology.

As such, I believe that the Democratic Party has adopted the following scheme to achieve its goals:

1. Obtain and Retain Power through all means possible.
2. Use the Power for the purposes of Governmental Control of America.
3. Suppress All Opposition to Their Power.

And they are willing to accomplish their goals via unconstitutional means and without respect to the “The Rule of Law” for governmental actions and “The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings” for societal actions. They also do not respect Human Rights as I have stated in my Article “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”.

Therefore, those of us who believe in Human Rights and the Constitution must oppose the words and deeds of the current Democrat Party and its presidential candidates if we are to remain a country of “Freedom and Liberty” and “Equal Justice for All”.

09/17/19 Intelligentsia

I do not expect the Intelligentsia to be very intelligent, except perhaps, in their own area of expertise. For when they venture outside their expertise they are often as ignorant as most of us. Therefore, be very cautious when an intelligent person expresses their opinion on a subject on which they have no expertise. And remember, even within their expertise they can often be ignorant of all of the facts leading to a conclusion, as well as their “Reasoning” being faulty. After all, they could just as well be wrong.

09/14/19 Glass Houses and Consensus in Science

The Proverb “People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones” should always be remembered during any debate or discussion, especially in Science discussions.And scientific consensus can lead you astray, as it has been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong as new knowledge is obtained. My Science Article "Scientific Consensus and Settled Science" examines this issue.

09/10/19 Benjamin Franklin

A few years back my best friend (now deceased) and manager of the cigar lounge that I frequented sat next to me in the empty (except for myself) lounge and inquired that as I knew much about Benjamin Franklin would I tell him something about Franklin. I spent the next thirty to forty minutes telling him Benjamin Franklin stories. At the end of my stories, I inquired “So, what did you learn about Benjamin Franklin?”. He replied, “I learned never to ask you again about Benjamin Franklin!”. In his memory I have created a History Article "The Life and Contributions of Benjamin Franklin".  You may have not asked for it, but here it is anyway.

09/07/19 Form Over Substance

In today’s political “debates”, especially on television, there is a tendency to elevate form over substance, in that the content of the debate is often overshadowed by the style of the debater. The gotcha moments, the zingers, and the pithy statements are added up, and the person who had the most of these items is often seen as the winner of the debate. This is often due to the time constraints of the debate, as most debate is done within limited time segments. First-class thoughts require more time to explain than is available in these segments. As a result, these debates shed more heat than light on the topic (as I have explained in the section “Light vs Heat” in my Article "Dialog & Debate"), and these debates fail to enlighten the topic being debated.

A good debater requires facts and figures to be available at a moment’s notice to counter their opponent. A good thinker, however, often relies on thorough facts and figures without logical fallacies and cognitive biases which are more difficult to recollect and/or explain. This puts the good thinker at a disadvantage to a good debater. Often the facts and figures of both sides need to be challenged, as they may be incorrect or incomplete, and possibly contain logical fallacies and cognitive biases (as explained in my Article "Reasoning"). As there is usually insufficient time to challenge these facts and figures the viewer may be misled to a wrong conclusion due to a lack of challenge time.

A great debater is both a first-class thinker and a first-class debater, but these individuals are few and far between. A good thinker may not be a good debater, and a good debater my not be a good thinker. In this situation, the debater is often seen as the “winner’ of the debate even though their argument may be defective or without merit. Meanwhile, the good thinkers’ argument is largely ignored as there is insufficient time to be effectual.

I am, myself, afflicted with this problem as I believe I have good thoughts, but I also believe that I am a poor debater. It is for this reason that I often do not engage in debates. I do, however, engage in discussions in which both sides have ample time to challenge facts and figures and effectually explain their arguments. The other thing I intensely dislike about today’s political “debates” is the interruption and/or shouting down of an opponent to cut off the debate, as well as the utilization, by many, of the tactic of “The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate“ and “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors”. For these reasons, I am loath to engage in debates but willing to engage in discussions.

Please note – For a more thorough examination of today’s political discourse I would direct you to my Article "Dialog & Debate".

09/06/19 That’s Not an Ideology, That’s a Theology

In my Chirp on, “04/01/19 The Creed of Progressives and Leftists”, as rephrased below, I have stated what I believe is the views that most Progressives and Leftist have concerning the people who do not agree with them:

The Creed of Progressives and Leftists is that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. To oppose them not only makes you wrong, but it also means that you are an untoward person. And as they are always morally decent those who oppose them must be morally indecent. And being untoward and indecent (and perhaps evil) the opponents of Progressives and Leftists need to be silenced, driven from the public square and public forums, their livelihoods or careers threatened through doxing, economic boycotts, or blacklists, and they are not to be allowed to hold any positions of social, economic, or governmental power. They also believe that the private and family lives of their opponents may be intimidated or menaced by physical violence, if not actual violence. Progressives and Leftists believe that to “Demonize, Denigrate, or Disparage” their opponents are the primary and acceptable means to accomplish this, along with other tactics that I have outlined In my Article on the “Divisiveness in America”.

When you are self-righteous and believe that you have the only correct opinions, and others must be subservient to your ideology, you no longer have an ideology but a theology. A Theology of:

• Economic class warfare,
• Identity politics,
• Abortion rights,
• Free healthcare,
• Free college,
• Open borders,
• Climate change catastrophe and hostility to fossil fuels,
• Increased taxes,
• Increased government programs and regulations,
• Appeasement to foes of America,
• Hostility toward the Israeli democracy, and a
• Clampdown on free speech and firearms restrictions.

A theology that cannot be criticized nor disputed, nor acknowledge contravening information or facts. Even within their own ranks you must conform to their theology or be ostracized. They also believe that the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of their opponents may be violated to achieve their goals.

By their words and actions their theology does not allow for the acceptance of other viewpoints, and indeed the suppression of other viewpoints, which allows for the violation of the Human Rights of all people. For this reason alone, their theology must be rejected.

09/02/19 A New American Revolution

In several of my Chirps and Articles, I have mentioned that I fear we may be headed into a new American revolution. A new revolution because of the violation of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and the “Divisiveness in America”, as well as the issues discussed in many of my Chips. My main fear is that we are beginning to seriously violate the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, in today's modern society. For more of my thoughts on these violations I would direct you to my Article,“A New Declaration of Independence”. I have also proposed  “A New U.S. Constitution” that I believe addresses and corrects these issues.

09/01/19 A Red Flag Abuse

A former Marine, Shane Kohfield, 32, who said at a protest that he would “slaughter” Antifa members in self-defense if attacked, recently had his five weapons confiscated by the FBI. The temporary seizure came through the use of Oregon’s “Red Flag” law, which allows law enforcement agencies and family members to seek a court order to have weapons taken away from an individual viewed as potentially violent. The former Marine was not charged with any crime but surrendered five guns. He was quoted as saying:

“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next," Kohfield told a crowd, according to The Oregonian. “I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”

This is a perfect example of why the “Red Flag” laws are Unconstitutional. Unconstitutional in it violates both the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution. In effect, he said that if someone is going to kill him then he will kill them first, and he has every right to say this and to do this. He has the free speech right (1st Amendment) to declare his intentions in the event of his life being threatened, and the right to protect himself from a violent attack by keeping and bearing arms (2nd Amendment). His comment was not a threat, as he prefaced his right to protect himself by limiting it to only those cases where his own life was threatened. His phraseology was inarticulate, but his sentiment was appropriate. And for this he was deprived of his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights as explained in my Article “Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag “

This is analogous to what the British were doing before and during the Revolutionary War. American colonists were declaring their intention to protect themselves, by armed conflict if necessary, against British threats against them. When the British attempted to seize their weapons, they utilized armed resistance to protect themselves. The battles of Lexington and Concord ensued, and the American Revolution began. I fear that if authorities began to size weapons under Red Flag laws then we may see the start of another revolution in America.

09/01/19 War is Hell!

Death, injuries, destruction, and infectious diseases are what war is. At that’s why it should be avoided. But not avoided at all costs. For sometimes the cost of war needs to be burdened to assure the peace is worthwhile. For peace is not the absence of war, but as the celebrated philosopher Baruch Spinoza has said:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." - Baruch Spinoza

To avoid war without establishing a Spinozian peace is to inflict yourself with injustice and undue future burdens. Do not go lightly into war as there will be a tremendous cost in life, injuries, property, diseases, and treasury. But to not fight a war to establish or preserve a Spinozian peace will be more costly.

But if you need to go to war remember that in fighting a war the quotes of the great Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman:

• "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it, and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."
• “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”
• “War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
• “If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”
• "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."

If you need to go to war you need to fight to win and win as quickly as possible. For any other way of fighting prolongs a war resulting in more death, injuries, destruction, and infectious diseases.

08/31/19 The Purpose of the Courts

At a recent cigar lounge discussion, someone mentioned that the purpose of the courts was to protect the poor. Not wishing to disrupt the peace I did not challenge this statement. However, I have no problem disrupting the peace in my Chirps. The best explanation of the purpose of the courts comes from the Bible:

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
- Leviticus 19:15 ESV

The courts are to insure Justice as I have written in another Chirp “Equal Justice For All”. To put in another, more practical, context the purpose of the Courts is to ensure a civil society by the application of the “Rule of Law”.

Anytime you put an adjective before the word “Justice” within the Judicial system (i.e. Social, Environmental, Distributive, Occupational, Organizational, etc.) it is a perversion of justice. Within the Judicial system, there must be “Equal Justice for All” (i.e. “Equality Under the Law “and” Equal Protection of the Laws”) or there can be no justice, and Justice must always be blind to all but the merits of the case and the application of the law. Treating people or persons unequally within the Judicial system means favoritism or un-favoritism for some, not based on the merits of their case or the law. Unequal treatment within the Judicial system was one of the major reasons that the Colonist declared independence from Britain, and we became the United States. I fear that if we start seeing Adjective Justice within the Judicial system, we are sowing the seeds of a future revolution. We must assure “Equal Justice for All” and a that “Justice is Blind” to maintain the integrity of our Judicial system.

08/30/19 Practicing What You Preach

I have written a new Article “Practicing What You Preach” that examines the hypocrisy of those that are claiming “No One is Above the Law”. I hope that you would take some of your valuable time to read this article, as it exposes the dangers to the Rule of Law when “No One is Above the Law” is unequally applied.

08/30/19 Animal Cruelty

I am an animal lover, specifically a lover of dogs and cats. I have owned a few dogs and cats in my life, and I have treated all of them as family members. I cared for and protected them to the best of my abilities. I have grieved and continue to feel sorrow for the loss of them after they have died, and I still miss them. I know that the love of dogs and cats and other animals makes you a better and more responsible person. So, when I see cruelty to dogs and cats and to other animals, I am highly offended and pained. And this cruelty is not only by individuals but by some breeders of dogs and cats and other animals. For this is not only abuse to animals but a denigration of the human spirit of those who are cruel to animals. If you are capable of abusing animals, you are only one step away from abusing people.

You may also be a danger to yourself or others. I believe cruelty to animals is a symptom of mental problems. The State and Local governments need to strengthen their Animal Cruelty laws and then enforce them. The Federal government needs to regulate interstate commerce of animals to assure that no animal cruelty is practiced. Those that practice animal cruelty needs to have a psychological and perhaps a psychiatric examination to determine if they have a mental problem. All who practice animal cruelty need counseling to overcome this infliction and heal their human spirit.

Cruelty to animals bespeaks of inhumanity to people and needs to end.

08/29/19 World Hunger and Charity

“My Heart Aches, but My Head Rules.” Is the best description of my reaction to world hunger. All but the most inhumane of us are upset by world hunger. “My Heart Aches” for those that are hungry and starving in the world. However, “My Head Rules” in what I believe needs to be done to alleviate world hunger. My head tells me that the main cause of world hunger is corrupt governments. Corrupt governments that do not represent the will of the people, corrupt governments that do not enforce the Rule of Law, and corrupt governments that do not support a free economy and capitalism. For if you have a Democratic Government, the Rule of Law, and Capitalism, you rarely have hunger. For if you have these things then the incentive is to provide your people with the necessities of life; food, water, clothing, and shelter, and the ability to achieve these goals.

You would also have the charity of the people of the country that could afford to help their fellow citizens in need. For charity begins at home, and by your neighbors, and your fellow citizens. A charity that comes from outside these sources rarely meets the needs of the hungry people. And such charities can also perpetuate hunger. Perpetuate hunger in that it allows a corrupt government to remain corrupt and ignore the needs of their people. Therefore, when I see charitable appeals to help alleviate hunger in the world these charities often supply food to the hungry. But, by doing this, they also allow corrupt governments to continue to ignore the needs of their people. And then, hunger persists for their people. I, therefore, cannot support these charities, as my head tells me that in doing so I am de facto allowing hunger to persist. I wish there was a charity that would work to replace corrupt governments with a government that is democratic and responsive to the needs of their people, enforces the Rule of Law, and supports Capitalism. Such a charity would be well worth the contributions and they would also do the most to help alleviate world hunger.

08/28/19 Divisiveness in America

I have removed my Chip on “Divisiveness in America” and have converted and expanded it to an Article. This Article, "Divisiveness in America", examines the causes and culprits for this divisiveness. And while there is much divisiveness it is not for the reasons that most pundits claim as I have explained in this article.

08/27/19 Is It Time to Purchase Greenland?

A tempest in a teapot was brewed when President Trump’s private comment on “should we purchase Greenland” was made public. The national pride of Denmark and Greenland was ruffled by this comment, as should be expected. This is why this private comment should have remained private. However, the substance of this idea should be examined. I have posted and Article “Is It Time to Purchase Greenland?” which examines the costs and benefits for all parties if the United States were to purchase Greenland.

08/26/19 SETI and Vulcan

Are we alone in the universe? Are there advanced civilizations that we can detect? How can we better the odds of making contact? These questions are both fundamental and universal, and examined in my new Science Article "SETI and Vulcan".

08/25/19 Illumination, Not Titillation

Yesterday, I spent a pleasant few hours enjoying a cigar with my friends in a local cigar store and lounge. At this cigar store and lounge, they had the television tuned to the History channel playing back-to-back episodes of the “Ancient Aliens” series. As much as I tried to ignore these episodes, I did occasionally pay some attention to them. Being scientifically oriented I was astonished and exasperated as to the number of scientific inaccuracies and sometimes falsehoods, incorrect reasoning, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases, as examined in my Article on "Reasoning" of what the people being interviewed had to say. If I, or another scientific person, had a debate with them on this subject they would have ended up looking foolish to an impartial observer. Unfortunately, The History channel, and other scientific channels, often have such programming on other topics such as Intelligent Life, UFOs, Pseudoscience, and History mysteries. I am sure that these programs have enough of an audience to generate good ratings, and therefore revenues, for these channels as many people are interested in these subjects. They do not, however, accurately illuminate these subjects to provide the viewer with well-informed knowledge. I would suggest that you review my Article on “Intelligent Life, UFOs, and Pseudoscience”  for some scientific examinations of these subject.

08/24/19 The Bill of Rights

I have written two articles on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The History Article “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights” delves into the reason for and the underlying meaning of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. While the Miscellaneous Article “Natural (Bill of) Rights” elaborates on the History article with my thoughts on the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. If you read the Miscellaneous article (“Natural (Bill of) Rights”) you need not read the History article.

08/22/19 Wall Street versus Main Street

“The business of American is Business” is often used to describe America. And while this is generally true it should not be utilized to define government policy. Often Wall Street acts if the purpose of the Government is to keep the markets growing and the profits flowing. Sometimes what is best for Wall Street is not what is best for Main Street America. Foreign Policy and Foreign Trade is where this dichotomy often occurs. Foreign Policy must be conducted for the best interests of all the American people, not just for the best interests of American business. The safety and security of the American people must take precedence over the growth of the American economy, and sometimes this sends negative tremors throughout the American economy. But these negative tremors must be endured in the short term to assure that in the long term the American people benefit both economically and non-economically. For more on Foreign Policy, I would direct you to my Observation “International Issues”. And while generally, Foreign Trade is good for both the American people and American business this is not always the case. For Foreign trade to be advantageous and equitable for all parties, both Foreign and Domestic, it must be equitable and conducted on a level playing field. For more on the subject of foreign trade, I would direct you to my Article “Tariffs - A Double Entry Ledger”.

08/22/19 Gun Control and Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag

In my Articles on "Gun Control" and “Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag “ I have noted many issues and concerns regarding Gun Control. In these articles I briefly touched on a national registry of all firearms, and perhaps ammunition, in the United States. I also examine the issue that many gun control advocates are proposing “Red Flag” laws that would prohibit the sale or possession of firearms to persons who have shown a propensity for violence or mental illness that they could be a danger to themselves or others. While these may sound like a practical solution, in practice they are very troubling as stated in these articles.

08/21/19 Polling

In my Article, “Public Polling” I note that Public Polling has become ubiquitous and nefarious in today’s society. Polling has also become notoriously inaccurate as well, for a variety of reasons as I have outlined in this article.

The best example of this is the 2016 Presidential election. Prior to the election political pollsters and pundits informed us that there was no way the Donald Trump could win the election. In one case a pollster informed us that Hillary Clinton had a 98 percent chance of winning the general election. Most (if not all) pollsters said that there was no chance that Donald Trump could win the necessary 270 electoral votes needed to win the election. But an election is the only accurate poll worth considering. Despite these pollsters and pundits, Donald Trump is the 45^th President of the United States (by a wide margin in the electoral votes). And despite these inaccurate polls the pollsters are continuing to report on the opinions of the American people regarding Donald Trump’s popularity and policy positions. Until pollsters can correct their mistakes, which is improbable as Donald Trump’s supporters tend to not participate in polls, as well as the changing means of communication in 21^st century America make polling more doubtful, you should be highly dubious of what pollsters and pundits are saying about the 2020 elections.

Let us not forget that these same pollsters, who were so wrong about Donald Trump in 2016, are still polling and projecting for the 2020 election. Therefore, whenever Public Polling is being utilized you should “Beware the Poll Results”, and “Beware the Poll Utilizers”.

08/16/19 Anti-Semitism in the USA

Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianism, and Anti-Islamism

I have one word for Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianism, and Anti-Islamism - Despicable!!! Anyone who participates in Anti-Semitism Anti-Christianism and Anti-Islamism deserves neither our attention nor respect. Both overt and covert Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianism, and Anti-Islamism are to be rejected by all decent, moral and responsible persons. Unfortunately, in today's society, we have seen an increase in Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianism and Anti-Islamism activities as part of an Anti-Religious inclination of many people. All decent, moral, and respectful people should do whatever is in their power to oppose Anti-Semitism Anti-Christianism, and Anti-Islamism, whether it be overt or covert. It is evil and should be removed from your hearts and minds. All evil should be removed from your hearts and minds, but Anti-Semitism, Anti-Christianism, and Anti-Islamism are especially important to be removed. As Martin Luther King Jr. said:

"I hope for a future in which all people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin."

All people deserve to be judged by the content of their character and by no other factors. No religion, creed, race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, political affiliation, or the character of their family members should be utilized in judging an individual. It should also be remembered that the sins of the father are not vested upon the son, and no one should be the judge but upon their own actions and words. Let us strive for a future when all individuals are judged upon their own merits and character. To do so would result in a more peaceful and just society.

Anti-Semitism in the USA

Unfortunately, while Anti-Christianism and Anti-Islamism are increasing in America Anti-Semitism is on a big uprise in America. And this Anti-Semitism takes many insidious and devious forms. While some of this Anti-Semitism is direct acts or verbal or written statements (although stated/written somewhat obliquely) it is not difficult to recognize the Anti-Semitism of the perpetrator. Other verbal or written statements that are Anti-Semitic are not so easily recognized. They are often couched in term of caring for people, or human rights, or foreign policy goals. While they often sound noble their bedrock is Anti-Semitism. Today, it is couched in terms of changing the internal and foreign policies of Israel. Whether it be Israeli settlement policies, foreign aid, territorial borders, or the rise of the Anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement, it is Anti-Semitism. For there is no difference between hatred of Israel and hatred for Jews.

The fact is that this Anti-Semitism is a growing problem on the left. Whether it be worldwide or in American, modern Anti-Semitism it is mainly a leftist problem. There are, of course, Anti-Semitic sentiments on the far right but these are outliers on the right and are given no heed by the mainstream right (see my Chirp "Both Sides Do It"). However, the Anti-Semitism on the left is becoming more mainstream. Whether it be politicians, commentators, activists, and even journalists it is more acceptable to express Anti-Semitic sentiments. Those that practice Anti-Semitism must be rebuked and should not have a position of power or authority in society so that they cannot sow their Anti-Semitism.

08/14/19 The Intellectual Yet Idiot and Skin In The Game 

From the opening of this fine article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) :

 “IYI is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid-twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in many countries, the government’s role is ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and rarely seen outside specialized outlets, social media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many opening for the IYI. Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is erudite.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When Plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools, and PhDs as these are needed in the club.”

The Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI) is the best explanation I have heard that explains the current crop of Academics and Journalist in the last 50 years. These people often intensely study things, but rarely do they do anything. The IYI academic pedigree is often a K-12 education, followed by undergraduate college, followed by post-graduate studies, followed by a teaching or research position, thus never having to earn a salary by working in the real world. The journalist path is K-12 education, followed by a Journalist college degree, with perhaps some postgraduate studies, then a reporter’s position and perhaps eventually a commentator position. The journalist talks to people (mostly the IYI, but sometimes a business leader), but they never actually do anything in the real world but interview, research, and write. The IYI academics are full of theories and opinions based on these studies, but rarely do they attempt to implement their theories or opinions in the real world, and when they do it is often without any Skin In The Game (SIG). They utilize other people’s monies and efforts to achieve their goals, and if it fails, they can walk away without any consequences to themselves. Even after a failure, they continue to espouse their views, often making excuses for why it didn’t work in the real world. They continued to be called upon by other academics and journalist to espouse their opinions, even though they have no track record of effort or success. The journalist may think they know something about which they have interviewed, researched and written about, but the real world rarely conforms to their opinions, as the real world is often more complex and nuanced then they have studied or researched. Beware the IYI, as they are often wrong and will lead you astray.

08/13/19 Facts, Truth, and Reality

“We choose truth over facts”
– Joe Biden on the 2020 Presidential campaign trail

You cannot have truth without facts, and truth helps you to determine reality. The simple definition of these words, as follows, manifest this.

• Fact - A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
• Truth - A fact that has been verified.
• Reality - The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.

Facts are the bedrock of truth and reality. Your facts must be correct before you can seek truth and determine reality. And facts are not malleable as one of our founding fathers stated:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." 
- from John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

Without facts, there can be no truth. To believe that something is true, without facts, is to believe that anything is possible or has happened.  This leads to disassociation from reality. And people who are disassociated from reality are characterized as mentally ill.

Facts should be utilized with intellectual reasoning to determine the truth, which allows you to perceive, recognize, or understand reality. To do otherwise would abrogate the truth and lead you to disassociate from reality. To allow emotions into your facts and reasoning will also lead to falsehoods as explained in the “With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning” section of my Article "Dialog & Debate". Remember:

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003), United States Senator from New York from 1976 to 2000

When someone claims to have “My Truth” or “Your Truth” they are not discussing reality, but their own mindful illusions. This also leads to “true for you but not for me”. If everybody has a different truth than there is no commonality which is required for intellectual discourse. Without this commonality, it is impossible for any social, economic, or scientific progress to occur. It also leads to political chaos as it would not be possible to determine the laws, rule, and regulations necessary to organize society.

We, therefore, need to reject those who espouse “Truth Over Facts”, “My Truth”, or “Your Truth” as inane and dangerous to society, and to pay no heed to those that utter these statements nor to their illusions.

08/12/19 My Trigger Warnings (updated)

There are many phrases and pet peeves that I have concerning political discourse that I have commented upon in my Observations on  “Phrases” and “Pet Peeves”. However, some are so egregious that when I hear them, I typically stop the conversation to correct their usage. The following is a list that triggers my ire:

• “Our Diversity is Our Strength” This phrase drives me bananas. If diversity was the basis of strength then we would probably all be living under the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had the most diverse citizens of any empire in the world. It, however, collapsed. In the 20th century, the most diverse nation was the USSR. And it also collapsed. Therefore, diversity does not equate to the strength of a society. The strongest societies in history where the ones that encouraged the most freedom and liberty of its citizens. As such the United States is the strongest country in the world because it encourages freedom and liberty amongst its citizens. Our strength is in our Liberties and Freedoms, and our ability to pursue happiness, regardless of gender, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status, or disability. Our diversity encourages us to examine our society in different lights, and this may assist us in enhancing our freedoms and liberties, and that strengthens us. However, promoting freedom and liberty promotes strength. Therefore,
  “Our Liberties and Freedoms Is Our Strength”.
•  “Both Sides Do It” Of course, both sides do it, in the human experience both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same types, methodologies, and techniques to attack the other side. So, therefore, the question or statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream of each side of the issue both do it. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with conservatism versus liberalism/progressivism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is if the mainstream and/or leadership of each side are both doing it. My experience has been that when the conservative, Republican, or right-leaning often use the tactic of disagreeing with the other side based on their belief that the other sides policy is wrong. Whereas the liberal/progressives, Democrats, or left-leaning often argues that the other side is evil or one of the isms (Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, and Bigoted (thanks to Dennis Prager)). This is a tactic of The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" in which they attack the Conservative, Republican, or Right-leaning person in an attempt to silence them. In a civil discourse when one side criticizes the policy of another, it is not acceptable for the other side to disparage the motivation of the other side. The only acceptable response is to critique the other sides’ policy.
•  “Nazism & Fascism are right-wing ideologies” as explained in my Article on “Nazism & Fascism” this is a lack of understanding the ideology of Nazism and Fascism. I often state that the main difference between Marxism and Communism, and Nazism and Fascism, is that the Marxist and Communist slogan was “Workers of the World Unite” and the Nazis and Fascists slogan was “Workers of Germany or Italy Unite”. Their political, economic, and social agendas were very similar, and their means and methodologies to achieve their agenda were the same.
• “Slavery in the United States Constitution” as explained in my Article on “Slavery in the United States Constitution” this statement displays a total lack of ignorance, or the disingenuous usage, of what and why this is in the Constitution of the United States. They were utilized in the Constitution not for the purposes of placing a value upon a person, but for political power within the House of Representatives. This statement is often utilized for divisive purposes and needs to be countered whenever it is uttered.
• “Abortion Exception for Rape or Incest” which I have commented upon in my Article on “The Abortion Question”. The question that I will ask them is “What are the Human Rights of a fetus?” and “Can you tell me how a fetus conceived in rape or incest is any less human than one conceived in love or lust, and/or why they deserved to be treated any differently?”. Without the answers to these questions, it is not possible to formulate laws, regulations, or social policy regarding abortion.

08/05/19 Some Scientific Concerns

Modern science has some significant issues and concern as well as troubles, that it needs to address. In my Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry “an outline of the nature of scientific inquiry that does not delve into the details of science and utilizes no mathematics, but instead presents the basic concepts of scientific inquiry, I discuss these significant issues and concern as well as the troubles. This paper was written to provide the general public with the background of science so that when they encounter scientific issues, or public policy issues that utilize science, they will have a basis for interpreting the scientific information. I would like to point out, and hopefully, you will read my thoughts on these scientific significant issues and concern as well as troubles.

The Issues and Concerns with Science

Modern scientists have tools and techniques that were unavailable to previous scientists. Yet these tools and techniques have several issues and concerns as to their limitations, accuracy, and appropriateness. There are also a few unanswered questions in science that could potentially have a significant impact on science. Some of the most important are as follows.

• Science and Mathematics
• The Arrow of Time
• Statistical and Probability Methods
• Hard Data vs. Soft Data
• Data Mining, Data Massaging, and Data Quality
• Computer Modeling Issues, Concerns & Limitations
• GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out
• Open and Closed Systems

The Troubles with Science

Science is in trouble in the 21^st century, and it has been in trouble since the latter part of the 20^th century. I have insufficient knowledge to provide an examination of all the issues and solutions facing science, but I have highlighted the most important (in my opinion) of these issues.

• Big Science
• Publish or Perish
• Studies and Statistics Show
• Peer Review
• Time to Think
• Shoehorning
• Group Think
• Consensus

07/28/19 Executive Orders

As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the President is responsible for ensuring that all the nation’s laws are “faithfully executed.” In other words, the President carries out the legislation enacted by Congress but cannot originate legislation themselves.

While constitutionally speaking, the president is empowered only to sign or veto legislation that Congress sends to his desk, presidents have in recent years become more assertive in interpreting legislation through the use of signing statements or executive orders. These statements and orders often raise objections to the provisions of a particular law on constitutional grounds and instruct executive branch officials how to enforce the laws or implement the legislation according to the President’s interpretation of the law or legislation. If the President has objections on Constitutional grounds, they should veto the legislation and allow Congress to override or not override the veto.

However, in recent decades signing statements or executive orders have been issued that go beyond the bounds of Presidential authority. They are often utilized to circumvent the authority of Congress, to selectively enforce or ignore laws, or to spend monies in ways not allocated by Congress, amongst other usages not within Presidential authority.

Many lawsuits have been filed to challenge these Executive Orders. Some of these lawsuits have succeeded in blocking an Executive Order, but many more have not succeeded. In most cases, these lawsuits have been filed to block or postpone Executive Orders that are Constitutional, but the filer of the lawsuit disagrees with. A District or Circuit Court Judge can effectively impede the functioning of the Executive Branch while these lawsuits are litigated. And this litigation can take many months or years to resolve, all the while restricting the functioning of the Executive Branch. Judicial reform needs to be implemented to correct and speed up legitimate Executive Order lawsuits to resolve these lawsuits.

All this needs to stop. I am for Executive Orders that direct the Executive Branch in enforcing the laws or legislation, but against Executive Orders that go beyond enforcing the laws or legislation. I am for legitimate legal challenges to Executive Orders, but against lawsuits for the purposes of delay or disagreement. As to the solution to these problems I must defer to more knowledgeable and wiser persons who are experienced in these matters.

07/27/19 To Exonerate or to Not Exonerate, That Is the Question.

With all the talk of President Trump not being “exonerated’ by the Muller investigation, we need to keep in mind the true meaning of exoneration. The most basic meaning of Exoneration is - “The condition of being relieved from blame or obligation” and to Exonerate – “Pronounce not guilty of criminal charges”. But who is capable of exonerating another? To exonerate another, you need to have all the facts and circumstance surrounding the incident that is to be exonerated. This is often a very difficult effort to accomplish. When making a judgment you should also make sure that you have all the facts of the situation, for without all the facts it is most likely that you will make a poor judgment. In this it is best to remember one of my “Principles”:

“There are three sides to every story; one side, the other side, and the truth. It is best to discover the truth before making up your mind.”

Without all the information it is not possible to exonerate someone. Or, as Alan Dershowitz has said:

 “Exoneration is for God, historians and other non-legal institutions that have access to the totality of information.”

Therefore, it is impossible for the legal system to exonerate anyone. All the legal system can do is pronounce someone guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented in court. And this pronouncement is done by a jury of peers, not by the prosecutor, nor defense, nor a judge (except in very limited legal circumstances).

To include the words exonerate, exoneration, exonerated, or exonerative in any legal proceeding is dangerous to the “Rule of Law” as Alan Dershowitz has written in his article on this subject. In a legal proceeding, the prosecutor can indict or not indict, charge or not charge, a suspect, but never exonerate anyone. And if the prosecutor cannot charge or indict someone than they must remain silent so as to not damage the character or reputation of a suspect or witness.

Therefore, it is not possible to exonerate President Trump of anything and all talk of exoneration should cease.

07/16/19 Wisdom

As I have said in one of my “Principles”: “You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times you are not the smartest person in the room”. This is not only true for “Intelligent” but also for “Wisdom”, as wisdom requires intelligence and experience. Or as I have stated in one of my “Truisms”: “True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!”.

And so, it is with many of today's public figures. Celebrities, sportsmen and sportswomen, entertainers, wealthy individuals, and others who have excelled in their field of endeavor believe that they have a special insight on subjects for which they have not excelled. More specifically, they think that they are wiser on politics or social policy for which they espouse. Very rarely is this the case. They are most often expressing their feelings rather than their thoughts on a subject, and feelings can often lead you astray.

Sometimes we substitute our feelings for thoughts, but thoughts and feelings are two different things, and we should characterize each as such. Most times it is much easier to feel about something rather than think about something and to make up our minds based on feelings rather than thought.  But we should always think about things before we make up our minds. And we should always utilize our “Knowledgeable � From Information to Wisdom” and “With Facts, Intelligence, And Reasoning” as I have stated on these topics within other observations. And when we think about something, we should utilize our feelings only as a guideline, never as reasoning. It is also important that we occasionally re-examine our thinking, as new knowledge, experience, or wisdom in our life could lead us to a different conclusion.

Or, as Dennis Prager has more elegantly put it:

“People who excel in one thing are tempted to think they are smart about everything, but that is almost never the case. There is no reason at all to assume that people who excel in anything (other than wisdom) are wiser than anybody else. And here's the kicker: People who think they are wise because they excel at something unrelated to wisdom are fools.”

07/15/19 Rare Earth Minerals

In May of 2018, The Department of the Interior published a list of 35 mineral commodities considered critical to the economic and national security of the United States. This list is the initial focus of a multi-agency strategy to implement President Donald J. Trump's Executive Order to break America's dependence on foreign minerals.

The mining and manufacturing of rare earth minerals are a key component of much of modern electronic equipment and other manufactured products. If these mining operations were destroyed, damaged, or halted it would not be possible to manufacture many pieces of electronic equipment or other goods. We need to develop multiple mining operations for these rare earth minerals over several continents where those rare earth minerals are located for the benefit of all Americans.

Unfortunately, some of these rare earth minerals are not located within the United States and we are dependent on foreign countries for our needs. However, many of these rare earth minerals are located within the United States but are on Federal lands protected by mining prohibitions and environmental protection regulations. As a result, these rare earth minerals are not mined within the United States. As these rare earth minerals are critical to our economy and our society, we need to start locating these rare earth minerals that are within the United States. I would suggest that we relax the mining prohibitions and environmental protection regulations for the exploration of these rare earth minerals. If, and when, they are found we then need to determine if it is safe and environmentally friendly to mine these rare earth minerals then modify the mining prohibitions and environmental protection regulations to allow for the mining of these rare earth minerals.

07/14/19 A Looming Disaster

With the recent electrical blackouts that have occurred within the United States, we are reminded of the absolute necessity of reliable electrical power. However, there is a lack of awareness of several looming issues and concerns regarding reliable electrical power.

The generation of electricity, the transmission of electricity over the national electrical grid, and the distribution of electricity to the general public, businesses, and industries are currently facing many troubles and possible massive disruptions in the near future. The National Academy of Engineering has a good overview of these issues and concerns here and as they stated below:

“The US power infrastructure is one of the largest and most critical infrastructures in the world. The country’s financial well-being, public health, and national security depend on it to be a reliable source of electricity to industries, commercial entities, residential facilities, government, and military organizations.

Considering the complexity and age of most of the equipment in the US power infrastructure, the lifetime reliability is extraordinary—and it has improved in the last ten years (NERC 2017). Future system reliability may be challenged, however, by the effects of climate change, increasing supplies of renewable energy, and potential cyberattacks.”

The time needed to fix these issues and concerns (decades) and expense (up to 5 trillion dollars) make this a big challenge. But it is a challenge we need to meet to assure reliable electrical power within the United States.

07/11/19 Thou Shall Not Covet

The Tenth Commandment of the Bible, given by God to Moses states:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

And your neighbor’s wealth is something that belongs to your neighbor. If your neighbor earned their wealth through legal, moral, and ethical means then their wealth is no concern of yours, and you should not covet it. When you advocate taxing the rich more to support government programs that benefit yourself, or other people, then you are coveting your neighbor’s wealth. For the takings of monies from those that have earned it to the giving of these monies to those that have not earned it, rather than the taking of monies for the good of all is coveting. Whether it is done by an individual or a group of people it is still coveting.

Abraham Lincoln stated this succinctly about slavery:

"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
- Abraham Lincoln

The first sentence; "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." is the crux of this Chirp.

Democratic socialism, wealth redistribution, income inequality adjustment, tax the rich, occupy Wall Street, free education, free healthcare, etc. is all the same principle – "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." For to implement the above government policies requires that you take from one class of people (those that work and toil) and give it to another class of people (those who do not work and toil). This taking of their wealth would have to be accomplished through Government coercion through threats of fines and/or imprisonment if you do not give up your labor (i.e. wealth). This is not the same as taxes, as taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some.

This taking restricts the freedom of those that work and toil by deciding how much of their labor is theirs and how much of their labor is to be given to those who do not work and toil. This taking also restricts the liberties of those that work and toil to utilize the monies they earned as they see fit. It also restricts the freedoms of those that work and toil by imposing the governments will upon them by despotic oppression (see my “Freedom From – Liberty To” Chirp). Therefore, the government is the master of the people as it is the decider, and the people are the serfs of the government as they must obey the dictates of government. Or, as Abraham Lincoln said in the last sentence of the above quote; “it is the same tyrannical principle.”

07/09/19 The 18th Century

The 18th century (1700-1799) was a major turning point in human history. The world of 1800 was completely different than that of 1700. This difference impacted all areas of human activity; politics, religion, economics, government, human rights, science, technology, philosophy, the arts, etc...  These impacts were felt by all; from kings, princes, aristocrats, to the common man, rich or poor and everything in-between. The world was truly turned up-side-down in the 18th century. My Article on "The 18th Century" provides an overview of this remarkable century.

07/08/19 The Secret Ballot

The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmail, and potential vote buying. At the time of voting, no one else knows who or what the voter chose. All voting should be voluntary and by secret ballot for these reasons. Only when political leaders vote on laws, rules, or regulations should there be public voting so that future voters can make an informed choice when they vote in secret.  It is also for this reason that I believe that political caucus voting without a secret ballot are undemocratic and susceptible to undue influences and even a mob mentality.

But the secret ballot is not only important for elections but in other areas of human interactions. A modern-day example of this is in sports teams being invited to the White House after winning a championship. Many members of these sports teams are quite vocal in their opposition to President Trump. They have the right to express their opposition to President Trump but in doing so they must recognize the rights of other team members who may wish to visit the White House. They often state that they have solidarity with other team members but is this the solidarity of opinion or the solidarity of intimidation into silence. As most of the vocal team members who are opposed to the White House visit are often the team leaders are the other team members who may not be opposed to the visit acquiescing for the purposes of team cohesion or the fear of possible loss of playing time or even retribution. We may never know, but the possibility exists.

This question of the solidarity of opinion or the solidarity of intimidation into silence arises in many other arenas of human interaction. Whenever there is public voting on any issue, political or non-political, there is this possibility. And when this happens the other name for it is bulling.

07/07/19 Fear and Intimidation in the USA

The 21st century has shown a dramatic increase in fear and intimidation in America. The political polarization and division in America, along with the actions of many people in support of their politics and policies, has led to this sad situation. And much of this has been done by leftist and progressives in America. They believe they have this right because of their “Creed of Progressives and Leftists” as explained in another Chirp.

People are afraid to express their true thoughts, feelings, and opinions. The possibility of death threats, physical violence, doxing, loss of employment, loss of employment opportunity or employment advancement, loss of business revenue, loss of friendships and relations, etc. has led people to suppress their true thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Therefore, many polling predictions and election prognostications have been wrong. People are simply afraid of telling anybody what they really believe.

Our Freedom of Speech and Religion are suffering as a result. People can no longer peaceably assemble to support their policy position without fear of intimidation. In some places in America, they cannot even depend on police protection as the police are constrained by politically correct politicians. The 1^st amendment to the Constitution is in danger, not by government actions, but by mob actions. And this must be stopped, or we cannot be a people dedicated to Freedom and Liberty.

Please Note - this is a companion Chip to my Article "O say can you see" (Jul 2019) - A perspective on respecting the National Anthem.

07/06/19 Human Rights?

Many politicians who are calling for radical social change are claiming that it is a human right to this change. Free health care and free college are but two examples. Claiming that something is a Human Right does not make it a Human Right. The question then becomes are these indeed Human Rights? Human Rights are difficult to definitize. Civilizations and societies, and mostly Western civilization have been struggling with the definition of Human Rights for centuries and even millennia.

Human Rights are inherent in being human and not something that is bestowed upon you by society or governments. You also have no Human Right to take from someone to give to yourself or someone else, as that would violate the human rights of the taken from person. Therefore, anything bestowed upon you by society or governments, or is the result of taking from another, cannot be a Human Right. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate your lack of understanding of Human Rights. You do have the “Freedom From” a society or government preventing you from obtaining these goals, and the “Liberty To” obtain these goals by and for yourself, as “Freedom From” and “Liberty To” are Human Rights.

Therefore, the politicians who are propounding these social changes as Human Rights are either disingenuous or lack an understanding of Human Rights. As such, you should not give heed to their pronouncements.

07/05/19 A New Constitution

The previous four Chirps have explored the ideals of the American revolution. These ideals were codified in the U.S. Constitution. This Constitution has served us well for over two hundred years. Yet, today, we have seen this Constitution stretched beyond these ideals. To bring us back to these ideals I have proposed a rewriting of the U.S. Constitution to meets the demands of the 21st century. This rewrite is not a major overhaul, but a streamlined version that also adds particulars to the U.S. Constitution based on our governmental experiences of the 20th and 21st century. My proposed revisions, and notes on the revision, can be found at "A New U.S. Constitution".

07/04/19 The True Meaning of Independence Day

As we celebrate the 243^rd anniversary of Independence we should not also celebrate Independence but the meaning of Independence. As I have outlined in my Article “The Meaning of the American Revolution” the meaning of Independence is a set of ideals of independence. The ideals; Freedom from - Liberty to, Equality, and Justice, are expressed in my previous chips below. In the hoopla of our celebratory activities we often do not consider these ideals. Yet, these ideals are what defines us as a nation and the goals we strive for as a nation.

These ideals are incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, most especially in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, to establish a government dedicated to these ideals. Yet, these ideals cannot be preserved by the government alone but must be sustained by a people dedicated to these ideals. To this end we should remember the following quotes:

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” -- author Thomas Charlton in a biography of Major General James Jackson (1809)

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

The 20^th century in America saw many changes in society that challenged these ideals. The shift from a States to a Federal focus on government challenged these ideals. The rise of more Federal intervention into the daily lives of Americans also strained these ideals. As we progressed from an agrarian to an industrial to a technological society these ideals often needed to be redefined to meet the needs of society. And in the 21^st century, we see a full-scale assault on these ideals. As I have outlined in my Article “A New Declaration of Independence” these assaults are numerous and pervasive in modern American society.

As we celebrate this 4^th of July we all should consider these ideals and issues in modern American society. We must rededicate ourselves to these ideals so that as President Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address:

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

06/30/19 Equal Justice For All

What is Justice?  Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is just and the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. Often, the general discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social justice as found in philosophy, theology and religion, and, procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law. - From the Wikipedia Article "Justice".

This Chirp is about Justice in a legal sense. The path to legal Justice throughout history has been long and torturous. For thousands of years, societies throughout the world have tried to determine the meaning of legal Justice. Today, in 21st century America, we have determined the best definition of Justice is the creation of Just Laws and the application of these laws through the "Rule of Law".

The first step to Justice is the creation of Just Laws. For you cannot justly administer an unjust law.  Our forefathers devised a system for the creation of laws that would be just. They created three branches of government; Legislative for the creation of laws, Executive to enforce the law, and Judicial to administer the law. The checks and balances built into this system were to assure that the laws would be just and not infringe on the human and Constitutional rights of the people. But no system devised by men is perfect, and there are many instances of unjust laws in our history. However, our system allows for the reexamination of laws to revise or rescind a law in the Legislative branch, to provide for discretion in enforcing the law in the Executive branch, or to overturn a law by Judicial branch review of its constitutionality. Eventually, unjust laws are overturned to assure a more perfect Justice. But this requires that:

Eternal vigilance of Laws by all is necessary for the achievement of Just Laws.

The next step is the administration of Just Laws through Legal proceedings utilizing the Rule of Law. Without the Rule of Law, there can be no Justice. But the Rule of Law requires that several concepts and tenets be enforced for Justice to prosper as explained in my Article "The Rule of Law". These concepts and tenets are “Etched in Stone”. They are:

Concepts- Due Process, Speedy Trial, Presumption of Innocence, Trial by Jury, Burden of Proof on Prosecutor or Plaintiff, No Burden on Defense.

Tenets - An Independent Judiciary, Probable Cause, Equality Under the Law, Equal Protection of the Laws, Pursuit of Justice, Pardons and Commutations, Full Faith and Credit, Contract Law Enforcement.

The rule of law must be sacrosanct in all legal proceedings for there to be any hope of Justice. It is also an excellent guide in our public and private dealings and judgments of others. For without using these guidelines in our dealings with others it is too easy to reach a possibly wrong conclusion about someone. These wrong conclusions could lead to the person losing their reputation, employment, wealth, future opportunities, and even family and friends. These things should never be taken from anyone without credible, verifiable, and substantiated evidence of wrongdoing. To do so otherwise would cause serious harm to the individual and to the social fabric of our society. But it is most important to remember:

To assure Equal Justice for All you must dedicate yourself to the Rule of Law.
Not only the Rule of Law for yourself but Rule of Law for all.
To do otherwise means there will be No Justice for Anyone.

06/29/19 Equality

As stated in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” does not mean we that we are all created equal in our physical abilities and mental capacities. Nobody is created equal in their physical abilities and mental capacities – we are all created differently as regards to these factors. What it means is that we are all created equal in our Human Rights and that no person, organization, society, or government may violate our Human Rights. These Human Rights also assumes that each person is entitled to pursue happiness. The right to pursue happiness is any legal activity as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This pursuit of happiness is to be unencumbered by any laws, rules, and regulations that do not apply to all. We should all have an equal opportunity to pursue happiness based on our physical abilities and mental capacities as well as our own efforts to achieve happiness. Equality is not a guarantee of equal outcomes but a guarantee of equal opportunity and equal treatment. This means that in practice that some will be more successful in achieving their happiness, some will fail, but most will achieve some degree of happiness. And many times, this success or failure is due to the inequality of our physical abilities and mental capacities. It’s called "Life".

06/26/19 Freedom from - Liberty to

One should distinguish between the terms "Freedom" and "Liberty." Speaking generally, Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, although both refer to the quality or state of being free. Freedom generally means you are free from despotic oppression, whether it be by a government, an aristocracy, a theocracy, or an individual or group. Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petitioning Government, or to Bear Arms, etc. refers to the release from despotic restraints. Liberty on the other hand gives you the right to choose a course of action. How to spend your money, what job or occupation you wish to pursue, where you live, who you associate with, what education you undertake, who to marry, or any personal decision you make is liberty. Freedom is not to be used in the sense of our being free to do anything we want. All laws can be viewed as a restriction on freedom and liberty, and such restrictions are proper in any well-regulated society. But they are only proper to prevent one person’s freedom and liberty from infringing on another person’s freedom or liberty. It is this balance between each person’s Freedom and Liberty that defines the state of a Free society.

06/07/19 Something We Should All Agree Upon

The following is a quote from a Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate which I hope that all of us can agree upon. Although I am opposed on almost all of the issues that this candidate supports I do support her in the following statement:

"I'm deeply grateful for the opportunities America has given me. But the giant 'American' corporations who control our economy don't seem to feel the same way. They certainly don't act like it. Sure, these companies wave the flag -- but they have no loyalty or allegiance to America. ... These 'American' companies show only one real loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors. If they can close up an American factory and ship jobs overseas to save a nickel, that's exactly what they will do -- abandoning loyal American workers and hollowing out American cities along the way. ... The result? Millions of good jobs lost overseas and a generation of stagnant wages, growing income inequality, and sluggish economic growth. ... We can navigate the changes ahead if we embrace economic patriotism and make American workers our highest priority, rather than continuing to cater to the interests of companies and people with no allegiance to America."
- Senator Elizabeth Warren

As to my reasons for support this statement I would direct you to my Article "Tariffs - A Double Entry Ledger".

06/01/19 Signifying Nothing

Many politicians espouse policy positions that sound good (and some not so good). When pressed for more information on how the policy would work they often resort to platitudes of what it would or would not do. They most always never speak of the workings, funding, and costs of these policy positions. Yet these details are needed to ascertain how the policy would actually work and its impacts on society. After all, as it has been remarked many times “The devil is in the details”. Without these details being available I would quote Shakespeare “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing”.

From Macbeth, spoken by Macbeth - By William Shakespeare

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

05/28/19 RIP Murray Gell-Mann

Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel laureate physicist who died Friday, May 24, at age 89, also lived two lives. But both were spent learning — about how the world works. In his first life Gell-Mann was perhaps the preeminent theoretical physicist of his era, playing a prime role in revealing the architecture of the subatomic world. In his second life he pioneered the study of complexity, probing the behavior of systems ranging from economics to the weather, too complicated for the reductionist methods of particle physics.

By far, Gell-Mann is most famous for the idea of quarks, the building blocks of most Earthly matter. Before 1964, physicists believed that atoms assembled themselves from only three fundamental parts — electrons, protons and neutrons. Electrons even today remain indivisible. But Gell-Mann suspected that protons and neutrons — the constituents of the atomic nucleus — concealed smaller particles within.

Gell-Mann expressed his concern with science’s frequent lack of openness to researchers challenging conventional wisdom. “Most challenges to scientific orthodoxy are wrong,” he said. “A lot of them are crank. But it happens from time to time that a challenge to scientific orthodoxy is actually right. And the people who make that challenge face a terrible situation — getting heard, getting believed, getting taken seriously.” He called the inherent opposition of traditional science to daring novelty “the pressure of received ideas.”

05/18/19 I'm With Stupid

In my Chirp “The Creed of Progressives and Leftists“ I noted that they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated and morally superior so that they, therefore, of course, are always correct. This Creed leads them to believe that if you oppose a Progressive/Leftist you must be dumb or stupid. And they behave and speak to those that disagree with them as if they were dumb or stupid. They disparage those who disagree with them, as I have noted in my Chirp “The Three D's”, and utilize pejoratives about their intelligence. They also utilize the term “evolved” to describe a person who has changed their position to a more progressive/leftist stance. They forget that evolving does not necessarily mean becoming better. Many species evolve and then become extinct, as their evolution was not conducive to their (changing) environment. Evolution does not necessarily mean improvement, and it certainly does not have anything to do with intelligence. But then, since I often disagree with progressives and leftists, based on "With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" I, therefore, must be stupid. Given the above, I am proud to say, “I’m with stupid.”

05/15/2019 Just Ain't So

As Mark Twain was once famously quoted:

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Or, as in one of my favorite locutions:

“Just because you "believe" something to be true does not mean that you "know" something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn’t make it true.”

And so, it is, with many Americans thinking something is true when it is not true. One of the reasons for this is not distinguishing between facts and statistics. I have covered Statistics in my Articles on “Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave” and “Public Polling” and, therefore, I need not do so here. You should also keep in mind, however, that if the “facts” utilized for the statistics “Ain't So” than the statistics “Ain't So”. Another reason is the inability to distinguish between Lies and Beliefs as discussed in my Article “ Lies and Beliefs” 

The big problem, however, is facts. Americans are inundated with many “facts” during their daily lives, and many of these “facts” are untrue. Many of these “facts” are told by people who believe them to be true, but they never determined if they were true. We are all human and make mistakes, or we have the inability or lack of time to determine the facts.  Therefore, these people are often mistaken and not malicious. However, some people recite “facts” to gain an advantage or to persuade you to their beliefs. These people are behaving in a disingenuous manner and you should be wary of them. In your daily life, these people may be difficult to distinguish. Simply be wary of any statement of fact from someone who is not knowledgeable nor experienced in the subject matter, or who is unknown to you.

What I am more concerned about is the “facts” utilized in public policy discussions or debates, as well as by politicians.  These people wish to persuade you of the correctness of their policy positions. As such, they often only inform you of the “facts” that support their position. They often do not place their “facts” in context, or are selective of their “facts”, or omissive of other contravening “facts”. Their "Reasoning", as discussed in my aericle, is also often fallacious. As such, it is not possible to ascertain the rightness of their position. Before you accept any policy position be careful of the facts and reasoning. Otherwise it “Just Ain't So”.

05/14/19 Tax Returns Confidentiality

Several States have begun legislative action to place constraints on whom may run for President of the United States on their ballots. More specifically they are requiring a Presidential candidate to release several years of Federal Tax Returns to be placed on the ballot. Some States are also requiring that State Tax Returns be released to Congress if Congress Requests them. I believe that both of these actions are unconstitutional.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says to serve as president, one must be: (1) a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States; (2) at least thirty-five years old; and (3) a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. Adding any other criteria to be placed on a State ballot would violate the Constitution by adding additional requirements. If you can add additional requirements could you also add a requirement for race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, political affiliation, or another status? Of course not! But if you can add one requirement you can add other requirements. The only legitimate requirement to be added to a State ballot is that a certain number or percentage of the state voters sign a ballot petition for a person to be placed on a ballot. This is necessary to reasonably limit the number of persons on a ballot. These actions could also be interpreted as a Bill of Attainder -a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." In this case, it is to limit President Trump from running in their State unless he releases his tax returns. There is no legitimate purpose for releasing any tax records for any taxpayer, as this information is privileged between the taxpayer and the IRS

There is also no legitimate purpose for releasing State Tax records for any taxpayer as this information is privileged between the taxpayer and the appropriate State tax authority. To break this privilege is no endanger the collection of taxes as many people would be reluctant to provide true and accurate information to a State Tax Authority on fear of it being released to damage their reputation or to harm them some way. No freedom and liberty loving person should be fearful that their government damage their reputation or to harm them some way, for this could lead to tyranny by the government.

05/14/19 A Constitutional Crisis

Many Democratic politicians and progressive media commentators are proclaiming that we are in a Constitutional Crisis – and I agree with them! But it is not the crisis that they are proclaiming but the crisis that they are fermenting. The actions of the current Executive Branch are typical reactions to the Legislative Branch actions throughout U.S. history. We need not go back further than the administration of President Obama to demonstrate Executive Branch reactions to Legislative Branch actions. Resisting subpoenas, withholding information, invoking Executive Privilege, evasive answers, and other methods have been utilized by the Executive Branch to thwart what they thought were Legislative Branch incursions on the Executive Branch duties and responsibilities. Sometimes the Executive Branch was in the right, and sometimes they were in the wrong. Usually, through negotiations or Judicial Branch interventions, these issues were resolved or lay dormant.

The Legislative Branch does have the duty, under the Constitution, to create laws and have oversight of Executive Branch actions.  However, these duties and responsibilities require a legitimate legislative purpose in creating laws or proper Congressional oversight. It does not allow the Legislative Branch to do whatever it pleases. If the Legislative Branch could do whatever it pleased it would devolve into a Star Chamber unconstrained by the Rule of Law (see my Article on “The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings” for more information). The Legislative Branch requests for information, testimony, and subpoenas to the Executive Branch must serve a legitimate Legislative Branch purpose, and not a political purpose. The current actions of the House of Representatives are not for legitimate Legislative Branch purposes and, indeed, are politically motivated. As such, they are the cause of our current Constitutional Crisis.

There is no legitimate purpose for subpoenaing the Attorney General to release information that by law they are not allowed to release. There is no legitimate purpose for demanding the underlying documentation of a criminal investigation, some of which is Grand Jury testimony that cannot be released by law, or Classified Information that may only be released to approved Congressional Committees that they then must keep secret. There is no legitimate purpose for subpoenaing tax records for any taxpayer as this information is privileged between the taxpayer and the IRS, unless the Legislative Branch can demonstrate by evidence, not suspicion, that it requires this information for legitimate Legislative Branch purposes. Persons testifying before Congress should not be set-up for perjury traps, nor should they incur a significant financial obligation in lawyer fees to protect themselves from possible perjury traps. There are no legitimate Legislative Branch purposes for the accusations and pejoratives utilized to describe Executive Branch persons and actions, except to hinder the Executive Branch from performing their duties and responsibilities.

As such, the House of Representatives is fermenting a Constitution Crisis by stepping outside the bounds of their legitimate Legislative Branch duties and responsibilities. They are also violating their Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The House of Representatives must be roundly condemned for these deeds and words, and put an end to these actions, for this Constitution Crisis to pass.

05/12/19 Condemned to Repeat It

Warfare, slavery, oppression, infanticide, human sacrifice, and female subjugation have all be constants throughout human history and in all societies. African, European, Asiatic, Native North American, and Native South American civilizations have all engaged in these practices. It is only in the last few centuries that these practices have been recognized as immoral. It was in European Society, guided by Judeo-Christian values, that the idea of the dignity of the individual human being and human rights arose and bloomed. With this recognition came the ideal of self-government, the advancement of the arts and sciences. and the development of capitalism which supplied goods and services to the common man (see my comment on this in my Article “Capitalism is Freedom and Liberty”).

Yet, even in this development of the dignity of the individual human being and human rights, there were abuses and shortcomings. This is because this development was a struggle that had setbacks during its advancement. Man is imperfect and makes bad choices, or is good or evil, and lacked the knowledge or experience of the proper morals and ethics to achieve these goals. When we make a historical judgment on a society or personage, we need to keep this, and other factors in mind when making these judgments. My Article “Condemned to Repeat It”  examines these factors and how to best make a judgment.

05/07/19 Social Media and Freedom of Speech

“As I have written in my article “Slander & Libel on Social Media and Journalism” social media is playing a more active role in our society as a source of news and political commentary. As such, we must be assured that all sides of news and political commentary have a voice. To not do so is to skewer the social and political scene, which can lead to undesirable and unforeseen results. Unfortunately, many social media outlets are banning speech that they disagree with. The majority of these bans most often occur on the conservative viewpoints of social and political speech. And this must stop as it is harmful to the body politic. I am aware of the Constitutional and legal issues in regard to legislating an end to this banning as I have outlined in the before mentioned article. I would encourage you to read this article for my thoughts on this subject.

05/07/19 Alt-Right and Alt-Left (Far-Left)

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various groups and individuals. A largely online movement, the alt-right is found primarily in the United States, where it originated, although alt-rightists are also present elsewhere in the world. Constituent groups that associate with the "alt-right" label have been characterized as hate groups.

The far-left term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. Since 2016, the term alt-left has also been used to refer to political views at the extreme end of this spectrum, and to those who adhere to such views.

In my opinion, I believe that the alt-right and alt-left are abhorrent to everything that I have written on this website. They regularly espouse views that are contrary to Human Rights and Constitutional Rights. Although they have the Free Speech right to express these views we who abhor these views have the Free Speech right to condemn these views. And they must be condemned. Condemned but not silenced, as this would be a violation of their Free Speech rights.

05/04/19 To Not Tolerate the Intolerant

How often have you heard some say “I will not tolerate the intolerant”. The real question I have for those that make this statement is “Who gets to determine what is intolerant?”. Everybody has a different definition of what is intolerant speech. If we utilize everybody's definition then there would be no free speech by anybody. Do we set up a commission that determines what speech is to be allowed or disallowed? Who and how would we determine the membership of this commission? How would we enforce the commission's rulings? What would be the penalties for violating the commission rulings? And how would it be possible to review what is said, either before or after what is said, to determine if it was intolerant? Without a commission, the only way to determine intolerant speech is by mob rule. And mod rule leads to an uncivil society that I have discussed in my Article “A Civil Society”. Most of the times when I have heard this statement uttered it is by Progressives or Leftists who utilize this statement to shout down or shut down the free speech rights of their opponents. This also leads to an uncivil society. Those who make this statement are really engaging in behavior that I have discussed in my Article “Modern American Fascism” and, indeed, are themselves, intolerant people.

05/02/19 MAMA

When Presidential hopeful Joe Biden was asked if he had a theme like President Trump's "Make America Great Again," Biden replied, "Make America moral again." MAMA is a nice acronym for the Democratic Party, as they often espouse positions that advocate the government be responsible for making decisions for the individual that the individual should make for themselves. Just as your mama wants to tell you what to do and direct your life so does the Democratic party. Therefore, MAMA is the perfect acronym for the Democratic party.

04/27/19 Making Predictions

As the famous and brilliant physicist Richard Frymen once said, “String theorist don’t make predictions, they make excuses”. This is not a chirp on String Theory but a chip on making predictions. More specifically the making of predictions by political commentators, political pundits, pollsters, and economists. As all four of these activities are intertwined with human decision making, they are very unscientific and subject to change very quickly. How often have political commentators, political pundits, pollsters, and economists made a prediction that turned out to be wrong, and sometimes the opposite of what occurred? And how often have you heard them making an excuse as to why their prediction was wrong? Many would say that this occurs most of the time. Whenever you are predicting how the public will react you are more likely to be wrong than right. It is analogous to baseball hitting. A great baseball hitter is one who gets a hit once every three attempts, while the other hitters have a lesser average of hits. And so, it is with have political commentators, political pundits, pollsters, and economists making a prediction. They are more often wrong than right. A wise listener or reader will look at their past performance in making predictions to decide if they should be believed. Whenever you do this remember that the greats will only get one of three correct while most will have a worse performance. Any political commentators, political pundits, pollsters, and economists with a great average of predictions are more like to be right and most are more likely to be wrong. But keep in mind that over two-thirds of predictions will be wrong, so take a prediction with a grain of salt.

04/27/19 Weather, Weather Everywhere

Everywhere you go there is weather. Good weather, bad weather, average weather, mild weather, cold weather, freezing weather, warm weather, hot weather, severe weather, storms, snow storms, rain storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. etc. etc.… And people are very interested in the weather, not only as it affects their lives but as it affects the lives of their family and friends and fellow citizens. This is as it should be, but it is just as important to retain your perspective of the weather. Do not assume the worst or best weather reports but assume the possibility of the best or worst weather reports.

In today’s weather reporting there is a propensity to hype the extremes of a weather report. This leads to good ratings, and increased revenues, for the weather reporters and media that reports on the weather. People get hyped and fearful that the worst is about to happen, and they react accordingly. These reactions are often not the best course of action and will often lead you to make irrational decisions. So, when you listen to a weather report do not assume the extremes but take precautions in the event the extreme occurs. The only caveat is when the authorities order an evacuation you should evacuate. To not do so is to endanger your life, health, and safety.

04/27/19 Precepts and Perspectives

In my many discussions with my cigar smoking buddies, we often discuss the issues of the day (along with sports, history, and other b.s.). During these discussions, I often keep in mind my observations on “Precepts”  and “Additional Perspectives” when discussing these issues. I believe we have a more thoughtful discussion when this occurs. I would encourage you to read these observations as I believe that these observations will make your discussions more levelheaded, and perhaps more harmonious.

04/25/19 The Green New Deal

Supporters of the Green New Deal exhibit their extensive lack of knowledge of science, engineering, and economics for believing that this is possible or practicable. They also have no idea of how energy is produced, distributed, and utilized. They fail to understand the life cycle costs, from mining, manufacturing, distribution, usage, and disposal of the materials utilized to produce energy that would result from the Green New Deal implementation. They also do not account for the economic impacts that The Green New Deal would inflict on people and commerce. The Green New Deals ranks with some of the most inane ideas proposed by politicians. No matter how a politician or supporter packages it, redefines it, or limit it. or lauds its goals it remains inane. I would encourage you to download and read the report “The New Energy Economy an Exercise In Magical Thinking” from the Manhattan Institute that examines this issue.

04/23/19 Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness

Euphemism - An inoffensive or indirect expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive or too harsh abound in today’s politically correct speech. But euphemisms can be very dangerous when utilized in regard to national security and social policy. In order to solve a problem, you need to recognize that you have a problem, clearly define the problem, and then clearly state the solution. Euphemisms do not contribute to clarity and indeed are often utilized to obscure the problem. Euphemisms are often utilized when identifying groups of people in order not to offend members of the groups, or to be deceptive as to the parties who are part of the problem or who are the victims of the problem. Euphemisms are often a means to doublespeak - language that pretends to communicate but actually does not. Disingenuousness - not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness - is often the result when euphemisms and doublespeak are utilized.

When euphemisms are utilized in national security situations, we cannot clearly address the problems and solutions to terrorism and international aggression. When it comes to violence perpetrators and victims need to be clearly defined to identify the source and targets of the violence. Euphemisms, doublespeak, and disingenuousness do not solve any problems, and they contribute to the problem or allow the problem to fester. Anyone who utilizes euphemisms, doublespeak, or is disingenuousness needs to be ignored in order to solve a problem.

04/21/19 It's Complicated as an Excuse

No its not! We only make it complicated to avoid facing the truth. And the truth is that a bad decision was made that you don't want to admit. Whether it be in our personal life, our family life, our work environment, or in our social life bad decisions are often made. Saying "it's complicated" relieves us of the burden of admitting we made a bad decision. But this is a burden that we should gladly accept. By admitting it to ourselves, and thinking about the bad decision, we can learn from our bad decisions and hopefully not repeat them. By admitting our bad decisions and learning from it we can also forgive ourselves. And by admitting them to others we not only help others learn from our bad decisions but it may lead us to forgiveness from others or possible redemption.

04/12/19 Societal Hierarchies

Karl Marx decried Capitalism because it organized labor and management into hierarchies with labor the lowest rungs and management and ownership at the highest rungs, along with the distribution of wealth according to your position on this hierarchy. He thought that this was one of the biggest inequities of Capitalism and needed to be abolished. However, hierarchies are not a feature of Capitalism but a feature of Humanity. We, as humans, have always organized ourselves into hierarchies. Whether it was tribes that had a leader, enforcers, and followers, to governments that had kings, ministers, and commoners, we have always organized ourselves into hierarchies. Not only in government did this happen but in all areas of human activity i.e. commerce, entertainment, sports, armed forces, etc... Force or arms, inheritance, or wealth were often utilized to establish and maintain these hierarchies to the detriment of the common man. The difference in Capitalism is that ability was the prime driver in creating hierarchies. The person or persons who produced wanted goods or services at a lower cost rose in the hierarchy, while those who did not or faltered in doing so sank in the hierarchy. The positive effect of Capitalism was that all benefited by the goods or services at a lower cost. It also allows for any person who has a good idea, determination, perseverance, knowledge, and ability to move up in the hierarchy while those who did not have these capabilities to move down in the hierarchy, thus removing impediments to progress. Therefore, Capitalism is the best force for allowing equal opportunity for all, wealth redistribution, and human progress.

04/10/19 Personal Destruction

Another impact of The Three D’s is the personal destruction of the character and reputation of the person who it is directed at. This occurs not only in the governmental arena but also in political commentary by non-governmental persons. The following examples from the governmental arena are the most current illustrations of this:

• Attorney General William Barr
  Impugning his integrity because you didn’t like his legal opinions or asking him to break the law to achieve your political objectives seems to be the du jour means to achieve his personal destruction.
• Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
  Hero or villain from both sides depending on your political propensities, Robert Mueller has flip-flopped from hero to villain from both sides depending on what has been (falsely) reported on what he was doing or saying at the moment.
• Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
  Salacious, unverified, and unsubstantiated evidence was utilized to try to thwart his nomination to the Supreme Court. In the process, his reputation has been tarnished with no regard to due process, nor to the facts and truth of the allegations.
• President Donald Trump
  The tactics utilized to harm President Trump and his administration have utilized the politics of Personal Destruction for political gain.

I have commented more extensively on this issue in my Article "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" which is a companion piece to this chirp. The upshot of this personal destruction is a loss of faith in the instruments of government and the integrity of the people who serve in the government. This is also true in the political commentary arena. The secondary impact is on the willingness of good and capable people to enter public office or expressing political opinions. Why would any sane person wish to undergo this personal destruction? Therefore, many good people are avoiding entering public service or expressing political opinions to the detriment of society.

04/10/19 Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)

When a conservative and liberal/progressive/leftists disagree, the conservative believes the liberal/progressive/leftists are wrong. However, the liberal/progressive/leftists often believes that the conservative is a racist, sexist, homophobic, mean-spirited or a money-grubbing person, amongst other epithets as I have explicated in my Article on the “Divisiveness in America”. The liberal/progressive/leftists then attempt to argue against a conservative position by utilizing the following Three D's tactics:

• Denigrate: criticize somebody or something to make somebody or something seem unimportant.
• Disparage: to refer disapprovingly or contemptuously to somebody or something.
• Demonize: cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others.

The liberal/progressive/leftists utilize these tactics as arguments in order to intimidate a conservative into silence or to intimidate a listener through guilt into not paying attention to a conservative. This illustrates how intellectually bereft many of their ideas are. Either way, these methods of the liberal/progressive/leftists is a bulling attempting to win their argument not through reason or intellect, but by silencing all opposition. This is very bad for the body politick as it cannot lead to understanding, and possible compromise, with their opposition to achieve a reasonable solution to public policy. Indeed, it often leads to bitter partisanship as the liberal/progressive/leftists opponent feels oppressed, and the liberal/progressive/leftists feel righteous. The liberal/progressive/leftists will then demand bi-partisanship, and since they are righteous, and the opponent is not, the liberal/progressive/leftists policy should be adopted.

04/09/19 Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Sign. Sigh. Sigh. Whenever I hear someone state that we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform I know that they are advocating a position that is not going to happen and are utilizing this term as a canard. It is not going to happen because it has not happened for several decades It is a canard because those that utilize this term know that it will not happen. The different sides of this issue have different meanings as to what constitutes Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and their different meanings are contradictory and polarizing. Therefore, given the political gridlock of these sides there will be no Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and I do not expect it to happen unless one side or the other obtain legislative and executive authority in enough numbers to ignore the other side (much like Obamacare). What needs to be done, immediately, on immigration is to secure the borders from drug runners, gang members, human traffickers, and other criminal elements. We should all agree that needs to be done and needs to be done immediately. But again, given the political gridlock of these sides, this may not happen. I would, therefore, want each 2020 Presidential candidate to state clearly the executive actions they would take on securing the borders from drug runners, gang members, human traffickers, and other criminal elements. We could then leave it to the American voters to decide how they wish to secure the borders based on the candidate's position. But again, I do not expect that this will happen.

04/04/19 The Real Issues for the 2020 Presidential Campaign

The Presidential campaign of 2020 is heating up. On the Democratic side there appears to be a race to the leftist positions and what the Government should provide for the American people. The other side (centrists and conservatives) would prefer a debate on what they believe are the important issues. I believe the following are the important issues that need to be discussed (in alphabetical order):

• Border Security from drug runners, gang members, human traffickers, and other criminal elements
• College Tuition and College Debt Reform
• Economic Growth
• Educational (K-12 & College) Reform
• Epidemic of Drug & Alcohol Addiction
• Erosion of Free Speech, Religious Liberty, Gun Rights, and other protections of the Bill of Rights.
• Foreign Policy & Foreign Trade
• Health Insurance (Medical & Prescription Drugs) Reform
• Immigration Reform
• Medicare and Medicaid Reform
• National Security from Terrorism
• Social Security Funding Reform
• The National Debt

04/01/19 Democratic Party 2020 Presidential Candidates

Listening to the Democratic Party 2020 Presidential candidates’ positions I believe that the following list is a succinct summary of their positions (in alphabetical order):

• Abolish the Electoral College
• Abolishment of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
• Abortion on Demand (including live births after an abortion i.e. infanticide)
• Agenda of Reparations
• Allow Voting by Non-Citizens
• Expand the Supreme Court
• Free College Tuition and Tuition Debt Relief for All
• Free Healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid) for All
• Free Speech Limitations (i.e. hate speech restrictions, safe zones, microaggressions, etc.)
• Gun Control
• Implementation of the Green New Deal
• Increased tax revenues on wealthier Americans
• Lower the Voting Age to 16
• Open Borders & Allow Unrestricted Immigration

These campaign positions do not seem to be consistent with someone who has sworn to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the Constitution and its concepts of Federalism, Limited and Enumerated Powers, Equality Under the Law and Equal Protection of the Laws, the Bill of Rights, as well as Liberty and Freedom for All. To the contrary, they sound as if their proponents believe that they can do whatever they think is proper irrespective of the Constitution. God help us if they are ever put in a position of power where they can impose their will in contradiction to the Constitution. For if they do this, we will not be a free people but a people subservient to the government. Or perhaps, they are just perpetuation a “Foolie” on the American public.

04/01/19 To tweet or not to tweet? That is the question.

President Trump is fond of tweeting and much of these tweets are of a harsh nature. I do not particularly care for this type of political discourse. However, given the unrelenting negative discourse and commentary of President Trump by most of the news media, entertainment, academic, and sports world, as well as his political opponent's outrageous statements about President Trump his tweeting may be the only way to reach the American public with his perspective. They are also a means to exhibit to the American public the biases and unfairness of his opponents. Until his opposition changes its approach to civil discourse his tweeting may be the only way to counterbalance his opponent's equally uncivil discourse.

04/01/19 The Creed of Progressives and Leftists

The Creed of Progressives and Leftists is that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. To oppose them not only makes you wrong, but it also means that you are evil. And being evil the opponents of Progressives and Leftists need to be silenced, driven from the public square and public forums, their livelihoods or careers threatened, and they are not to be allowed to hold any positions of social, economic, or governmental power. They can also have their private and family lives intimidated or menaced by physical violence, if not actual violence. Progressives and Leftists believe that to demonize, denigrate, or disparage their opponents is the primary and acceptable means to accomplish this.

04/01/19 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is, unfortunately, an excellent example of leftism in that she displays a comprehensive ignorance of economics, science, politics, history, and human nature. This ignorance is a condemnation of the American educational system that has become more interested in teaching its students what to think, and not how to think. It is also a condemnation of American society that has become more concerned about feelings rather than reasoning. As a result of these factors polite and respectful reasoned speech and writings are no longer considered an important attribute for the discussion of public policy. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other leftists are like the child in the supermarket that wines and throws temper tantrums to obtain the prettiest and shiniest object that attracts their attention. We should never give in to such a child as it only encourages further bad behavior. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is becoming the face of the Democratic Party and dragging them into politically untenable policy positions. In addition, the Democrats have been looking for a way to demolish the Republican Party, while the Republican Party have Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who will demolish the Democratic Party. Given that the Democratic Party is now in the throes of leftism that could destroy the American ideals of freedom and liberty perhaps we who espouse these ideals should cheer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on in the hopes that this will destroy the leftist Democratic Party.

04/01/19 Foolies

In the Star Trek Episode (The Original Series) "Miri" the Enterprise responds to a distress signal from a planet in which all the adults have died and the children are living extended life spans. These children play a game called "Foolie" in which they can lie and/or be disingenuous to achieve their goals. Because these children had been without adult supervision for over three hundred years, the distinction between appropriate games and harmful violence had become somewhat blurred in their minds. To them, almost anything that amused them was acceptable behavior. And so, it is with modern leftists and many Democratic politicians. Never being taught what is acceptable behavior and speech, nor being chastised for inappropriate behavior or speech, leftist and Democratic politicians are constantly creating foolies. They believe they are so right in their opinions that foolies are appropriate to advance their causes. One of the reasons that freedom of the press was so important to our founding fathers was that they understood a free press would challenge what politicians and activists said or did. But as today's press is so sympathetic with leftist and Democratic politicians, they are no longer challenging the speech and actions of those that they agree with; indeed, many are supporting them. And until the press challenges the leftist and Democratic politicians’ actions and speech, they will continue to practice foolies on the American public.

04/01/19 Good for thee but not for me

As the Bible says in Matthew 7:5 “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” Before you criticize or require someone to do something you need to examine your own life. Are you practicing what you preach, for if you are not you have no right to preach? To do so otherwise is to be a hypocrite. And if you preach it should be in a manner that is helpful, rather than demanding, of the other person(s). To demand that another does something is to make them subservient to your will. The only demands that you can place on another is to observe the human right of others and to obey the just laws necessary to establish and maintain a civil society. All other demands need to be cooperative and agreed upon rules and regulations for the benefit of all and not for some. If you wish to implement rules and regulations for others to follow you should follow these same rules and regulations in your own life before you insist that others follow them. Lead by example, not by dictates. And most important, faithfully keep to these rules and regulations in your own life. To not do this is to pronounce that something is “Good for thee but not for me”.

04/01/19 I don’t care if your feelings are hurt

I don’t care if your feelings are hurt, as long as I am expressing reasonable and intelligent positions in a polite and respectful manner and doing so in an honest and truthful way. I care about my spouse, parents, and children’s feelings, and perhaps my other family and friends’ feelings may be, and I am sensitive to their feelings. However, I have no control over what you do, think, and feel. I can only control what I do, think and feel. Your response to what I may say and do is a reflection on your thoughts and feelings, not on my thoughts and feelings. You may also be misinterpreting what I do or say, or perhaps I may be miscommunicating. If I am miscommunicating something, I will accept a critique (but not a criticism) and will try to do better or restate my thoughts. But for you to say that your feelings are hurt is not a valid objection or argument to what I do or say. Only a reasonable and intelligent response done in a polite and respectful manner, and doing so in an honest and truthful way, is a valid response to what I do or say. To make hurt feelings a valid response will result in the shutting down of free speech as someone, somewhere, feelings may be hurt by what is being said or done.

04/01/19 Words and Deeds

Words and deeds, or to pay attention to what one says or what one does. Too often in today’s society, we pay particular attention to what a person says and gloss over what a person does. It has become more important to communicate acceptably than to implement properly. The judgment of a person is often almost entirely based on what they say. But what a person says is not harmful (except emotionally) but what a person does can have positive or negative repercussions to all aspects of society. Therefore, we must pay more attention to the deeds of a person, and become more forgiving of what they say, if the deeds have positive repercussions. If the deeds have negative repercussions and the words are positive, we should be harsh in our judgment of the person. Of course, if both the words and deeds of a person have positive consequences, we should praise the person and elevate them into positions of responsibility within society. This judgment, of course, is very important for our political leaders. They must be held accountable for not only their words but their deeds. To ignore or discount one or the other in judging our politicians can be very harmful to society. Perhaps we should remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin – “Well done is better than well said.”

04/01/19 Both Sides Do It

Both Sides Do It (from my Observation on “Phrases”). Of course, both sides do it, in the human experience both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So, therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism or Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is “are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side are doing it?”. When you see one side or the other paying more heed, or engaging in extreme deeds or words, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to not only make a determination of the number of words and misdeeds incidents, but also the tone of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side than the phrase “Both Sides Do It” is not an equalizer, but an excuse to continue the extreme deeds or words by the one side engaged in these words or deeds.

04/01/19 Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy (from my Observation on “Phrases”). As Ben Franklin once said during the debate at the Constitutional Convention; "I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise." It is not hypocrisy if you change your mind based on better information or fuller consideration on an issue. It is hypocrisy when you change your mind based on trying to attain an advantage or political goal. Hypocrisy is a charge that should only be utilized by someone when they are flip-flopping their position to gain an advantage, rather than changing their position based on better information or fuller consideration. It is incumbent upon the politician who changes their position to explain the better information or fuller consideration on an issue that has led them to a change in their position, to assure that it is a true change and not hypocrisy.

04/01/19 Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors

In the section “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” in my Article "Reasoning" I point out that many who argue a political issue resort to Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors as a tactic. This tactic is the activity of obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered and susceptible to accepting their conclusions. It is most often done by inserting oblique facts, nonsequiturs, exceptions to the rule, and the perfect vs. the practical. You should always go to the core issue of the argument and examine its meaning. When engaging in a debate blow away the Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors and get to the core issue. Determine the facts and truths of the issue, then debate the actions to be taken.

04/01/19 Putting Words into Another’s Mouth and a False Dichotomy

In my Article, "Dialog & Debate", in the sections “A False Dichotomy” and “Putting Words into Another’s Mouth” I have commented on these tactics that are too often utilized in today’s political discussions and debates. This tactic is to rephrase or restate what someone has said in the most negative connotation possible or to add negative statements into another’s mouth. They will also establish their position, then assert the position of the other party at the extreme opposite of their position thus putting words into another’s mouth. The person who put the words into another’s mouth then goes on to criticize the words they put into someone’s mouth. This is a dishonest and despicable tactic and wholly inappropriate manner to debate political issues. It is often done to disparage, denigrate, or demonize someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person actually said. It is your responsibility to only speak your own thoughts and reasoning or to quote the words of another person. After both sides have laid out their reasoning and conclusions then it is fair to critique the others reasoning or conclusions, based on what they have stated, not what you have stated for them.

04/01/19 Not Answering the Question or Talking Points Ad Nauseam

In my Article on "Dialog & Debate" in the section “Not Answering the Question or Talking Points Ad Nauseam” this technique is also utilized in today’s political discussions. Too often someone will ask a question of another and the answer to the question is to ignore the question and start iterating a talking point. Talking points that do not answer the question, but simply state the policy or position of the answerer. Sometimes the talking points are an answer to the question the answerer wanted to be asked, but not answering the question that was asked. Other times the answerer will respond by asking the questioner a question rather than answering the question. This is not really an answer but a deflection to not answer the question. The answerer should not get to ask a question until they answer the questioners’ question. After all, if the answerer is going to ignore the questioner's question then the questioner can ignore the answerer's question. These techniques are done in order to not answer a question, usually because the answer to the question would expose a weakness or illogic in the answerers’ policy or position. I find that these techniques are extremely frustrating as they do not illuminate the policy or position but obfuscate the policy or position. Therefore, whenever I listen to a debate or discussion where these techniques are utilized, I become very wary. I am also disturbed as this is an attempt to preclude the exchange of reasonable and intelligent discussion or debate on policies and positions. It also makes me reevaluate the person, and the policy and position, of the person who evoked these techniques. I would suggest that you do the same.

04/01/19 Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning

As I have stated in my Article on "Dialog & Debate" the utilization of “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” is another tactic being used by those who engage in political debates. It is most often done to confuse the audience into accepting a conclusion that does not follow the facts or logic. It often contains many hidden assumptions that when they are exposed reveal the faultiness of the argument. When examining the argument, you should keep in mind a variation of Occam's Razor - “The simplest explanation, that fits all the known facts, is most often the correct explanation”.  Be suspicious when someone presents Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning to convince you of their conclusion. Examine the premises of the argument, seek out the hidden assumptions, assure that the logic of the argument contains no logical fallacies or cognitive biases before you accept the conclusions (as explained in my Article on "Reasoning"). If you do this, you have a much greater chance of reaching the truth. A Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning argument may end up being true, but I would not bet on it.