The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

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

Chirps (Some Would Say Rants)

Short, succinct, and pithy comments on a subject that have piqued my interest or curiosity,

or my ire or indignation, as well as announcements of new or updated Articles that I have written.

Click to proceed to my latest Chirp.

Over the last several years I have decided to write about what I have learned and loved throughout my life. They have become such a collection that I have decided to loosen them on an unsuspecting world. These Chirps are not an Academic Thesis, or a Legal Treatise, and they are not written so. They are intended to inform and enlighten the general public on the topic, and hopefully motivate the general public to further investigate the topic. As such, I have tried to minimize the length of the Chirps to be between the size of a Tweet and the other slightly lengthier Articles on my website. I hope that you will read and enjoy them, and perhaps it will give you something to think about. The various topics are as follows:

It’s Complicated

How often have we heard someone state “It’s Complicated” when responding in a political debate? Yes, it can be complicated when dealing with the cause and effect of an issue. But, often, the core issue of the debate is not complicated. It is the core issues that I try to address in these Chirps. When you strip away the Deflections, the “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” and the “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” it is often not that complicated. I point out that many who argue a political issue resort to Deflections, Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors as a tactic to 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 Deflections, Obfuscations, Smoke, and Mirrors and get to the core issue. Determine the core issue, the facts and truths of the issue, then debate the cause and effect and the actions to be taken.

Stating The Obvious and Common Sense

Many would say that these Chirps are “stating the obvious” or just “common sense”. Unfortunately, in today's society, the obvious has become obscured and common sense is not so common. When I speak of common sense I do so as stated in my "Common Sense" article, which I would encourage you to read. The obvious is often (deliberately) obscured in order to achieve a political goal through the means of “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” as I stated in my "Dialog & Debate" article, which I would also encourage you to read. Therefore, I think that I need to Chirp by “stating the obvious” and utilizing “common sense”.

Arguing from Ignorance

When I speak of ignorance it is not in a pejorative sense. I mean a lack of knowledge, or incomplete knowledge, or just plain incorrect knowledge. When I speak of argumentation, I mean the logical structure of an argument: a statement or observation, the premises, and the conclusion. This includes the deductive or inductive reasoning of the argument. I also include the identification of logical fallacies and cognitive biases incorporated into the argument as outlined in my “Reasoning” and “Dialog and Debate” Articles. There are many different ways that an argument can be improper. Statements or observations can be incorrect or misleading, premises can be incorrect or missing, and consequently, the conclusion would be wrong. These and many other things may make the conclusion of an argument wrong. Sometimes, even in the statements, observations, or premises are incorrect the conclusion may be right. This is usually due to blind luck and falls under the category that “a stuck clock is right twice a day”. You should keep this in mind when reviewing an argument, or when you are stating an argument. The Chirps on this web page are too short for a substantive argument. When I think it necessary to elaborate, I will direct you to an article that has a better argument.

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 achieve civil discourse. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

• Criticism - Disapproval 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 the 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 remember to critique someone, rather than criticize someone.

My Approach

I have often said that English is my second language, while thinking is my first language. Those that know me, and my writing, know that my second language (English) can be very poor in spelling, grammar, malapropisms, and phraseology (thank God for computer spell checkers, thesaurus, and grammar checks), and I struggle to write anything. I am a very organized and logical person, and I attempt to keep my writing organized and logical. I attempt to write clearly, concisely, completely, confidently, and understandably. As such, I hope that these articles are readable to all with a high school education.

In writing my 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 and Emotional Strains of Writing” that explains my research efforts, and the intellectual, emotional, and physical strains of writing these Articles and Chirps.

I often write about the general principles of the topic of the Chirp, and do not expend much effort on the specifics, as the specifics require more detail and length than these Chirps are intended. When I believe that more specifics are required I will often write a hyperlinked Article that contain these specifics, which I would encourage you to read.

As regards to my debating these issues, I would direct you to my Chip on “Form Over Substance” as to my reluctance to engage in debate on these subjects. Essentially, I  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 the facts, statistics, and reasoning of their arguments to effectually explain their arguments.

Burden of Proof

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."

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 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’.

With this in mind, all my Articles and Chips attempt to meet this Burden of Proof. If you think I have erred please Contact Me and provide the details of of what you believe are my errors. I will review these comments, and if I think that they are appropriate and correct I will make corrections and even, perhaps, change my opinion.

Terminology

Throughout these Chirps I often utilize terms and phrases that I believe that should be defined and elucidated. I have, therefore, created a webpage on the "Terminology" (i.e., "The Political Spectrum", "Activists and Activism", "Big Tech", "Adjective Justice", "Cancel Culture", "Conservatives", "Constitutional Conservatives" , "Democrat and Republican Voters", "Democrat Party Leaders" , "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Equity and Equality" , "Greater Good versus the Common Good", "Herd Mentality", "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Mainstream Cultural Media" , "Mainstream Media", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "Natural Rights", "Political Correctness", "Progressives/Leftists", "Republican Party Leaders", "Social Engineering", "Social Media", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness" that I often utilize.

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/nn/23 Executive Officers Removal”, 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

One of the most astute observations in politics is:

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

However, what follows this is often:

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

But Taxing and Spending always lead to debts and deficits, and ultimately inflation and/or recession for me, you, and the other fellow. 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/nn/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/nn/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 “12/nn/22 A Recipe for Disaster”.

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, “Knowledge, Experience, and 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:

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, “