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 Beliefs

Throughout my Chirps and Articles, I have held fast to my core beliefs. These core beliefs are in our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and our Founding Fathers' "American Ideals and Ideas", as expressed in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I also believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and the importance of "A Civil Society". I also believe in "Rationality" through "A Philosophical Approach" to "Reasoning", utilizing proper "Dialog & Debate" methods. I also believe that many of the problems that America faces are "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms". Anything that may contradict these core beliefs, I cannot hold to. Thus, in writing my Chirps and Articles, I always keep in mind my core beliefs, and I will not write anything that violates these core beliefs. As such, I concur with 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

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.

Until recently (January 2026), I did not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in my research and writing of my Chirps and Articles. However, my preferred search engine (DuckDuckGo) has added an AI Search Assistant that I find useful. This AI Search Assistant has done a good job of summarizing my query results, and it provides hyperlinks to the web pages it used to create the summary. I have been using this summary in my Chirps and Articles, but not word for word. I review the summary and the linked web pages to verify their accuracy, and I edit the summary as I think appropriate. I also use other web resources and information to assist with this editing. I believe this approach has improved the accuracy and thoroughness of my Chirps and Articles, and I plan to continue using this AI Search Assistant in this way.

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.

I am willing to change my opinions based on new or better information or 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

However, until such time as I have new or better information, or reasoned critique, I will remain firm in my opinions, as I am firm in what I see as the right. For those who think I may recant some or all of what I have written for any other reasons I would remind them of the previous quote of Martin Luther said in defending his Ninety-Five Theses.

As regards to my debating these issues, I would direct you to my Chirp on “09/07/19 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.

To Tweet, to Chirp, or to Sing

The vocalizations of birds have been characterized as tweeting, chirping, or songs, depending on the duration of the vocalizations. In human social media communications, we have used the term tweet to signify a short expression of one’s thoughts. I do not believe that a tweet is appropriate for expressing thoughts on an important topic, but a chirp may properly encapsulate one’s thoughts. Therefore, this webpage has been titled “Chirps”. Where longer thoughts are required to understand my thoughts, I sing a song in the articles I have written. The only nebulosity is in determining what is a chirp and what is a song. Occasionally, my chirps can be rather longish, but when this happens, I chirp as I do not believe that the topic is worthy of a song.

I do not have a Twitter account for this reason, and I have not utilized my Facebook account for two decades, as I believe that Twitter and Facebook have a perverse impact on society, especially young people. I will also never become involved in any social media, as I am not interested in having my thoughts labeled or censured by anyone. Consequently, all my thoughts on any topic are only posted on my website.

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.”, which is now a Philosophical Razor that can be utilized to dismiss an argument.

This burden, as I have written in my Article “Burden of Proof”, must be based upon ‘Reasoning’ rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of ‘if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right’, which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of 'trying to prove a negative', which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ when evaluating an assertion.

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 and Hyperlinks

Throughout these Chirps and my Articles I often utilize terms and phrases that I believe that should be defined and elucidated. I have, therefore, created a webpage on the "Terminology" that I often utilize in my Chirps and Articles. When appropriate, I will hyperlink to these terms, and I will also hyperlink to other of my Chirps and Articles for further elaboration when necessary.

Comments, Concerns, Critiques, or Suggestions

If you have any comments, concerns, critiques, or suggestions I can be reached at mwd@profitpages.com. I will review reasoned and intellectual correspondence (Critiques not Criticisms), and it is possible that I can change my mind, or at least update the contents of these Chirps. This is why these articles are dated. Whenever I make a change to these articles they will be re-dated. So check back and see if any have been updated.

02/15/26 Islam

Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion founded by the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It is centered on the belief in one God (Allah) and the teachings of the Quran. It emphasizes submission to God's will and includes practices such as prayer, fasting, and charity, known as the Five Pillars of Islam. The term "Islam" means "submission" or "surrender" to the will of Allah, the Arabic word for God. Muslims, the followers of Islam, believe that Muhammad is the final prophet in a long line of prophets that includes figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

For the past several years, I have written Articles and Chirps about Islam, which I have decided to gather in the Religiosity section of my website. These Articles and Chirps webpages are:

Islam Overview – A brief overview of the core beliefs of Islam, Muslim peoples, Islamic cultures, and the political aspects of Islam.
The Problems of Islam – The current precepts and practices of Islam, which are at odds with ‘A Religion of Peace’, are examined in this article.
Islam and Why They Hate Us (In their own words) – An extract from a monthly magazine called Dabiq (since discontinued), in which the Muslim authors explain why they hate us and why they fight us.
Islam Chirps – My thoughts on various aspects of Islam.
Muhammad's Historicity – The historical actuality of the person and events of Muhammad’s life, as distinguished from myths or legends of his life.

Please note that I wrote some of these Articles and Chirps with the help of my AI Search Assistance, as I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about Islam to write them myself. Much of the AI Search Assistance results are based on the Wikipedia article on these topics, which I have hyperlinked within these Articles and Chirps. However, I have edited the AI Search Assistance results for better readability, clarity, and understandability.

02/14/26 Assaults on Capitalism

Jonathan Turley, in a new column, “Adam Smith and The Importance of Capitalism in the Founding and the Future of the American Republic”, has pointed out that:

“What many celebrating our 250th anniversary do not appreciate is that this is also the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, released around the same time as the Declaration of Independence. The book was not a great success in Great Britain. In addition to its foundational support for capitalism, it challenged the mercantilist policies of the British Empire and supported the claims of the colonies in seeking greater economic freedoms.

Smith, however, was immediately embraced by the founders, who saw his work as the perfect economic theory to advance their political theory. Ours was the first Enlightenment Revolution based on a belief in natural rights that came from God, not governments.

Yet, the founders knew that true individual liberty could not be achieved without economic freedom. Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” offered an idea of individual economic freedom where whole economies were driven by the individual tastes and choices of citizens.”

The distaste for Capitalism by many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and their embrace of Socialism, is but another assault on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as I have written in my Chirp on “02/13/26 The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”. Without Capitalism, our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All are in danger of being usurped. Without Capitalism, the government determines the allocation of resources, the means of production, and the distribution of wealth to the individuals in society. And such government control often requires some form of despotism or totalitarianism to accomplish, as well as restrictions on the Liberties and Freedoms of the people, making the people the serfs of the State. Consequently, assaults on Capitalism are an assault on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

02/13/26 The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution

In the introduction to his new book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, by Jonathan Turley, he has made an astute comment that I have transcribed for your consideration:

“The full story of the American Revolution is captured in the story of two very different men: Thomas Paine and James Madison. The Declaration of Independence was the moment of true creation, a passionate statement of a new nation founded by a new political species described by Paine. It was followed by a document that sought to harness the passion and power into a stable republic. Where Pain was righteous rage, Madison was pious reason. The two documents speak to the difference roles that they played as well as the key figures associated with them. The Declaration is exhilarating in its language and declarations of liberty. The Constitution in comparison is more clinical in tone and focus. The Declaration focused on transcendent principles of liberty, while the Constitution focused on the nuts and bolts of democracy. The Constitution is neither poetic nor particularly inspiring. It is written by the ultimate political wonk. Madison was a true genius who viewed government as more of a science than an art. He saw the inherent dangers of democracy far more clearly than Paine; a more sobering reality taken from Madison’s review of failed systems going back to ancient Athens. Human Beings—not deities—run governments, and any government must be able to withstand the petty, corrupt, and pernicious motives of those in power.”

My Articles, The Eternal Truths and Relevance of The Declaration of Independence and The Structure and Boundaries of our Constitutional Governance is an effort to refocus American minds on the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to ensure our Liberties and Freedoms. For, without defending the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as President Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Today, we face an assault on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The modern Progressives/Leftists feel no fidelity to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, believing they are more knowledgeable and wiser than our Founding Fathers. While they may have more knowledge, it is often constrained by their predilections rather than grounded in comprehensive facts and truths, especially when those facts and truths contradict their predilections. Their economic knowledge is almost non-existent, and their historical knowledge is limited to their inclinations. Accordingly, their thinking is rarely grounded in Rationality and Reasoning, and is mostly emotionally driven. As a result, their wisdom is highly suspect, and they often do not consider the impacts and consequences of their speech and actions.

Unfortunately, for electoral purposes, the Democrat Party leaders have adopted their causes and have started to sow chaos in our governance. These Democrats' words and deeds are an assault on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and demonstrate that they have no fidelity to the Declaration and Constitution, as they are only interested in gaining and retaining power. This is much like what happened in the French Revolution, as I have Chirped on “02/11/26 The New Jacobins”.

As I mentioned in my Chirp on "01/16/26 Our Democracy Mobocracy", their support for the Progressives and Leftists' crowd demands shows their desire to rule through mobocracy rather than through Democratic-Republic elections and processes. They also express a greater concern for the welfare of illegal immigrants and the protection of criminals than for the safety and security of law-abiding Americans and legal immigrants. Corruption and financial fraud have become widespread in states and cities governed by the Democrat Party, harming America and American taxpayers. As a result, the Democrat Party leaders have become the embodiment of "petty, corrupt, and pernicious motives of those in power", as Madison feared when drafting the Constitution.

Throughout all of this, they have ignored the Founding Fathers' concerns about “the inherent dangers of democracy” and the threats to the Liberties and Freedoms of both majority and minority rule. Alas, if we allow this to continue, then we have lost the American Revolution. As John Adams stated in his reflections on the American Revolution in 1818, he concluded that the American Revolution was not the war, but the change in attitudes of the Colonists regarding government:

“The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people .... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”
- John Adams

An attitude of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, which is the purpose of government to establish and maintain, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. An attitude that must be maintained and a Constitution that must be upheld, or as one of our greatest Presidents 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

02/12/26 TUPs — Totally Unhinged Progressives

President Trump has built a team of people who are able to tune out the only real weapon that the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media and the Mainstream Cultural Media have: noise. The biased journalism, the unhinged declarations, the shrieking shrews, the cantankerous men, and the protests — they're all meant to distract and paralyze their opposition. In their declarations, there is no recourse to Rationality and Reasoning, and facts and truths that contradict their declarations are ignored. "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" are the tactics they employ to spread their noise. And the Trump 47 crew casually dismisses it all — in entertaining fashion — and keeps moving forward with the mission.

The first year of President Trump’s second term has provided a master class in how the Republican Party should deal with these people moving forward. The president is no longer alone in his ongoing fight against them. Vice President JD Vance, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser Stephen Miller also have no patience for these people's antics. Other administration officials have followed their lead and will no longer tolerate these antics, often exposing their antics through mockery and ridicule. Accordingly, it is time for the Republican Party Leaders in Congress to join them in this mockery and ridicule to put an end to their obstructionist tactics.

This noise and the chaos they sow has resulted in a new identity class of Americans — TUPs — Totally Unhinged Progressives. These TUPs all share one trait—their confidence far outweighs their competence. They are confident they are right, confident they have the answers, and confident they are morally justified. But they are not competent because they do not listen to viewpoints other than their own to determine if they may be right or wrong, they are not competent because they do not consider the negative consequences of their answers, and they are not competent to make a moral judgment, as they are not grounded in a moral code based on the Natural Rights of an individual. And they are not competent because they lack the proper juridical, economic, historical, and scientific knowledge and intelligence to determine their own competency. They believe what they believe and disregard any facts or truths that contradict their beliefs.

These TUPs have also swelled the number of Americans who have succumbed to "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity". Consequently, these TUPs have become the new Jacobins, as I have Chirped on “02/nn/26 The New Jacobins”. As such, these TUPs have become dangerous to the core values of Democratic Societies — Liberty, Equality, and Justice, and they need to be stopped before they put an end to A Civil Society and destroy our American Ideals and Ideas.

02/11/26 The New Jacobins

Liberty, Equality, and Justice are fundamental values in democratic societies, emphasizing personal freedoms, fair treatment, and the rule of law. These principles guide the functioning of governments and the rights of citizens, aiming to create a balanced and just society.

Core Values in Democratic Societies

Liberty

Liberty is a fundamental value in democratic systems, representing both personal and economic freedom. It is enshrined in key documents like the Declaration of Independence, which states that individuals have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." In practice, liberty includes freedoms such as speech, assembly, and religion, as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Equality

Equality emphasizes fair treatment and opportunities for all individuals. The Declaration of Independence asserts that "all men are created equal." However, interpretations of equality vary, with many Americans supporting equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes. Political equality, where every citizen has an equal vote, is a widely accepted ideal.

Justice

Justice is closely linked to liberty and equality, ensuring that laws are applied fairly and that individuals' rights are protected. The pursuit of justice has been a driving force behind various social movements, aiming to rectify inequalities and uphold the rights of marginalized groups.

Historical Context

The ideals of liberty, equality, and justice have evolved over time, influenced by historical events such as the American and French Revolutions. These principles continue to shape discussions about rights and governance in modern democracies.

The French Revolution

The French Revolution was a significant period of political and social upheaval in France from 1789 to 1799, which led to the overthrow of the monarchy, the establishment of a republic, and radical changes in society. It was driven by widespread discontent with the monarchy, economic hardship, and the desire for equality and democratic reforms.

The Jacobins were a prominent political group during the French Revolution, known for their radical approach and leadership during the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794. They initially formed as a club for anti-royalist deputies and became influential in establishing the French Republic, advocating for extreme egalitarianism and political violence against perceived enemies of the revolution.

The Reign of Terror was a period during the French Revolution from September 5, 1793, to July 27, 1794, characterized by mass executions and political purges aimed at eliminating perceived enemies of the revolution. Led by the Committee of Public Safety under Maximilien Robespierre, it resulted in the execution of thousands, often without fair trials, and ended with Robespierre's own execution.

During the French Revolution, various mottos were used, with "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) becoming the most famous. Other mottos included "Liberty, Equality, Justice" and "Unity, Indivisibility of the Republic; Liberty, Equality, or Death," reflecting the revolutionary ideals of the time.

The French Revolution and the Reign of Terror were the result of complex failures by the French Aristocracy and the Catholic Church, which led to the collapse of the French economy and the overthrow of the government. The Jacobins were mostly enlightened members of French society who believed they had the answers to the problems facing the French people. In their zeal to create a more perfect society, they paid no heed to Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of all persons, and they disregarded the Rule of Law and Equal Justice for All, as I have written in my article on Justice and The Rule of Law in America. They believed that they had the answers to the problems facing the French people, and anyone who disagreed with them was a threat to the French people. They therefore persecuted and prosecuted everyone who disagreed with them, and imprisoned and/or guillotined many of their opponents. It wasn’t until Napoleon Bonaparte's coup d'état on November 9, 1799, and the establishment of the French Consulate, which marked the start of the Napoleonic era, that the French Revolution came to an end.

The American Revolution

The American Revolution preceded the French Revolution, and was a political movement in the Thirteen Colonies of Great Britain in America. The movement began as a rebellion demanding reform and evolved into a revolution, resulting in a complete separation that entirely replaced the social and political order. These changes were the result of the American Revolutionary War and the subsequent sovereign independence of the former colonies as the United States.

John Adams, in his reflections on the American Revolution in 1818, concluded that the American Revolution was not the war, but the change in attitudes of the Colonists regarding government:

A revolution in the hearts and minds that established the concepts of Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of all persons in America, which were effected in the Constitution's guarantees of Liberty, Equality, and Justice, as I have written in my article on Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Conclusion

Today, in America, we have seen the rise of another Jacobin movement — the Modern Progressive. A progressivism that believes that they have all the answers to the problems facing the American people, and they will brook no dissention in their ranks, and they will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. In their words and deeds, they too will collapse the American economy and overthrow the Constitution. Woe be to America if they succeed, as Liberty, Equality, and Justice will be replaced with a capricious government that pays no heed to Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of all persons in America.

02/10/26 The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto and Democratic Socialism

The Communist Manifesto

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto, proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, are a set of transitional measures designed to move a society toward a communist system by dismantling private ownership and centralizing power within the state. Key planks include abolishing land ownership, heavy income tax, centralizing credit, and state-controlled education.

Here are the 10 planks as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Manifesto:

Abolition of Property in Land: All land is to be publicly owned, with all rents applied to public purposes.
Heavy Progressive Income Tax: A highly progressive or graduated income tax system.
Abolition of Inheritance Rights: Elimination of the right to inherit property.
Confiscation of Property: Seizure of property belonging to emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of Credit: Creation of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly to control credit.
Centralization of Communication and Transport: State control over all communication and transportation systems.
Expansion of State Production: Extension of state-owned factories, tools, and the cultivation/improvement of waste lands according to a common plan.
Equal Obligation to Work: Establishment of industrial armies, particularly for agriculture, ensuring everyone is obligated to work.
Regional Planning and Agricultural Combination: Combining agriculture with manufacturing to gradually eliminate the distinction between town and country.
Free Public Education: Free education for all children in public schools and the abolition of child factory labor in its current form.

Key Policies of the Democratic Socialists of America

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) advocates for policies such as universal healthcare without premiums or deductibles, a 32-hour work week with no pay reduction, abolishing cash bail, and raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations. They aim to empower workers and promote democratic control over the economy and society. Their claim is that these policies seek to build a fairer society by tackling economic inequality, increasing democratic participation, and advancing social justice.

Economic Policies

Universal Healthcare: Establish a system with no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles.
Wealth Tax: Implement taxes on the richest individuals, large inheritances, and for-profit corporations.
32-Hour Work Week: Create a standard work week of 32 hours without reducing pay or benefits.
Paid Family Leave: Ensure expansive paid family leave for all workers.

Political Reforms

Universal Suffrage: Extend voting rights to all residents, including noncitizens and those with criminal convictions.
Electoral Reform: Replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote and adopt proportional representation to encourage a multi-party system.
Legislative Changes: Expand the House of Representatives and end the Senate filibuster.

Social Justice Initiatives

Criminal Justice Reform: Abolish mandatory minimums and cash bail, and prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
Environmental Justice: Promote democratic control over environmental policies to combat climate change and ensure access to clean resources.

Foreign Policy

End U.S. Militarism: Advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes peace and reduces military intervention.

Democratic Socialism and Communism both advocate for social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, but they differ significantly in their approach. Democratic Socialists support a democratic political system and believe in achieving their goals through electoral politics, while communism seeks to abolish capitalism entirely and often involves authoritarian governance.

The problem is that Communism and Socialism have never worked throughout history. Everywhere it has been tried, it has failed, and it often leads to misery and shortages of basic necessities for those living under it, often leading to suffering, disease, starvation, and unnecessary deaths among the population. These Communist and Socialist systems are usually founded on noble ideals, but they are ultimately maintained by oppressive governments that eventually collapse. They also abrogate the Natural Rights, and the Liberties and Freedoms, of those who are forced to live under them. Also, please note:

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

Don't be fooled by the "warmth of collectivism" as expressed by New York's Mayor Zohran Mamdani, which refers to the idea of prioritizing community and collective well-being over individualism. Such collectivism (i.e., socialism) will always lead to the destruction of societies whenever it is attempted, due to the devils in the details.

02/09/26 No Special Exemption for the NFL

In the year marking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the American National Football League (NFL), during its Super Bowl halftime show, chose to celebrate Puerto Rico—and did so in Spanish. The NFL has an Antitrust law exemption because of its unique American status. Given its failure to celebrate the Declaration of Independence, I suggest that this Antitrust law exemption be revoked. If you can't celebrate America, then you shouldn't receive special exemptions from American law. They made their bed, and now they must lie in it. Good luck to them in operating like any other American business, and happy birthday, America.

02/08/26 Scientific Evidence for a Creator

Origin of Life: Darwinism does not explain the origin of life itself. It describes the process of evolution once life exists but does not address how the first living organisms came into being from non-living matter.
Complex Structures: The theory struggles to fully explain some biological structures’ sudden appearance and complexity. Critics argue that specific organs, such as the eye, exhibit “irreducible complexity,” meaning they need all their parts to function and could not have evolved incrementally.
Fossil Record Gaps: The fossil record shows abrupt appearances of fully formed species without clear transitional forms. This lack of “missing links” challenges the gradualist evolution model.
Genetic Information: Darwinism is often criticized for not explaining the origin of the vast amounts of genetic information in DNA. Some consider the random mutations and natural selection described by Darwinism insufficient to account for the complexity and specificity of genetic codes.
Macroevolution vs. Microevolution: While Darwinism explains small-scale changes (microevolution), such as variations within species, it is criticized for not adequately explaining large-scale changes (macroevolution) that result in the emergence of entirely new species and higher taxonomic groups.

A growing number of scientists agree: Our universe and life were produced by intelligent design, not unguided evolution. Thus, a new field of evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, has arisen that is scientific and non-religious (i.e., not creationism and not pseudoscientific).

My new science article, Scientific Evidence for a Creator, examines the science of Intelligent Design without recourse to anything beyond the science itself.

02/07/26 The Problems of Islam and Associated Chirps

I have combined my article on “The Problems with Islam” with my multiple Chirps on this topic into one webpage: The Problems of Islam and Associated Chirps. I did this so that it can be shown that my thoughts on this topic are based on my knowledge and intellectual reasoning, and they are not based on Islamophobia. I would very much like for Islam to become a religion of peace and co-existence with other religions and civilizations, but there are many hurdles within Islam that make this very difficult to accomplish, as this new webpage examines.

02/06/26 Main Differences Between Yahweh And Allah

Lacking sufficient knowledge to comment on the difference between the God of Judaism/Christianity and that of Islam, I asked my AI Search Assistant, "What are the main differences between Yahweh and Allah?” I thought that the following answer was satisfactory as an introduction, and I am presenting this answer for your consideration:

The main differences between Yahweh and Allah include their names, attributes, and the nature of their relationships with followers. Yahweh is often seen as a personal and loving God in Christianity, while Allah is viewed as more remote and demanding submission from followers, reflecting different theological perspectives in Judaism and Islam.

Names and Linguistic Roots

Yahweh

The intimate name of God in the Bible.
Derived from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH.
Represents a personal relationship with believers.

Allah

The Arabic term for God, meaning "the God."
Derived from "al-ilah."
Used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well.

Theological Differences

Nature of God

Yahweh: Seen as loving, consistent, and personal. Desires a relationship with believers, calling them His children.
Allah: Viewed as more powerful and remote. Emphasizes submission and obedience, with followers seen as servants.

Attributes

Yahweh: Cannot commit evil or lie; His words are eternal and unchanging.
Allah: Described in the Quran as capable of changing His revelations, which some interpret as inconsistency.

Relationship with Followers

Yahweh: Invites believers into a familial relationship. Emphasizes love and grace.
Allah: Requires submission and devotion. Affection is conditional upon being a devout follower.

Concept of Salvation

Yahweh: Jewish salvation theology primarily focuses on collective and national salvation rather than individual salvation, emphasizing God's relationship with the people of Israel. It involves concepts like repentance, good deeds, and devotion, with the belief that salvation comes from God and is tied to the destiny of the Jewish nation. Christian salvation theology refers to the study of how salvation is understood within Christianity, focusing on the deliverance from sin and its consequences through faith in Jesus Christ. It encompasses various beliefs about justification, atonement, and the nature of salvation, which can differ among Christian denominations.
Allah: In Islam, salvation is achieved through total submission to Allah and adherence to His commandments, emphasizing good deeds and repentance rather than the need for atonement for sins. Muslims believe that each individual is born innocent and can attain salvation by following the teachings of Islam and seeking Allah's mercy.

These differences highlight the distinct theological perspectives and relationships each religion has with God.

I also asked my AI Search Assistant, "Does Islam follow the Ten Commandments?”, to which it responded:

Islam does not follow the Ten Commandments as they are presented in the Bible, but it acknowledges their essence and spirit within its own teachings. The Quran contains similar principles that align with the moral and ethical guidelines found in the Ten Commandments, although there are differences in specifics.

Understanding the Ten Commandments in Islam

Acceptance of the Commandments

Islam does not accept the Ten Commandments as they are presented in the Bible. The religion teaches that the Bible has been corrupted over time, which affects the authority of its texts, including the commandments. However, Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets, indicating that the essence of the commandments is recognized.

The Quran's Perspective

The Quran refers to the commandments in two passages. It describes how Moses received divine tablets but does not specify their content. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of worshiping one God and ethical behavior towards others.

Similarities and Differences

While the Ten Commandments are not directly adopted in Islam, there are parallels in moral teachings. Below is a comparison of some commandments from the Bible and their corresponding principles in the Quran:

Biblical Commandment	Quranic Principle
You shall have no other gods before Me	Worship none but God (Quran 17:23)
You shall not make for yourself a carved image	Keep away from idols (Quran 22:30)
You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain	Do not misuse God's name (Quran 2:224)
Honor your father and mother	Be good to parents (Quran 17:23)
You shall not kill	Do not kill unjustly (Quran 5:32)

Conclusion

In summary, while Islam does not follow the Ten Commandments as outlined in the Bible, it incorporates similar ethical teachings within its own framework, emphasizing monotheism and moral conduct.

02/05/26 The State of Nations

While browsing the web about the issues of Islam I discussed in my previous three Chirps, I came across some interesting information best shown in these maps:

One of the biggest challenges in studies and statistics is telling the difference between Correlation and Causality. Correlation happens when two or more statistics are compared and seem to change together, especially when shown on a graph. Causality occurs when two or more statistics are related, and a change in one or more of them directly impacts the others. As statisticians are taught, “Correlation does not imply Causation.” Therefore, while many statistics may appear correlated, they often lack a causal connection.

Which brings us back to these maps. There appears to be an inverse correlation between Civilizations, Government, Freedom, Standard of Living, and Religion. The more Western Civilization, Democratic Government, and Freedom a people have, the higher their standard of living. There also appears to be a loose correlation between Religion and Civilizations, Government, Freedom, and the Standard of Living. The question is whether Religion is a correlation or a causation.

While there may be other reasons for this correlation/causation, a good study needs to examine what part religion plays in Democracy, Freedom, and the Standard of Living.

02/04/26 Subjugation and Deception

As I have pointed out in my Chirp on “02/03/26 The Lack of Miraculous Evidence”, the Qur'an’s language is complex to translate and understand, even by those who are bilingual in Arabic and another language. Given this, there are two passages in the Qur'an (loosely and succinctly translated) that say believers must make war against unbelievers and subjugate them (Qur'an 9:29), and that in pursuit of this goal, one may deceive those unbelievers regarding one’s true intentions, beliefs, and goals (Qur'an 3:28).

This stands in stark contrast to the Judeo-Christian Bible's Sixth and Ninth Commandments, which God gave to Moses.

The Sixth of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 states: “You shall not murder.” This means that because God has shown us His perfect love and wants us to share that love with others, we will not desire to take any life He has created. Moreover, we will aim to promote life and assist those lacking food, medicine, and basic needs.

Because we are in a loving relationship with God, our words will also be free from anger and violence. During His time on earth, Jesus explained that murder includes even getting angry with your brother (Matthew 5:22). Being loving followers of God means our words and attitudes toward others will be gentle and kind, always showing God’s love.

The Ninth of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:15 states: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” This means that honesty in speech is just as vital as honesty in actions. In our relationship with God, we should tell the truth about our neighbors, acquaintances, friends, and even about people we don’t know. We will avoid deceiving others or exaggerating the truth.

As followers of God, we should also avoid any attempts to harm others' reputation. Even withholding the truth can harm someone’s good name and leave them vulnerable to gossip and hearsay. Speaking honestly and kindly to each other can only help strengthen our daily relationships and our connection with God.

It's therefore hard to believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, as these two passages contradict two of God's Ten Commandments, and it seems unlikely that God would contradict his own commandments. However, based on these Qur'an passages, it's easy to believe that Islam seeks to conquer and subjugate the world, using any means necessary, including deception and lying to non-believers.

The history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament includes instances of war. However, these wars were mainly fought to defend the Jewish people from neighboring threats or against the evil and wicked injustices involved in worshiping false gods like Molech. The Christian religion also has a history of war, especially the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War. Nonetheless, this type of religious warfare eventually declined and shifted toward a focus on peace. Sadly, the history of Islam has often involved aggression, with people being conquered, subjugated, and forced to convert. In contrast, both Jewish and Christian religions rarely practiced forced conversion (except in some historical cases, when some Jews were forced to convert to Christianity), as both religions believed that true belief required accepting God in your heart.

Therefore, we all need to be cautious when interacting with Islam and Islamic individuals, as their religion is not one of peace but aims for global dominance through deceit and violence.

02/03/26 The Lack of Miraculous Evidence

Islam has a major problem when it comes to a lack of miraculous evidence. William Paley was an 18th-century English Anglican clergyman, philosopher, and utilitarian, whose views on the rise of Islam and its current state are in stark contrast to those on the rise of Christianity.

One of his thoughts was that the Old Testament has many miracles of God and his prophets, while the New Testament has many miracles of Jesus and his Apostles. The Qur’an, however, contains no miracles attributed to Muhammad or his disciples. Another of his thoughts was that Christianity spread by Miracles, while Islam spread by the Sword. The YouTube video, Muhammad's Lack of Miracles: A BIG Problem for Islam, explains this in more detail.

In this YouTube video, the narrator also points out that Ali Dashy, a deceased scholar from Iran, has written:

“. . . a book in 1973 called 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, where he basically says the Qur’an isn't all that amazing in terms of language. He writes that the Quran contains sentences that are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; logically and ungrammatically applied pronouns, which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhyme passages are often remote from the subjects.”

The narrator also points out that:

“These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qur’an’s eloquence. Literary excellence at best is way too subjective of a claim to Miracles, but also pointed out this one part in the Quran in the 54th chapter that might be talking about a visible Miracle. It says the hour has drawn near, and the moon was split in two. Whenever they see a sign they turn away saying “same old magic”, but this is where things get a little bit tricky. While many Muslims think this is talking about an actual literal Miracle where the Moon is split in half, others think that it's more about an eschatological sign, or others think that it's just a weird thing that happened to the Moon that Muhammad used to make his point. Since it's not super clear what this passage means, others think that maybe Muhammad was using this weird Moon thing to back up his message, even if it wasn't a straight-up miracle, and get this, there just aren't any reliable contemporary witnesses or details that really back up this whole Moon splitting thing.”

The Qur’an claims that miracles are unnecessary as proof of divine origin. However, this conflicts with the truths in the Old and New Testaments, which show that miracles are essential evidence of God's and Jesus’s divinity, as well as the truths of their scriptures.

In the Old Testament, God used the sword to defeat the enemies of the Jews, but He did not use the sword to convert unbelievers to His worship. In fact, the Jewish religion only allows conversion by individuals who freely choose to adopt the Jewish faith and join the Jewish ethnoreligious community. For Christians, conversion happens when a person accepts the divinity of Christ. In Islam, many of their converts came through force, and those who did not convert often faced death or subjugation to Islam.

The God of the Old Testament was strict in demanding the Jewish people's obedience to his commandments and doctrines, while the God of the New Testament was more loving and forgiving of transgressions, and the God of the Qur’an is much more like the God of the Old Testament. The question is, thus, why would God return to his old ways in the Qur’an when he set a different course in the New Testament?

Therefore, it is appropriate to question the Qur'an about whether it is the word of God. Such questioning should be respectful and not be dismissed as Islamophobia. Accurate facts, historical truths, and sound reasoning are all valid when questioning the Qur'an. Not questioning is to blindly follow a path that could distort the true will of God and His directives for humankind.

02/02/26 Unequal and Unfair Justice

The idea of justice occupies center stage in both ethics and legal and political philosophy. We apply it to individual actions, laws, and public policies, and we think that, in each case, if they are unjust, this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them.

Western law was founded on Judeo-Christian values of equal and fair justice, and rooted in the concepts of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Western Principles of Justice primarily revolve around the idea of fairness and moral rightness, often defined as giving each person what they deserve. Key theories include Distributive Justice, Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice, and Procedural Justice.

Sharia law is a system of Islamic law derived from the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, guiding Muslims in various aspects of life, including personal conduct, family matters, and ethical behavior. It encompasses both religious obligations and legal principles, and its interpretation can vary widely across different cultures and communities.

Sharia law can lead to violations of Natural Rights, especially personal freedoms, such as restricting women's rights, imposing severe penalties for moral violations, and criminalizing blasphemy and apostasy. In certain areas, authorities or community members enforce these laws in ways that infringe upon Liberties and Freedoms and violate the due-process rights of those accused. Common abuses of Sharia Law that clash with Western laws include violations of free speech, press freedom, freedom of association, religious liberty, gender equality, and instances of community vigilantism.

Therefore, Sharia law conflicts with Western legal principles, and any effort to implement it within Western societies undermines their ideals of Western law. Consequently, no acceptance of Sharia law should be allowed in Western societies, as it erodes the moral and ethical foundations of Western civilization.

02/01/25 The Unknowns of Science

Modern science has many unknowns, some of which are significant. The most important of these unknowns involve Time, Space, Matter, Life, and Consciousness. New scientific discoveries happen frequently, challenging what we understand or revealing what we don't know. This month's Book It selection is by Lawrence Krauss, a Canadian-American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has taught at Arizona State University (ASU), Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. In this book, he takes us on a joyride to the scientific frontier—the threshold of the unknown. A thrilling ride that should be taken by anyone who is intrigued by the scientific unknowns, and it is this month’s Book It selection..

The Edge of Knowledge: Unsolved Mysteries of the Cosmosby Lawrence M. Krauss
“Lawrence Krauss explores the greatest unanswered questions at the forefront of science today, and likely for the coming century and beyond.

Internationally known theoretical physicist and bestselling author Lawrence Krauss explores science’s greatest unanswered questions.

Three of the most important words in science are “I don't know.” Not knowing implies a Universe of opportunities—the possibility of discovery and surprise. Our understanding of science has advanced immeasurably over the last five hundred years, yet many fundamental mysteries of existence persist: How did our Universe begin? How big is the Universe? Is time travel possible? What’s at the center of a black hole? How did life on Earth arise? Are we alone? What is consciousness, and can we create it?

These mysteries define the scientific forefront—the threshold of the unknown. To explore that threshold is to gain a deeper understanding of just how far science has progressed. Covering time, space, matter, life, and consciousness, Krauss introduces readers to topics that will shape the state of science for the next century, providing us all passport to our own journeys of exploration and discovery.”

01/31/26 A Repeat of History

In November of 1860, Abraham Lincoln had just won the presidency as the Republican candidate, and he was despised by the Democrats as a threat to their political power, as well as his policies that were contrary to those of the Democrats, especially regarding slavery. The Democrats made all sorts of accusations and allegations about the character of Lincoln and his supporters, as well as presuppositions of how he would govern. The Democrats, including Senators, Congressmen, Governors, legislators, and mayors, along with angry mobs, defied Federal authority and eventually seceded from the Union.

Between the fall of Fort Sumter on April 13, 1861, and July of that same year, President Lincoln took a number of actions in response to secession without Congressional approval. In President Lincoln’s Special Message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln asks Congress to validate his actions by authorizing them after the fact. This message also marks Lincoln's first full explanation of the purpose of the war.

In this Special Message to Congress, there is a paragraph that is apropos to what is occurring in today’s America:

“And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?”

Alas, these questions are again facing America. In 2024, we had a democratic election in which the people elected Republican leadership in the Presidency and both Chambers of Congress, in which one of the election promises was to enforce Federal immigration law and to deport illegal immigrants, starting with the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants. To the Democrat Party Leaders, including Senators, Congressmen, Governors, legislators, and mayors, along with Progressives/Leftists angry mobs, who are defying Federal authorities in the enforcement of immigration laws, and in your establishment of sanctuary cities and States, you have become domestic foes of our Constitutional Democratic-Republic in your words and deeds. Domestic foes in your ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in your defiance, as I have Chirped on “ 01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause”, and domestic foes in supporting and insurrection, as I have Chirped on “01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress”.

Therefore, it is time to put an end to this defiance and insurrection wherever they occur, to arrest and prosecute those involved in criminal acts related to this defiance, and to remove from office any politicians who encouraged this defiance and insurrection. This must be done to uphold the constitutional democratic principles of America, and for the benefit of all law-abiding Americans.

01/29/26 Oh, Canada - II

In my article, “Oh, Canada”, I examine the issues and concerns surrounding Canada's potential admission into the United States. While this possibility seems highly unlikely, there is a shared national security concern for both Canada and the United States that must be addressed — the same issue I discussed in my article, “Is It Time to Purchase Greenland?” Canada has three territories — Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories — all of which are primarily located within the Arctic Circle and are mostly inhabited by indigenous peoples who live under different political governance from the other Canadian provinces.

My new article, “Oh, Canada - II”, examines these territories within the context of shared national security concerns of both Canada and the United States. These security concerns are vital for military defense and surveillance, which are necessary for the safety and security of all North Americans, especially as global powers like Russia and China increase their presence in the region.

01/27/26 A New Diplomatic Style

Many commentators have noted that President Trump has a unique diplomatic style. Crudely put, he smacks his opponent on the head with a two-by-four, exclaims that he wants to negotiate, demands the ultimate, and then negotiates down to what is acceptable to him. During this charade, his opponents squirm, carp, gripe, and bemoan, then negotiate him down to where he wants to be, all the while thinking that they have gotten him to reduce his original demands.

This is in sharp contrast to previous diplomatic efforts by other Presidents, where genteel speech and pompous pronouncements ruled the roost, and god forbid that anyone says anything that ruffles any feathers. In effect, the previous diplomatic style was premised on Wokeness, and America usually ended on the short end of the stick, paying the price in treasure and stature. It has also resulted in global unrest, conflicts, and economic hardships.

This traditional diplomatic style no longer applies under President Trump. Trump’s approach to diplomacy is one where America takes the lead and encourages others to join in building a better future. Therefore, America First means more than just America; it is America guiding the world toward a better place. A better place rooted in genuine peace, security, and prosperity, along with recognizing the Natural Rights of all people and valuing Western Civilization's core principles, as I discussed in my article on "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and my collection of Chirps on "Western Civilization".

While this may be an insult to the globalists of the world, the globalists have made the world a worse place. It is time to end the globalists' influence on world affairs and truly make the world better for everyone. And this can only be achieved by following President Trump’s America First lead.

01/25/26 Simple and Complex Life’s Creation

Much of my scientific knowledge is in the physical sciences, but I also have some understanding of other sciences. All of this knowledge has been acquired through autodidacticism, although I have read and researched extensively to gain it. I also have a deep curiosity about the major unanswered questions in science. In the life sciences, I am interested in the origin of how life was created and evolved, which I have discussed in my articles on The Rise of Intelligent Life and Intelligent Life in the Universe. My new article, Simple and Complex Life’s Creation addresses the mechanism of how simple life forms were created and then evolved into complex life, through the scientific theories of Abiogenesis and the Cambrian Explosion.

01/24/26 Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence

In the rush to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI), it’s important to remember that as AI becomes more widespread and influential, its results can sometimes be wrong, incomplete, or misleading. The key to effective AI use is to rely on your Human Intelligence (HI) to evaluate its outputs. AI is good at analyzing known information, but it can be misled by the unknown or incomplete data, leading to inaccurate results. Also, it’s unlikely that AI can question its own outcomes, since its results are the final product of its calculations.

The development of artificial intelligence has brought significant benefits to humanity. Problems and their solutions have been achieved through the use of artificial intelligence. But is artificial intelligence truly intelligent, or is it simply an extension of human intelligence that allows for storing vast amounts of facts, making connections among those facts, and quickly retrieving and logically processing this information, known as automated reasoning? The results of this automated reasoning are then used by human intelligence to enhance human capabilities.

In my science article, Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?, I explore the limitations of AI. The ability to be curious, inquisitive, interested, ask questions, search, create, gain insights, and inquire is all part of being intelligent. The pursuit of answers to questions about good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, creative and destructive, reasonable and emotional, love and hate, wisdom and folly, and beauty and ugliness is also part of being intelligent. The quest for knowledge about who, what, when, where, why, and how of our universe is another aspect of intelligence. All these fundamental questions have been at the heart of human curiosity since the beginning of mankind.

Can Artificial Intelligence even understand and ask these questions, let alone find the answers? Could Artificial Intelligence ever create beautiful works of painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, or poetry? Can Artificial Intelligence make startling new discoveries in science and technology, or just make innovative improvements in current science and technology? The answer is probably not, as these questions go beyond AI's capabilities. When AI attempts to do such things, the results are often a pale imitation of HI capabilities.

Therefore, AI should only be used alongside HI, and HI should always question AI's results. HI can also be wrong, but combining HI and AI should yield better, more reliable information for making (mostly) human decisions. Thus, always remember to view AI and HI as a collaborative effort, as the following illustration demonstrates.

01/21/26 A Superficial Appearance

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right."
- Thomas Paine

For many decades, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have promoted the idea that their stance on the issues and concerns facing America and Americans is the only moral and correct one. Any deviation from their approach was seen as wrong and to be ignored, and those who disagreed with their positions were considered lacking intelligence, foolish, or even repugnant. This has led to Divisiveness in America and the pitting of groups of Americans against each other through the use of Identity Politics.

From foreign policy and national security, to governmental limitations, economic and social policy, and even Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as Constitutional interpretation (as I have written in my article on A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution), only their approach is the right approach. There is no problem with believing your approach is the right one and advocating for it, but there is a big problem when you advocate that any other approach is wrong, harmful, and not to be considered, and those who oppose you should be demonized, denigrated, and disparaged. Such an attitude cuts off discussion, dialogue, and debate, which are essential to determine a proper course of action, and are dangerous to A Civil Society and to our American Ideals and Ideas. In this attitude, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have forgotten some wise words of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin: "Doubt a little of your own infallibility."

This is because Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that their knowledge, intelligence, education, and self-perceived moral superiority make them inherently correct. As a result, they think their policies are what is best for America and Americans, and that all other viewpoints are inherently incorrect or improper. Therefore, Progressives, Leftists, and Democrat Party politicians only consider the interests of their identity groups and themselves, rather than considering other viewpoints of what may be truly best for all Americans.

In their approach, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders aim to maintain a superficial appearance of always being right, which causes their supporters and the uninformed not to question whether they might be wrong. Such a superficial appearance with unquestioning support allows for a deceptively easy or appealing course of action that leads one astray or into error. And America has been led astray and into error by the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders.

This is one of the reasons why the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders despise President Trump. He is opening the eyes of the uninformed to the wrongheadedness of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and eroding their support and, therefore, their political power. Their response is not to make a course correction but to engage in Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and reflexively oppose anything President Trump says or does. This TDS exposes them for what they are—more interested in preserving and expanding their political power than doing what is best for America and all Americans.

01/19/26 They Are AWFUL

In his American Thinker article, “The AWFL peril driving America into chaos”, Kevin Finn clearly defines the term AWFL (which has since expanded to AWFUL, or Affluent White Female Urban Liberal).

“In the grand theater of American decline, there are few characters so destructive as the Affluent White Female Liberal (AWFL), a suburban archetype with a Prius, a “Coexist” bumper sticker, and an unquenchable thirst for moral superiority. From the San Francisco Bay Area to the halls of Democrat power, these women, often secular, privileged, and preachy, are kicking out the pillars upholding our society. Their hyper-liberal zeal promotes family breakdown, political alienation, cultural Marxism, and racial division, all while patting themselves on the back for “saving” the world. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous — the irony that the very group claiming to champion progress is driving America toward chaos.”

Of course, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are condemning this acronym as a derogatory label, while in the next breath, they hurl invectives at those they oppose. But hypocrisy and conflicting points of view are traits of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders.

They were previously called a Karen, a slang term used pejoratively to describe a middle-class woman perceived as entitled or overly demanding. The term is often depicted in memes featuring middle-class white women who leverage their whiteness and social privilege to get what they want. However, AWFUL’s include women of all ages who exhibit awful conduct.

While many have tried to psychoanalyze these AWFUL’s, no one can truly know what is in their hearts and minds, but everyone can judge their behavior. And their behavior is awful. They believe they can say or do whatever they want without considering the consequences of their words and deeds. They can disrupt the normal activities of others by blocking roads and sidewalks; they can restrict access to public places at their discretion; they can aggressively (and sometimes violently) confront anyone who disagrees with them; they can vandalize or destroy the property of those they see as opponents; they can interfere with legitimate law enforcement; and they believe they are above legal consequences for their actions. They are awful.

They have become a mobocracy as I discussed in my Chirp on “01/16/26 Our Democracy Mobocracy”, and they are engaged in an insurrection as I examined in my Chirp on “01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress”. And their tactics are the tactics of terrorism. They use fear and fury, as well as violence, to achieve their goals. No Rationality or Reasoning discussions, dialogue, or debate is possible with them, as, in their self-righteousness, they believe they can do no wrong. They don't want to debate the opposition; they want to berate them through the tactics of Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage.

The AWFUL’s are a threat to A Civil Society and to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Consequently, they are, as Mr. Finn states, “driving America toward chaos”. A chaos that will engulf all of America and have negative repercussions for all Americans.

01/18/26 Making Deals With God or the Devil

I don’t believe in making deals with God or the Devil. When someone tries to make a deal with God, they lift themselves to God's level, and when they try to make a deal with the Devil, they lower themselves to the Devil's level.

A person should only commit to using the words and wisdom of God when making a decision. They also need to be careful to ensure they are not falling prey to the duplicitousness and evil influence of the Devil. When making a decision, you should always remember the Bible verse Luke 6:31, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”, and apply it. If you make a good decision, you can find comfort in knowing it was the right choice, even if it doesn't turn out well for you. If you make a bad decision, you'll face the consequences and carry that burden for the rest of your life.

When considering being judged in the hereafter for your deeds, it is important to remember the Bible verse Psalm 19:9, “The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.” If you have made a poor decision based on your understanding of God's words and wisdom, the Lord can forgive you, depending on the severity of the consequences of your decision. However, if you have made a bad decision by falling prey to the words and evil influence of the Devil, the Lord will punish you appropriately for those decisions.

Therefore, for the benefit of your earthly life and the hereafter, always make decisions based on your understanding of God's words and wisdom, and continuously strive to deepen your understanding of God's words and wisdom.

01/17/26 The Concepts of Justice

In its broadest sense, Justice is the treatment of individuals fairly. The idea of justice occupies center stage both in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. We apply it to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance (and it is sometimes considered the most important of the four).

I have recently updated my article on an “Overview of Justice Principles” to be more comprehensive on the concepts of justice, as it is important to keep these concepts in mind when considering justice. Otherwise, you might arrive at an incorrect conclusion if justice has been served for acts of injustice. And always remember that the greatest injustice is the violation of a person's Natural Rights and the improper restriction of their Liberties and Freedoms.

01/16/26 Our Democracy Mobocracy

The defiant Democrat Party Leaders in recent years have often proclaimed that they are trying to save “Our Democracy,” as I have chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy". They are once again claiming this in the current insurrection they are staging, as I have chirped on “01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress". But their actions are not saving democracy; instead, they are establishing a mobocracy. This is clearly shown by the definitions of democracy and mobocracy.

democracy - A political system ruled by the people through majority rule.
mobocracy - A political system in which a mob is the source of control.

We had a democratic election in 2024, in which President Trump and a Republican Congress were elected through a democratic process. They campaigned on a platform that included promises to deport illegal immigrants, starting with criminal illegal immigrants. When President Trump and his Administration began to faithfully enforce immigration laws (as is his duty and something that President Biden and his Administration did not do), the Democrat Party leaders began their insurgency.

The Democrat Party leaders began to criticize President Trump’s actions against illegal immigrants, then quickly resorted to invectives against law enforcement officers who were enforcing the law. This drove their supporters into a frenzy, and eventually into a rage, which led to an insurgency. An insurgency that could replace our democracy with a mobocracy. Therefore, it is the Democrat Party leaders who pose a threat to our democracy.

We should all remember that we live in a democracy and under the rule of law. Therefore, to safeguard our democracy, it is essential to suppress this insurgency by any lawful means necessary. This includes invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the arrests and prosecutions of those involved, such as the mob members, politicians, political officials and appointees, and judges who supported this insurgency. Otherwise, our democracy risks falling into a mobocracy, and the rule of law will become the rule of the mob.

01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to nationally deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the U.S. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's deploying the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States. The Insurrection Act of 1807 has been invoked 30 times (List of invocations of the Insurrection Act) in its history, most notably by Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1861, in response to the Secession of the southern states.

Currently, the situation regarding the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants resembles what occurred before the Civil War, with mobs, cities, and states challenging and interfering with Federal authority. As I mentioned on “01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause”, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states that the Constitution, federal laws enacted under it, and treaties made under U.S. authority are the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus override any conflicting state or local laws. It also confirms that state and local courts are bound by the Constitution, and state constitutions and local ordinances are subordinate to the supreme law of the Constitution.

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “Going Full Spartacus: Democrats Hold Chest-Thumping Press Conferences to Fuel Anti-ICE Rage”:

“From Portland to Philadelphia, Democratic leaders are engaging in performative press conferences to try to outdo each other in declaring the shooting of Renee Good “murder” or declaring a “war” with the federal government over the enforcement of immigration policies.”

Alas, the situation in Minnesota has escalated beyond a “war” of words; it has become active resistance by the mob against federal authorities, with the support of State and local officials. In fact, State and local officials are making slanderous and denigrating statements against Federal officials, inciting the crowd to rage, and refusing to provide support from State and local law enforcement for Federal law enforcement actions. Through these speeches and actions, they are backing an insurrection against the Federal government.

Accordingly, it is time for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 against Minnesota, for the reasons that I have Chirped on "10/07/25 A State of Insurrection". President Trump must declare martial law in Minnesota, nationalize their National Guard to suppress the insurrection, arrest those involved, and suspend the Writ of Habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, of the Constitution states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Once this insurrection is subdued and martial law is lifted, appropriate legal actions should be taken against those individuals, as well as state and local officials who supported the insurrection, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This should serve as a warning to other State and local officials: active resistance to lawful Federal authority will not be tolerated. Tolerating and/or supporting an insurrection is a violation of the principles of the Constitution and promotes chaos. This chaos will spread across America and threaten our American Ideals and Ideas, and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Therefore, it is time to put an end to this insurrection and chaos in Minnesota, for the good of America and all Americans.

01/14/26 The Cure for Bonhoeffer Stupidity

Stupidity is immune to logic, blind to reason, and deaf to truth. One is not born stupid; one becomes stupid. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian, proposed that stupidity is more dangerous than evil. He argued that while evil can be identified and fought against, stupidity is harder to combat because it often goes hand-in-hand with power and can be manipulated by those with malicious intent. He believed that while evil can be identified and opposed, stupidity is insidious and often goes unchallenged. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits that stupidity is more dangerous than evil because it is often blind and self-satisfied, making it resistant to reason and facts. He argued that when individuals surrender their critical thinking to conform to groups or ideologies, they become susceptible to manipulation and can unwittingly support harmful actions.

I have examined Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity in my collected Chirps on "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity". What I have not examined is what we can do about Bonhoeffer stupidity. If Bonhoeffer stupidity is such a dangerous enemy, is there a cure? Bonhoeffer believed there was, but it demanded a radical commitment. It involved cultivating and fiercely protecting one's inner independence. This requires a willingness of the individual to:

Question Everything: Challenge your own assumptions and beliefs.
Seek the Truth: Actively seek out diverse perspectives and evidence.
Use Your Intelligence: Feeling something is proper and correct leads you astray. Always think through an issue, based on facts and truths, before reaching a conclusion.
Embrace Dialogue: Engage in respectful debate, even with those who disagree.

This is a lifelong battle, a constant exercise in critical thinking, and an unwavering commitment to intellectual honesty. However, it is the only way to resist the seductive allure of Bonhoeffer stupidity and the potential for great harm that Bonhoeffer stupidity inflicts upon yourself and America.

However, when Bonhoeffer stupidity affects many people in society, society must take steps to reduce and eliminate this stupidity. In America today, we have seen the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders drift—and now quickly fall—into Bonhoeffer stupidity. Therefore, we must take societal action to prevent the dangers and possible evils that could occur if they succeed in gaining governmental power. Some of these societal actions include:

Protect Independent Media: Modern Journalism has become aligned in its reporting with the advocacy of groups on the Progressive/Leftist political spectrum, often interviewing and reporting on individuals' or groups' Bonhoeffer stupid words and actions without challenge. We must support journalism that prioritizes investigation and nuance over clickbait and sensationalism, and prevent the Mainstream Media from dominating the news.
Reform Education: Modern K-12 and college/university education has shifted from being about learning to being about indoctrination, as I have written in my article on Indoctrination versus Education. We should withhold funding and support from K-12 schools, colleges, and universities that do not promote critical thinking and allow diverse opinions on their campuses. Until they reform themselves, they will continue to produce Bonhoeffer stupid young people.
Fight Nonsense: Concepts like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT), Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG), and Intersectionality, are a cancer that spreads Bonhoeffer stupidity. The notion of Wokeness and the confusion between Equity and Equality lead to stupidity, as this idea and confusion originate from Bonhoeffer stupidity.
Speak Truth to Power: Be confident in your facts and truths, and speak out whenever you encounter Bonhoeffer stupidity. Don't be intimidated into silence by Bonhoeffer stupid people (as they are wont to do), since many people interpret silence as agreement.
Mock the Leadership: Ridicule and scorn those leaders who would lead others into Bonhoeffer-like stupidity. Expose their Bonhoeffer-inspired foolishness and the damage they could do to our American values and principles if they gain political power.
Beware of Experts: Since many experts come from colleges and universities, where they have been indoctrinated with Bonhoeffer stupidity, their expertise is questionable and likely influenced by Bonhoeffer stupidity. Therefore, we should all be cautious of expert opinions, as they may be corrupted by Bonhoeffer stupidity, along with other issues I discussed in my article on Expert Opinions.
Avoid the Cultural Elitists: Many people in the Mainstream Cultural Media reflexively spout Bonhoeffer nonsense without thinking through the consequences or by trying to gain social acceptance in their circles. Avoid these individuals in your activities; don't watch or listen to anything they are involved in, ignore their sales pitches for products or services, and be cautious of their appeals for charitable donations, as these organizations often engage in Bonhoeffer stupidity words and actions.
Encourage Laughter: Those affected by Bonhoeffer stupidity often lack a sense of humor or understanding of satire. Use and promote humor and satire, including reductio ad absurdum, to highlight the foolishness and flaws in their Bonhoeffer stupidity.

Many afflicted with Bonhoeffer stupidity use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to attract others into their stupidity and achieve their goals. Beware of anyone who utilizes these techniques, as they are often caught in Bonhoeffer stupidity.

While some of these societal actions go against my Pearls of Wisdom of Always Be Polite and Respectful, the threat posed by Bonhoeffer's foolish individuals is much worse than breaking this rule. Moreover, treating Bonhoeffer's foolish individuals with respect elevates them in their own eyes as responsible people with valid viewpoints.

Given that Bonhoeffer's stupidity has been occurring and growing in America for many years, if not decades, and its percentage of the American public is significant, these actions may take many years to end Bonhoeffer's stupidity in America. However, if we do not end Bonhoeffer stupidity then America will be torn asunder, and we will lose our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

01/13/26 Fighting Fire with Fire

Gerrymandering in America is a long-standing tradition, as I have mentioned in my Chirp on "08/09/25 Gerrymandering in Modern America". Much of modern gerrymandering has favored the Democratic Party at the expense of the Republican Party. This must stop, as it distorts the will of the American people. Recently, efforts have been made to address this issue, with President Trump calling for Republican-controlled states to gerrymander their districts in favor of the Republican Party. Some Democrat-controlled states have also expressed interest in gerrymandering their districts, but unfortunately for them, their states are already gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats, and there is little room for further gerrymandering in these states.

There seems to be no fair way to address gerrymandering, mainly because of the stubbornness of Democratic politicians in power in the state legislatures, and legal solutions seem ineffective since the Constitution grants state legislatures the authority to draw Congressional districts. Therefore, all Republicans and Trump supporters must vote for Republican candidates in the upcoming 2026 mid-term elections to prevent the Democrats from gaining a majority in either the Senat or the House of Representatives. Otherwise, we can expect obstructionism or gridlock on President Trump’s policies, and even impeachment efforts, which would harm America and its people.

I prefer a fairer process for Congressional redistricting in all States, but since that doesn't seem possible, the Republicans must fight fire with fire against the Democrats' gerrymandering of their States. I, therefore, would advise all Republican State legislatures to gerrymander their States in favor of the Republicans.

01/12/26 The Beloved Europe

As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article, “Cry the Beloved Europe?”, “Nothing bothers the European elite as much as American conservatives praising the European foundations of their shared, but threatened, Western civilization. Europeans especially resent having their social-welfare state system critiqued by upstart, crass Americans.” Yet such criticisms are well-founded, as we have seen Europe decline in its culture and values, and deny its history and its contributions to civilization.

As I wrote in my article, “Modern Western Civilization,” it originated from the Judeo-Christian values of the Dark and Middle Ages. It began to develop into a distinct Western culture during the Renaissance in Italy. It then spread to France, Holland, and, finally, Great Britain, where it migrated to the United States and then expanded to the rest of the world along this path. During this period of Western cultural development, the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe and America. These themes are further discussed in my collection of Chirps on "Western Civilization," where I emphasize the importance of Western Civilization in human progress.

Mr. Hanson ends his article by stating:

“Europe is only growing more socialist, censorious, globalist, pacifist, multicultural, atheistic, and green.

In contrast, the U.S. is undergoing a counter-revolution toward smaller government, fewer regulations, more fossil fuels, an expanding military, less DEI and woke, more secure borders, legal-only immigration, and renewed faith.”

I would urge all Europeans to become more self-aware, more informed about their history, culture, and values, and to reclaim their proud heritage that has greatly contributed to human progress. Then, they should elect politicians who will steer their course so that they can continue to contribute to civilization. Otherwise, they risk fading into the dustpan of history and becoming inconsequential.

01/11/26 An Anger of Their Own Making

Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media are up to their usual shenanigans in regard to the speech and actions of protesters of illegal immigration enforcement. They whip the dissenters into a frenzy, encourage verbal and physical abuses, and then decry the results of their efforts. They also give the impression that this anger is supported by a substantial percentage of the American people. While a large number of the American people do not support deportations, a significant percentage of the American people support deportation, especially for criminal illegal immigrants.

This anger and the resulting consequences are of their own deliberate making for political posturing purposes. This anger was never demonstrated by them for the victims and families of those harmed or killed by illegal immigrant criminal activities, nor for the assassination of Charlie Kirk or the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump. Thus, their anger is only directed at their opponents.

This anger and its resulting consequences are underscored by the tragic death of a Minnesota woman who chose to intervene during ICE operations in Minneapolis. Her deliberate actions put herself, her wife, and ICE agents at risk. When the danger escalated to her driving her car toward an ICE agent, the agent fired to prevent being rammed or dragged, resulting in her death. Videos of the incident show what happened, but the Democrat Party leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media chose to obscure the facts and spread disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation about the incident to support their political agenda.

Such manufactured anger disrupts the peace, safety, and security of America and all Americans. And given that it is done solely for political posturing, it is despicable.

01/10/26 Democrat Party Racketeering

In the United States, Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit. The term "racketeering" was coined by the Employers' Association of Chicago in June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime in the Teamsters' Union. Specifically, a racket was defined by this coinage as being a service that calls forth its own demand, and would not have been needed otherwise. Narrowly, it means coercive or fraudulent business practices; broadly, it can mean any criminal scheme or operation with ongoing or reoccurring profit, as defined in the 1970 U.S. RICO Act, which aimed to curtail the power of the Mafia and other organized crime.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime by allowing for extended criminal penalties and civil actions against individuals involved in ongoing criminal enterprises. It requires proof of a pattern of racketeering activity, which involves committing at least two related criminal acts within a ten-year period. It aims to combat organized crime by allowing for the prosecution of individuals involved in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise.

Key Features of RICO

Predicate Offenses

RICO covers a wide range of criminal activities, known as predicate offenses. These include:

Murder
Kidnapping
Arson
Drug trafficking
Bribery
Mail and wire fraud

To be charged under RICO, a person must commit at least two predicate offenses within a ten-year period.

Criminal and Civil Penalties

Violations of RICO can lead to severe consequences:

Criminal Penalties: Up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals or $500,000 for organizations.
Civil Penalties: Victims can sue for treble damages (three times the amount of damages) and recover attorney fees.

Application of RICO

RICO is not limited to traditional organized crime groups like the Mafia. It has been used against various entities, including:

Street gangs
Corrupt public officials
Corporations involved in illegal activities

The law allows for both criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits, making it a powerful tool for law enforcement and private individuals seeking justice against organized crime.

Given what we know about the fraud and corruption that have occurred in Minnesota, as well as in other Democrat-controlled states and cities, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “01/07/26 Blue City-State Corruption”, the question is whether this systematic fraud and corruption meet the standards for a violation of the RICO Act. These violations could fall under the provisions for Bribery, Mail and Wire Fraud, and Corrupt Public Officials within the RICO Act. If so, then the Democrat Party in those states and cities needs to be prosecuted under the RICO Act, and if found guilty, the Democrat Party could be disbanded in those States and cities as a corrupt organization.

01/09/26 Progressive Self-Awareness, Cognitive Dissonance, Hypocrisy, and Stupidity

In the philosophy of self, self-awareness is the awareness and reflection of one's own personality or individuality, including traits, feelings, and behaviors. It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is being aware of one's body and environment, self-awareness is the recognition of that consciousness. Self-awareness is how an individual experiences and understands their own character, feelings, motives, and desires. Because the term is used in both philosophical and psychological contexts, researchers distinguish between different forms of self-awareness, ranging from awareness of consciousness itself to awareness of oneself within social situations.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly or subconsciously hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions. Being confronted by situations that create this dissonance or highlight these inconsistencies motivates change in their cognitions or actions to reduce this dissonance, maybe by changing a belief, by explaining something away, or by taking actions that reduce perceived inconsistency.

In moral psychology, hypocrisy is the failure to follow one's own expressed moral rules and principles. According to British political philosopher David Runciman, "other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold". American political journalist Michael Gerson says that political hypocrisy is "the conscious use of a mask to fool the public and gain political benefit".

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, proposed that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy than evil. He believed that while evil can be identified and opposed, stupidity is insidious and often goes unchallenged. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits that stupidity is more dangerous than evil because it is often blind and self-satisfied, making it resistant to reason and facts. He argued that when individuals surrender their critical thinking to conform to groups or ideologies, they become susceptible to manipulation and can unwittingly support harmful actions. In my collected Chirps on "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity", I examine his theory and its implications in today’s America.

In modern America, Progressives suffer from a lack of self-awareness, which leads to cognitive dissonance, which results in hypocrisy and stupidity. This lack of Self-Awareness, Cognitive Dissonance, Hypocrisy, and Stupidity makes Progressives and Leftists dangerous to A Civil Society and to our American Ideals and Ideas. They will say or do anything to advance their goals, regardless of the possible negative consequences of their words and deeds.

For the Progressive, the only thing that matters is achieving their goals. Anything that occurs in America is grist for their mill, and they believe that they can utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to advance their goals. They also believe, as I have often written:

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 America and Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftist and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them, rather than consider what is best for all
Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid, but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".
Progressives/Leftists are so intellectually bereft and emotionally unstable that they cannot intellectually rationalize or reason, nor calmly discuss their viewpoint.
In modern political discussions Progressives/Leftists don't want to debate the opposition; they want to berate the opposition.
Progressives/Leftists would have us focus on the words of politicians and activists, while ignoring the deeds of Progressives and Leftists. But deeds speak louder than words, and deeds impact all Americans. Or, as it has been said:

"Well done is better than well said."
- Benjamin Franklin

Alas, this is the sad state of affairs in today’s America. The Progressives and Leftists, and the Democrat Party Leaders who kowtow to them, are sowing chaos across the country. This kowtowing and chaos threaten our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and will eventually send America to the dustbin of history. It is time to stop these Progressives, Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders by voting them out of power. Or, as one of our greatest Presidents has said, our only options are:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."
- Abraham Lincoln

01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws. It provides that state and local courts are bound by, and state constitutions and local ordinances are subordinate to, the supreme law of the Constitution. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights, and in particular the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

In America today, many state and local officials, along with some judges and participants in violent mobs, have supported illegal immigration by hindering or obstructing federal law enforcement responsible for enforcing immigration laws. Everyone in America is free to speak out for or against immigration laws, but no one is allowed to hinder or physically obstruct law enforcement efforts. Therefore, those who hinder or obstruct law enforcement are in a state of rebellion (i.e., insurrection) against the lawful authority of the federal government, as I have Chirp on "10/07/25 A State of Insurrection". Those state and local officials who call for federal law enforcement officers to leave their cities and states and not enforce federal laws are not respecting the Supremacy Clause and, in fact, are calling for its negation. They are also acting as if their jurisdictions were their fiefdoms, as I have Chirped on "09/05/25 Fiefdoms".

We have also seen state and local politicians threatening federal law enforcement officials with future legal action by the executive branch if they are elected Mayor, Governor, or President. Such threats are unconstitutional if carried out, as the Supremacy Clause grants federal law enforcement officials immunity from legal actions when they are lawfully enforcing federal law. These threats also serve as a form of intimidation to discourage current federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs out of fear of future legal repercussions. While such intimidation might be illegal, prosecuting and obtaining a conviction are very difficult due to jury nullification, as I have Chirped on "06/12/24 Equal Justice for All?".

These negations of the Supremacy Clause and intimidation tactics are an attack on the Rule of Law, as they aim to interfere with or stop the enforcement of properly enacted laws. Anyone who undermines the Rule of Law does not deserve to hold any elected or appointed government position, as they are morally and ethically unfit to lead a people committed to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

01/07/26 Blue City-State Corruption

A city-state is an independent sovereign city that serves as the primary hub of political, economic, and cultural life within its contiguous territory. This concept stands in contrast to that of a regular state or country, which typically encompasses a capital city and additional urban centers, as well as the countryside. Throughout history, numerous city-states have emerged in various regions of the world, including prominent examples such as Rome, Carthage, Athens, and Sparta, as well as the Italian city-states that flourished during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, such as Florence, Venice, Genoa, and Milan.

Our Founding Fathers, through their study of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilizations, understood that city-states were unstable and often ended in civil strife or civil war, which led to their downfall. This occurred because the residents of these urban areas began ignoring the concerns of rural inhabitants, to the detriment of the rural communities. It also often led to the corruption of politicians seeking to gain and maintain political power in the cities, which frequently involved distributing favors and taxpayer money to city residents.

Such is the case in American history. With the rise of the Industrial Revolution and Mechanized Agriculture, many rural residents moved to cities in search of jobs. This caused an imbalance in voters within a state, shifting roughly equal numbers of rural and urban voters toward heavily urban voters. As a result, much of America was essentially transformed into city-states, where a major city in a state could almost control what happened across the entire state. It also led to significant political corruption among urban politicians, both Republican and Democrat, as they sought to gain and keep political power in these cities.

Today, in Modern America, due to large-scale legal and illegal immigration into Democrat-controlled urban centers from second and third-world countries, we have witnessed political corruption aimed at gaining favor with these immigrants. Much of this corruption involves a continuous flow of tax money sent to these immigrants to win their support and secure their votes. Not all of this is traditional corruption; some Democrats do not personally accept money, and some of this corruption is evil, as some of the funds flow to corrupt foreign governments or terrorists. Whether through welfare fraud, regular welfare, grants, payoffs, or other means, it remains corruption intended to buy votes for Democrat candidates. This is the main cause of the extensive corruption uncovered in blue cities and states.

This corruption is an attack on the American people because it wastes taxpayer money and undermines the election process through bribery. Therefore, everyone involved in this corruption, including both recipients and politicians, must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for fraud and bribery. For those claiming that the politicians may not have broken any laws, I would argue that they aided and abetted the violation of the law and should be prosecuted accordingly. Failure to act on this will encourage future corruption and bribery by politicians seeking electoral gains.

01/06/26 A Sovereign State and International Law

Many who criticize President Trump’s actions in Venezuela do so because they believe he has violated a Sovereign State and International Law. While this may be technically true, it misses the point. International Law was not designed to address situations where Sovereign States harm other States or their own people. Venezuela is one such Sovereign State that has done so for many decades.

In principle, a Sovereign State should not be permitted under International Law too:

Allow for the manufacturing and smuggling of illegal drugs into another country.
Support terrorist and criminal operations in another country.
Grossly violate the human and legal rights of anyone in their jurisdiction.

Let the record show that Venezuela has violated these principles through its drug operations within its country; exporting criminals, gangs, and other undesirable individuals to America, where they commit heinous crimes against others; and committing human rights violations against its own citizens, forcing millions to flee Venezuela.

The other criticism of President Trump’s actions in Venezuela is that he has acted outside of the bounds of his Presidential authorities with these actions against Venezuela. The noted Constitutional attorney Jonathan Turley wrote at length about the raid, and came to one conclusion about its legality [emphasis mine]:

“I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.”

Thus, we can conclude that these protests are more about their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) than about violations of the law. A TDS that takes precedence over the welfare of the American people and the proper principles that may occur within and between Sovereign States. A TDS that ignores the immorality and unethical conduct of countries if Trump takes action against them, and a TDS that opposes Trump when he supports other countries that oppose the immorality and unethical conduct of other nations. A TDS that needs to be ignored in future cases of Sovereign State and International Law issues and concerns.

Addendum - One can only hope that President Trump will send the military to the West Coast of America to free those people from the corrupt and despotic rule of the Democrat Party.

01/05/26 The Warmth of Collectivism

In Zohran Mamdani's New York City mayoral Inauguration Speech, he said, “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” This sentence directly conflicts with one of history’s most powerful statements from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Collectivism takes away your individual unalienable rights and replaces them with the collective's rights, and it rarely provides warmth.

The history of collectivism is characterized by eventual collapse into misery and shortages of basic necessities for those living under it, often leading to suffering, disease, starvation, and unnecessary deaths among the population. These collectivist systems are usually founded on noble ideals but are ultimately maintained by oppressive governments, and they eventually economically collapse, destroying societies whenever they are attempted.

Thus, Mamdani's “warmth of collectivism” will face the harsh realities of collectivism, and the people of New York City will suffer as a result. When this occurs, many will demand that New York State or the Federal government “rescue” New York City. In response, I would argue that neither the State nor the Federal government should intervene. While this may seem harsh, the American people need to understand the full scope of collectivism's problems through a real-world example. We must also remember that elections have consequences, and people need to face the results of their votes; otherwise, they won't consider the impact of their vote before casting it. The American voter should also learn from examples of collectivism in its various forms (Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, and others) and recognize that noble ideals often come with real-world consequences, most of which are detrimental.

After Mamdani fails in New York City, the city will likely recover, but only if voters learn their lesson and choose responsible leadership that rejects collectivism and embraces the proper scope of government that respects the Liberties and Freedoms of all individuals. And all of us should remember when collectivism proponents claim that the failure was a result of not doing it the right way:

"You cannot implement the wrong form of governance the right way. For if it is a form of governance that is wrong, it will always fail. While the goals of such governance may be noble, the details will always result in failure.”
- Mark Dawson

01/04/26 Progressive Self-flagellation

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have exhibited the traits of self-flagellation, whipping themselves into extremes of hatred of President Trump and disparaging America in general. President Trump can do no good, America is racist, our history is one of slavery and oppression, and capitalism is the despoiler of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). They believe that America needs to be “fundamentally transformed” to achieve their vision of a just society.

In this process of self-flagellation and transformation, they are willing to destroy what is good about America to achieve their goals. No consideration is given to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and their concept of a just society subjugates individual Liberties and Freedoms to government control over our society. As Abraham Lincoln said, “the last, best hope of Earth” will end in this transformation.

Many who wish to fundamentally change America often claim to love it. But their love isn't based on what America is or was; it's based on what they imagine it could become. They rarely consider the harm that such changes might cause, nor do they think about the unintended consequences or disasters that could follow. Most of them also seem to lack basic economic knowledge or experience, which can lead to catastrophe when they make economic decisions.

America needs improvement, and Americans, throughout our history, have always strived to make our country better. However, this improvement focuses on improving America rather than fundamentally transforming it. Anyone who aims to fundamentally change America does not have the best interests of America and Americans in mind, as they will fundamentally destroy the good along with the bad.

01/03/26 Progressive Anti-Semitism

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, author, and broadcaster, born and raised as a leftist and once the darling of the Left, she had a transformation and is now known for her conservative viewpoints and commentary on political and social issues. She has written for various publications, including The Times and The Jerusalem Post, and is recognized as a prominent conservative voice in the media. In a podcast with John Anderson, Where Anti-Semitism Is Out of Control, Society Has a Death Wish" | Melanie Phillips, she examines the consequences on society of Anti-Semitism:

“So that's what we're living through. We're living through an epidemic of anti-Semitism, some of which is camouflaged lightly as anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism. Epidemic anti-Semitism and epidemic anti-Semitism denial because people have it in their minds that anti-Semitism wears jack boots. And we got rid of that, didn't we? And so that's why we are where we are. And I would say one final thing: people think anti-Semitism is about the Jews. It is, and it's much more than that, because the signature thing about anti-Semitism, which distinguishes it from all other bigotries, is that it is a form of derangement. It is mad. It is paranoid. It is unhinged. It is obsessional. It is simply deranged. Now, a society which allows itself to become deranged over one issue is a society which has lost the plot when it comes to rationality evidence in general. And that's why it's no coincidence we've been talking about the loss of reason in the West. The fact that evidence goes nowhere, insults have largely replaced argument, people believe in irrational things; they believe in conspiratorial things. And here you have epidemic anti-Semitism. It is not a coincidence, it is often said, that anti-Semitism, or it is often said, the Jews are the canary in the mine. But when anti-Semitism is out of control, the society has a death wish. Society is destroying itself. Anti-Semitis and anti-Semitism has always been present, always will be present. But in a society which is healthy, it's kept right under the rug. It's kept under control. It's regarded with derision and disdain. It's stigmatized. It's kept down. That's a healthy society. That's a society that wants to live. A society which has turned on itself, which has turned against reason itself, which has turned against decency, is a society where anti-Semitism roars out unchecked. And that's what we have. And that's one of the most single most alarming things I think about Western society. At the moment that anti-Semitism, that is being, that is engulfing these societies, isn't just in itself despicable and awful and dangerous and horrible. It's a signal that this society is going over the cliff. It's destroying itself, and until and unless that is understood, neither anti-Semitism nor going over the cliff are going to be stopped.”

(Please note that I have again cleaned up the verbal transcript of her remarks for readability purposes, without changing the context of her remarks.)

In my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America", I have elucidated on how Anti-Semitism has engulfed modern Progressives. If Americans wish to continue to live in a Liberties and Freedoms society, then we must keep Anti-Semitism under the rug and keep it out of sight, keep it under control, regard it with derision and disdain, and stigmatize anyone who practices Anti-Semitism. Otherwise, we will go over the cliff and destroy American Ideals and Ideas.

01/02/26 Progressive Irrationality and Evilness

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, author, and broadcaster. She was born and raised as a leftist and was once a favorite among the Left. However, she experienced a transformation and is now known for her conservative views and commentary on political and social issues. She has written for various publications, including The Times and The Jerusalem Post, and is recognized as a leading conservative voice in the media. In a podcast with Andrew Gold, The Psychology Behind Why the WOKE Left Can't Win Arguments – Melanie Phillips, she made some insightful comments on the progressive mindset.

“They really, really, really believe, and I know this because I was one of them, once they really believe that to be a progressive is to be on the moral High Ground. Why, because to be a progressive means you believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man, you believe in doing stuff to get rid of prejudice, and War, and bigotry, and you are anti-racist, and believe in the power of Reason. This is what you tell yourself, and consequently anybody who comes along and says, well, actually you're completely wrong, and far from actually ushering in an age of reason, you are ushering in an age of irrationality.”

In another podcast with John Anderson, The Disturbing Logic Of The Left | Melanie Phillips, she shared some astute comments on the Progressive mindset:

“The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself I'm a good person because I'm liberal, which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man, conscience and compassion, looking after the wretched of the world, the poor, and standing up against abuses of power. These are all good things, and that's why I'm a liberal, and I'm a liberal because of all these good things. So, one of the expressions of my goodness and my liberalism is that I support the Palestinian Arabs, who I think are an oppressed people, and they are oppressed by the Israelis, who have taken their land away from them. And they are oppressing them now, every part of that in my view is a lie, but put that to one side, this is what the liberal Progressive thinks, and the liberal Progressive thinks that supporting the Palestinians is therefore something that makes the liberal Progressive a good person. October 7 happened. Suddenly, you have a situation in which the people that the liberal Progressive has supported as being oppressed, and everything they do is a legitimate defense or resistance against oppression. Suddenly, we can see that those people have turned into the most bloodthirsty savages that could ever be imagined. Not just people who kill, but who slaughter in a sadistic, barbaric, debauched, and depraved fashion that people can't imagine ever happening. They have slaughtered, raped, beheaded, tortured, burned alive babies and children, women, elderly men, and others, and in which the people that they have supported as being oppressed and good people because they're their victims are these savages. And the people they have represented as oppressors are the victims, and they can't have that. Because if they have that, if they admit that is the case, then their entire worldview is shattered, because the people they have supported as representing goodness are shown to be evil. And what does that make them? It makes them evil, so they can't have it. So what they do is they go to extraordinary lengths to pretend that black is white, that Justice is Injustice, that oppression is resistance and vice versa. So they have to represent the Israelis as being at fault, the Israelis are to blame for what's happened, So there is no better way of blaming people than accusing them of the very thing they are the victim of.”

(Please note that I have again cleaned up the verbal transcript of her remarks for readability purposes, without changing the context of her remarks.)

We can therefore conclude that the modern Progressive has become irrational and malicious in their words and actions. In their self-righteousness, they are unaware of the consequences of their words and deeds, as they are in a state of Bonhoeffer Stupidity, as I have explained in my collected Chirps on "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity". Such a mindset is dangerous to the peace and safety of the world. It is also damaging to the values, principles, and culture of Western societies, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Western Civilization".

Consequently, modern Progressivism, while its intentions may seem noble, its consequences are anything but noble. In this, we must all remember that:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
- Proverb/Aphorism

And that:

"Well done is better than well said."
- Benjamin Franklin

01/01/26 A New Year, A New Masthead

To celebrate America’s 250th anniversary Walter Isaacson in his new book, The Greatest Sentence Ever Written, takes readers on a fascinating deep dive into the creation of one of history’s most powerful sentences from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”, which book I have examined in this month’s Book It selection.

This sentence conveys the meaning of human rights worldwide and across history. However, there is some debate about the meaning of “the pursuit of Happiness.” This phrase originally comes from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights (June 1776), where George Mason adapted John Locke’s philosophy of justice to serve as a foundation for Jefferson’s idea of “the pursuit of Happiness.” Mason stated, “All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights . . . namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and processing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” This reflects the true meaning of the pursuit of happiness, and it should be at the center of discussions and debates about it.

I have, therefore, added this sentence to my masthead as a remembrance of the roots of our American founding. Almost everything I say and write about politics and related topics is based on this sentence in mind, and any violation of this foundation goes against our American legacy.

12/31/25 The Difference between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism

Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism are distinct political and economic ideologies. All of these ideologies constrict the Liberties and Freedoms of those living under their governance, and significant human rights violations occur, and just as often, they inflict economic hardships on their people.

Nazism and Fascism have often been labeled as far-right ideologies, while Communism and Socialism have been labeled as left-wing ideologies. However, such labels often add connotations that may not be appropriate and cast aspersions on other right- or left-wing ideologies. These labels are often more revealing of the biases of those who utilize them, rather than being helpful.

Alas, there is much confusion in the American public’s mind as to these differences. This leads to political discourse that is based on emotional responses to these labels, rather than an intellectual understanding of these differences. Understanding these differences helps clarify the political landscape and the implications of each ideology on society and governance.

With this in mind, I have written a short article, The Difference between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism, which outlines these differences. Hopefully, this information will be helpful whenever anyone makes use of these labels in their discussions or political rhetoric.

As we celebrate the New Year, let us celebrate that America has not fallen into the evils of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism. But let us be on guard that we do not slip into these evils. A slippage that often occurs gradually by progressive stupidity and arrogance, as I have written in my Chirp on “12/01/25 Stupidity and Arrogance”, and as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity". And let us make a New Year's resolution that we will not allow this to happen in America.

12/30/25 A True American

The New York Post recently published a column, “The great debate over what makes an American” by Daniel McCarthy, which explores what it means to be American. As America nears its 250th birthday as an independent nation on July 4, 2026, the big question this season is what it truly means to be an American — a topic that couldn’t be more timely. The debate features two main viewpoints: the “creedal nationalists,” who focus on America as an idea, and those who proudly identify as “heritage Americans.”

Heritage Americans believe that having lineages in this country that go back for generations or even centuries is what defines an American. For creedal nationalists, an American is defined by belief in “the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the US Constitution, in the American dream”, as Vivek Ramaswamy wrote in a New York Times column. Alas, for many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, they believe that anyone who immigrates (both legally and illegally) to America should be considered an “immigrant American”.

The problem with the term 'creed' is that it means different things to different people, and anyone can pretend to believe anything. On the other hand, “heritage American” is a doubly damaging concept: It needlessly alienates newer Americans while mindlessly elevating older ones. The problem with immigrant Americans is that they demand too little in terms of assimilation into America, and their allegiance may be to a foreign country or culture.

This assimilation issue is most common among Islamic and Hispanic immigrants, as they tend to form geographic clusters and maintain their culture within these clusters. This pattern has been observed with other immigrant groups in our history, but those groups also actively sought assimilation, eventually adopting American culture and dispersing across different locations.

I personally believe that a true American is someone who shares our values and believes in our American Ideals and Ideas. This is achieved through birthright citizenship, along with an education during childhood and adolescence in America. The other way to accomplish this is through legal immigration and Naturalization for those wishing to become Americans. My only concern is that the Naturalization process can filter out those who genuinely want to become Americans from those who merely want to exploit the system for their own advantage.

12/29/25 Traits of Intelligent People

Intelligence isn’t what you think. Most people think intelligence is about fast answers, confidence, or being “book smart.” Psychology shows something very different. Highly intelligent people don’t just do things better — they think differently. They process information, emotion, uncertainty, and decisions in ways most people never notice. In the YouTube video, 8 Things Highly Intelligent People Do Differently (Psychology Explains), they break down eight powerful ways highly intelligent minds operate differently, based on psychology and cognitive science — not habits, not motivation talk, and no fluff.

The eight ways that highly intelligent people think are:

Delaying judgment
Thinking in probabilities
Questioning your own thoughts
Separating emotion from facts
Seeing patterns others miss
Being okay with misunderstanding
Updating identity with evidence
Long-term thinking

When I was young, I didn't have these traits. However, I developed these traits through my professional experiences, as I mentioned in my ‘Stories from an Examined Professional Life’, and I used them to create my ‘Pearls of Wisdom’. We would all do well to develop these traits and incorporate these Pearls of Wisdom into our lives, as they foster more harmonious interactions with others.

12/28/25 Protecting National Intelligence

Intelligence involves the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information to support decision-making. Various sources, means, methods, and capabilities are utilized in the intelligence community (IC) to gather actionable insights.

Intelligence Sources

Human Intelligence (HUMINT): Information gathered from human sources, including informants, spies, or interviews.
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT): Data intercepted from communications, signals, or electronic transmissions.
Imagery Intelligence (IMINT): Visual representation of an object or scene collected through satellites or reconnaissance aircraft.
Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT): Data related to the detection of signatures emanating from physical phenomena (e.g., radar, lasers).
Open Source Intelligence (OSINT): Information collected from publicly available sources such as news articles, social media, and academic publications.

Intelligence Means and Methods

Collection: Gathering information via various techniques, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and data mining.
Analysis: Processing collected data using analytical methods to derive actionable insights. This can involve quantitative analysis, qualitative assessments, and predictive modeling.
Dissemination: Distributing intelligence products to relevant stakeholders, which may include reports, briefs, or databases.

Intelligence Capabilities

Technical Capabilities: Includes advanced tools and technologies for collecting and processing intelligence, such as satellites, drones, and cyber tools.
Analytical Capabilities: The skill set of analysts who interpret data, often involving artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhance predictive analytics.
Collaborative Frameworks: Relationships and partnerships with other countries, agencies, or private entities to share intelligence and resources.
Feedback Mechanisms: Processes to evaluate the effectiveness of intelligence operations and adjust strategies as needed.

By understanding these components, intelligence operations can effectively support national security, military strategies, and policy-making.

It is an unfortunate fact that many politicians wish to reveal intelligence operations in their politicization of President Trump’s decisions to utilize force against foreign enemies. Congressional oversight of these actions is desirable to ensure they are conducted legally, but it does not mean revealing these intelligence operations to the American public. Alas, in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have been agitating for the revelation of intelligence operations to bolster their claims that these actions are either illegal or unnecessary.

Such revelations could endanger America, because if our enemies learned about our Intelligence Sources, Means, Methods, or Capabilities, they could take actions to disrupt our intelligence gathering. In some cases, they might also put the lives of American intelligence operatives and the foreign persons who provided us with this intelligence at risk.

Therefore, such intelligence operations must stay secret from the American public while remaining accessible for Congressional oversight. However, any Congressmember who discloses these intelligence operations should face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, as they jeopardize America's safety, Americans involved in these operations, and foreign nationals or nations assisting us in our intelligence efforts.

12/27/25 Politicizing Apolitical Organizations

Jonathan Turley has written an article, “The Rise and Fall of the American Bar Association”, in which he illuminates some startling facts:

“Today, there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the United States. Even if the ABA represented just half of that number, it would have 650,000 members. However, by 2015, it had fallen to 400,000. Last year it fell to 227,000 members, or just 17 percent of the bar.”

“Notably, the American Medical Association — which also has been accused of becoming increasingly political — has experienced the same drop from a high of representing 75 percent of the nation’s doctors to just 15 percent in recent years.”

“The exodus from the ABA has left a leftist echo chamber that is similar to the one in higher education. The purging of conservatives and libertarians in academia has left many departments without a single Republican or conservative.”

I have also discovered that there are 83,127 Psychiatrists in the United States as of November 2025. The American Psychiatric Association has more than 39,200 members; however, this includes psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists involved in practice, research, and academia across over 100 countries. Thus, less than 47% of American psychiatrists are represented by the American Psychiatric Association.

I suspect that other professional organizations have the same types of membership percentages and Progressives/Leftists orientations, as most of their membership has been from an academic background, where they encounter Indoctrination versus Education. In addition, Progressives/Leftists tend to be joiners and advocates for their viewpoints, while Conservatives tend to congregate in smaller, less organized groups that are not advocacy-focused (i.e., modern Conservatives tend to be live and let live types, while modern Progressives/Leftists tend to be live and tell others how to live types). Additionally, Progressives/Leftists tend to be big government and government intervention types, while Conservatives are smaller government and individualistic efforts-oriented, which skews their participation in government intervention efforts.

This trend has been occurring for several decades, and it has been occurring in organizations that are supposedly apolitical. Lawyers, physicians, psychiatrists, and other professional organizations have a great influence on public policy, and their opinions are utilized by legislators, judges, and executives in formulating public policy. Yet, these organizations do not represent a majority of those practicing their professions, and these organizations have been taken over and led by Progressives/Leftists who often institute a leftist echo chamber in their stances.

This is a harmful trend, as balanced and dispassionate professional opinion is necessary for "Reasoning" and "Rationality" to be the guide in formulating public policy. It is also misleading the American public as to the best course of action to resolve the issues and concerns facing America. Democrat Party Leaders support this trend, as this trend supports the policy positions of the Democrat Party, while Republican Party Leaders despise this trend, as this trend often opposes their policy positions.

Accordingly, reform must come to these professional organizations, or we must stop depending on their opinions when formulating public policy. A reform that must come from within these organizations for them to remain relevant, as government intercession in this reform is just as bad as the Progressives/Leftists takeover of these organizations.

12/26/25 Is It a Human Right?

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists like to expound on human rights, stretching them to justify their political goals and policy agendas. Recently, Seth Moulton, U.S. representative for Massachusetts's 6th Congressional district, wrote on X @sethmoulton that:

“Housing is a human right. Health care is a human right. Education is a human right.”

To which @amuse on X responds:

“Defining everything as a human right dilutes the moral force of core protections like freedom from torture by equating them with expansive entitlements, leading to rights inflation and public cynicism. It creates conflicts between negative rights (freedoms from interference) and positive ones (requiring resource provision), justifying coercive measures that infringe on individual liberties through heavy taxation or regulation. Economically, such overexpansion ignores resource scarcity, resulting in unfeasible promises that foster inequality and disillusionment. Politically, it invites government overreach, enabling authoritarianism under the guise of collective welfare, while culturally, it imposes universal standards that ignore local contexts, sparking relativism debates and global resistance.”

Amy Curtis @RantyAmyCurtis on X also responded:

“None of those things are human rights. Nothing that requires the labor of another person is a human right.”

My article on Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights shares my insights on what defines our rights, while also critiquing the expansion of human rights.

Whenever a politician starts discussing our human rights, you need to be wary, as they are often justifying the expansion of government at the expense of the individual, and they are just as often electioneering and trying to accumulate political power unto themselves. And always remember that “Nothing that requires the labor of another person is a human right.”

12/25/25 The Abrahamic Religions

As we in America have become more secular, we have often become less knowledgeable about religions and less aware of the beliefs and practices of different religions. I, therefore, thought it appropriate to Chirp on the basics of the Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic religions are a set of monotheistic religions that respect or admire the religious figure Abraham, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though the term also often encompasses several smaller faiths. The religions of this set share doctrinal, historical, and geographic overlap that contrasts them with Indian religions, Iranian religions, and East Asian religions. The term “Abrahamic religions”, introduced in the 20th century, replaced "Judeo-Christian" to include Islam as an Abrahamic religion and acknowledge differences between Judaism and Christianity. However, it has been criticized for oversimplifying cultural and doctrinal nuances between these religions.

Key Characteristics

Shared Beliefs

Monotheism: All three religions believe in one God.
Covenant with Abraham: Each faith recognizes a covenant God made with Abraham, emphasizing faith and obedience.
Sacred Texts: Each religion has its own scriptures:
- Judaism: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
- Christianity: The Bible (Old and New Testaments)
- Islam: The Quran

Major Figures

Abraham: Considered a prophet in all three religions.
Moses: A key figure in Judaism and also recognized in Christianity and Islam.
Jesus: Central to Christianity as the Messiah (savior and liberator figure); regarded as a prophet in Islam.
Muhammed: The founder of Islam, considered by Muslims to be the last prophet sent by God to guide humanity.

Distinctive Practices

Major Celebrations:

Judaism: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Passover, Hanukkah
Christianity: Christmas, Easter, Lent (Catholic)
Islam: Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, Hajj

Ethical Teachings:

All three religions emphasize moral and ethical laws, including the importance of prayer, charity, and community service.

In addition, I would suggest the following short YouTube videos that cover the basics of these Abrahamic religions:

For those interested in more comprehensive information, the following longer YouTube videos should satisfy this thirst:

I hope that this Chirp and these YouTube videos will give you a better understanding of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and dispel any misunderstandings you may have.

12/24/25 Reasoning and Religiosity

In our celebrations of Hanukkah and Christmas, let us remember that the Judeo-Christian religion has provided the best religious answers to existential, moral, and ethical questions that the world has ever seen. But they are not the only answers. Human reasoning over the last few centuries has advanced to the point that it too provides answers. But the answers to many of these questions require both reasoning and religiosity to be satisfactory. I recently read a sentence that encapsulates the difference between the two world views of Reason and Religiosity:

“The Greeks valued physical beauty, materialism, and human reason above all else. The Jews, by contrast, cherished holiness, the soul, and the unseen presence of God.”

This explains the core difference between those who believe that reasoning is the answer to the questions that confront us and those who believe that religiosity is needed to answer these questions. Reasoning will get you most of the way to the answers, but the existential, moral, and ethical questions often require a religious answer to get you all the way to the answer.

In all of philosophy, theology, law, economics, statistics, science, engineering, and many other areas of human interactions, reasoning will allow you to come close to the truth, but in many cases, reasoning will end with multiple possible answers. It is with these multiple possible answers that you must apply religiosity to reach a decision. Religiosity in the sense of what is morally and ethically acceptable, or at least debatable. In some cases, reasoning will lead to wrong answers, as reasoning is fraught with incorrect or improper facts, logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and other issues that lead to a false conclusion. Religiosity applied to these false conclusions will often illuminate their falsehood, and it should give us pause to reconsider the reasoning.

Thus, it is important that you use reasoning, but be aware of reasoning limitations, and use religiosity to come to a conclusion before acting on a reasoned conclusion. Otherwise, you may make a wrong decision that will have negative repercussions for yourself and others.

12/23/25 Trump Boom or Democrat Doom

With all the discussion about affordability, there's also a lot of heated, partisan debate about America's economic future. This debate mainly centers on whether we will see a Trump Boom or face a Democrat Doom. President Trump and his supporters emphasize the changes he's implemented and the potential investments third parties have pledged for the U.S. economy, while Democrats dismiss these claims as unlikely, insisting that affordability will continue to be a persistent issue in America.

In all their claims, Democrats deliberately overlook that the affordability problem occurred under the Biden Administration, and that any Trump corrections take time to have an effect, as I have examined in my Chirps on "11/17/25 The Big Three Issues of Affordability" and “12/09/25 The Misrepresentation of Affordability”. In this, they are attempting to mislead the American public into believing that, because Trump had promised to fix the economy and has not accomplished this goal in eleven months, his economic fixes are a failure.

Indeed, the Democrats seem to be preparing to focus on the affordability issue in the 2026 mid-term elections. They hope the economy either does not recover or that the recovery is too weak to meet American voters' expectations. This is a disappointing situation for the Democrats, as they are not campaigning on offering solutions to the affordability problem, but rather on stoking fear and anxiety about affordability.

Alas, this is but symptomatic of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they have not been running on solutions to the issues facing America, but on fear of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives solutions. This has been exacerbated by their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), in which anything that Trump is for, they are against, without consideration of what is best for America or Americans. This also reflects an attitude that they believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe their policies are what is best for America and Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftist and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them, rather than consider what is best for all Americans and America.

Such a political party should not be placed in a position of power because it will not govern with the best interests of all Americans and America in mind, as demonstrated by the political goals and policy agendas of the Biden Administration. The Biden Administration, which was responsible for the affordability problem and many of the problems of peace and stability on the world stage, proves the Democrats' inability to govern America in the best interests of all.

12/22/25 Slogans Without Substance

Slogans without substance are a ploy that politicians utilize to garner support for themselves, without providing any tangible plan. This allows the listener to read into the slogan anything that they want to hear. And they often hear exactly what they want to hear, and, thus, they will support the politician. In this sloganeering, both the speaker and listener will forget the past words and deeds of the politician, and they will judge the politician on what they hope will be their future deeds.

In economics, there is an aphorism, “Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results”, but in politics, past performance is an indication of future deeds. In examining a politician’s slogans, you should look at their past slogans, what you thought they meant, and what the past deeds of the politician were based on their past slogans. In doing so, you will often discover that what you thought the politician meant by the slogan was not what the politician tried to enact. And when you look at what they succeeded in enacting, it is often not what you thought they meant, or it did not achieve the results that you hoped for.

Thus, it is best to ignore the present sloganeering of politicians and focus on their past deeds and how effective they were in achieving the results you had hoped for. It is also necessary for you to insist on tangible proposals for their slogans while ignoring their bluster; otherwise, their slogans are nothing but empty words. In doing so, it is possible to ascertain their true intent and whether or not their goals are achievable, as well as whether their goals are worthy of achieving.

12/21/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - III

As I have written in my Chirps on "09/17/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - I" and "09/18/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - II", words and terms can be used as weapons, but many of these words and terms have started out as innocuous. With President Trump calling Minnesota Governor Tim Walz a “retard” the issue of name-calling in politics has gone beyond what I examined in my article on "Divisiveness in America".

Retarded - People with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
The term "retarded" originates from the Latin verb "retardare", meaning "to hinder" or "make slow." Initially used as a medical term in the late 19th century to describe individuals with intellectual disabilities, it has since evolved into a pejorative term and is now considered offensive. Instead, the modern term intellectual or mental disability is used in its place.
Cripple - Deprive of the use of a limb, especially a leg.
A cripple is a person or animal with a physical disability, particularly one who is unable to walk because of an injury or illness. The word was recorded as early as 950 AD, and derives from the Proto-Germanic "krupilaz". The German and Dutch words "Krüppel" and "kreupel" are cognates. By the 1970s, the word generally came to be regarded as pejorative when used for people with disabilities. Its use today has been replaced by handicapped or physically disabled.
Stupid - Lacking intelligence. Foolish; devoid of good sense or judgment.
Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, or wit, an inability to learn. It may be innate, assumed, or reactive. The word “stupid” comes from the Latin word “stupere”. Today, many people use the word 'stupid' to describe anyone who disagrees with them. This is particularly acute amongst Progressives/Leftists, as they believe that they are always right.

I, myself, try not to utilize these words as they have become pejoratives, except in the case of stupidity as defined by "Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity". But people who were raised with these words will sometimes inadvertently utilize them. When this occurs, it is best to politely and respectfully criticize them rather than admonish them. It is especially important that these words not be used in political discussions, as they contribute nothing to the debate other than conflict.

However, conflict in modern political debate seems to be the modus operandi, as I have written in my aforementioned article on Divisiveness in America. Given the invectives directed at Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, it is to be expected that some invectives will be hurled at Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Both sides need to stop the invectives; however, alas, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem to have nothing to offer Americans except invectives. Such is the sorry state of affairs that they have inflicted upon themselves.

12/20/25 You Should Not Weigh Good and Evil Equally

In my previous Chirp on, “12/20/25 Muslims and Islamists”, I quoted a professor as saying, “You should not weigh good and evil equally” when he discussed Islamism. But these words apply to all arenas of human life. As Shakespeare has said in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, so should you weigh evil deeds much more heavily than good deeds, as evil deeds persist and have negative consequences beyond the actual evil deed.

There are many levels of evil, from crimes against humanity to harm against an individual. But evil remains evil, regardless of how many people it affects. Many people commit evil acts, justifying them as being for the greater good, and then try to make up for their wrongdoing by doing good deeds. But no number of good deeds can undo the evil they have committed.

There are two major evils confronting the world today: Islamism, as I have discussed in the aforementioned Chirp, and Socialism, along with all its variants. Socialism is evil because it infringes on the Natural Rights and the Liberties and Freedoms of those living under it. And history shows that every time socialism has been implemented, it results in widespread poverty, misery, suffering, corruption, murder, malnutrition, and tyranny. In truth, socialism invariably leads to evil, regardless of how convincing the arguments for it may seem.

Alas, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are embracing Socialism in their policies and political agendas. Although in the past they denied their socialism, today they are electing candidates with socialist agendas. Thus, they are becoming evil. This evilness is also reflected in their invectives and violence against those who oppose them. Their Ant-Semitic/pro-Palestine stances are also indicative of their evilness. They also have an anti-Christian attitude, and they wish to relegate Christianity to a private sphere and erase it from all public displays. Religion is anathema to them, and it plays no role in their decision-making. Thus, they have become unmoored from the virtues, morality, and ethics of Judeo-Christian values, which are the foundation of Western Civilization, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Western Civilization".

Only an evil person or group would engage in such evil words and deeds. Evil must be confronted and eliminated; otherwise, it will fester and grow, destroying a society or civilization. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders must be confronted about their evilness and turned out of power to prevent the festering and growth of evil, which will destroy America.

12/19/25 Muslims and Islamists

In an X Post of Dan Linnaeus, he clearly delineates the differences between Muslims and Islamists:

“‘Ordinary Muslim’ is much harder, but ‘Islamist’ is not. Islamism obliges its Muslim adherents in seeking to install Islam as a sacralized political authority, considering it as a necessarily total way of life. This is because Islamists go beyond treating Islam as the primary and ultimate reference for all domains of life, to the belief that the only legitimate authority in politics, law and war is Islam. They therefore treat politics as an instrument for instating Islam as such within non-Islamist society, and where politics fails and a balance of jurisprudences permits, or certain thresholds are met, violence is mandatory toward that aim.”

This post should be read in its entirety, as it is constructive in understanding the differences. In a YouTube video, “Oxford Union DEAD SILENT When British Professor Says This About Islam”, a professor states that:

“The trouble with Islam is that, as we've heard at considerable length on this side of the house, is that for some reason, although it professes peace and has generated art and literature of exquisite beauty so giving peace to the sensitive soul which was one of the barbs that were thrown across to our side of the house, it does in practice seem to inspire violence rather more openly than the other Abrahamic religions.”

He further states, “You should not weigh good and evil equally,” and:

“It is the case that one evil outweighs one good many times over. For loss of life, inhibition of aspiration, barbaric punishment and imposition, and intellectual stifling cannot be assuaged by acts of hospitality, however generous. All the Seas of incarnadine cannot wash blood from a religion's hands by an act of piety. The evils will have destroyed a human life as they did yesterday. And that life cannot be restored by charity.

For every evil act inspired by Islam, even though the perpetrator is regarded by the rest of Islam as a deviant, a hundred or a thousand inspired good deeds are not enough compensation. Now, as we've agreed, Islam seems peculiarly suited to the inspiration of violence. It's responding to your challenge earlier this evening at the beginning of the debate, it's appropriate to explore why, for them, we might be able to see that far from being a religion of peace, it is intrinsically and ineluctably one of the opposite of peace, whether that be violence or other forms of peace, is woven into its very fabric. What was alluded to as the golden threads of the fabric earlier today.”

It is also true that Islam forbids criticism of its religion or other Muslims. Therefore, when push comes to shove, most Muslims will either stay silent or support the violence of the Islamists. If Islam cannot reform itself into a religion of peace, then all people of peace must oppose Islam.

It is also true that Islamism is anti-Semitic and scorns Christianity, and they believe that an Islamic caliphate under Sharia Law should govern the world. Sharia Law, however, is incompatible with Western Civilization law and jurisprudence, as it encroaches upon the Natural Rights and the Liberties and Freedoms of those who live under Sharia Law.

For those who would claim that I am being Islamophobic, I would remind you of the prescient words of the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), a British and American author and journalist who authored eighteen books on faith, religion, culture, politics, and literature:

“You will be told you can't complain because you're Islamophobic. This is very urgent business, ladies and gentlemen. I beseech you, resist it while you still can and before the right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing. You will be told you can't complain because you're Islamophobic. The term is already being introduced into the culture as if it were an accusation of race hatred, for example, or bigotry. Whereas, it's only the objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion. Resist it while you can. And if you wonder what will happen if you don't look and see how a cricket team in Middlesex in England had to change its name by force last week because it was called and had been for years the Middlesex Crusaders. Look and see how stories about little pigs can't be taught to children in English schools anymore, lest offense be taken by the religion of peace.”
- Christopher Hitchens

Alas, much of what he predicted about Islamophobia has come to be true today. I am not Islamophobic, but I am a realist who observes and reasons on the realities of the world. I also understand the difference between Muslims and Islamists, as was so clearly delineated in the X Post of Dan Linnaeus.

The tragedies of Islamic terrorism that we have seen in the 21st century demonstrate that Islamism is a danger to world peace and stability. Consequently, Islamism needs to be contained so that it can only harm itself and not be allowed to spread until it embraces peace, which may not be possible given its interpretation of the scriptures of the Qur'an and Hadith.

12/18/25 Following the Constitution – Part II

As my previous Chirp noted, two Supreme Court cases are currently being adjudicated that will fundamentally change America and American governance. These cases involve Independent Federal Agencies and Birthright Citizenship. This Chirp will be about Birthright Citizenship, while my previous Chirp was about Independent Federal Agencies.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states in Section 1 that:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This amendment was written immediately after the Civil War, mainly to protect the Constitutional and Civil Rights of the newly freed slaves. However, there is a clause in this amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that needs some explanation. In America, there was a large and diverse population of American Indians. Although these Indians may have been born within the territorial borders of the United States, their allegiance was to their tribe, not to America. While the framers of this amendment aimed to protect the Constitutional and Civil Rights of all Americans, they did not consider American Indians as Americans, since their allegiance was not to America. This clause was added to exclude American Indians from the protections of this amendment, as the framers believed one had to owe their allegiance to America to be protected by it.

Traditionally, America was very welcoming to immigrants, applying this principle to their children born in the U.S., expecting them to assimilate and pledge allegiance to the country. As a result, children of immigrants born on American soil could claim American citizenship. The United States has been and remains the only country worldwide that grants citizenship to children of immigrants born on its land. However, in modern America, this policy is sometimes exploited by some immigrants and others who fail to assimilate or show little or no allegiance to the country.

At the start of President Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to people in the country without authorization or holding temporary visas such as work, student, or tourist visas. Titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” the order states that his administration will no longer grant automatic citizenship to children born on US soil to immigrant parents who are in the country illegally, as long as neither parent is a US citizen. The order also bans automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizen parents on temporary work, student, or tourist visas. This executive order is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the Supreme Court decision in this case will either alter the definition of citizenship or establish the tradition as law. It is my firm belief that American citizenship should be based upon allegiance to America, and that the Supreme Court will uphold President Trump’s Executive Order on the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.

12/17/25 Following the Constitution – Part I

There are two Supreme Court cases currently being adjudicated that will fundamentally change America and its governance. These cases involve Independent Federal Agencies and Birthright Citizenship. This Chirp will focus on Independent Federal Agencies, and my next Chirp will discuss Birthright Citizenship.

As I have Chirped on, "07/19/25 Independent Federal Agencies", Independent Federal Agencies are not accountable to the Legislative or Executive branches of the federal government. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there any allowance for Independent Federal Agencies. The Constitution is quite explicit that there are only three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, and that all federal powers are allocated to each branch of government. These Independent Federal Agencies are uniquely situated and unlike other government agencies.

However, uniquely situated is a concept not incorporated into the Constitution, and one wonders about how a Supreme Court responsible for interpreting and upholding the Constitution can allow something that is not in the Constitution. Only an Imperial Judiciary would allow Unconstitutional federal actions to exist and continue, not to mention that Independent Federal Agencies are an encroachment on Legislative and Executive powers, and they operate uninhibited by the Balance of Powers in the Constitution. Such uninhibited powers make them unresponsive to the will of the people through elections, which makes them an Imperial Agency.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown, in her verbal questioning, brought up that these Independent Federal Agencies are agencies of experts that need independence from political considerations, for as she said:

"Some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have," Brown Jackson said. "So having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interests of the citizens of the United States."

"These issues should not be in presidential control," Brown Jackson continued, "so can you speak to me about the danger of allowing in these various areas the president to actually control the transportation board, and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence. We don't want the president controlling."

These comments betray an attitude of “How dare we follow the Constitution?” when “the best interests of the citizens of the United States” are at stake. It also betrays an attitude that experts should be on top in matters of their expertise, an attitude of which I have Chirped on "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top".

I would remind Supreme Court Justice Brown and the other justices that the best interests of the citizens of the United States are in upholding the Constitution of the United States. They, and all judges, have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, as I have Chirped on, "01/13/24 Constitutional Supremacy", and as stated in the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
- U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

Thus, it is past time for the Independent Federal Agencies to be placed under the Executive branch with Congressional oversight, as the Constitution has stated:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

This is how the Constitution was intended for the Federal government to operate, and this is how the Supreme Court should rule it to be.

12/16/25 Blue Slips

In the United States Senate, a “blue slip” is a form used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to request the views of home-state senators on a presidential nominee for a federal judgeship or, in some cases, a U.S. Attorney position in their state. Although it appears to be a routine administrative step, the blue slip process can serve as a significant political tool, potentially allowing a single senator to block a nomination.

In the past, such “blue slips” have served some useful purposes, but they were also used for political obstructionism. In modern America, the reverse is often true—obstructionism has become the main focus of “blue slips” rather than for some useful purpose. This is very much like the Senate Filibuster, which I have Chirped on "05/30/25 Eliminate the Tyranny of the Minority". These “blue slips” also prevent the other Senators from questioning and voting on Presidential nominees, which is a curtailment of the Constitutional Advice and Consent duties of the Senate. And much like the Senate Filibuster, it may be time to eliminate “blue slips” in the Senate.

These Senatorial “blue slips” and Filibuster highlight a major problem in the modern Senate—the Senate is no longer a deliberative body for what is best for America and all Americans, but it has become a means of obstructionism and political power plays. Consequently, “blue slips” should be eliminated, and the full Senate should be allowed to question and debate on all Presidential nominees.

12/15/25 Nuke the Filibuster

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had some interesting comments about the Senate filibuster during his recent Meet the Press interview:

“By wielding the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote Senate supermajority to pass legislation, Democrats inflicted tremendous harm on the nation, including: $11 billion in permanent economic damage; an estimated 1.5 percentage points in lost GDP growth in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025; 9,500 canceled flights; and the paychecks of 1.4 million federal workers held for ransom by the left’s demands.

For generations, the filibuster has been romanticized as the Senate’s guardian of deliberation. In reality, it is a historical accident that has evolved into a standing veto for the minority and a license for paralysis. What once seemed like a dignified brake on hasty lawmaking now blocks even routine governance. It’s time for Republicans to acknowledge that the filibuster no longer serves the country — and to be prepared to end it.

[…]

In the modern era, merely threatening a filibuster typically forces a 60-vote supermajority to move legislation forward. Defenders of the filibuster argue that it ensures compromise, encourages bipartisanship and protects minority rights. That may have been true decades ago, but it is no longer the case now. Today, the minority party can abuse the filibuster to the point of rendering the Senate almost useless as a deliberative body.

Democrats themselves have recognized this phenomenon. That’s why, in 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for presidential nominations other than Supreme Court justices. In 2017, Republicans followed suit for Supreme Court nominations. Each side justified its move as a response to unprecedented obstruction by the other. And each time, the Senate survived. The Republic did not fall.”

In addition, he said:

“Some Republicans hesitate to end the filibuster out of fear that Democrats will one day use that same power against them. But Democrats will use that power against them whether Republicans end the filibuster or not. GOP senators who defend the filibuster are ignoring basic game theory. As the classic prisoner’s dilemma shows us, in a repeated game, the player who always cooperates while the opponent who always betrays is doomed to lose.”

The Prisoner's dilemma is a concept in game theory that illustrates a situation where two individuals can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray each other for personal gain. The dilemma highlights how rational self-interest could lead to worse outcomes for both parties compared to if they had cooperated.

By wielding the Filibuster as a weapon rather than a tool for negotiation, the Democrats have used it for personal gain. A gain that they did not achieve in the recent government shutdown, while they hurt the American people. And they may use the filibuster again during the current budget and appropriations process, or when the current continuing resolution expires.

Accordingly, it is well past time to Nuke the Filibuster for the good of the American people, as the Democrats are using the filibuster for personal gain rather than for mutual benefit. Alas, politicians being politicians, they are not wont to eliminate the filibuster, as it would hamper their political gamesmanship and constrict their ability to introduce unrelated items, pork, and favoritism to their supporters into legislation, as I have Chirped on "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship" and "12/22/21 The End of the Filibuster".

12/14/25 Celebrating Hanukkah

Robin Van Etten has written an article, “Hanukkah: A Guide to the Festival of Lights for Christians”, in which she opens by saying:

“Hanukkah is one of the most joyous festivals of the Jewish calendar, celebrated each winter with candles, songs, food, and family gatherings. However, beyond the festive atmosphere, Hanukkah carries profound lessons about faith, perseverance, and God's miracles—lessons that resonate deeply not only for Jews, but also for Christians who share in the biblical heritage of this holiday.”

She then examines what Hanukkah is and means, and she finishes by stating:

“Hanukkah is more than a historical commemoration. It is a living reminder that God's miracles continue to shine in times of darkness. For Christians, Hanukkah offers a chance to reflect on the shared spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity, and to recognize the values of courage, faith, and rededication that unite both traditions.”

All Christians and people of other faiths should read this article and then participate in the celebration of Hanukkah.

Addendum - Two men opened fire at a Jewish Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia on Sunday, December 14, 2025. Police reported at least 15 people were killed, with 27 others still hospitalized, including a dozen in critical condition. Among the suspects, one shooter was critically wounded, while the other was critically injured. This was a heinous Anti-Semitic terrorist attack, with the gunman allegedly having ties to Islamic terrorism. Such an attack highlights the brutality and evil of Anti-Semitism and Islamic terrorism, and all public officials worldwide must condemn and take action against individuals involved in such acts. Failure to do so could lead the world to a descent into chaos and disorder. Addendum - Two men opened fire at a Jewish Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia on Sunday, December 14, 2025. Police reported at least 15 people were killed, with 27 others still hospitalized, including a dozen in critical condition. Among the suspects, one shooter was critically wounded, while the other was critically injured. This was a heinous Anti-Semitic terrorist attack, with the gunman allegedly having ties to Islamic terrorism. Such an attack highlights the brutality and evil of Anti-Semitism and Islamic terrorism, and all public officials worldwide must condemn and take action against individuals involved in such acts. Failure to do so could lead the world to a descent into chaos and disorder.

12/13/25 Presumptive Immunity

A group of Democrat lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds released a video on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025, urging service members to "refuse illegal orders." The one-minute video features six lawmakers invoking their prior service while telling members of the military and intelligence community that "the threats to our Constitution are coming from right here at home." They do not mention any illegal orders that President Trump has issued, and, thus, they are only fearmongering about possible future illegal orders. They have also forgotten that members of the Armed Forces receive training on legal and illegal actions and orders while they serve. These comments may have been seditious, in that they advocate opposition to civil authority or government, and they are arousing to action or rebellion within the armed forces to the President’s Commander-in-Chief responsibilities under the Constitution.

Recently, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) fired back at Republicans for receiving money from Jeffrey Epstein, as part of her attempts to defend her friend, Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett, from charges that she enjoyed an overly cozy relationship with the disgraced financier and sexual predator. There’s just one problem: The Jeffrey Epstein who donated to Zeldin, Romney, and other Republicans is not the (deceased) sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein; he is Doctor Jeffrey Epstein, who did give money to Republicans. Her defense of her allegations was a deception, in that she claimed that she did not specifically say it was the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein who contributed to these Republicans. Her comments could constitute slander against those she accused of receiving funds from a convicted sexual predator.

Many Democrat lawmakers have also been involved in physical confrontations against the enforcement of our Illegal Immigration laws, and they presume that they are immune from prosecution as they are lawmakers. All such physical confrontations against law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, by any person, are a violation of Federal laws.

In all of these words and deeds, these lawmakers are presuming that they have immunity from prosecution as lawmakers.

Some of them have asserted that they have a First Amendment Right to Free Speech in these words and deeds. But Free Speech has limitations, most importantly in not being able to slander and libel another person, incitement to lawbreaking and/or violence, nor false speech that endangers the life and safety of others.

These lawmakers often justify their actions as part of their government oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. While these lawmakers have immunity under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, as long as such speech and debate occur within the halls of Congress, they are not immune to violating the law outside of the Speech and Debate clause in the halls of Congress. After all, as they have often said in their allegations against Donald Trump, ‘No one is above the law’, and it also betrays an attitude of “Laws for thee, but not for me”.

Accordingly, they are lawbreakers, and they should be prosecuted as such. Otherwise, the Rule of Law would only apply to non-lawmakers, which is a violation of the principle of the equality of the law to all.

12/12/25 The Free Speech of Trump Protestors

With the rise of provocative speech and physical altercations by the opponents of President Trump, the question of whether their speech and/or actions are Free Speech or violations of the law is germane. For the answer to this question, you must consider the scope of Free Speech under the Constitution and U.S. Law.

Some have asserted that these protesters have a First Amendment Right to Free Speech in their words and deeds. But Free Speech has limitations, most importantly in not being able to slander and libel another person, incitement to lawbreaking and/or violence, nor false speech that endangers the life and safety of others. The question is then whether these protestors’ words and deeds were an incitement to lawbreaking and/or violence, or if they endanger the life and safety of others. If so, then they do not have a Free Speech right to what they have said or done. If there are reasonable grounds to prosecute these protestors, it is up to a jury to decide whether they overstepped the bounds of Free Speech.

In regard to the "Seditious Six" Federal legislators’ comments directed at Armed Forces servicepeople, you must consider the following U.S. code:

18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
- 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

The "Seditious Six" refers to a group of six Democratic lawmakers who were accused by former President Trump of making seditious comments regarding military orders. This accusation arose after they released a video urging military personnel to consider the legality of orders from the Trump administration, which led to an FBI inquiry into their statements. If there are reasonable grounds to prosecute these legislators under this law, it is up to a jury to decide whether they overstepped the bounds of Free Speech and violated this law. It should also be noted that there is no “Speech and Debate” exemption for these legislators under this clause of the Constitution, as this video was outside the confines of the Halls of Congress.

However, there may be some difficulties in prosecuting these legislators, as they would probably be prosecuted in and around the jurisdictions of Washington D.C, jurisdictions that have notoriously been favorable to Democrats and Democrat politicians, and unfavorable to Republicans and Republican politicians, as I have Chirped on "07/26/25 Can Justice be Served?". Thus, the conviction of these legislators seems unlikely.

I would also remind them that Free Speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of your speech. In all your words and deeds, you must consider the consequences of what you say or do. If you do not want to accept the consequences of your free speech, then you should not speak freely until you consider the consequences of your speech. Otherwise, all we have is a cacophony of speech that is not communication and does nothing but sow confusion and/or doubt in the audience.

For those people who are engaged in physical altercations with Federal employees, you must consider the following U.S. codes:

If there are reasonable grounds to prosecute these protestors under these laws, it is up to a jury to decide whether they violated these laws.

Consequently, the Free Speech Rights of the Trump protestors are not unlimited, and if they have exceeded the bounds of Free Speech and violated these laws, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

12/11/25 Unconstitutional Judicial Orders

In an article by Aaron Walker, “Can Donald Trump Refuse to Follow an Unconstitutional Judicial Order? (A Deep Dive)”, he asks, “What is the point of having a written Constitution, if the Judiciary can override it with a simple order? Why set up a complicated and difficult amendment process, if all it really takes is five Supreme Court justices to effectively amend the Constitution?”

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. Their significant reasoning for this decision is as follows:

“Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.”

As Mr. Walker pointed out in his article, “Now look how easily it could be adapted to the question of unconstitutional orders, with the changes highlighted in boldface”:

“Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the President and the members of Congress must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the judiciary’s rulings.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that a judicial ruling which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the judiciary shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the judiciary a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.”

The Constitutional Balance of Powers and the Separation of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government were established so that neither branch was supreme, all branches were subservient to the Constitution, and all members of these branches swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If Judges and Justices issue orders that are constitutionally dubious, how can we then counter or override these judicial orders if the Legislative or Executive branch deems them Unconstitutional? This is an unresolved question in our Constitutional government.

These Constitutionally dubious judicial orders have an impact on the responsibilities of the Legislative and Executive branches by paring back their Constitutional duties, as humorously illustrated below:

In the past, we have relied on the virtue of judges and a majority of the Supreme Court justices to stay within the bounds of the Constitution. Alas, in modern America, virtue has faded, and political considerations have taken precedence. Judges and Justices have convoluted the interpretation of the Constitution to fit their predilections, and in their predilections, they have become lords, as I have written in my article “Judges, Not Lords”. And it should also be remembered that the Supreme Court is not always right, as I have written in my article Supreme, But Not Always Right.

These Constitutionally dubious judicial orders are a threat to our Liberties and Freedoms, in that without staying inside the boundaries of the Constitution, we have no protection of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All if judges and justices can reinterpret the Constitution. In addition, these Constitutionally dubious judicial orders disturb an orderly government, as they hinder the operation of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Accordingly, it is time to address the question of how we can counter or override these judicial orders if the Legislative or Executive branch deems them Unconstitutional. A very weighty question, with no easy answer. As I have written in my Chirp on, "11/04/25 Removal of Judges and Professors/Teachers", Judges who rule outside of the bounds of the law and presume authorities that they do not Constitutionally possess are interposing in the Balance of Powers between the branches of government. In these rulings, they are behaving as if they were lords rather than judges, as I have written in my article on Judges, Not Lords. Those judges who do so should be removed from their judgeship, but the current process of Congressional impeachment, along with hyper-partisanship in Congress, makes this impractical and highly improbable. As I have Chirped "06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I" and "06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II", this is becoming a major problem in America, and a problem that needs to be addressed if we are to remain a Democratic republic constrained by the bounds of the Constitution. In this spirit, I would recommend that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to add to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution the following:

“The Supreme Court may, with the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Justices, remove a judge for improper jurisprudence.”

By having the Supreme Court Justices remove a judge, it would eliminate politics from their decision and only focus on legal jurisprudence for the removal of a Judge. Such a power of the Supreme Court would also give judges pause to ensure that their rulings are within their duties and responsibilities and the scope of Constitutional and statutory law.

This answer for the removal of judges is not appropriate for Supreme Court Justices, and a Constitutional way must be found to remove Supreme Court Justices who rule outside the bounds of the Constitution. Constitutional Impeachment is impractical, as hyper-partisanship in Congress makes this impractical and highly improbable. It is also possible that a President may ignore a judicial order, as the only recourse for Presidential defiance is Presidential Impeachment. But even if you agree that a President can, in theory, disobey an unconstitutional judicial order, it still might make sense for a President to stay their hand, so as not to set a precedent for other Presidents to follow. But if push comes to shove, if the courts make an unconstitutional ruling that has seriously deleterious effects, the President has a right and possibly a duty to ignore that ruling. But it shouldn’t be done lightly.

12/10/25 Economic Forces

Economic market forces refer to the actions of buyers and sellers that influence the prices and availability of goods and services based on supply and demand, without government control. These forces determine how resources are allocated in a market economy.

Economic forces of government include providing an equitable legal structure for markets, maintaining market competition, promoting economic stability, and implementing fiscal and monetary policies to have a healthy economy. Economic forces of government may also include reallocating resources and redistributing income in some forms of governance.

In today’s America, Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are (mostly) committed to economic market forces with minimal economic forces of government to achieve their policy goals. Meanwhile, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are committed to the economic forces of government to achieve their policy goals.

This is a difference between capitalism and socialism, with the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists becoming more and more socialistic in their approach to the solutions of the issues and concerns facing America and Americans. The problem with capitalism is that some people are left behind while others thrive, which requires government assistance for those left behind. The problem with socialism is that all people are left behind, and that socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money to fund its policies.

Economic market forces require intelligent decision-making by individuals, while economic forces of government require intelligent decision-making by politicians and bureaucrats. As it is not possible for anyone, or any group, to predict future economic trends or likelihoods, or to control an economy, as there are too many variables that need control, nothing can be certain when an economic decision is made. What is certain is that government laws and regulations increase the costs of doing business, and these costs must be borne by someone; and eventually, these increased costs are borne by individual consumers or taxpayers (i.e., there is no such thing as a free lunch). When governments try to implement any solution to a problem that impacts the economy, by compromising on a market force or government force solution, it is often a compromise on how they wish to fail. Any such compromises are often mutually exclusive, as they cannot coexist without negatively impacting each other.

Which leads us to the problem of Health Insurance reform, as I have Chirped on, "11/16/25 A Healthcare Crisis". The Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) was an economic government force solution to the health insurance crisis, and it has miserably failed. Prices have not gone down, but up; too many people are uninsured, there are narrower networks of providers resulting in fewer choices for patients, and government subsidies have increased the taxpayer burden. Waste, fraud, and abuse are also systemic within Obamacare, with fraudulent applications and improper enrollments being the leading cause of fraud and mismanagement in Obamacare. It is also considered to be based on an unsustainable financial model, and now Congress is discussing how to fix or replace Obamacare. These discussions have pitted the Republican Party Leaders and Democrat Party Leaders, mostly on the economic market forces or the economic forces of government solution to this health insurance crisis. And most of these discussions have been influenced by political gamesmanship and electioneering rhetoric, as well as much of the talk is about reaching a compromise, which will result in another failure.

In the last several decades, we have tried a compromise solution, we have tried an economic force of government solution, but I am unaware that we have tried an economic market forces solution to this health insurance crisis. However, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has proposed the Health Marketplace and Savings Accounts for All Act legislation to make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and expand Association Health Plans to provide maximum leverage to negotiate lower premiums with health insurance companies. This is an economic market forces solution to the health insurance crisis that is worth consideration. I believe that it is time we tried an economic market forces solution by giving serious thought to Senator Paul’s proposal, or to another economic market forces solution to the health insurance crisis.

12/09/25 The Misrepresentation of Affordability

In my Chirp on “11/17/25 The Big Three Issues of Affordability”, I discussed the “Affordability” concerns of the American public, and the issues that need to be addressed to address these concerns. This Chirp addresses the Democrat Party Leaders' attempts to hoodwink the American public into believing that this is a problem of the Trump Administration.

In this hoodwinking, they are using sophistry in an attempt to convince the American public to focus on the first ten months of the Trump Administration, while ignoring the four years of the Biden administration, as the following charts illustrate:

The Democrat Party Leaders would have you believe that President Trump can fix the incompetence of four years of President Biden in ten short months and solve the affordability problem. In this hoodwinking, the Democrat Party Leaders are playing the American public as fools, in that they believe that the American public will ignore their own incompetence during the Biden Administration. Additionally, in doing so, they are sending in the clowns to distract you, as I have Chirped on “12/02/25 Send in the Clowns”.

While President Trump is working diligently to correct the issues of affordability, the Democrat Party Leaders want you to ignore the ineptitude of President Biden on these issues. Do not be fooled or pay attention to the clowns, as the good news is that President Trump has formed a team that understands these Big Three Issues of Affordability, and who are committed to solving these issues. But solving these affordability issues will take some time to correct. Consequently, it is important that the Republicans remain in power to correct these issues. This should be kept in mind by all Americans who are concerned about affordability as they cast their votes in the 2026 mid-term elections.

12/08/25 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

President Trump has issued a 2025 National Security Strategy, which emphasizes an "America First" approach, focusing on prioritizing U.S. interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, while urging European allies to take greater responsibility for their own security. It marks a significant shift from previous strategies, moving away from promoting democracy and instead prioritizing economic and national sovereignty concerns. A copy of this National Security Strategy may be downloaded here.

It is a foreign policy that is pragmatic without being “pragmatist”, realistic without being “realist”, principled without being “idealistic”, muscular without being “hawkish”, and restrained without being “dovish”. It is not grounded in traditional political ideology. It is motivated above all by what works for America—or, in two words, “America First”. It is a strategy based on four questions: What Is American Strategy, What Should the United States Want, What Do We Want Overall, and What Do We Want In and From the World?

This 2025 National Security Strategy emphasizes a strong focus on the Western Hemisphere, aiming to reassert U.S. dominance in the region. The strategy introduces the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, which seeks to limit foreign influence and enhance U.S. security in the Western Hemisphere.

Some of the key points of this new National Security Strategy are:

Principles

Focused Definition of the National Interest
Peace Through Strength
Predisposition to Non-Interventionism
Flexible Realism
Primacy of Nations
Sovereignty and Respect
Balance of Power
Pro-American Worker
Fairness
Competence and Merit

Priorities

The Era of Mass Migration Is Over
Protection of Core Rights and Liberties
Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting
Realignment Through Peace
Economic Security
- Balanced Trade
- Securing Access to Critical Supply Chains and Materials
- Reindustrialization
- Reviving our Defense Industrial Base
- Energy Dominance
- Preserving and Growing America’s Financial Sector Dominance

Regional Focus

Western Hemisphere: The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Asia: Leading from a Position of Strength, Win the Economic Future, and Prevent Military Confrontation
Europe: Greater European Responsibility in European Affairs, while Promoting European Greatness and Self-Reliance
The Middle East: Shift Burdens and Build Peace
Africa: transition from an aid-focused relationship to a trade- and investment-focused relationship

Strategic Goals

Foreign Peace

Ukraine Conflict: Seeks to broker an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine, viewing it as vital for U.S. interests.
Improving Relations: Aim to reestablish strategic stability with Russia after years of tension, and realign our relationship with China.
Foreign Conflicts: Prevent or End conflicts through harmonious negotiations and mutually beneficial solutions.

Domestic Security

Border Security: Emphasizes that border security is a primary element of national security, declaring the era of mass migration over.
This strategy marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing national interests and a more transactional approach to international relations.

This Trump National Security Strategy is a sharp turn away from the post-World War II approach of Globalism, America being the world’s policeman, and the promotion of Democracy throughout the world. There will be howls and cries by those who supported the previous approach to world affairs, to which I would respond with the famous question of Dr. Phil, “How is that working for you?” Given President Trump’s accomplishments on the world stage in the last nine months, perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt and work with him to achieve these goals. Alas, given the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), I would expect that they will utilize demagoguery and Lawfare to oppose this Trump Doctrine, instead of considering what is best for America and Americans.

12/07/25 Things to Remember

Larry Elder has written an article, “Random Outrage”, in which he imparts some of the wisdom that his mother and father bestowed upon him:

“I apologize that my mother told me, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.

I also hereby apologize that my father told me the following:

Hard work wins.
You get out of life what you put into it.
You cannot control the outcome, but you are 100 percent in control of the effort.
Before complaining, ask yourself, "What could I have done to change the outcome?"
And, finally, my father said, "Bad things happen. How you respond to those bad things will tell your mother and me if we raised a man."”

Wisdom that we should all remember in the conduct of our lives.

12/06/25 Assimilating the Unassimilable

To assimilate into a society requires that you wish to become part of a society, and that you are willing to adopt the societal and cultural values of the society that you become a member of. Assimilating those who do not wish to assimilate is a hopeless task. This has been proven in Europe, and it is now being proven in America. Many immigrants (both legal and illegal) into modern America wish to reap the benefits of America without assimilating America’s values and culture.

This assimilation is very difficult to accomplish if you do not have any background or knowledge of the other societies’ values and cultures. It is especially difficult to accomplish if your experience and cultural or religious values are counter to the new society that you are trying to assimilate into. Today, in modern America, we have this problem with many Islamic and Hispanic immigrants who have immigrated to America. The ultra-religious Islamist and corrupt/criminal Hispanic immigrants that have entered America are not assimilating and, indeed, are trying to establish their own societal and cultural values within America.

This situation can only be destructive to America, as these unassimilable immigrants often engage in activities that are antithetical to American societal and cultural values. They are also breaking many laws in their actions, and they are causing harm to Americans and other law-abiding non-Americans. This situation must end for America to be a strong, peaceful, and prosperous society.

Consequently, we must reexamine our immigration policies and deport the unassimilable to their country of origin for us to retain our American societal and cultural values. I would expect that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will oppose these efforts, as they see the unassimilable as a voting bloc for them, as well as being corrupted by them (as in the current Minnesota and Maine government funding fraud and corruption scandals). To do otherwise is to allow for the corruption of our American societal and cultural values and put an end to our society as we know it.

12/05/25 A Cacophony of Nonsense

An old legal adage states, “when you have the facts, pound the facts; when you have the law, pound the law; when you have neither, pound the table”. Today, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have adopted this aphorism to their political posturing in that when the facts do not support them, they ignore the facts, when the law does not support them, they obscure the law, and they then raise a ruckus to sow confusion and doubt by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language".

This can be seen in the cacophony of nonsense that they are spouting about President Trump and the members of his administration. There is a lot of table pounding by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists without any facts or law to support them. The good news is that most Americans now see through their table pounding and ignore them. Therefore, they soon give up the table pounding on the nonsense of the moment, and they then proceed to table pound on another piece of nonsense, which the American people then ignore.

However, such table pounding contributes to Divisiveness in America, and it is deleterious to A Civil Society, which fractures our society. But the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do not seem to be concerned about this, as their only concern seems to be obtaining and retaining political power. A political power that they will utilize in an attempt to destroy Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives through The Weaponization of Government, as was demonstrated in the Obama and Biden Administrations.

The American people will do well to ignore this cacophony of nonsense, and they would do even better if they do not elect or re-elect those politicians who engage in this nonsense.

12/04/25 Propagandists, Not Journalists

Modern Journalism has adopted a mantra of "Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, and See No Evil" when it comes to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds. Indeed, the opposite is true for those who would oppose Progressives/Leftists in that they, "Hear All Evil, Speak All Evil, and See All Evil", of those in opposition to Progressives/Leftist or Democratic Party leaders. Perhaps we should stop calling them 'Journalists' and hereafter refer to them as 'Propagandists', which would be a more accurate term for what they are practicing.

And today, modern journalism has been infected by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity. An infection that tilts all reporting and commentary against President Trump and his supporters. An infection that skewers the political landscape in favor of Democrat Party leaders and candidates. The misreporting, or lack of reporting of the Democrat Lies (as I have Chirped on “11/21/25 They Lied”), are the most egregious examples of their being Propagandists. And this propaganda can sway elections, and it certainly sways polling. It also reinforces those in the clutches of Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity to continue in their stupidity.

The good news is that many Americans have become aware of their propaganda and discount their reporting and commentary. The bad news is that there are enough Americans who are unaware of their propaganda and vote based on their propaganda, which can sway an election by ill-informed voters.

Alas, the Freedom of the Press allows them freedom to misreport or not report anything that they choose. But the Freedom of Speech allows Americans to label them as Propagandists to illuminate their predilections to counter their propaganda. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' famous statement that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” is a truism, so should thoughtful Americans throw sunshine upon them to disinfect these Press Propagandists.

12/03/25 Dumbfounding

Secretary of War Peter Hegseth was alleged to have said, “Kill them all”, when talking about the drug-smuggling boats' crewmen that we have been killing in the Caribbean. Currently, there is no veracity to this report, and Secretary Hegseth has denied saying it. Yet, much ado is being made about this allegation without any supporting evidence. There is talk of Congressional investigations, and I would not be surprised if some would suggest a Special investigator. This is reminiscent of the Russiagate allegations, which were unfounded, and led to nowhere after expending much time and money in an attempt to tie up the first Trump Administration.

In addition, many of those same critics of Secretary Hegseth are claiming that American actions to stop drug trafficking in international waters are against American rules of engagement by armed forces and/or International Law. And many of those making this claim know not whereof they speak when it comes to these rules and laws. Experts can debate the pros and cons of these claims, but there is no doubt that the Trump Administration is taking bold, decisive action to end the scourge of drug addiction in America, and to put international drug cartels and rogue nations on notice that we will no longer tolerate drug smuggling into America.

What is dumbfounding to me is that his critics (especially Democrat Congresspersons) are expressing concerns that he is not following International Law in these attacks, and these same critics also complain when the Trump Administration is enforcing Federal Illegal Immigration Laws. You are either for or against enforcing laws, and you do not get to choose which laws you are for or against enforcing. You do get to change or eliminate laws that you do not agree with, if you can elicit the proper support for doing so.

This dichotomy of their positions is but political gamesmanship to tarnish the Trump Administration and to enlist support for their political agenda. In this dichotomy, they are not putting the best interests of the American people in the forefront, but they are prioritizing their own best interests. These are not the words and deeds of leaders, but they are what is said or done by those only interested in their own political power.

12/02/25 Send in the Clowns

“And where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.”
- Stephen Sondheim in the 1973 musical "A Little Night Music"

A "clown show" figuratively refers to a chaotic situation or a disorganized mess. It often describes events or scenarios that are poorly managed or ridiculous. And the Democrat Party has become a clown show, more interested in theatrics than in governance. Their whole behavior shows a party more committed to drama than solutions. And it is bad drama, as no thoughtful person is taking them seriously.

With their loss of political power, they have lost control of the show. Consequently, they have resorted to histrionics to denigrate their opponents, rather than formulate public policy that the electorate can support. Their only electoral advantage is in the enthusiasm of their supporters and the reflexive vote of many lifelong Democrats. This voting bloc, coupled with less enthusiastic Republican and Independent voters, can result in some election victories. But these victories are hollow, as they are often localized in deep blue States and cities, and, thus, they are insufficient to have a major impact on the rest of America.

They have become a party of Progressives/Leftists orthodoxy, and anyone who deviates from this orthodoxy is excommunicated from the party. They will also continue to support their candidates even when damaging information is uncovered about them. And they choose their candidates based on their presentability and electability, with little regard for their ability to govern.

In their theatrics, they will say outrageous things about their opponents, lie about their opponents’ words, deeds, and records, and even slander and libel their opponents. More dangerously, we have seen a rise in their support for physical confrontation by their supporters against their opponents. This is a party that feels no compunction about using The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare against their opponents. This is a party that believes we have the liberty to do with what they agree with, and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within their constraints.

They are also a party in civil strife. The old guard leaders are old and ineffective, and they have become anathema to the left wing of their party. Their new wannabe leaders have big government and socialistic agendas that most Americans find objectionable. And every one of these wannabes is jockeying to be the leaders of the Democrat Party, and, as such, they are rudderless and without a unified direction.

This is a party that has become A Special Kind of Stupid and the personification of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ideas on stupidity. This is a party descending into chaos, and they seem to be unconcerned that they are dragging America into chaos. God forbid if they regain power, as who knows how they will exercise their power, or what they will do or say to retain their power.

12/01/25 Stupidity and Arrogance

There is often an arrogance amongst those suffering from stupidity, which often comes with a belief that they are smarter than most people. An arrogance that makes it difficult to deal with these people, and an arrogance that is very easy to discern. An interesting YouTube video points out six signs of such stupidity:

6 Signs Someone Isn’t as Smart as They Think (Psychology Says So)

One, confidence without clue.
Two, no curiosity or interest in learning.
Three, black and white thinking.
Four, bad emotional control.
Five, always blaming others.
Six, can't handle different opinions.

When dealing with such stupid people, there is a Socratic method to challenge their stupidity, which another YouTube video illuminates:

The Socratic Method: 5 Questions That Destroy Any Argument

Question #1: “How do you know that’s true?”
Question #2: “What are you assuming?”
Question #3: “What evidence would change your mind?”
Question #4: “What would someone who disagrees say?”
Question #5: “What would happen if everyone thought like you?”

Most stupid people have difficulty answering these questions, or their answers are nonsensical. Hopefully, they will recognize their stupidity when confronted with these questions, but any intelligent person listening to them will recognize and realize they are dealing with a stupid person.

In dealing with these people, you should remember one of the "Ten Pretty Good Rules to Live By" of “Never argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference!” You should also remember these six signs and five questions before you open your mouth and display your own arrogance and stupidity.

Addendum – Another YouTube video I found after writing this Chirp, The Dangerous Psychology of Stupidity We Can’t Ignore Anymore, has even more food for thought on the issue of stupidity. This video explores the dangerous psychology of stupidity and breaks down the hidden levels of ignorance that shape modern life. From passive misunderstanding to emotional reasoning, willful blindness, herd mentality, intellectual arrogance, and finally malicious stupidity, the script reveals how ordinary people fall into destructive thinking patterns. Through insights from philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science—including the Dunning–Kruger effect, blind conformity, and the impact of cognitive biases—the video shows how stupidity spreads through society, relationships, and institutions. It examines why people reject truth, why ignorance becomes confidence, and how mass stupidity forms through social influence and collective behavior. This breakdown uncovers how human stupidity, dangerous ignorance, and moral blindness can destroy communities, distort reality, and shape the world in terrifying ways.

These seven levels of stupidity are:

Passive Ignorance
Confident Misunderstanding
Emotional Reasoning
Willful Blindness
Herd Mentality
Intellectual Arrogance
Malicious Stupidity

And remember, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid. It may be your own stupidity that leads you to believe that they are stupid. The Bible verse in Matthew 7:5 states, "You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." This verse emphasizes the importance of addressing one's own faults before judging others. Therefore, examine your own stupidity before you comment on another’s stupidity.

11/30/25 Giving and Receiving Breaks

Upon reflection, I have added to my Pearls of Wisdom a new Pearl on Giving and Receiving Breaks as follows:

Many people often respond to another person’s comments, critiques, or criticisms with the expression ‘Give me a break’. What many people often do not realize is that they are often given breaks without realizing that they have been given a break. Most of these hidden breaks are in the form of silence by another whenever you say or do something that disturbs them. For harmony's sake, the other person will often be silent to not cause a disturbance or harm their relationship with you (this is often very true in spousal relationships).

Many times, when you utilize the expression ‘Give me a break’, it is because you have not considered your own words. And many times, your comments have built-in assumptions and presumptions that may or may not be true. Also, you may not have considered other possibilities within your assumptions and presumptions, and this is often true because you lack sufficient facts to make these assumptions and presumptions. And sometimes the facts you have may be incorrect. Thus, consider the possibility that your assumptions, presumptions, and facts may be incorrect before asking for a break.

In addition, do not regard another’s silence as agreement or approval of what you have said. If you are asking for agreement or approval from another, you should, in a polite and respectful manner, ask for their opinion or critique. When, and if, they respond, you should keep in mind my Pearls of Wisdom on Be in Control of Yourself, Do Not Presume of Another’s Words or Deeds, and It’s Not All About You.

In all of this, you need to Know the Difference between Criticism and Critique and respond accordingly, and if their response was a criticism, then try to Be the Better Person in your response to their criticism. Keeping this in mind in your relationships with others will often lead to the betterment of your own life, as you can rest and sleep easily knowing that you have behaved appropriately.

Accordingly, the expression ‘Give me a break’ is rarely appropriate in most situations, and it is often an emotional reaction rather than a considered reaction. But you should also consider giving and receiving breaks when appropriate.

11/29/25 Do Not Presume on Another’s Words or Deeds

Upon reflection, I have updated my Pearls of Wisdom on Do Not Presume of Another’s Words or Deeds to encompass all the possible reactions you may have to another’s words and deeds as follows:

Whenever someone says or does anything that impacts us, we often react emotionally rather than analytically. And often our reactions not only reflect upon the other person, but they also reflect upon ourselves, and many of these reflections are negative. I, myself, in my early adulthood, have often done this and have had negative consequences for my reactions, until I realized this Pearl of Wisdom.

There are three ways that you can react to what others say or do: Positively, Negatively, or Neutrally. Before reacting, you should always calm down, think analytically, and then respond. Doing this requires self-control and patience, something most of us lack. But the benefits of doing this far outweigh the costs of reacting impulsively.

Firstly, do not presume a negative connotation of another’s words or deeds until it is proven to be negative. This is especially true for your friends, and it should also be applied to your foes. For your friends, it allows you to sleep better at night, as you will not worry over what they may have possibly said or done that is detrimental to you. For your foes, you do not have to worry or obsess about the consequences of their possible words or deeds until their machinations become apparent, which will then bolster your words and deeds in response to what is said or done. It is also quite possible that additional facts and/or further analysis of what others have said or done will change your mind.

Reacting positively without being analytical often leads to harmony, but it can also lead to incorrect or improper words and deeds that are not advantageous for yourself or others. Be careful in your positive response that you do not commit yourself to a response that may later prove to be disadvantageous to yourself or others. And remember, you could possibly be wrong in your response.

Responding neutrally is the best immediate reaction, as it will not cause disharmony or be unconstructive. It will also allow you time to think about a constructive response. I have found that responding neutrally with a positive comment, followed by a negative critique (but not criticism), also facilitates what is said or done. I have also found that admitting your lack of knowledge also facilitates what is said or done.

Thinking analytically about what has been said or done can help improve what is said or done, but it can also be unconstructive if not done properly. And remember not to become stuck on your positive, negative, or neutral response, as additional facts may be revealed that may change your mind. You should also Always Be Polite and Respectful to all in your response, and to respond with Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning. This is a reflection on your character and intelligence, and not a statement of approval or disapproval of the other person's character or intelligence.

When evaluating what is said or done by others, give the benefit of the doubt to another, as this makes for a more harmonious situation. Doing otherwise leads to incivility and the damaging of the reputation of another or yourself. This Pearl of Wisdom is also a reminder that you should consider your own words and deeds before speaking or taking action that impacts another.

11/28/25 Poisoning Weak, Twisted, or Stupid Minds

With the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the physical violence against Federal agents enforcing immigration laws, and now the shooting of two National Guardsmen (and which now has left Sarah Beckstrom dead and Andrew Wolfe in critical condition), the poisoning of minds that the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders through their Divisiveness in America, their pro-Islamist and Anti-Semitic rhetoric, and their lies (as I have Chirped on “11/21/25 They Lied”), is coming to fruition.

This fruition is because of weak or twisted minds, or uncritical persons that are in the clutches of Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity, who cannot control their emotional response to what they feel is the evilness of their opponents. The hyperbole and invectiveness of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders over the last ten years have poisoned their minds, and it has led to this violence.

Despite the warnings of many that this rhetoric and lies are dangerous, they have continued to spew this rhetoric and continued lies, as they have no other means to motivate voters to support them. Rather than having political goals and policy agendas that the majority of the American people can support, they have to Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage their opponents. Thus, the hatred of their supporters grew, and it has now overwhelmed them into supporting or engaging in violence.

If these Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe their own words, then they are in the clutches of Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity, and such people should never be leaders of a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms, as they will destroy liberty and freedom, as history has so often demonstrated. If America should descend into Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, or Communism, it will not be because of what President Trump and his supporters have said or done, but because of the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in poisoning the minds of their supporters, and in attracting new supporters with their rhetoric and lies.

11/27/25 Thankfulness

In today’s America, we are experiencing great civil strife. The bitter partisanship that has divided us, and its consequences, has pitted family members against family members, Progressives/Leftists against Conservatives, and individual and group activists against lawful authorities, which has increased hatred and violence in America. The violence that has occurred because of this civil strife has resulted in the destruction of personal property, injuries to those involved in the violence, and occasional deaths from increased criminal acts by some of those who are in this country illegally. Our lawmakers are also involved in this bitter partisanship, resulting in stalemates and impasses in creating or modifying needful legislation for the betterment of America.

On this Thanksgiving day, we should remember the words of wisdom of President Abraham Lincoln when he declared the first Thanksgiving Day during the greatest strife America has faced in American history—The Civil War. The following excerpt from this declaration is as apropos today as when it was first delivered:

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.”
- President Abraham Lincoln

Let us therefore, on this Thanksgiving Day, put aside our differences and count our blessings of family and friendship, and the Liberties and Freedoms that we enjoy in America. And let us pray for a future “enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union” in America.

11/26/25 No Accountability – No Justice

In my Chirp on “11/21/25 They Lied”, I listed demonstrable lies that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have perpetrated over the last ten years:

They lied about Russiagate
They lied about Hunter Biden’s Laptop
They lied about spying on their Political Opponents
They lied about President Biden’s mental and physical health
They lied about President Biden’s use of the Autopen
They lied about a secure Southern Border
They lied about the origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic virus
They lied about the January 6th “Insurrection”
They lied about the responsibility for the recent government shutdown
They lie about Illegal Immigrant apprehensions, detentions, and deportations
They lie about the transgender issues in society
They lie about affordability in America
They lie about racism in American society
They lie about the history of America and Constitutional meaning
They lie about Fascism, Nazism, and the Authoritarianism of President Trump and his supporters
And they are now lying about the Epstein Files

These are not only lies, but they may have been criminal actions by Government Officials. In my Chirps on "11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials", "08/28/25 Retaliation, Retribution, or Accountability", and "07/15/25 Justice, Not Retaliation", I point out the necessity for accountability for misdeeds and justice for criminal acts for those who have perpetrated these lies.

At a minimum, there should be accountability for their words and deeds by the public disgrace of them for what they have said and done. And if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violating the rights of Americans under “18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

This prosecution is about justice, not retaliation. After all, as they have often said in their allegations against Donald Trump, ‘No one is above the law’, and there are no “Laws for thee, but not for me” in America. Accordingly, if they violated the law, they should be prosecuted as such. Otherwise, the Rule of Law would not apply to government officials who broke the law, which is a violation of the principle of equality before the law for all.

11/25/25 An Overview of Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity

While using the search assist of my web browser I encounter the following while searching for ‘Theory of Stupidity’, which I have found to be helpful in thinking about Bonhoeffer's Stupidity Theory, and which I present here as a cheat sheet on his ideas on stupidity:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian, proposed that stupidity is more dangerous than evil. He argued that while evil can be identified and fought against, stupidity is harder to combat because it often goes hand-in-hand with power and can be manipulated by those with malicious intent. He believed that while evil can be identified and opposed, stupidity is insidious and often goes unchallenged. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits that stupidity is more dangerous than evil because it is often blind and self-satisfied, making it resistant to reason and facts. He argued that when individuals surrender their critical thinking to conform to groups or ideologies, they become susceptible to manipulation and can unwittingly support harmful actions.

Key Concepts

Definition of Stupidity:

Stupidity vs. Ignorance: Stupidity is a willful resistance to knowledge, while ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. Stupid individuals often refuse to accept facts that contradict their beliefs.
Moral Failure: Bonhoeffer viewed stupidity as a moral failure, where individuals surrender their critical thinking to groupthink, leading to a loss of intellectual autonomy.

Characteristics of Stupid Individuals:

Manipulability: Stupid people can be easily influenced and used by those in power, making them dangerous.
Self-Satisfaction: They often remain unaware of their stupidity and can become aggressive when challenged.

Cipolla's Laws of Stupidity

Professor Carlo Cipolla outlined five laws regarding stupidity:

Everyone underestimates the number of stupid people.
The probability of a person being stupid is independent of other characteristics.
A stupid person causes losses to others without any benefit to themselves.
Non-stupid people underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person in society.

Implications of Stupidity

Bonhoeffer's theory suggests that societies with a high proportion of stupid individuals may struggle to progress. The ability to counteract the negative effects of stupidity relies on the presence of intelligent individuals who can mitigate the losses caused by the stupid.

11/24/25 A Bad Peace Treaty

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
- Baruch Spinoza, A Dutch philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin of the 17th century

“Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and the 34th president of the United States of the 20th century

“A bad peace is even worse than war.”
- Tacitus, An ancient Roman historian and politician of the 1st century

Peace is not an absence of war or armed conflict, but it is the cessation of war or armed conflict with justice. And any peace plan without justice will lead to further war or armed conflict in the future. The history of peace plans in the 20th and 21st centuries has many examples of peace without justice that led to other wars or armed conflicts.

America has a history of supporting peace deals that have not provided justice and have led to further wars or armed conflicts. This is mainly because America and Americans are a benevolent people who wish goodwill for all the people of the world. We assume that this benevolence and goodwill are what drive other countries and people in obtaining peace, and we often forget the importance of obtaining justice to secure a lasting peace. In this, we have forgotten that:

“It is madness for sheep to talk peace with a wolf.”
- Thomas Fuller, an English churchman and historian of the 17th century

Some of the peace agreements we have supported that did not lead to a lasting peace with justice are:

Treaty of Versailles of World War I
Potsdam Agreement of World War II
Korean Armistice Agreement of the Korean War
Paris Peace Accords of the Vietnam War
Camp David Accords of the Arab-Israel Conflicts
United States–Taliban deal of the Afghanistan War

Today, we have seen the Gaza peace plan and the proposed Ukrainian-Russian peace deal to end these conflicts and the war. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of the Gaza Peace plan in obtaining peace and justice, but the proposed peace plan between Ukraine and Russia is an offense to peace and justice. It rewards Russia for its aggression against Ukraine, and it deprives the Ukrainian people of justice for Russian militancy. In an article by Douglas Murray, “We shouldn’t reward Russia with a ‘peace’ that leaves Ukraine carved up and helpless”, he outlines why this peace deal is an injustice to peace and justice.

I agree with Douglas Murray in his analysis of the proposed Ukrainian-Russian peace deal, and therefore, I cannot support this peace deal and, indeed, I oppose this peace deal. It is a bad peace deal that will lead to further wars or armed conflicts. I hope that the American people will realize this, and they will oppose this peace deal.

11/23/25 The Perils of Pestilential Stupidity

In my article on A Special Kind of Stupid, and my Chirps on “11/20/25 Smart or Stupid, or Both”, “11/21/25 They Lied”, and “11/22/25 The Usefulness of Stupidity”, I have bemoaned the slide into stupidity of the American people from the lack of critical thinking, as I explained in my Chirp on “11/19/25 Critical Thinking”. And, as I have mentioned in these Chirps, these stupid people are a pestilence on society.

Pestilential stupidity in society is a pernicious and malign influence that is hard to get rid of, and it is all too common in the acceptance and advancement of Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, and Labor Parties. The most destructive form of pestilential stupidity was Communism, Nazism, and Fascism, which led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the destruction of their societies. In other societies, pestilential stupidity leads to societal civil discord and paralysis as a we against them mentality emerges. This is evident in the slide into stupidity of Great Britain and Western European societies.

Today, in America, we have seen the rise of stupidity in our society. On a webpage in Philosopheasy, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Terrifying Theory of Stupidity”, they state some of the reasons for the rise in this modern stupidity:

The Modern Relevance: A Warning for Today

Bonhoeffer's theory resonates with chilling accuracy in our modern, hyper-connected world. Social media algorithms, echo chambers, and the constant barrage of information have created fertile ground for the cultivation of stupidity. We're constantly bombarded with curated realities, reinforcing our existing biases and making us even less likely to question the narratives we consume.

Consider the following:

The spread of misinformation and propaganda.
The polarization of political discourse.
The rise of tribalism and groupthink.

These are all symptoms of a society struggling against the tide of Bonhoeffer's "stupidity."

And that is where we are in today’s American society. While many on the right side of the political spectrum in America have exhibited Bonhoeffer’s definition of stupidity, they are in the minority and have little influence on the Republican Party. Alas, a majority on the left side of the political spectrum has exhibited Bonhoeffer’s definition of stupidity, and they are in the majority within the Democrat Party and have much influence in directing its political goals and policy agendas.

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, and that their opponents should be ignored and debased. In their beliefs, they are immune to any intellectual reasoning that challenges their beliefs, and, thus, they have become Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s definition of stupidity. If they cannot be persuaded out of their stupidity, then they, too, will bring about the destruction of American society, as has happened to the societies that descend into stupidity. And such societies often end through social strife, leading to repression and possible civil warfare. Either way, America as we know it, and as our Founding Fathers constructed it to be, cannot stand against pestilential stupidity. Accordingly, it is necessary to defeat this pestilential stupidity, or America will further descend into stupidity and cease to exist as the last best hope of mankind.

11/22/25 The Usefulness of Stupidity

Most politicians love stupidity. With the stupidity of the public, they can use prevarications, sophistry, shenanigans, and bamboozlement to persuade the electorate to vote for them and to support their political goals and policy agendas. They rely on a lack of critical thinking by the electorate, as I have Chirped on “11/19/25 Critical Thinking”, to persuade the public to support and vote for them. And many of their supporters are smart but stupid, as I have examined in my Chirp on “11/20/25 Smart or Stupid, or Both”. These smart but stupid people have become collectively stupid, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran minister during the time of Nazism postulated. Those people who so vote surrender their independence, engage in group conformity, and are resistant to facts. They have become useful idiots for crafty politicians. For more of Bonhoeffer's thoughts on collective stupidity, I would direct you to the YouTube videos “Are You A Part Of Them? - Theory Of Stupidity” and “Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity”. Also, while using the search assist of my web browser I encounter the following while searching for ‘Theory of Stupidity’, which I have found to be helpful in thinking about Bonhoeffer's Stupidity Theory:

"Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian, proposed that stupidity is more dangerous than evil. He argued that while evil can be identified and fought against, stupidity is harder to combat because it often goes hand-in-hand with power and can be manipulated by those with malicious intent.

Key Concepts

Definition of Stupidity

Stupidity vs. Ignorance: Stupidity is a willful resistance to knowledge, while ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. Stupid individuals often refuse to accept facts that contradict their beliefs.
Moral Failure: Bonhoeffer viewed stupidity as a moral failure, where individuals surrender their critical thinking to groupthink, leading to a loss of intellectual autonomy."

Characteristics of Stupid Individuals

Manipulability: Stupid people can be easily influenced and used by those in power, making them dangerous.
Self-Satisfaction: They often remain unaware of their stupidity and can become aggressive when challenged.

These smart but stupid people are like pestilence (a pernicious and malign influence that is hard to get rid of), as they sow discord and often wreak havoc in their wake. Thinking critically stems this pestilence, but only if you act upon what your critical thinking leads you to believe. But critical thinking requires much time and effort in gathering the facts and reasoning to achieve a proper conclusion. The time and effort that most Americans do not have in their pursuit of their daily activities are lacking. Therefore, the American public must have another means to determine the veracity of a politician’s statements and claims.

A good guidepost is to examine the veracity of their previous statements and claims, and to determine the factuality and implications of their previous statements and claims. The most important criterion for this examination is to determine if they have lied, as a liar can be discounted in their current statements and claims. In my Chirp on “11/21/25 They Lied”, I examined the lies of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists over the last decade. As such, you can expect that they are relying on the stupidity of the American public to obtain their political goals and policy agendas.

Accordingly, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists rely on the stupidity of the American public, and they should not be elected or reelected as they are facilitators of pestilential stupidity in our society.

11/21/25 They Lied

In the last ten years, the American people have discovered the truth about the character and virtue of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists—they are liars. The following short list (in no particular order) is the demonstrable lies they have perpetrated over the last ten years:

They lied about Russiagate
They lied about Hunter Biden’s Laptop
They lied about spying on their Political Opponents
They lied about President Biden’s mental and physical health
They lied about President Biden’s use of the Autopen
They lied about a secure Southern Border
They lied about the origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic virus
They lied about the January 6th “Insurrection”
They lied about the responsibility for the recent government shutdown
They lie about Illegal Immigrant apprehensions, detentions, and deportations
They lie about the transgender issues in society
They lie about affordability in America
They lie about racism in American society
They lie about the history of America and Constitutional meaning
They lie about Fascism, Nazism, and the Authoritarianism of President Trump and his supporters
And they are now lying about the Epstein Files

And when the truth is discovered, they lie about their lies in trying to explain these lies. And their hypocrisy in trying to explain these lies knows no bounds. And these lies are but for two purposes: to obtain and retain political power by impugning President Trump and his supporters, and in an attempt to destroy the Republican Party to ensure their future political power.

As I have written in my Chirp on “11/20/25 Smart or Stupid, or Both”, they have become the stupid people in America in their Surrender of Independence, Group Conformity, and Resistance to Facts. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer has written, “Against stupidity we are defenseless.”, and any attempt to refute their lies with reason is useless. Consequently, they are impervious to reasoning, and they must be opposed by exposing their stupidity through mockery and ridicule. Do not let them dissuade you that this mockery and ridicule are unbecoming, as it is the only way to defend ourselves from their stupidity.

11/20/25 Smart or Stupid, or Both

In my articles on Bonhoeffer on Stupidity and A Special Kind of Stupid, I write about the great German anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ideas on stupidity, and of Carlo M. Cipolla’s The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945) was a German Lutheran pastor during the time of Nazism, and he used all his intellectual prowess to protest and resist Nazism, to no avail. After he was arrested by the Gestapo and awaited his trial and execution, he reflected on his efforts. He realized that his intellectual efforts were doomed to failure, as it was not a lack of intellect of the German people that allowed Nazism to arise and thrive, but a descent into stupidity by the German people. The YouTube channel The Mindful Gaze has a video, The Theory of SOCIETAL STUPIDITY | By Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which explains Bonhoeffer’s journey, and how and why smart people become stupid, and how to avoid becoming stupid. Dietrich Bonhoeffer recognized stupidity as a psychological defense mechanism, a willful abandonment of critical thinking to avoid the burden of moral responsibility. As for Dietrich Bonhoeffer's core ideas of stupidity, he wrote:

“If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid.”
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Also:

Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. As for Carlo M. Cipolla, he postulated five fundamental laws of stupidity:

Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

On a webpage in Philosopheasy, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Terrifying Theory of Stupidity”, they state:

Stupidity vs. Evil: A Crucial Distinction

We often equate evil with malice – a conscious desire to inflict harm. But Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a far more potent and dangerous foe. Why? Because evil, at least, understands itself. It knows what it's doing. Stupidity, on the other hand, is often blind, self-satisfied, and utterly impervious to reason. It's not about a lack of intelligence; it's a moral failing.

The Anatomy of Stupidity

Bonhoeffer wasn't referring to a simple lack of intellect. Instead, he saw stupidity as a psychological and moral condition. Here's how he broke it down:

A Surrender of Independence: The core of stupidity is a voluntary abdication of one's own critical thinking, a willingness to surrender one's inner freedom.
Group Conformity: This surrender is often driven by a desire to belong, to conform to a group, ideology, or leader.
Resistance to Facts: The stupid person actively resists facts and arguments that contradict their pre-conceived notions. They are immune to reason.

And stupidness rarely recognizes its own stupidity. It is immune to facts and reasoning, or self-reflection, as they believe that they are always right and moral, and those who oppose them are always wrong and evil. As I have written in my Chirp on “11/19/25 Critical Thinking”, “You can silence fifty scholars with one fact, but you cannot silence an idiot with fifty facts.”, so you cannot reason with stupid people, as they are not exercising critical thinking, nor do they respond to critical thinking.

Alas, in modern America, we have seen Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party become the stupid people, as they exist in their own bubble, impenetrable by anyone else’s contrary words and deeds. And this stupidity is most apparent in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Their words and deeds are the anatomy of stupidity and the ultimate in groupthink that rejects anything or anyone who would disagree with them. They even disavow and shun those within their ranks who would disagree with any particular aspect of their stupidity.

Consequently, they are impervious to any intellectual reasoning and must be opposed by exposing their stupidity. This is one of the major reasons that they hate President Trump and his supporters, as he and his supporters mock and ridicule their stupidity, thus defanging them and exposing them for the danger to society that they are.

11/19/25 Critical Thinking

“You can silence fifty scholars with one fact, but you cannot silence an idiot with fifty facts.”

This anonymous line stings because it’s true. In our world today, where information travels at the speed of light across the internet, and there is much more misinformation than information on the internet, it often feels like ignorance can shout louder than a thousand truths. Mark Twain once said that a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on, and that statement is proven every day on the internet. And one viral lie, one repeated falsehood, or one loud opinion can outweigh careful reasoning, scholarship, or decades of knowledge.

But here’s the thing: while misinformation can drown out the facts and truths temporarily, it cannot erase reality. Facts and truths are patient, resilient, and ownerless. They wait, quietly, until reality resurfaces—and when it does, it cannot be ignored, and reality eventually bites back. This is why critical thinking is so important: reality bites back, and acceptance of unreality leads you astray and results in poor decision-making. To think critically requires that you always keep in mind that:

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true or false does not mean that you 'know' something is true or false, and just because someone says it is true or false does not make it true or false."
- Mark Dawson

Thus, when presented with “facts” and “truths”, it is important that you think critically about what is presented to determine if they are indeed facts and truths. Look and listen to opposing “facts” and “truths”, and attempt to obtain as much unbiased information as possible. In this critical thinking and forming an unbiased opinion, you should also remember The Law of Unintended Consequences before reaching a conclusion and deciding on a course of action. Otherwise, your opinion and conclusion can have negative repercussions. And remember:

“A scholar, no matter how learned, is trained to respect truth. When confronted with a solid fact, he will weigh it, test it, and if it holds the truth, accept it. That is the beauty of wisdom: it thrives on clarity, humility, and the pursuit of truth.

But an ignorant person is a different challenge altogether. Present him with forty facts, he will dismiss them. Show him evidence, he will twist it. Prove him wrong, and he will raise his voice instead of his reasoning. An ignorant mind does not seek truth, it seeks comfort, validation, and the illusion of being right.”
- Aatif Sayed

The YouTube channel PhiloNautica has three videos on Critical Thinking that all people should view:

How We Ended Up Raising the Stupidest Generation
In this video, we explore why critical thinking is dying and how collective stupidity is rising in today’s world. Starting from the roots of philosophy with Socrates, Plato, and Kant, the script traces how critical thought once shaped science, democracy, and progress. Yet in our time, it is collapsing under the weight of information overload, echo chambers, and sensationalist media. We examine how Google, social media algorithms, and nonstop headlines are reshaping minds—making us reactive, tribal, and intellectually lazy. But the decline is not inevitable. By practicing curiosity, slowing down, questioning assumptions, escaping echo chambers, and reforming how we learn and lead, we can revive the lost art of reasoning. This is a wake-up call for a distracted generation: to think for yourself, seek truth beyond noise, and resist the comfort of blind opinion. Because without critical thinking, the cost is not just ignorance—it is the rise of collective stupidity.
Why The World is Getting STUPIDER| The Stupidity Pandemic
In recent years, the world has experienced a troubling decline in critical thinking and intellectual humility, giving rise to what some call a "stupidity epidemic." This isn’t a sudden drop in intelligence, but rather a gradual erosion of our ability to think independently, reason logically, and question what we’re told. One major factor driving this decline is blind tribalism. Another force is the rise of digital echo chambers and engineered distraction. Compounding the problem is the Dunning–Kruger Effect — a psychological bias where the least knowledgeable people are the most confident in their opinions. Finally, the normalization of misinformation has led to a post-truth era, where emotional appeal often matters more than evidence. Altogether, these forces weaken our collective "cognitive immune system," making stupidity not just a personal issue but a systemic danger.
Why STUPID People Are a Greater Threat to Society Than Criminals
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian and anti-Nazi resistance fighter, identified stupidity as a greater threat than evil itself. Unlike malice, which can be confronted, stupidity is immune to logic, resistant to reason, and dangerously convinced of its own rightness. Bonhoeffer observed how Nazi Germany transformed intelligent individuals into blind followers, illustrating how stupidity spreads in society when people surrender their independent thought for conformity. This video explores Bonhoeffer’s insights into stupidity as a socio-psychological phenomenon, showing how it enables authoritarianism, propaganda, and mass manipulation. It also provides practical steps to resist stupidity, such as maintaining critical thinking, avoiding groupthink, recognizing manipulation tactics, and embracing intellectual independence. In a world filled with misinformation and blind loyalty, Bonhoeffer’s warning remains more relevant than ever. To combat stupidity, we must stay critical, stay aware, and refuse to be ruled by ignorance.

If you ever wondered how and why many in the modern world are uncritical in their thinking, these videos will explain the forces and the consequences that have given rise to stupidity in our modern world.

Uncritically thinking people are like a pestilence, as they sow discord and often wreak havoc in their wake. Thinking critically stems this pestilence, but only if you act upon what your critical thinking leads you to believe. But as the American sage Benjamin Franklin has said:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility"

“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."

Consequently, critical thinking is crucial to the proper functioning of society, and uncritical thinking leads to the detriment of society.

11/18/25 SNAP To It

There are approximately 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly and colloquially still known as the Food Stamp Program, or simply food stamps, which is a United States federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income persons to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), although benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. States (e.g., the Division of Social Services, the Department of Health and Human Services, etc.).

Out of the current population of the United States of America of approximately 348 million, this represents approximately 12% of the population. In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent approximately $100.3 billion on SNAP, which is about 1.5% of all federal spending. Most of this funding goes toward monthly benefits for participants, with the average benefit being $188 per person per month.

As in all government programs, waste, fraud, and abuse are problems. Earlier in the year, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins sent a letter to States requesting data on their SNAP recipients. Only 29 states complied, and they were mostly red states. According to the data received by the States, 186,000 dead people are receiving SNAP benefits, and around 500,000 people are receiving double benefits based on data from February, March, and April of 2025.

Secretary Rollins announced on Thursday, November 13th, that a complete overhaul of SNAP would be undertaken, and posted on X that:

“SNAP fraud is out of control, and the numbers we HAVE prove it.

Data from just 29 states uncovered nearly 200,000 people with dead people’s social security numbers… Meanwhile, 21 states are suing to keep their data hidden.

Why block transparency unless the truth is worse than the headlines?

This is exactly what happens when a massive program runs on outdated lists and zero accountability. Not to mention the 40% increase in recipients under the Biden Administration.

It’s time to clean up SNAP NOW!!!”

These states that are stonewalling do so because they know that SNAP fraud is massive. When you hide the books, it’s never to protect the honest folks—it’s to cover up the rot. Meanwhile, the states that did cooperate are already exposing exactly the kind of abuse the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists swear doesn’t exist. The 21 states that refused to send their SNAP data to the USDA are:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota

Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
As well as Washington, D.C.

But this is more than a problem of waste, fraud, and abuse; it is also a problem of government dependency. Too many of the recipients of SNAP have structured their lives around continued acquisition of SNAP benefits, and many of them have been receiving SNAP benefits for years and even decades. And too many politicians are using the distribution of SNAP benefits for political advantage. This has made the SNAP beneficiaries a government-dependent class of people, and pawns for political machinations.

While there are some good reasons for this dependency, such as a lack of good job opportunities, many are dependent because it is easier to get government benefits than to become self-reliant. Thus, the complete overhaul of SNAP should be done in conjunction with governmental efforts to obtain good job opportunities for the recipients of SNAP benefits. As I mentioned in my Chirp on “11/17/25 The Big Three Issues of Affordability”, the efforts of President Trump for more domestic and foreign investments in America will improve the job market and lead to more and higher-paying jobs for Americans. Therefore, the government should facilitate the opportunity for SNAP beneficiaries to obtain some of these jobs.

As to States withholding data on Federal funding, all States should be mandated to provide an accounting of how they spend Federal funds, or face the withholding of these Federal funds until such accounting is provided to the Federal government. Otherwise, waste, fraud, and abuse are more likely to occur than not, and political machinations will continue to plague Federal funding recipients.

11/17/25 The Big Three Issues of Affordability

Affordability is the catchword in the current election cycle, as it should be in all election cycles. After four years of the deleterious economic policies of President Biden and his Administration, the American public, and especially the middle class, saw affordability become a serious problem. The excessive government regulations in the Biden administration have affected all aspects of the economy, not only slowing the economy but also increasing inflation, which has made everything less affordable.

Many Democrat candidates in the last election ran on the affordability issue, forgetting that it was the Biden Administration's policies that caused the problem. They offered no solutions to fix the problem, but they did, however, try to shift the blame onto President Trump. As President Trump was elected in part on fixing the economy, the Democrats are now blaming Trump for not fixing the affordability problem. After only nine months in office, they expected that President Trump would wave a wand and fix all the affordability problems that they created. President Trump is waving a wand to fix the affordability problem, but such a fix will take some time to accomplish. To fix this problem, President Trump is addressing the Big Three issues that impact affordability: Energy, Jobs, and Inflation.

Energy is all in an economy, as the supply and demand, along with the costs of energy, have an impact on all aspects of the economy. President Biden and his Administration restricted energy exploitation and production in America, which made us more dependent on foreign energy supplies. Domestic natural gas, oil, and coal exploitation was curtailed under President Biden and his Administration, and electrical power generation by fossil fuels was curtailed in favor of “clean energy” power generation. Clean energy refers to energy produced from renewable sources that have minimal or no negative impact on the environment, such as solar, wind, and hydropower. However, clean energy cannot, and will never be able to, supply the growing electrical needs of an industrial and technological society. As a result of these Biden Administration policies, the costs of energy rose dramatically, which directly impacted the cost of all products and services in America and increased Inflation.

Plentiful and good-paying Jobs also impact affordability. If you have a job with good pay, everything becomes more affordable, and a lack of a job or a low-paying job makes everything less affordable. Job creation in America has become stagnant over the last few decades, as many jobs have been outsourced overseas or filled by (illegal) immigrant labor whose pay is substandard. The solving of the illegal immigration problem, along with President Trump’s initiatives for more domestic and foreign investments in America, will improve the job market and lead to more and higher-paying jobs for Americans. But such an effort cannot achieve results in the short term, as it takes some time for these investments to materialize in the construction and staffing of these new or upgraded facilities.

Inflation has two main drivers: Government Spending and Energy costs. Deficit spending by the government and the raising of the debt ceiling cause inflation to rise, which impacts all Americans. As to energy costs, I have addressed this issue in a previous paragraph of this Chirp. To control inflation requires that we end deficit spending and pay down the debt. This should not be done by increasing taxes, as increased taxes negatively impact affordability. The elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending is insufficient to counter deficit spending and pay down the debt. The government needs to reprioritize its spending and eliminate unneeded spending that is outside the bounds of necessary and needful governmental functions. Efficiency in government operations needs to be addressed, but efficient government is an oxymoron, as governments have never been truly efficient by their very nature (they do not respond to outside economic forces that ameliorate their actions as businesses must do to survive).

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do not seem interested in solving these Big Three Issues of Affordability, but they are interested in exploiting these issues for electoral gain. As such, if the Democrats regain political power, it can be expected that the affordability issue will go unaddressed and persist. Meanwhile, President Trump is working hard to solve these issues. This hard work cannot fix these issues in the short term, but in the longer term, his fixes to these issues will have a beneficial impact on America and Americans. Therefore, do not despair if you do not see significant improvements in affordability in the short-term, but be hopeful that President Trump’s initiatives in these Big Three Issues of Affordability will occur in the long-term. After all, his track record on the economy in his first term was very good (minus the COVID-19 pandemic impacts).

The good news is that President Trump has formed a team that understands these Big Three Issues of Affordability, and who are committed to solving these issues. Consequently, it is important that the Republicans remain in power. This should be kept in mind by all Americans who are concerned about affordability as they cast their votes in the 2026 mid-term elections.

Addendum – President Trump recently responded to the question of affordability on social media:

“Over the past few weeks, despite my creating Record Achievements for our Country including, a Total and Complete Victory on the Shutdown, Closed Borders, Low Taxes, No Men in Women’s Sports or Transgender for Everyone, ending DEI, stopping Biden’s Record Setting Inflation, Biggest Regulation Cuts in History, stopping EIGHT WARS, rebuilding our Military, being RESPECTED by every Country in the World (as opposed to being the laughingstock that we were just 12 months ago!), having Trillions of Dollars (Record Setting!) INVESTED in the U.S.A., and having created the “HOTTEST” Country anywhere in the World from being a DEAD Country just 12 months ago (and so much more!)”
- President Trump

11/16/25 A Healthcare Crisis

With the hue and cry over a healthcare crisis in America, I would remind all that we in America have the best healthcare in the world. Our skilled physicians, cutting-edge medical treatments, quality and abundant medical equipment, diverse pharmaceuticals, and healthcare without long delays are the envy of the world. Indeed, people across the world will travel to America to receive health care, while very few Americans will travel elsewhere to receive health care. In these other countries, their government-controlled healthcare services are plagued with shortages of doctors, hospitals, medical treatments, medical equipment, and pharmaceuticals, while medical treatment decisions are made by bureaucrats and not by patients and doctors. In addition, the governmental costs of providing public healthcare are increasingly consuming their budgets and driving them into deficits, at the cost of providing other essential governmental services.

Our problem in America is not healthcare, but health insurance. When the government became more involved in healthcare, the cost associated with healthcare rose to cover all the laws and regulations the government imposed upon healthcare providers, and these healthcare providers charged more for their services to cover these increased costs. Consequently, health insurance companies raised their premiums to cover these increased healthcare provider charges (they also took advantage of this situation to increase their profit margins).

Health insurance issues were addressed during the Obama Administration with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) of 2010, but none of the promises of Obamacare were met, and all the monitions occurred. Thus, today’s healthcare hue and cries are a reaction to the Obamacare failures, as explained in the PragerU video on Why Obamacare Doesn't Work As Promised. And one of the main reasons it failed is that the politicians and healthcare experts rarely have to deal with the realities of the healthcare and health insurance business, as I have pointily and humorously wrote in my Chirps on "04/07/25 You Let Out a Bunch of Stuff", "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top", and "06/17/24 The Elite Experts".

Consequently, any healthcare reform should start with the abolition of Obamacare, and a different, non-governmental approach should be instituted to provide affordable health insurance for Americans. Until this is done, we will continue to be plagued by health insurance vexations, but not by healthcare concerns.

11/15/25 Crybabies and Temper Tantrums

All parents have experienced the discomfort and embarrassment of their child wailing and crying in a supermarket or department store in their desire to get what they want, then throwing a temper tantrum if they do not get what they want. No matter if what they want is unneeded or unaffordable, they will wail, cry, and have a temper tantrum. All good parents know that it is necessary not to cave into these crybabies and to correct their behavior so as to raise a good child. Unfortunately, some parents do not do this, and they raise children who are self-centered and lack self-control, and who demand that they get what they want. Such children often do not grow up to be responsible adults, as they carry over this objectionable behavior into their adulthood.

Many of these parents who do not discipline their children are Progressives/Leftists in their child-rearing approach, and many of them and/or their children become Democrat Party Leaders. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, and they should always get what they want. When they don’t get what they want, they often become crybabies. This is best exemplified in the government shutdown that has just ended.

These Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists did not get what they wanted in the One Big Beautiful Bill passed recently by Congress, and they tried to get back what they wanted in the clean Continuing Resolution. And they acted as crybabies during the entire government shutdown to get what they wanted. After they were unsuccessful in getting what they wanted, they threw temper tantrums at those Democrats who supported an end to the government shutdown.

I would remind them that we had a democratic election in 2024, which placed President Trump in office and Republicans in the majority in Congress. Nevertheless, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists were intent on getting what they wanted, despite their being in the minority. This is not how “Our Democracy” works, as the minority does not get what they want, and they need to work in conjunction and negotiate with the majority to achieve some of their goals and do what is best for all Americans.

But being crybabies, they wailed and cried, and they disrupted the lives of many Americans. The economic impacts of the government shutdown were immense, as my previous Chirp on “11/14/25 Economic Impacts of the Government Shutdown” examined, and they personally impacted millions of Americans. This exhibition demonstrated that they were more concerned with their political goals and policy agendas than they were with doing what is best for America and Americans. They also showed that they are not the party of the people, but the party for their own political power, as I Chirped on "04/10/25 The Party of the People". Despite their protestations to the contrary, their crybaby antics and temper tantrums were and are all about themselves. The American people should remember this in the 2026 mid-term elections and keep them out of power until they learn self-control and lose their self-centeredness.

11/14/25 Economic Impacts of the Government Shutdown

The recent government shutdown, which lasted 43 days, has had significant economic repercussions. It is the longest shutdown in U.S. history and has affected various sectors, including federal employment, consumer spending, and public services.

Key Economic Effects

Federal Employment
- Furloughed Workers: Approximately 670,000 federal employees were furloughed, while about 730,000 worked without pay.
- Missed Paychecks: Federal workers missed about $16 billion in wages, leading to reduced consumer spending.
GDP Impact
- GDP Loss: The shutdown is estimated to have caused a permanent loss of about $11 billion in GDP. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a reduction in GDP growth by 1.5 percentage points for the fourth quarter of 2025.
- Economic Recovery: Much of the lost economic activity may be recovered once the government reopens, as workers will receive back pay.
Public Services and Benefits
- SNAP Benefits: Approximately 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) faced interruptions in benefits, impacting low-income families.
- Business Operations: Small businesses have struggled to secure federal loans, with an estimated $2.5 billion in loans delayed.
Consumer Sentiment
- Consumer Confidence: Consumer sentiment dropped to 50.7 in November, the lowest since 2022, indicating decreased optimism about the economy.
Travel and Transportation
- Flight Disruptions: The shutdown caused significant delays and cancellations in air travel, with about 6% of scheduled flights canceled at major airports.

The overall impact of the shutdown has been profound, affecting not only federal employees but also the broader economy and public services.

11/13/25 A Different Cup of Tea

There are many types of tea, primarily categorized into true teas and herbal teas, and within these categories, there are many variations. But they all share one root; they are all teas. In a world of Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, Labor Parties, and Communism, they all share one root, Marxism, and therefore they are nothing but a different cup of tea. A cup of tea that is bitter and often poisonous, and that leads to the destruction of society. They always lead to despotic or authoritarian governments, and to the suppression of the Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of the people within them.

Marxism and all its variants have never been successful (including socialistic forms of governance prior to Marxism), and they can never be successful, for as I have often said, “It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.” All these Marxist cups of tea result in wretchedness and shortages of the basic necessities of life for those living under them, which often leads to misery, illness, starvation, and even uncalled-for deaths of the populace. And they eventually economically collapse as often as they are tried. No matter which Marxist tea you drink, it will end in failure, with much suffering of the populace until they collapse and are rebuilt with a democratic and capitalistic foundation.

In my Chirps on "01/08/22 The Black Book of Communism", "06/04/25 The Importance of Capitalism", and my recent Chirp on “11/12/25 The Importance of a Democratic Republic”, it can be seen that anything but a Democratic-Republic based on Capitalism and Free Markets is deleterious to a society and humanity.

Thus, we must resist any attempts to change or fundamentally transform our form of government, lest we drink a different cup of tea and bring about the destruction of our society.

11/12/25 The Importance of a Democratic Republic

The world is full of governments, and different forms of governments (see List of forms of government), which can be categorized as Democratic, Non-Democratic, and Other. The following table lists the most common types of government within each category:

Democratic	Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy (Republic Government, Parliamentary Government), Constitutional monarchy
Non-Democratic	Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Oligarchy, Technocracy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Absolute monarchy, Stalinism
Other Types	Colonialist, Aristocratic

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate directly decides on policy initiatives, without elected representatives as proxies, as opposed to the representative democracy model, which occurs in the majority of established democracies. A Representative Democracy, also known as indirect democracy or electoral democracy, is a type of democracy where elected delegates represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy.

A Republic Government is a state in which political power rests with the public, typically through their representatives, in contrast to a monarchy. Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status, and the role of elections has been limited.

A Parliamentary Government, or parliamentary democracy, is a form of government where the head of government (chief executive) derives their democratic legitimacy from their ability to command the support ("confidence") of a majority of the legislature, to which they are held accountable.

A Constitutional monarchy, also known as a limited monarchy, a parliamentary monarchy, or a democratic monarchy, is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions. Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework.

While not all Democracies are Republics (constitutional monarchies, for instance, are not) and not all Republics are Democracies, common definitions of the terms democracy and republic often feature overlapping concerns, suggesting that many democracies function as republics, and many republics operate on democratic principles.

A Democratic Republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. As a cross between two similar systems, as Democratic-Republics functions on principles shared by both republics and democracies. A Democratic-Republic is the form of government in the United States, as I have examined in my article on A Republic or a Democracy. It is also necessary to distinguish the different interpretations of our Constitution, as I have written in my article A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution, as an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution would result in much mischief and misfortune, which negates Democratic-Republic principles.

The idea behind a Democratic-Republic is that people get to elect their leaders democratically, and the republican leaders set laws and policies for all the people by a majority vote of the republican leaders. This is done to assure that the mob passions of the people are tempered by the dispassionate reasoning of the republican leaders. This, hopefully, will ensure that wise and just policies and laws are created. Our Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the rights of the minority were protected against the majority rule, and they did this by limiting the powers of government and enshrining the people’s individual rights into our Constitution for the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of all.

It is for this reason that our Democratic-Republic, as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, is the best form of democratic government ever established, and is also the longest lasting government in history. All other forms of Democratic governments have been corrupted and withered, then died, or they have been overthrown and replaced by another form of government, as they did not protect the Liberties and Freedoms of their people and became oppressive in their governance. We have seen this in the 20th century of European history, and in modern European governments in their curtailment of the individual rights of the people that we hold dear, as expressed in The Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

While all forms of democratic governments have their problems, a Democratic-Republic government is best able to address these problems without serious impingement on the individual rights of its people. Consequently, any other form of government, other than a Democratic-Republic, is deleterious to its society and will eventually bring about the disintegration of its society. We, in America, must therefore resist any attempts to change or fundamentally transform our form of government, lest we too bring about the disintegration of our society.

11/11/25 The Soul of Democrats

In my article written in December 2020, The Soul of Our Political Parties, I lament that the soul of the modern Democrat Party was formulated on the extreme ideologies and ideas of Progressives/Leftists in response to the election of President Bush in 2000 and 2004, which were solidified in the election of President Obama in 2008 and 2012, then further cemented in the election of President Biden in 2020. The modern soul of the Republican Party began to formulate with the rise of the Tea Party Movement in 2009. The Tea Party movement was an American conservative political movement within the Republican Party that coalesced against President Barack Obama's agenda and held a series of public protests against President Obama and moderate Republican Party leaders. This Republican soul began to be solidified with the election of President Trump in 2016 and has become entrenched in his reelection in 2024.

In addition, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has so overtaken the Democrat Party that they will nominate any candidate that opposes Trump, and who will spend most of their campaigns running against Trump rather than their opponent. Indeed, they will nominate candidates with serious shortcomings if they are unalterably opposed to Trump.

This can be seen in the recent off-year election in which the election of the Governors of Virginia and New Jersey, the Attorney General of Virginia, and the Mayor of New York City featured Democrat candidates who have serious questions as to their virtue, morality, and ethics. Additionally, polling on political violence shows a sharp increase in the percentage of Democrats who believe that political violence against their opponents is sometimes justified. These elections and polling results illuminate that there is something wrong with the souls of Democrat voters.

It is a soul that believes that only they have the proper and correct political goals and policy agendas for America and Americans. It is a soul twisted by hostility, anger, and even hatred for those who disagree with them. It is a soul that shuns family and friends who disagree with them on any particular issue. Such a soul cannot believe that they could be incorrect or mistaken in their opinions, and such a soul is unencumbered in their words and deeds to achieve their goals.

In being unencumbered, they are willing to destroy a society to remake it in their utopian vision. A utopian vision that is unachievable, as it does not account for human nature nor economics, or, as I have often said:

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

Thus, the Soul of Democrats is an evil soul that should be opposed by all people of virtue, morality, and ethics. For evil can only result in great loss and much misfortune for those so afflicted with evil and those it touches.

Addendum - Alex McFarland has written an article “From the Heart to the Ballot Box: The Policies We Elect Reflect the Moral State of the Nation”, that bears upon the Chirp, and is well worth the read.

11/10/25 Liability Lawfare

In my Chirp on "12/22/24 The Lottery Courts", I make the point that lawsuits have become a lottery where plaintiffs can sue for any reason in the hopes of hitting the legal lottery jackpot. In a column by Yael Ossowski, “Ridding America of the Invisible Liability Lawfare Tax Is Long Overdue”, he more thoroughly examines the point I made, and he begins his column by stating:

“If we knew about a $500 billion drain on the American economy that inflates prices for everyday consumers, slows down much needed technological innovation, and locks real victims out of our civil justice system, wouldn’t we all demand something be done about it?”

This is the current state of tort law in the United States, or as some have derisively named it, ‘liability lawfare’. As Mr. Ossowski also stated, “It’s a disaster area, and for some reason, we’ve convinced ourselves as Americans we have to live this way.” It is a disaster as it consumes financial resources and productive assets, as well as being time-consuming for those being sued. It also raises the price of goods and services to everyone to cover the costs of liability insurance, as well as to cover potential non-insurance payouts of a large judgment or negotiated settlement. Mr. Ossowski examines these issues in his column and wraps up his column by stating:

“We as consumers and citizens deserve a system that prioritizes fair compensation for legitimate harm, simple as that. We need a system that upholds and encourages innovation and investment, rather than indirectly making life more expensive for consumers and the firms they rely on.”

It is time that we correct this situation and end the legal lottery jackpot mentality in tort lawsuits.

11/09/25 Apocalyptic Events

Extinction-level events, also known as mass extinctions, are periods in Earth's history when a significant percentage of species die out in a relatively short time. The planet has experienced five major mass extinction events, with the most recent occurring about 66 million years ago, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. In my science article, Apocalypse - Or the Ways that Humanity Will Come to an End, I examine the different types of Natural Apocalyptic Events that could occur in the future. In today’s global political and economic infrastructure world, it is now possible for Apocalyptic Events to occur at the hands of humankind, which I also examined in my article. These Apocalyptic Events are:

Natural Apocalyptic Events

Earthly Events

Supervolcano Eruption
Submarine Volcanoes and Oceanic Eruptions
Megatsunamis
Geomagnetic Reversal
Global Climate Change

Astronomical Events

Coronal Mass Ejection
Solar Changes
Asteroid Impact
Galactic Motion
Supernova
Micro Black Hole
Aliens

Man-Made Apocalyptic Events

Technological

Single Points of Failure
Human Climate Change
Robotics
Artificial Intelligence

Government and Economics

Theocratic Oligarchies and Theocracies
Socialism (Democratic or Otherwise)
Democracies
Capitalism

Terrorism

Nuclear Weapons
Biological Weapons
Chemical Weapons
Technological Attacks

Miscellaneous

Nuclear War
Global Pandemic
Over-Population

I have recently updated this article for the purposes of clarity and comprehensiveness. As this is a rather extensive article, you may want to only read the first few paragraphs of each section for a quick understanding of the topic, as well as my Final Thoughts as to what can be done about these Apocalyptic events. Otherwise, be prepared to spend almost an hour reviewing this article.

11/08/25 To Be Jewish in America

Vitaliy Katsenelson, a lover of Classical Music and the person behind the website My Favorite Classical Music, has written an article “Who Am I? (and my composers)” that examines what it means for him to be Jewish. In this article he has stated that, “For some people being Jewish means one thing: religion. Not me. To me being Jewish means three things: religion, tradition (philosophy), and nationality.”

He then goes on to state that as an immigrant from Russia when he was 18 years old, religion played little part in his youth:

“I didn’t realize that there was such a thing as Jewish religion until I was in my late teens. Soviets were not big fans of religion (they indiscriminately disallowed all of them), as it competed with their own version of religion – communism.”

He does not go on to explain how his Jewish religion has played a part in his adult life, but the little I have read about him leads me to suspect that his involvement in his Jewish religion has deepened over the years. He does explain how the Jewish tradition (philosophy) plays a part of his life”

“And then there’s the second part of my being Jewish – tradition and philosophy. Neither my parents or grandparents were religious, but Jewish traditions and philosophy were deeply ingrained in them. I lump tradition and philosophy together because often you don’t know where one stops and the other begins. Religion and harsh external environment (for centuries Jewish people have not had easy lives) have helped to shape both.”

As to his Russian nationality, he explains that most of it comes into play with his love of classical music (he also hints that Russian literature was also a part of his life).

I believe that his explanations of what it means to be Jewish to him are also true for many Jewish persons in America, based on my own numerous interactions with American Jews. I know that most American Jews are of a Liberal or Progressive political vent, but I also know that they consider themselves patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country. I also know that they are uniformly family oriented, and by nature and upbringing are peaceful and congenial people. I have had many friendships with Jewish people, and many of my Jewish clients have turned into Jewish friends. This is one of many reasons that I believe Anti-Semitism is despicable, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America".

I have, therefore, offered this Chirp as a means for non-Jews to better understand what it means to be Jewish in America.

11/07/25 The Blindly Obedient

There is a saying that is being circulated on the Internet, “The tyrants don’t concern me. What concerns me are those who are blindly obedient.” While no person can be attributed to the origination of this quote, there is much truth in this quote. Being blindly obedient strips you of the ability to think for yourself and constrains your Liberties and Freedoms. Being blindly obedient allows you to accept facts and truths that, as Mark Twain said, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Being blindly obedient allows you to accept the dictates and actions of others that are detrimental to yourself. Being blindly obedient makes you a lemming that follows other lemmings over the cliff. Being blindly obedient allows you to accept the hoodwinking of useful idiots and become the pawns of politicians who practice sophistry to elicit your support and vote.

A useful idiot, or useful fool, is a pejorative description of a person, suggesting that the person thinks they are fighting for a cause without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions, and who do not realize they are being manipulated by the cause's leaders or by other political players. The term was often used during the Cold War in the Western bloc to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation.

Unfortunately for America, the modern Democrat Party has been dependent on useful idiots to propagate their prevarications and bamboozlements, and on blind obedience by registered Democrats to vote for Democrat candidates to office, and they even managed to elect a useful idiot to the Presidency (i.e., Joe Biden). As a result of this blind obedience, the recent off-term elections have resulted in the election of the Governors of Virginia and New Jersey, the Attorney General of Virginia, and the Mayor of New York City of Democrat candidates who have serious questions as to their virtue, morality, and ethics. In these elections, the Democrat voters have demonstrated that they are susceptible to useful idiots’ deceptions, and they were blindly obedient in voting for Democrat Party candidates.

A society dedicated to individual Liberties and Freedoms cannot co-exist with a society of the blindly obedient, as they are the antithesis of each other. Thus, the 2026 mid-term elections are more than Democrat versus Republican. They are about the blindly obedient versus the independent minds. Americans must choose wisely in this election, otherwise, the blindly obedient will lead America over the cliff into self-destruction.

11/06/25 RIP Dick Cheney

The Bible teaches us that the sins of the fathers should not be vested upon their sons, so it should also be inferred that the sins of the sons should not be visited upon their fathers. In today’s modern world, it is both the fathers and mothers, as well as the sons and daughters, whose sins should not be vested upon each other.

With the passing of former Vice President Dick Cheney, we should remember him for what he was and not consider the sins of his daughter. Thus, I agree with former President Bush’s statement in remembrance of Dick Cheney:

“The death of Richard B. Cheney is a loss to the nation and a sorrow to his friends. Laura and I will remember Dick Cheney for the decent, honorable man that he was. History will remember him as among the finest public servants of his generation – a patriot who brought integrity, high intelligence, and seriousness of purpose to every position he held.”

Thus, I would say, Rest in Peace Dick Cheney, knowing that you led an important and consequential life in service to America.

11/05/25 The United States of Democrats

California, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia have not been kind to Republican candidates in the Trump Era (2016-present). These States are bastions of Democrats and Progressives, in which it is difficult for Republicans to overcome the Democrats' voter registration advantage. While each of these states has a significant percentage of registered Republicans, it is usually not enough for Republican presidential candidates, as well as many Republican Senate and House representatives, to win an election in these States. Indeed, these States can be referred to as the United States of Democrats.

Thus, if a statewide Republican candidate wins in these States, it is often a shock, but if they lose in these States, it should be considered a normal state of affairs, which brings us to the current off-year elections in 2025. Most of the contested elections took place in Democratic states, and the statewide Democratic candidates won these elections. Consequently, not much can be learned about the current state of American politics from these elections. However, we can expect a lot of bloviating and political posturing from Democrats and their pundits regarding the significance of these Democrat wins on American politics. Just don’t believe their sophistry, as these wins should be considered as the normal state of affairs in these States, and they have little implications for the other States and future elections.

11/04/25 Removal of Judges and Professors/Teachers

Apparently, in today's America, the only people who cannot be fired are Judges and University Professors. This is a shame, as the damage they can do is quite extensive and impactful on America.

Judges who rule outside of the bounds of the law and presume authorities that they do not Constitutionally possess are interposing in the Balance of Powers between the branches of government. In these rulings, they are behaving as if they were lords rather than judges, as I have written in my article on Judges, Not Lords. Those judges who do so should be removed from their judgeship, but the current process of Congressional impeachment, along with hyper-partisanship in Congress, makes this impractical and highly improbable. As I have Chirped "06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I" and "06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II", this is becoming a major problem in America, and a problem that needs to be addressed if we are to remain a Democratic republic constrained by the bounds of the Constitution. In this spirit, I would recommend that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to add to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution the following:

“The Supreme Court may, with the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Justices, remove a judge for improper jurisprudence.”

In my articles on "Indoctrination versus Education" and “College and University Education”, I lament the current state of higher education in the world. University and College professors are uniformly very Progressives/Leftists in their worldview, and are intolerant of any other viewpoints. So intolerant that they do not hire non-Progressive/Leftist professors, and do not allow other viewpoints to be discussed in their classrooms, as well as being intolerant of Conservative speakers on their campus. This situation has also crept into our K12 education in America, in that they are only presenting their Progressive viewpoints to their students.

Any student who expresses a conservative viewpoint is demeaned in the classroom and on campus, and many of these students fear for their safety on campus grounds. Their Freedom of Speech and Peaceable Assembly rights are disaffirmed, and their education is being replaced with indoctrination. A University or College has the right to restrict curriculum and student activities on campus, but they have no right to demand that the taxpayers fund their institutions if they do so. And publicly funded K12 teachers have a duty and responsibility to present an unbiased education to their students, as Parental Rights supersede teacher rights, as I have Chirped on "03/18/25 Parental Rights in Education".

Professors who are involved in these activities are rarely disciplined, and Professors who espouse viewpoints without proper "Rationality" and "Reasoning" are never removed from their positions, as Political Correctness is more important than knowledge, intellectual acuity, and wisdom (see my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom"). University and College Presidents and Trustees should be able to fire any professor that does not meet a high standard of knowledge, intellectual acuity, and wisdom, as they are molding the minds of their students who deserve a quality and diverse viewpoint education. Additionally, K12 School Boards and Administrators should be able to fire teachers when they stray outside of the scope of their duties and responsibilities.

So, I say, tenure for professors and employment union agreements for K12 teachers be damned if tenure and union agreements are not based on high standards of professorship and teachership. And I also say that the taxpayers should not fund Universities, Colleges, and public K12 School Districts that do not demand high standards for professorship or teachership.

Judges and Professors/Teachers who do not meet high standards of jurisprudence or professorship/teachership are wreaking havoc on American society by sowing nonsense and discord, and they need to be removed forthwith before they damage America beyond repair. Otherwise, our society will descend into further discordance that could result in a form of Governance that is injurious to our peace and prosperity, as well as to our Liberties and Freedoms.

11/03/25 Private Funding of Public Works

America has a long history of wealthy individuals contributing funds to support public works. Much of this generosity comes from their gratitude to America, some of it comes from their narcissism, and in some cases, it is an attempt by them to curry favor with politicians. No one knows what is in the hearts and minds of those who make these contributions, and no allegations of misdeeds on their part about these contributions should be made without evidence.

Recently, Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has vowed to investigate the people who made private donations to President Trump's White House ballroom project if he were to become majority leader. Jeffries said, without evidence, that the donors were probably using the donations to curry favor with the Trump administration.

Without evidence, such an allegation is nothing more than an intimidation tactic to bully an American citizen to comport themselves in a manner that they think is acceptable. It is also a veiled threat to use the instruments of government to harass those who do not deport themselves as they believe is proper. As such, they are threatening The Weaponization of Government against those who do not do what they believe is acceptable. Such intimidations, harassments, and weaponizations against an American citizen (indeed, against all persons) are an assault on their Liberties and Freedoms, and a violation of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Alas, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists (secretive) conduct over the last several decades has been devious and self-serving, and directed at those who oppose them and their political goals and policy agendas. From the Presidential election shenanigans of 2016 and 2020, as I have Chirped on "08/21/25 Can They Not Win a Free, Fair, and Honest Election?", to operation "Arctic Frost", as I have Chirped on “10/10/25 Worse Than Watergate”, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists actions have been un-American. They have also revealed that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are only interested in obtaining and retaining power, as I have Chirped on "07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control".

Most contemptible is that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have also become involved in Insurrection and Nullification activities, as I have Chirped on “10/27/25 A Current State of Insurrection” and “10/28/25 Nullification in America”. Such involvement shows an utter disdain for our American Ideals and Ideas, and demonstrates that they are unworthy of leading a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms. Their wails and cries of “Saving Democracy”, as I have Chirped on "02/23/25 Saving Democracy", is equivalent to the Vietnam War logic of destroying the village in order to save it, as I have Chirped on "09/02/24 Destroying the Village".

Accordingly, the American people need to renounce the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and to turn them out of the political process. Otherwise, they will destroy the village and not save the last best hope of mankind that America was and is for the advancement of humankind.

11/02/25 The 2028 Presidential Election

Discussions have started to arise as to the 2028 Presidential election and who should be the candidates. Most prominent are the names of JD Vance and Marco Rubio. I would suggest that the white male Vance be the Republican Party candidate, while the Hispanic male Rubio be the Democrat Party candidate. This way, no matter who wins the presidency, it would be a win for America.

All it would take is for Rubio to change his political party registration, along with enough Republicans to change their registration, who, along with the Hispanic Democrats voting for Rubio, would outnumber the votes for the other Democrat candidates in their primaries. A Presidential candidate debate between these two frenemies would be very illuminative, as it would be a debate with candor and without dishonesty, and with common sense as the foundation. The Democrat Party's Presidential candidates’ debate would be a cacophony of madness and rage, which would further expose their utter craziness. Thus, the American people could see them for who they really are.

Furthermore, as to their Vice-President running mates, I would suggest that Vance choose Kristi Noem, while Rubio should choose Tulsi Gabbard. In this scenario, it is likely that after the winner serves their term(s) of office, the next President of the United States would be a woman—Noem or Gabbard.

Thus, America would be better off for the near future, and the Democrat Party would be reformed to eliminate the nonsense, absurdities, and inanities that currently plague the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

11/01/25 Intelligent Life in the Universe

In several of my Science Articles, I examine the possibilities and probabilities of intelligent life in our universe. I have recently updated these articles for the purposes of clarity and comprehensiveness. I have also updated my Chirp on "08/14/21 Evolution to Intelligent Life Part Un - The Rise of Intelligent Life", to better reflect the steps required for the Evolution to Intelligent Life. These updated articles are:

Evolution to Intelligent Life
An overview of the possibilities of The Rise of Intelligent Life, The Timeline for the evolution of Intelligent Life, and the possibility of our communicating or visiting with Intelligent Life.
Intelligent Life in the Universe
An examination of the possibility and probability of the factors for Intelligent Life evolving on other planets. I would encourage you to read this article, as this issue is not as simple as it appears at first glance.
The Fire of Mankind
Fire is an unexpected and uncontrollable primal fear of all animal species. No species knew when or where a fire would occur, and when it occurred, it was uncontrollable. Being afraid of fire and fleeing from fire was necessary for survival. To this day, this is true for all but one species- Hominoidae, and one genus - homo. This article examines fire in the context of human evolution.
Science vs. Science Fiction
I will concede to no one my love of Science Fiction. Since I was a young boy, I have read and enjoyed Science Fiction stories, as well as viewed many Science Fiction movies and television shows. Indeed, much of my love of science has come from my love of Science Fiction. But science fiction is mostly based on scientific speculation, and little of it is based on actual science. This article examines the actual science and scientific speculation in science fiction by applying my scientific knowledge to science fiction.

For those who are intrigued by the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life in our universe, I would recommend that you read these articles, as your curiosity will be better grounded in science rather than speculation.

10/31/25 Fright Night

As Halloween approaches, many children and adults are gearing up for the fun and festivities of this evening. Due to my being a night shift computer operator for the first few years of my adult life and being unable to participate in any festivities, I lost interest in this holiday—except to watch a good fright movie or read a scary story. My preference for scary has always been for psychological horror movies and stories rather than ones of physical terror. A good psychological horror builds to an unforgettable climax, while most physical terror is brief vignettes of visual terror leading to a grisly climax.

The scariest movie I have ever watched is “The Haunting”, based on a short novel by Shirley Jackson. This psychological horror movie is about a psychic researcher, Dr. Markway, who is doing research to prove the existence of ghosts and investigates Hill House, a large, eerie mansion with a lurid history of violent death and insanity. With him are the skeptical young Luke, who stands to inherit the house, the mysterious and clairvoyant Theodora, and the insecure Eleanor, whose psychic abilities make her feel somehow attuned to whatever spirits inhabit the old mansion. As time goes by, it becomes obvious that they have gotten more than they bargained for, as the ghostly presence in the house manifests itself in horrific and deadly ways.

Shirley Jackson was a horror and mystery writer born in San Francisco, California, in 1916. She is best remembered for her unsettling novel of paranoia and the supernatural, 'The Haunting of Hill House' (1959), and her terrifying short story 'The Lottery' (1948), a horror tale rife with symbolism that is still puzzled over by critics and academics to this day. 'The Lottery' is regarded as an American Classic and as one of the best pieces of short fiction in the history of American Literature.

"The world of Shirley Jackson is eerie and unforgettable," writes A. M. Homes. "It is a place where things are not what they seem; even on a morning that is sunny and clear, there is always the threat of darkness looming, of things taking a turn for the worse." In the Library of America volume “Shirley Jackson: Novels and Stories”, Joyce Carol Oates, our leading practitioner of the contemporary Gothic, presents the essential works of Shirley Jackson, the novels and stories that, from the early 1940s through the mid-1960s, wittily remade the genre of psychological horror for an alienated, postwar America.

This Halloween, I would recommend you see this movie and read her stories for a good fright night.

10/30/25 Thirteen Times

Thirteen Times the Democrats have voted for a clean Continuing Resolution (CR) during President Biden’s administration, and thirteen Times the Democrats have voted against a clean Continuing Resolution during the current President Trump’s administration. Democrats in the past have often wailed that shutting down the government was not an acceptable tactic to achieve political goals, but in the current government shutdown, they are doing so to achieve their political goals. And their current political goal is to try to undo some of what was enacted in the last tax and spending bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’), and to fund many government programs that many Americans find unacceptable, which were eliminated in the last tax and spending bill.

Thus, their hypocrisy reigns supreme, and their actions demonstrate the depths of their turpitude, as I have Chirped on, "07/22/25 Over the Bounds". It also illuminates their thirst for power and control, as I have Chirped on "07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control". It also raises the question about how much they care about the American people, as I have Chirped on "09/03/25 Do They Not Care?".

Anything but the passage of a clean Continuing Resolution is but a political ploy to ameliorate the political damage to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their obstinacy and their self-centeredness. It also demonstrates that bipartisanship is not possible given the current makeup of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Accordingly, the American people need to vote against the Democrat Party candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. Otherwise, hyper-partisanship in Congress will continue, and little will be accomplished, or accomplished with much bitterness and resentment, and Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) will continue to grip the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

10/29/25 The Congressional Hearings Cacophony

Many Congressional hearings are a cacophony of charges, countercharges, and constant interruptions by both the Congressperson and the witness. This is not how it should be. Congressional hearings should be for the purpose of obtaining information that will guide them in their deliberations on the issues and concerns that face them. In this cacophony, both parties are often duplicitous for political postering purposes. Hypocrisy also reigns supreme in this cacophony. As a result, nothing is gained except for viral video clips that the "Mainstream Media" broadcast, along with the supporters and detractors of the parties involved in this cacophony distribute across "Social Media" posts.

The rules of Congressional hearings need to be changed to end this cacophony. I would suggest that each Senator or Representative be given three minutes to make their comments and ask their question. The witness would then be given five minutes to respond, and the Senator or Representative would be given two minutes to respond to the response of the witness. In all of this, no interruptions would be allowed from either the witness or the Senator or Representative. And the chairperson of the committee needs to strictly enforce this rule.

This cacophony in Congress leads to a diminution of A Civil Society, in which society fractures into opposing factions that will not pay any attention to civility or to each other. Misjudgments, wrong conclusions, and extreme partisanship become rampant. It often results in hyper-partisanship in Congress, in which bipartisan legislation becomes almost impossible to achieve.

10/28/25 Nullification in America

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) in United States constitutional history is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws that it deems unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the State's own Constitution). There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional political crisis in the United States in 1832 and 1833, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between the State of South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the State.

The next big nullification crisis was when the Southern States attempted to nullify their adoption of the United States Constitution and form their own country. This attempt led to the American Civil War between the Union ("the North") and the Confederacy ("the South"), which was formed in 1861 by states that had seceded from the Union to preserve African American slavery, which they saw as threatened because of the election of Abraham Lincoln and the growing abolitionist movement in the North.

In the years between the Civil War and the present day, several Government and local officials sought to de facto nullify Federal laws by physically opposing their enforcement or not enforcing the law. Many of these actions were overturned by federal judicial rulings, but some of these actions resulted in Presidents invoking The Insurrection Act of 1807 to enforce the law. There have been thirty instances of the invocation of the Insurrection Act by presidents in American history, most prominently during and after the Civil War, and most recently in riot suppressions in the latter half of the 20th century.

In today’s America, we are seeing a different type of nullification of Federal laws. When President Biden and his Executive Officers did not enforce immigration law, they were nullifying the law. When State and local government leaders and appointed officials oppose and do not assist in the enforcement of immigration law, they are nullifying the law. When sanctuary cities and States are established to protect illegal immigrants from lawful detainment and deportation, they are nullifying the law. When judges fail to uphold immigration law or contort the law to suit their own predilections, they are nullifying the law. We have also seen State and local government leaders and appointed officials, along with some judges, not enforcing laws against violent protesters, which is a de facto nullification of the law. And when anyone opposes the law through other than proper legal processes, they are in a state of insurrection, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/27/25 A Current State of Insurrection”.

Nullification is also Unconstitutional, as the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, nullification is an abrogation of the Constitution. It should also be remembered that if you do not like a law, you should change the law or challenge the constitutionality of the law in a court of law and not nullify the law. If you do not like the Constitution, then you should pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution to your liking.

Nullification of law is an assault on the Rule of Law, as it replaces an orderly society with the predilections of government officials, as I have written in my Chirp on, "05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women" It also makes these Governors and Mayors rulers, as I have examine in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, and helps establish fiefdoms in America, as I have Chirped on "09/05/25 Fiefdoms". Liberty relies on the Rule of Law, as I have Chirped on, "03/20/24 Liberty Relies on Rule of Law", and the Rule of Law is also linked to the economic well-being of a society, as David Dettman has written in his article on “Upholding Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of the Rule of Law. Nullification also invokes disrespect for the law amongst the public, which leads to the breakdown of obedience to the law if someone disagrees with a law, which is the forerunner of anarchy. And Nullification always comes with unintended negative consequences, as I have written in my article on The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Consequently, nullification is repugnant, and it must end if American society is to survive and thrive. To do otherwise is to allow for the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas.

10/27/25 A Current State of Insurrection

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the U.S. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's ability to deploy the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States.

After invoking and before exercising the powers authorized under the Insurrection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the publication of a presidential proclamation whereby the U.S. President formally orders the dispersion of the people committing civil unrest or armed rebellion. The Defense Department guidelines define "homeland defense" as a constitutional exception to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act; therefore, the political, military, and police measures necessary to protect national security from external threats are exceptions to the restrictions of the act.

There have been thirty instances of the invocation of the Insurrection Act by presidents in American history, most prominently during and after the Civil War, and most recently in riot suppressions in the latter half of the 20th century.

As I have Chirped on “10/07/25 A State of Insurrection”, a state of insurrection refers to a situation where a group of people rises up against the authority of a government, often involving rebellion or civil disorder. In the U.S., the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces to restore order during such events. In U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, it defines insurrection as:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

During the invocations of the Insurrection Act, all people involved in the insurrection are subject to Federal detention. This includes elected and appointed officials who are in insurrection or support of insurrection. Any Governor, Mayor, Police Commissioner, Peace Officer, State National Guard Officers, or judge who impedes the execution of the implementation of the presidential proclamation is subject to detainment, and, indeed, should be detained until the insurrection is suppressed. This was how it was done in the past, most especially during the Civil War, and this is how it should be, as the peace and safety of the people are a primary responsibility of these elected and appointed officials. After the insurrection is suppressed, those detained have the legal right to challenge their detention, and the Federal government has the right and duty to prosecute those detained for insurrection.

Consequently, given the current riots and Antifa violence that are occurring in many American cities against the lawful actions of the Federal government, a state of insurrection exists in these localities. Thus, President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act in these cities and detain all those involved or supportive of the insurrection until such time as there is no longer an insurrection. To do otherwise is to allow for violence to fester and grow throughout America, and the erosion of Constitutional governance in America.

10/26/25 Pearls of Wisdom on What Truly Matters

In the past, I have enjoyed watching Charlie Kirk’s short clips on YouTube, as they often point out the intellectual shortcomings and absurdities of his opponents. A slightly longer YouTube video, How to Prioritize What TRULY Matters | Charlie Kirk’s Advice, that I have just viewed, has some words of wisdom that all Americans should ponder.

In this video, he was questioned about how he copes with all the things that happen in his life. His response was that you need a hierarchy of what matters most to you, and you need to prioritize what is important to you, and to realize that it is not all about you, as well as to accept that other things may slip aside when you do this.

To realize that it is not all about you is one of the most important steps in achieving adulthood. Children believe that it is all about them, but adults know that the world does not turn around them. People will often be more concerned about their own welfare than your welfare. In this, other people are not usually malicious, but they are often inconsiderate of how their words and deeds impact others. As an adult, you should care and be concerned about others, and to be considerate of others in your words and deeds, but you have a primary responsibility to yourself, your family, and your community. Thus, it is important that you have a hierarchy as well as a prioritization of your life’s goals, as I have written in my Pearls of Wisdom on Prioritize Your Life. Most people have goals in their lives, but they often do not have a hierarchy or prioritization of these goals. They, thus, are disorganized and constantly chasing one thing after another. Such an approach will only rarely result in achieving your goals and lead to dissatisfaction and unhappiness in your life. You should also remember that this hierarchy and prioritization may change throughout your life, as circumstances warrant, and you should readjust your hierarchies and prioritizations when this occurs.

He also mentioned that self-love and self-esteem are a hindrance to realizing that it is not all about you, and that self-control is much more important than self-esteem, as I have written in my Pearls of Wisdom on Be in Control of Yourself. Self-love and self-esteem are all about your feelings, and your feelings are less important than your accomplishments. However, your self-love and self-esteem can be improved when you selflessly give your time, effort, and money to help others. And this help is not in words but in deeds, or, as Benjamin Franklin has said, "Well done is better than well said.".

In this video, he also remarked that he had recently seen a sign that stated, “The world is better because you are in it.”, of which he commented that the sign should have been a question, “Is the world better because you are in it?” In my opinion, the best means to make the world a better place with you in it is in my Pearls of Wisdom: Always Be Polite and Respectful, Be the Better Person, Do Good Before You Feel Good, Pay Attention to the Better Angels of Your Nature, and To Err is Human, To Forgive is Divine. To achieve this, however, you must exercise self-control and put aside self-love and self-esteem. My other Pearls of Wisdom will also help make the world a better place because you are in it if you follow them. My experience has been that it is initially difficult to follow them, but the more you follow them, the easier it becomes. However, the best Pearl of Wisdom I would impart to you is: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

He also mentioned that, no, you cannot have it all, as each person has different skills and abilities, as well as knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. This means that your opportunities for success may be constrained by your own limitations. Accordingly, you must be honest with yourself about your own limitations and adjust your hierarchies and prioritizations to fit your capabilities, as I have written in my Pearls of Wisdom on Know Your Limitations. Otherwise, you are doomed to failure, as no one can succeed beyond their capabilities. However, you should always strive to overcome your limitations, or as the poet Robert Browning has said: “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?” Do not give up trying to be all that you can be, as you may be pleasantly surprised at what you can achieve if you try, and your achievements may be beyond what you thought were your limitations. But do not expect that you will succeed if you try, as life is not fair and is full of setbacks, and that the only true failure is when you stop trying.

The world was a better place with Charlie Kirk in it, and we are worse off without his knowledge and wisdom. For his life to have been taken at such a young age is a loss to America, as his insights on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were perceptive and penetrating. RIP Charlie Kirk, and may your legacy not be forgotten and be spread by those who believe in your knowledge and wisdom.

10/25/25 A Brouhaha

The Assistant to the Secretary of War, Sean Parnell, has issued a “Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership” on the subject of ‘Implementation of New Media In-Brief’ detailing the new media access protocols to the Pentagon. This has created quite a brouhaha with the Pentagon Press Corps, as they are used to having much more freedom of access than the new regulations permit. So much so that most of the Pentagon Press Corps have turned in their badges and refused to comply with the new regulations. While I have problems with some of these new regulations, especially with prior approval of reporting, I have few problems with some of these regulations.

In my almost a decade of working on classified government contracts as a non-governmental contractor for GE Military and Data Systems Operations, I had some of the highest security clearances that the government can give to a civilian contractor. I have also visited many government and other contractors’ facilities in the performance of my duties and responsibilities. In these visits, I was subject to rules and regulations regarding access to these facilities. In general, I was required to sign in at the guard station to receive a pass, was escorted to the room that I was visiting, as well as whenever I left the room (including going to the bathroom), and I had to sign out at the guard’s station whenever I left the facility. This was done to ensure that I did not have access to or be in view of classified information that I was not authorized to see.

One paragraph in the aforementioned memorandum is particularly apropos to this situation:

“Members of the news media do not possess a legal right to access the Pentagon; rather, such access is a privilege, subject to the discretion of government authorities and is regulated by federal law and Department of War policy. Legally, the press has no greater right of access than the public. While members of the news media may be granted access under certain conditions, this is a privilege extended by the government and not a constitutionally protected right.”

The Freedom of the Press in the Constitution is the freedom to publish whatever they choose without prior restraint or prosecution afterward, except for libel or other limited circumstances. It is not the freedom of the press to go wherever they want and whenever they want without restrictions.

Thus, access restrictions to government facilities are necessary, but they should not be abused by the government. Furthermore, it is not the job of the government to make life easier for journalists, but to ensure that classified information is protected. Also, prior restraint of what the press publishes is very troubling, and probably unconstitutional, and these restrictions need to be modified or discarded. A brouhaha over this aforementioned memorandum is appropriate, but not for access restrictions.

10/24/25 A Narcissistic Love

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do quite a bit of disparagement of America and its history, along with disparaging large swaths of Americans. This is often done for the purposes of Identity Politics to divide and conquer America to obtain and retain political power. But such Identity Politics is a form of tribalism, as I have Chirp on "04/22/21 Identity Politics is Tribal Behavior". A tribal behavior that often pits groups of Americans against each other, and worsens Divisiveness in America. It also begs the question of how much they love America and Americans, as they often proclaim, or how much they love their Progressivism over our American Ideals and Ideas.

The answer to this question may lie in an article by Matt Vespa, “We All Saw This Coming for the Dems”, in which he states of the current Democrat Party that —“It’s the ‘we only like the USA when we win’ bunch.” In this, they are being narcissistic, as I have Chirped on “10/21/25 It’s Your Behavior”. A narcissist who can only love themselves and their ilk, and in their narcissism, they often use other people to bolster their narcissism. This narcissism is exhibited by their behavior that they utilize against those who oppose their Progressive ideals and ideas, as outlined in the aforementioned Chirp. Thus, their love of America and Americans is only when they are in political power and in charge of the functions of government, when they can control America and Americans as narcissist are want to do. Otherwise, they disparage America and Americans.

The love of America and Americans that they speak of is in what they envision for America and Americans, and the past and current America and Americans are only worthy of disparagement, as they do not meet their Progressive ideals and ideas, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". Consequently, all Americans who truly love our country, both past and present, as well as the future of America and Americans, should be wary of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who profess their love of America and Americans, as it is only a narcissistic love.

10/23/25 Our Democracy is Their Political Power

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do quite a bit of complaining that we are losing “Our Democracy” because of the supposed kingship of President Trump, with the encouragement of his MAGA supporters. As I have written in my Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", Rob Natelson has written an article, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, in which 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.”

The Democrat Party also believes that “Our Democracy” is when Democrats are elected and Progressivism is in charge of the functions of government, and, thus, when they are out of political power, democracy is not prevailing.

Donald Trump is the person who won the presidency in a democratic vote; he won the popular vote, he won every swing state, and he impressively won the Electoral College. He is also the person who is enacting the exact agenda he promised he was going to enact while he was campaigning. And so, what they are actually protesting is how our American democracy works. The Democrats are also the party that discarded millions of votes for President Biden in the 2024 primaries and anointed Kamala Harris to be their standard-bearer, which is not how our democracy is supposed to work.

Consequently, their wails and cries of losing our democracy are absurd. They should also remember that we do not live under a democracy, but a Democratic republic. Our Democratic republic has prevailed through a democratic vote of the people who elected Donald Trump as President, and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Therefore, they must come to grips with their loss of political power as a result of democratic elections, and no protests or mobocracy should override this democratic election.

10/22/25 Shutdown Nonsense and Hypocrisy

I have abstained from Chirping on the current government shutdown, due to all the nonsense and hypocrisy of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists regarding this shutdown. Rather than start Chirping now, I have, instead, decided to recommend a column by Bob Rubin, “A Government Shutdown Isn’t the End of the World — It Might Be the Reset America Needs”, that examines the most important lesson that we should learn from this shutdown. He begins his column by stating:

“Each time Washington flirts with a government shutdown, the ruling class descends into hysteria. Politicians predict calamity, bureaucrats issue warnings of chaos, and the media blares that civilization itself teeters on the brink. But truth, as always, is the first casualty of panic. A temporary halt in government operations is not a national tragedy; it is a mirror held up to a bloated state, forcing America to see how much of its daily life functions perfectly well without the omnipresent hand of Washington.”

And he ends his column by stating:

“So let Washington tremble. Let the bureaucrats fret. The Republic will endure, because its foundation is not paperwork or appropriations; it is the spirit of free men and women who create, trade, build, and serve without permission. If a few weeks of forced reflection remind us that freedom is the natural state of man and dependency the unnatural, then a shutdown is not a calamity. It is an awakening.

America does not exist to serve the government. The government exists, when it must, to serve America. A temporary silence in the halls of bureaucracy may be the sound of the nation remembering that truth.”

If Americans can awaken and learn this lesson, it will be far easier to right the course of America to once again be “the shining city upon a hill” and a “beacon of hope” for the world.

10/21/25 It’s Your Behavior

“It’s not your beliefs that make you a good person, it’s your behavior.”
- Senator John Kennedy

Good intentions do not make you a good person. Good intentions with good behavior are what make you a good person. Unfortunately, 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, and they have nothing but good intentions. But good intentions are not enough; they must be attached to good deeds, or as Benjamin Franklin has said, "Well done is better than well said." In these good intentions, they believe that whatever words and deeds are necessary to implement their good intentions are justifiable, including bad behavior.

They also believe that their policies are what is best for America and Americans, and, consequently, the Progressives/Leftist and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them, rather than consider what is best for all Americans. Their bad behavior in their words and deeds is de rigueur in their approach to achieving their political goals and policy agendas. Polite and respectful speech and behavior are not to be tolerated if it is an impediment to achieving what they desire. In this, they are being narcissistic, and they react badly when they don’t get what they want, as explained in an article on 7 Ways Narcissists React When They Don’t Get What They Want:

Anger and Rage
Guilt-Tripping
Playing the Victim
Smear Campaigns
Silent Treatment
Triangulation
Future Promises

These seven ways are symptomatic of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds in the 21st century. While all politicians are somewhat narcissistic, a good politician knows how to curb their narcissism for the good of America and all Americans.

Alas, their good intentions are appealing to many voters, while these same voters ignore their bad behavior and bad results. Until the American people wake up to the negative impacts of their bad behavior and bad results, it will encourage them to continue behaving badly and effectuate bad results. Fortunately, it appears that the American people are waking up, and they are rejecting them and their bad behavior and bad results. I would ask the American people to keep this in mind for the 2026 mid-term elections, and only elect politicians that exhibit good behavior and effectuate good results.

10/20/25 A Magic Wand

President Obama used the phrase "What magic wand do you have?" to question Donald Trump's ability to bring back manufacturing jobs during a town hall in 2016, implying that there were no simple solutions to complex economic issues. He highlighted that many blue-collar jobs were unlikely to return, reflecting the challenges of the economic recovery at that time.

During his first administration, President Trump waved his magic wand and the economy recovered until the COVID Pandemic struck America. In his second administration, President Trump is waving his magic wand, and the economy is recovering, and manufacturing jobs are beginning to return to America. Meanwhile, during both the Obama and Biden Administrations, the American people saw and felt a stagnant economy, with little hope in sight. It is also true that President Trump used his magic wand during both his administrations to bring peace and stability to the world.

So, what is this magic wand that he waves? The answer is very simple; he employs his knowledge, intelligence, and experience of human nature, economic realities, and common sense to all that he does. He also places people in authority who share these same attributes. He does not conceive of the world as he wishes it to be, but deals with the world as it is, and then he envisions and works on how he could change the world to match his vision.

He also thinks differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective, from what the “experts” conventional wisdom ordains. He is also courageous and willing to take risks to achieve his goals. His first inclination is to do what is best for America and Americans, then ascertain the political ramifications of his actions. In this, he is different from most politicians in that politics does not guide his decisions.

Consequently, he is a man of actions rather than words; although he is a man of (too) many words, he does not suffer fools gladly, and he is results-oriented. Let us hope that he continues to wave his magic wand, as his results have made America and Americans better off than under the administrations of Presidents Obama and Biden.

10/19/25 No Kings

As I have written in my Chirp on "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders", to be ruled by regulation and Executive Orders is to be ruled by authoritarianism. 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 an authoritarianism by the Presidency and the Bureaucrats.

Yesterday, significant crowds in major cities protested at "No Kings" rallies throughout America, and roughly 2,500 "No Kings" protests were held across the country. The tone of Saturday's "No Kings" protests was staunchly anti-Trump, as demonstrators rallied against what they viewed as the president's authoritarian policies. While some leaders feared the marches could devolve into violence, there were no reports of violence or arrests at the afternoon rallies.

These No Kings protests are not about authoritative government practices by Presidents and Bureaucrats, as the Obama and Biden presidencies also were authoritarian; it was in practice about what authoritarianism is acceptable to these protestors. When they agree with the authoritarianism of Presidents Obama and Biden, there were no protests of these authoritarian actions, but when they disagree with the authoritarian actions of President Trump, their protests poured forth. This is nothing but hypocrisy on their part, and an attempt to stymie President Trump’s authoritarianism while countenancing Presidents Obama and Biden's authoritarianism.

All Americans should be in protest of the authoritarianism of all Presidents, as this authoritarianism is an assault on our Democratic republic as well as our Liberties and Freedoms. Some authoritative actions by Presidents are necessary and proper, and all Presidents have issued authoritative Executive Orders. But such Executive Orders are only necessary and proper when they are done to uphold and enforce the law. And all of this authoritarianism must come to an end if we are to retain and maintain our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, for with rule by Executive Orders and regulations that are not necessary and proper, these noble goals cannot be achieved. If we continue to allow unnecessary and improper authoritarian actions, then we are becoming a subservient or subjugated people.

However, those engaged in such protests need to remember, as I have written in my Chirp on "06/10/25 Once Again—Mostly Peaceful", the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble, but there is no right of mostly peaceable assembly. You are either peaceably or not peaceably assembled, and if you are not peaceably assembled, you are probably committing a crime. A crime for which you should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Not only are they probably committing a crime, but they are also endangering the lives, safety, and property of friends, foes, and innocent bystanders in the immediate area of their actions. In violent actions, they are also assaulting the Liberties and Freedoms of others who are not in the crowd.

The question for the No Kings protesters is whether they are going to continue to peacefully work to constrain all unnecessary and improper authoritarian actions in government, or are they simply Virtue Signaling in opposition to President Trump. This would require that they work within the legal system, without Judicial Lawfare, to challenge Executive Orders, and to elect politicians who agree that Presidential Executive Orders should only be necessary and proper. The cynic in me suspects that they will be hypocritical by only opposing Republican Presidents’ Executive Orders, while doing nothing to constrain future Democrat Presidents’ Executive Orders.

**************************************

Addendum - Shaun McCutcheon has written an excellent column, “The 'No Kings' Rally Proves That the Left Still Doesn’t Understand Freedom”, which illuminates the fact that, as there were No Kings rallies across America, we have no King in America, or, as he has stated at the beginning of his column:

“Only in America could a group of protesters gather under the banner of “No Kings”, all while accusing others of tyranny, and do so without fear of punishment. That is precisely the beauty of the Republic our Founders created. A true king would not tolerate such protests. Real kings would silence dissent. But in America, even when the message is misguided or downright offensive, free citizens have the right to speak their minds, so long as they do so peacefully.”

He ended his column by stating:

“America is not a monarchy. America remains the greatest nation on Earth. Our Founders guaranteed us freedom of speech, the right to live in peace, and the chance to pursue prosperity without bowing to anyone. But those freedoms come with responsibility.

The “No Kings” protesters should take a hard look at what they’re doing. Because if they keep tearing down the principles that built this country, they just might wake up one day under the rule of the very kind of king they claim to despise.”

A column well worth reading, as it highlights the foolishness of those who attended these rallies.

10/18/25 Secularism, Socialism, and Islamism

Secularism, Socialism, and Islamism are the three great socio-political forces in the world today. They are also the three great socio-political forces that are contributing to the destruction of Western Civilization.

Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state, and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere. Secularism may encapsulate anti-clericalism, atheism, naturalism, non-sectarianism, neutrality on topics of religion, or antireligion. Secularism is not necessarily antithetical to religion but may be compatible with it. As a philosophy, secularism seeks to interpret life based on principles derived solely from the material world, without recourse to religion. It shifts the focus from religion towards "temporal" and material concerns.

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can take various forms, including public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, socialism is the standard left-wing ideology in most countries. Types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, and the structure of management in organizations.

Islamism is a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems. Its proponents believe Islam is innately political and that Islam as a political system is superior to communism, liberal democracy, capitalism, and other alternatives in achieving a just, successful society. The advocates of Islamism, also known as "al-Islamiyyun", are usually affiliated with Islamic institutions or social mobilization movements, emphasizing the implementation of Sharia law, pan-Islamic political unity, and the creation of Islamic states. Unfortunately, a large majority of Islamists also believe in violence and terrorism to achieve their goals.

Secularism wishes to create a world based on a Utopian vision of peace and harmony, Socialism wants to create a world of economic uniformity, while Islamism wishes to create a world theocracy based on obedience to the will of Allah and Sharia law. None of this is possible, and none of this is desirable. Secularism has lofty principles, but in practice, it results in individual rights over social responsibilities, and thus, it creates a self-absorbed society. Socialism requires a human nature that is benevolent, and that the human striving for betterment of the individual or family must be submissive to the will of those in charge of society. Islamism is a world of subservience, and a world without Liberties and Freedoms.

All three of these require that human nature and economics bend to the will of their precepts, but, as I have often said:

Western Civilization has been primarily responsible for the advancement of humanity in individual liberty, democratic governance, medical and pharmacological advances, the arts and sciences, technological progress, and economic prosperity that we now enjoy. Secularism, Socialism, and Islamism would put an end to Western Civilization and lead us into another Dark Age of oppressiveness, economic stagnation, and human misery. Consequently, Secularism, Socialism, and Islamism must be rejected to ensure the continued advancement of humanity, and Western Civilization principles and values, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/17/25 National Conservatism”, must be promoted for the continued advancement of humanity

10/17/25 National Conservatism

With the rise of Nationalism and Conservatism in America, it is important to define what National Conservatism means. This is best described on the website National Conservatism, from which I have extracted the following:

Politics in America, Britain, and other Western nations have taken a sharp turn toward nationalism—a commitment to a world of independent nations. This has been disorienting to many, not least the American conservative movement, which has, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, grown increasingly attached to a vision of a global “rules-based liberal order” that would bring peace and prosperity to the entire world while attenuating the independence of nations.

They have described the principles of National Conservatism on their webpage, National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles, from which I have extracted the following:

We are citizens of Western nations who have watched with alarm as the traditional beliefs, institutions, and liberties underpinning life in the countries we love have been progressively undermined and overthrown.

We see the tradition of independent, self-governed nations as the foundation for restoring a proper public orientation toward patriotism and courage, honor and loyalty, religion and wisdom, congregation and family, man and woman, the sabbath and the sacred, and reason and justice. We are conservatives because we see such virtues as essential to sustaining our civilization. We see such a restoration as the prerequisite for recovering and maintaining our freedom, security, and prosperity.

We emphasize the idea of the nation because we see a world of independent nations—each pursuing its own national interests and upholding national traditions that are its own—as the only genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe.

Drawing on this heritage, we therefore affirm the following principles:

National Independence
Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism
National Government
God and Public Religion
The Rule of Law
Free Enterprise
Public Research
Family and Children
Immigration
Race

Their short statement defines these principles, and I would encourage all my readers to review this statement.

10/16/25 A Delayed Book It Selection

Western civilization is under assault from forces both within and outside its confines. From socialism to cultural values, its foes are attempting to dismantle and destroy Western civilization. Two new books examine these efforts and provide prescient warnings if they succeed. The first book is this month’s Book It selection, while the second book will be next month’s Book It selection. These two books, together, explain many of the thoughts and beliefs of Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders of today. Thoughts and beliefs that, if they are successful in implementing, will lead to the destruction of Western civilization, and the rise of despotism, dictatorship or tyranny, theocracy, or other forms of repressive governments.

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, author, and broadcaster, born and raised as a leftist and once the darling of the Left, she had a transformation and is now known for her conservative viewpoints and commentary on political and social issues. She has written for various publications, including The Times and The Jerusalem Post, and is recognized as a prominent conservative voice in the media. Her latest book, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West—and Why Only They Can Save It, looks at the West's struggles against attempts to destroy it from within and without, and key lessons in resilience from its Jewish heritage, which can enable both Christianity and civilization to survive.

10/15/25 Failure to Appreciate Western Civilization

Bill Maher has previously spoken about Western Civilization in his monologue on The War on the West. Recently, he had additional comments, Bill Maher Has Savage Message For Pro-Hamas Activists, that eviscerated the pro-Hamas activists for their failures to appreciate Western Civilization. His comments were elucidative of the intellectual shortcomings of the Pro-Hamas activists.

My only problem with his monologue was at the end, in which the last sentence of his monologue stated, “So stop saying western civilization like it's a contradiction in terms. It's not. You're thinking of moderate Republicans.” This was an unnecessary snipe at Republicans that was off point. The last sentence would have been more illuminative and on point if he had said, “You're thinking of moderate Democrats.”

This failure to appreciate Western Civilization amongst the Pro-Hamas activists also extends to their failure to appreciate the peace plan for Gaza, which was just signed by many Arab and Muslim countries, as well as many countries within Western Civilizations. Indeed, we have seen crickets about the Gaza peace plan from those who previously demanded a ceasefire in Gaza, which has now been achieved by this peace plan. I suspect that this is because they were more interested in an Israeli pullback and the continued existence of Hamas rather than a ceasefire.

Accordingly, the Pro-Hamas activists were not interested in peace, but in continued hostility and violence against Israel and Jews. Thus, they are haters and not lovers of peace, and not Anti-Zionists but Anti-Semitic. In this hatred, they are also exhibiting their disdain for the values and principles of Western Civilization, which has done more than any other civilization for the advancement of humankind, as Bill Maher has pointed out in the aforementioned videos.

10/14/25 The Failures of International Relations Experts

As I have written in my Chirps on "06/17/24 The Elite Experts" and "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top", being an expert does not always mean you are right. Indeed, many experts are often wrong, especially when they stray outside of their field of expertise. And when dealing with issues of human nature, politics, and economics, experts are most often wrong. The best example of this is international relations experts’ resolution of conflicts across the world. Traditional diplomatic methods, tendered by international relations experts, have not succeeded in ending the conflicts in the Middle East and other conflicts across the world, despite decades of trying to do so.

President Trump, a non-expert in international relations, has succeeded in bringing peace where the experts have failed. In these efforts, he has been aided by two other non-experts: Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.

Jared Kushner is an American businessman and investor. He is a son-in-law of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, through his marriage to Ivanka Trump, and he served as a senior advisor in his father-in-law's first administration from 2017 to 2021. He was also director of the White House Office of American Innovation. He was also the person primarily responsible for the Middle East peace plan and Abraham Accords in the first Trump Administration, and he, along with Steve Witkoff, negotiated the current peace agreement with Hamas that may end the war between Israel and Hamas and bring peace to the Middle East.

Steve Witkoff is an American real estate developer, investor, and founder of the Witkoff Group. Beginning in 2025, Witkoff has served as the United States special envoy to the Middle East and special envoy for Peace Missions. He began his career as a real estate attorney and later expanded into major property development in New York and Miami. He is currently responsible for negotiations with Russia to end the Ukrainian war, and he has assisted Jared Kushner in negotiations with Hamas that may end the war between Israel and Hamas and bring peace to the Middle East.

Today, we have seen the release of the living hostages of Hamas, with the murdered hostages being returned, and the start of the implementation of President Trump’s 20-point Peace Plan. This plan is not presented as a starting point for negotiations but as a definitive choice for Hamas. If successful, it should end the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians. A triumph of that was formulated and negotiated by non-experts in international relations. Therefore, we should all remember that, as the Irish editor and writer George William Russell has said, "Experts ought to be on tap and not on top.", and to be wary of expert opinion as they often get it wrong.

10/13/25 Secular Humanism, Religious Dogma, Spirituality, and Orthodoxy

Secular Humanism is a philosophy, belief system, or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Religious Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform. It may be in the form of an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, or Islam. The positions of a philosopher or philosophical school, such as Stoicism, and political belief systems such as fascism, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, and conservatism, can also be considered as Religious Dogma when they are fervently held without doubt.

Spirituality refers to a broad concept that encompasses a sense of connection to something greater than oneself, often involving personal growth and a search for meaning. Its meaning has evolved, incorporating various practices and beliefs, and can exist both within and outside of organized religions.

Orthodoxy, from Ancient Greek orthodoxía ('righteous/correct opinion'), is adherence to a purported "correct" or otherwise mainstream- or classically accepted creed, especially in religion. The major monotheistic religions (believing that there is only one God) of the world, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have different orthodoxies within and between them. Orthodoxy within Christianity refers to acceptance of the doctrines defined by various creeds and ecumenical councils in antiquity, but different Churches accept different creeds and councils. Orthodoxy in Judaism is a collective term for the branches of Judaism that seek to fully maintain the beliefs, practices, and observances they see to be required of Jews, and do so in preservation of the traditional interpretation thereof, as informed by their ethnocultural community, or Minhag. Today, the largest Jewish religious movements are Orthodox Judaism (Haredi and Modern Orthodox), Conservative Judaism, and Reform Judaism. Sunni and Shia are the two branches of Islam that have slightly different orthodoxies but are often bitterly contested between the two branches. Armed conflicts and wars throughout history have broken out within and between these orthodoxies, as religious fervor has overtaken the benevolence that these religions profess.

After many years exploring the foundations of various world religions, Jason Boyett, a journalist and writer who has authored several books about religion and religious history, has written a comprehensive, easy-to-understand exploration of the twelve major world religions through a meticulous, yet unbiased lens. The 12 Major World Religions: The Beliefs, Rituals, and Traditions of Humanity's Most Influential Faiths by Jason Boyett offers an impartial look at where each of these belief systems intersects, how they differ, and why some have been—or are currently—misunderstood.

In my article on Religiosity, I explain my own religious beliefs, which I arrived at through my adolescence as a faithful Lutheran Christian, and my loss of faith due to conflicts between Science versus Religion. I then drifted into Secular Humanism and Spirituality as a substitute for Religion, but I found a certain lack in Secular Humanism and Spirituality that brought me back to a non-denominational Judeo-Christian belief in God.

Secular Humanism and Spirituality may lead you to lead a moral and ethical life, but on some questions, they have ambiguous, multiple answers, or morally challenging positions. I discovered that Secular Humanism and Spirituality took you to 90%+ answers to moral and ethical dilemmas, but the remaining percentage required more than they could supply. I also discovered that a few of their answers led to a society that was discordant and conflicted, and not amenable to other perspectives. Secular Humanism and Spirituality often supported Progressive ideals and ideas with which I disagreed, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". When this occurred, I found the correct answers in the morals of a Judeo-Christian God.

Consequently, Secular Humanism, Religious Dogma, Spirituality, and Orthodoxy did not fit into my viewpoints, but a firm belief in a just, moral, and magnanimous Judeo-Christian God had the moral and ethical answers that I was searching for.

10/12/25 Faith, Family, and Community

A cornerstone of Christianity is the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, as Christians take this to prove God’s forgiveness of sin and the divinity of Christ. However, Christianity is more than this event; it is living a Christian life as Jesus preached. And this living of a Christian life is centered around faith, family, and community as central to Christianity. Unfortunately, many mainstream Christian denominations have strayed from this in their support of Multiculturalism, Social Justice, and other forms of Adjective Justice. In this, they have been swept up into a tide of Progressivism, Internationalism, Socialism, Secularism, Spirituality, and, alas, Islamism that has occurred over the last several decades. But this tide can also be a tidal wave in disguise that destroys everything in its path.

In this faith, family, and community, the importance and dignity of the individual person is central, but so are the personal responsibilities of the individual to themselves and to society. Activists and Activism have forgotten or do not know this, as they focus almost exclusively on the rights of groups without the responsibilities of the individual or groups of individuals to society. In this, they have also downplayed the importance of faith, family, and community in a cohesive and stable society. They also focus on governmental actions without consideration of possible harmful governmental actions on individuals, families, or communities.

In this straying from Christian values by mainstream Christianity, they have lost their way, as well as many of their parishioners. Only evangelical Christian denominations have not strayed, and their numbers are increasing. Faith, family, and community are also necessary to retain a coherent, stable, and peaceful society, and the faith, family, and community of Christian teachings (as well as Jewish faith, family, and community) are the best the world has ever seen.

These Christian values are the bedrock of Western Civilization, and without this bedrock, Western Civilization is crumbling, and modern mainstream Christianity is aiding in this collapse. Consequently, modern mainstream Christianity needs to realize the folly of its straying, and, in this, they should remember the Bible verse of "Get thee behind me, Satan", a phrase spoken by Jesus in the New Testament, specifically in Matthew 16:23, where he rebukes Peter for not aligning with God's concerns. Accordingly, it is well past time for modern mainstream Christianity to rededicate itself to the teachings of Jesus in faith, family, and community as central to Christianity, and to support the values and principles of Christianity and Western Civilization.

10/11/25 False Witness

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is one of the Ten Commandments, widely understood as a moral imperative in Judaism and Christianity. Most people presume that this commandment is primarily related to testimony in a court of law. But it is much more, as the following Bible verse illuminates:

“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.”
— Exodus 23:1-3

Consequently, speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and in any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor is a violation of this commandment.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists commentators have been in continual violation of this Bible verse, especially in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). There is nothing that they wouldn’t say (and sometimes do) in their opposition to President Trump and his supporters. All facts that contravene their beliefs or opinions are to be denied or distorted, and the only truths that they accept are those that support their beliefs or opinions. This is especially true when they engage in Bothsidesism, Whataboutism, and False Equivalence, as I have examined in my Chirp on "09/30/25 False Equivalency". They also engage in disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation to support their beliefs or opinions, which is also a violation of this commandment. When they Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage their opponents, they further compound their disobedience to this commandment. Their tactics of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" are also a violation of this commandment.

Accordingly, they are not virtuous, but they are behaving wickedly. Consequently, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists bear no allegiance to the Ten Commandments, as each commandment must be obeyed equally to be in accordance with God’s will.

10/10/25 Worse Than Watergate

Having lived through the Watergate scandal era, I can bear witness to the shame that most good people felt about the shenanigans of the Nixon Administration. I also remember that when the facts were revealed, the Republican Party Leaders and most Conservatives joined with the Democrat Party Leaders and Liberals in condemning and investigating this scandal. So much so that they forced the resignation of President Nixon for his involvement in covering up this scandal.

Today, we are faced with an even larger scandal involving the Biden Administration. We've known for a while that the FBI and DOJ, under the Biden administration, ran an operation called "Arctic Frost" that targeted conservative figures and organizations. Yesterday, we learned that former Special Counsel Jack Smith was also monitoring the private communications of eight GOP Congresspersons, including tracking the phone calls of GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. In addition, they were engaged in a sweeping FBI operation that targeted almost 100 Republicans, including individuals and groups like the Republican Governors' Association and Turning Point USA, founded by the late Charlie Kirk. And it appears that they did this without probable cause or proper legal procedures.

The Watergate scandal was carried out by the Watergate Seven, which refers to two different groups of people, both of them in the context of the Watergate scandal. Firstly, it can refer to the five men caught on June 17, 1972, burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate complex, along with their two handlers. The plot involved illegal activities against the Democratic Party that were attempted (but failed) on January 27, 1972. The second use of Watergate Seven refers to seven advisors and aides of United States President Richard M. Nixon who were indicted by a grand jury on March 1, 1974, for their roles in the aftermath of the first Watergate Seven. The second seven were not involved in the plot, but they tried to cover up what had occurred.

This maleficence of Arctic Frost, along with "The Weaponization of Government" in the Biden Administration, occurred in the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and various National Security Agencies. It was well known within the Biden Administration, and it was covered up during and after it occurred. Thus, it was a wholesale operation by top Biden Administration officials, supported by lower-ranking officials and dozens of government agents and employees. Accordingly, it was a more significant corruption than what occurred during the Watergate scandal, as it targeted hundreds of political opponents and organizations that opposed President Biden, and it involved the corruption of government by the many rather than the few that occurred in the Watergate Scandal.

These actions by the Biden Administration were an assault on our American Ideals and Ideas, and were most likely Unconstitutional. If those involved in both Arctic Frost and The Weaponization of Government are not held accountable, both publicly and legally, then we can expect that other Administrations will continue to assault our American Ideals and Ideas and violate the Constitution.

Yet, the silence or support for this maleficence and weaponization by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists is deafening and disturbing. It is disturbing in that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem more concerned with regaining power than upholding our American Ideals and Ideas and their allegiance to our Constitution. Such leadership should never be placed in power, as they will demolish our country and society in their attempts to remain in power.

10/09/25 Absurdity Deserves Mockery

Absurdity deserves mockery, as that is often the best way to illuminate the absurd. Many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are decrying the memes that President Trump and his supporters are now posting on social media. But memes are but another form of mockery, and these memes are effective in pointing out the absurdity of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

The wails and cries of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that these are serious issues that deserve serious responses fall flat, as this mockery demonstrates. As the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are not being serious about these issues, as well as being deceptive and/or hypocritical, they deserve these memes. To those who respond that it is beneath the dignity of the President to engage in mockery, I would respond that it is a powerful way to break past the Mainstream Media's support for the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists absurdities.

I would also remind these Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that, as they are using loathsome pejoratives against Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives (which should be beyond the pale), they are deserving of ridicule to counteract their invectives.

So, I would say to all involved in creating these memes, meme away, and expose with humor the absurdities of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

10/08/25 Tribalism and Victimhood

Multiculturalism is an umbrella term that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders utilize to justify their political goals and policy agendas to achieve Social Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Additionally, Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and White Privilege are terms tied to Multiculturalism, and they are used to create a victim society of oppressor and oppressed. As for Victimhood, it is all too easy to wallow in victimhood and to shift blame for life’s circumstances to anyone other than your own decisions.

Multiculturalism is the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture. It also holds that all cultures, races, and ethnicities' practices and contributions to humanity have equal weight and value to a society, and that any disapproving comments are a sign of disrespect or disparagement. In this multiculturalism viewpoint, there is no acknowledgement of the overwearing importance of Western Civilization to the advancement of humanity in individual liberty, democratic governance, medical and pharmacological advances, the arts and sciences, technological progress, and economic prosperity that we now enjoy.

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist, author, and broadcaster, born and raised as a leftist and once the darling of the Left, she had a transformation and is now known for her conservative viewpoints and commentary on political and social issues. She has written for various publications, including The Times and The Jerusalem Post, and is recognized as a prominent conservative voice in the media. My Chirp on "09/02/25 Multiculturalism" examines her viewpoint on multiculturalism and how it is destroying the West. In her latest book, “The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West—and Why Only They Can Save It”, she states that:

“Multiculturalism does not create tolerance and harmony. It instead destroys a coherent and cohesive society that accordingly descends into a kind of tribalism, in which group battles group for power and supremacy. A multicultural society is therefore a contradiction in terms.”
- Melanie Phillips

As I have written in my Chirp on "05/26/22 We Are All Victims", victimhood is rampant in America. But victimhood is rampant throughout the world and throughout history. There have been suppressors and oppressors, tyrants, bullies, (hard) taskmasters, slavedrivers, despots, dictators, persecutors, tormentors, torturers, intimidators, bigots, and discriminators in every society throughout history. A society should not only be defined by its victims and oppressors, but by the possibilities of the victims to overcome their suppressors and oppressors.

In my Chirp on "08/02/24 Free Will vs. Oppressed Victimhood", I have written that it is all too easy in modern America to claim that you are an oppressed victim of others and society. Such a claim frees you from the responsibilities of your words and deeds. It negates the possibility that your free will bad choices are responsible for your current condition and smothers the possibility that you can make future free will decisions to improve your condition. It also makes you dependent on others, society, and government to improve your condition.

Multiculturalism and Victimhood are pernicious, as they create a conflict between groups of Americans. And sometimes this conflict erupts into mob violence. Alas, Multiculturalism and Victimhood are often exploited by politicians for electoral purposes, and by advocacy groups to obtain their policy agendas and political goals. This exploitation is most prominent in Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and it is largely responsible for the divisiveness in modern America. Thus, Multiculturalism and Victimhood should be expunged from our society for us to regain A Civil Society.

10/07/25 A State of Insurrection

A state of insurrection refers to a situation where a group of people rises up against the authority of a government, often involving rebellion or civil disorder. In the U.S., the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces to restore order during such events. In U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, it defines insurrection as:

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the United States. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's deployment of the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions are subordinate to the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

Habeas corpus is a legal procedure invoking the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and request the individual's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful. The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction in some places or types of cases. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside of the jurisdiction of habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court of the United States overturned this action in Boumediene v. Bush. The events of January 6, 2021, “Insurrection” raised significant concerns about the application of habeas corpus, particularly regarding the treatment of those detained in connection with the insurrection.

The Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, of the Constitution states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This clause is significant as it protects individuals from unlawful detention by ensuring they can challenge their imprisonment in court. In this, it protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and it provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

In America today, we have seen many State and local officials, as well as some judges, and violent mob participants, who, in their support of illegal immigration, have impeded Federal Law Enforcement by those charged with enforcing immigration law. All people in America are free to speak out for or against immigration laws, but no person is allowed to physically impede the enforcement of these laws. As such, those who impede the enforcement of these laws are in a state of rebellion (i.e., Insurrection) against the lawful authority of the Federal government. And, as such, I believe that President Trump can declare a state of rebellion in those States and local jurisdictions that are defying Federal law enforcement. In this declaration, he should also suspend habeas corpus until such time as the rebellion is suppressed. Consequently, all persons, including State and local officials, as well as some judges, and violent mob participants who impede law enforcement must be arrested and detained until this rebellion has ended.

The Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, may review this declaration to determine its Constitutionality. No other court has the authority, nor the jurisprudence, to properly determine its Constitutionality. To allow any other court to review this matter could potentially prolong this insurrection based on the political predilections of the judges.

If we do not put an end to this insurrection on First Amendment or other Constitutional grounds, then we have indeed made the Constitution a suicide pact, as an active insurrection that is allowed to continue can only lead to the disintegration of the Constitution.

10/06/25 Assaults on Western Civilization

Western civilization is under assault from forces both within and outside its confines. From socialism to cultural values, its foes are attempting to dismantle and destroy Western civilization. Many of the thoughts and beliefs of Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders of today are to “fundamentally transform” Western civilization into what they believe will be a more humane society. But humane is in the eye of the beholder, and one person’s humane may be another person’s oppression. In this fundamental transformation, they believe that they have all the answers to creating a humane society. And in these answers, they must fundamentally transform human nature into a more benevolent and less self-centered nature, and they often disregard the laws of economics and scientific truths in their answers. And, as I have said:

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

Therefore, in their thoughts and beliefs that if they are successful in implementing, it will lead to the destruction of Western civilization, and the rise of despotism, dictatorship or tyranny, theocracy, or other forms of repressive governments.

10/05/25 Thinking Like an Engineer

Although I am not educated as an engineer, I have worked as a computer systems engineer my entire professional life, as I have written in my article on Stories from an Examined Professional Life. As such, I think like an engineer in that I approach all that I do and say from a scientific, mathematical, and logical analytical perspective.

I recently came across some humorous YouTube videos from an engineer turned comedian, Don McMillan, who explains life from an engineering perspective. Starting out with How to Know If You're an Engineer, followed by Overlooked Signs You Might Be an Engineer, he explains how engineers think about life’s little problems and how they make no sense to an engineer. Some of my favorite YouTube videos by him are:

If you are an engineer, or a partner to an engineer, or just interested in knowing how an engineer thinks about life, these videos will help you understand engineers, as well as tickle your funny bone.

10/04/25 Science and Scientific Speculation

Joe Rogan, in a recent interview with the noted physicist Brian Cox, “Where Does God Fit in an Infinite Universe - Brian Cox with Joe Rogan”, discussed how God and Science interact. As this was a verbal exchange, I have transcribed a portion of this interview that I found significant, while slightly rewriting it to be more understandable in a written form:

What we should say is that science doesn’t know all the answers; we don't know where the laws of nature came from. We don't know why the universe began in the way that it did, if indeed it had a beginning. We don't know why the Big Bang was very, very, highly ordered, which is ultimately, as Sean Carroll (another very notable physicist ) has mentioned, often points out the only difference between the past and the future is the so-called arrow of time, and in the past the universe was really ordered and that it is getting more disordered. That's the necessary state of order at the start of the universe, which is really the reason that we exist, and that's the reason the universe began in a particular form. We don't know why that was, but we will probably find out at some point, and it will be something to do with the laws of nature.

So, I'm always careful in that I don't want science, which can sometimes sound arrogant, and it can sometimes sound like it's the discipline of saying to people you're not right, and it's not the discipline of saying you're not right. It's saying this is what we have found out. So, I like to say that it provides a framework within which, if you want to philosophize, or you want to do theology, or you want to ask these deep questions about why we're here, you must operate within that framework, because it's just an observational framework. Everything we've said is stuff we've discovered; it's not stuff that someone made up.

The point I would like to add is that it is very important to distinguish between science and scientific speculation. Science is based on observational or experimental evidence, while scientific speculation has some foundation in science, it has no hard observational or experimental evidence to confirm or deny the speculation. I have no objections to scientific speculation, as that is often a starting point for scientific observations or experimentation. However, too often, scientists will speculate in public without distinguishing what science is and what scientific speculation is, which can lead to confusion amongst the general public who lack sufficient knowledge of science to distinguish the difference.

I would also point out that science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, as current theology places God outside of the universe and timeless. Accordingly, the existence or non-existence of God is beyond the ability of scientific observational or experimental evidence, some of which I have examined in my article on “Science versus Religion”. We should also all remember, when discussing science and religion, the quote of Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. I do, however, agree with Brian Cox that science, philosophy, theology, and deep questions must operate within the framework of provable science for any of them to be correct.

10/03/25 Microsoft Security Practices

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter on Sep. 10, 2025, to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), requesting the agency to “investigate and hold Microsoft responsible for its gross cybersecurity negligence, resulting in ransomware attacks against critical infrastructure, including U.S. health care organizations, which have caused enormous harm to health care providers, put patient care at risk, and continues to threaten U.S. national security.” Sen. Wyden explicitly frames Microsoft’s practices as a serious national security risk, expressing certainty that more high-impact incidents will occur unless the FTC intervenes, stating, “I urge the FTC to investigate Microsoft and hold the company responsible for the serious harm it has caused by delivering dangerous, insecure software to the U.S. government and to critical infrastructure entities, such as those in the U.S. health care sector. Without timely action, Microsoft’s culture of negligent cybersecurity, combined with its de facto monopolization of the enterprise operating system market, poses a serious national security threat and makes additional hacks inevitable.”

The question is, what can Microsoft do about security in Windows? The answer is, unfortunately, based on my extensive computer systems background, that there is not much that Microsoft can do. Microsoft has a penchant for keeping older functionality in Windows (known as legacy software), for the purpose of allowing older software to continue to function within Windows. Such legacy software is a major contributor to the malware problems in Windows, and removing this legacy software would disable the application software that utilizes the legacy features in Windows. Such a disabling would have major impacts on the users of this older software, as well as the developers of this older software.

It should also be noted that security in any computer software needs to be designed and developed from the start, as add-on security often leads to holes in Windows that allow malware to infect a computer. And, as Microsoft Windows never did this, it is highly susceptible to malware. Having a secure operating system would require Microsoft to redesign and redevelop Windows from the top down to the base of its code, with security as the primary concern in this effort. A Herculean task that would take many years to accomplish, and it may not be technically feasible given the complexity of an operating system. It would also require that the application software that utilizes this new operating system be rewritten. Another Herculean task that may be beyond the financial and technical resources of the application software companies.

The immediate solution would be for Congress to pass legislation that targets those who develop, distribute, or implement malware in a computer system. Aggressive law enforcement, along with severe penalties of large fines and long imprisonment, needs to occur. As much malware comes from foreign sources, it would be necessary for this legislation to require that foreign governments extradite those responsible for malware infections, or they would face severe consequences if they did not do so. As computer malware poses a national security threat, as Senator Wyden has noted, such legislation should be a priority of Congress.

Microsoft needs to be more proactive in confronting malware threats and more willing to abandon legacy software in Windows that makes it more susceptible to malware. But Congress needs to pass legislation targeting malware developers and disseminators, and the Justice Department needs to aggressively prosecute those who develop and disseminate malware. Until this happens, computer malware will continue to plague us, to the detriment of all the people, businesses, and governments of the world.

10/02/25 Ignorant Of How Ignorant They Are

JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter novels, has been involved in a dispute with Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe, the female and male actors in the Harry Potter movies, about transgenderism and women’s privacy rights. Recently, JK Rowling has sent a stinging response to Emma Watson after the Harry Potter actress recently spoke about their relationship and a public disagreement over the issue of gender identity. In her response, JK Rowling stated, “Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is.”

To me, this explains how Progressives are—they are ignorant of their own ignorance. Most Progressives believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. And most of these Progressives have arisen from a life in which they experienced few financial problems and were often privileged in their opportunities. Despite their being highly educated, their education has often been of a one-sided viewpoint of life—the Progressive side. They have never had to confront the problems of real life (except when they graduate and are unable to find well-paid employment), and they have never been challenged in their viewpoints. As such, they are ignorant of how the real world functions, and they are clueless as to their own ignorance.

In this ignorance, they believe that they possess all the knowledge and proper rationality of an issue, and that any facts and reasoning contrary to their viewpoint must be false or irrational, and need not be considered and, indeed, should be rejected. As such, they are ignorant of how ignorant they are. Such ignorance leads them to presume that anybody who disagrees with them is irrational, mean-spirited, or evil. It also leads them to engage in loathsome pejoratives and physical confrontations against those who would disagree with them.

Ignorance within oneself can be ameliorated if you remember the words of wisdom in Benjamin Franklin’s speech on the final day of the Constitutional Convention, given to rally the conventioneers to approve the Constitution:

“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.”

“Doubt a little of your own infallibility.”

Ignorance in others who are ignorant of their ignorance, and who are not inclined to consider these words of wisdom, is almost impossible to challenge. It is impossible to challenge them, as it would require that they confront their own ignorance, which they often deny. Alas, such is the case of modern Progressives, as they are ignorant of how ignorant they are, and they deny their own ignorance.

10/01/25 Resistance

Resistance to authority in the form of despotism, totalitarianism, tyranny, monarchy, dictatorship, and other oppressions of self-rule and self-determination have been common throughout human history. The yearning for and understanding of Natural Rights has grown throughout human history, and with it, the desire for Liberty and Freedom has increased.

America has a long history of resistance movements, several of which I have written about in previous Chirps. These Chirps do not do justice to this topic, and I have become dissatisfied with these Chirps. As such, I have withdrawn my Collect Chirps on Resistance Movements (but retained the original Chirps), and I have added a history article on Resistance Movements in American History, so as to cover this topic in a more thorough and comprehensive manner.

09/30/25 False Equivalency

In my Chirp on “09/19/25 Sophistry Tactics” I mentioned bothsidesism, whataboutism, and false equivalency as:

Bothsidesism is a bias in which journalists or political commentators present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. They may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or they may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been identified as a contributing factor to misinformation.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is a formal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behavior or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behavior (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.
False equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

It should be noted that false equivalency is a broad term that can be applied outside of political commentary. It should also be noted that both bothsidesism and whataboutism rely heavily on false equivalency in their arguments. In addition, bothsidesism and whataboutism often rely on an emotional appeal rather than intellectual reasoning.

Consequently, the best point to be made against someone utilizing bothsidesism and whataboutism is to point out the false equivalency that they make in their argument. Such pointing out needs to be done with facts and reasoning and avoidance of your own bothsidesism and whataboutism. If you apply false equivalency in this manner, then you can easily determine that someone’s bothsidesism and whataboutism argument does not hold water.

09/29/25 Extremism

Back in 1987, the British comedian John Cleese explained extremism, which can be viewed here. The transcript of his comments is:

“Seriously though, we've heard a lot about extremism recently. A nastier, harsher atmosphere everywhere. More abuse and bother boy behavior. Less friendliness and tolerance and respect for opponents. All right. But what we never hear about extremism is its advantages.

Well, the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good because it provides you with enemies. Let me explain. The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies, and all the goodness in the whole world is in you. Attractive, isn't it? So, if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway, and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons, and that if it wasn't for them, you'd actually be good-natured and courteous and rational all the time.

So, if you want to feel good, become an extremist. Okay? Now you have a choice. If you join the hard left, they'll give you their list of authorized enemies. Almost all kinds of authority, especially the police, the city, Americans, judges, multinational corporations, public schools, furriers, newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors, and of course, moderates. Or if you'd rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem. Fine. You still get a lovely list of enemies. Only they're different ones. Noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdos, demonstrators, welfare sponges, meddlesome clergy, peaceniks, the BBC, strikers, social workers, communists, and of course, moderates and upstart actors.

Now, once you're armed with one of these super lists of enemies, you can be as nasty as you like and yet feel your behaviors morally justified. So, you can strut around abusing people and telling them you could eat them for breakfast and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth, as a fighter for the greater good, and not the rather sad, paranoid schizoid that you really are.”

The only thing that has changed about extremists in the intervening years is their lists, until recently. Now, extremists of the left in America believe it is morally justifiable to engage in mob violence, physical assaults, robberies, property destruction, and, now, the assassination of their opponents. Such extremism is never morally justifiable and should be treated as a criminal action and prosecuted as such. Otherwise, we do not have A Civil Society but a society lurching toward self-destruction.

09/28/25 Charlie Kirk Memorial Service

One week ago today, the memorial service for Charlie Kirk attracted at least 20 million viewers across cable and online platforms, with estimates suggesting worldwide livestream totals could exceed 100 million. The event featured prominent speakers, including President Trump, and was held at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on Sunday, September 21, 2025. Over 100,000 people were present in the stadium, with estimates of another 100,000 outside the stadium.

Those viewing this memorial service had the opportunity to see for themselves a true picture of middle America: Peaceful, Reverent, Godly, and Hopeful for America’s Future.

Some memorable speeches were given at the Charlie Kirk Memorial Service, among the most notable are:

Perhaps the most moving speech was by the widow of Charlie Kurk, Erika Kirk, who demonstrated God’s grace and true Christian charity in her remarks. Fox News commentator Jesse Watters summed up the experience as Charlie Kirk's memorial felt like a 'turning point'. Hopefully, a turning point back to A Civil Society in America, and to a reestablishment of our American Ideals and Ideas.

09/27/25 Anger, Hate, and Destruction

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and the United States homeland security advisor since 2025, spoke at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial service. In his speech, he pointed out the emptiness of the opponents of Charlie Kirk and what Charlie Kirk stood for. He said:

“Because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble. And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity.”

The anger, hate, and destruction wrought by Charlie Kirk’s opponents have brought forth upon America is a testament to their nothingness. And out of nothing comes nothing, and their nothingness leaves an empty soul for evil to fester. It is time for the American people to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan”, and to right the course of America to Judeo-Christian virtuousness, and to the path that God wishes his children to follow. It is only then that we can lift up humanity.

09/26/25 Show Me the Receipts

The phrase “show me the receipts” or “bring me the receipts” is a slang term used to request evidence or proof to support a claim. It is commonly used in political commentary and social media when reacting to news or allegations that seem unbelievable. The phrase gained popularity in 2016 and has since become a popular meme. This phrase implies that those making an assertion have the burden of proof to prove their assertion is correct. As I have stated in my Chirp comment on “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.”, which is now a Philosophical Razor that can be utilized to dismiss an argument.

This burden, as I have written in my Article “Burden of Proof”, must be based upon ‘Reasoning’ rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of ‘if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right’, which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of 'trying to prove a negative', which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ when evaluating an assertion.”

It is all too common for political commentators to make an assertion without the burden of proof for their assertion. This almost always occurs whenever a commentator cites polls and statistics. And it is most common in assertions by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. And it is also all too common for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to demand the receipts from Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, while they maintain that their assertions be accepted at face value without the burden of proof.

All sides should be required to provide the burden of proof, or at least cite the source of their assertion, after they make an assertion. Otherwise, as Christopher Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Accordingly, the other side should be able to dismiss an assertion that is made without evidence, and the other side should also not discuss the merits of an assertion that is made without evidence. Otherwise, the discussion is nothing but empty talk that consumes much time and effort without being informative.

09/25/25 The Non-Apology Apology

There have been many apologies by those in the public eye (politicians, commentators, journalists, entertainers, etc.) in which they try to apologize for their comments, often by claiming that their remarks were misunderstood and/or taken out of context. This is known as a Non-Apology Apology. For anybody in the communications business, it is incumbent upon them that they communicate properly, as communication is their profession or business. I would also remind them that if their audience misunderstood what you said, then you miscommunicated what you meant.

These Non-Apology Apologies are not really apologies, but an attempt to relieve them of their responsibility to communicate properly. In this Non-Apology Apology, they often say things that mean nothing. As such, a Non-Apology Apology should not be accepted, as it is disingenuous. No forgiveness is warranted to those giving Non-Apology Apologies, as forgiveness should only be given for those who offer sincere apologies.

09/25/25 What They Have Done and How They Have Behaved

One of my favorite quotes from my favorite historic American, which I treasured and tried to apply throughout my life, is:

"Well done is better than well said."
- Benjamin Franklin

Doing good is very difficult to achieve, as it requires intelligent decisions and a commitment to success. Well said is very easy, as it only requires feeling good about your speech, and often without consideration of the negative repercussions of what you have said.

I recently heard a quote from one of my favorite current politicians, which I will also treasure, and without knowing the quote, I have applied it in my own life:

“It’s not your beliefs that make you a good person, it’s your behavior.”
- Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)

Of course, bad beliefs will always lead to bad behavior, but good beliefs do not always lead to good behavior. Good beliefs, along with good deeds, will almost always result in good behavior. However, good beliefs with bad behavior will always lead to conflict. And bad beliefs with bad behavior will always lead to strife.

Both of these quotes should be a standard to be achieved by all Americans. Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem not to understand these concepts. In their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they believe that they are always correct and that all they say and do is sound and proper. But their record of their deeds being wrong, and their words being pernicious, has been unblemished in the last few decades.

In the Obama and Biden Administrations, they have sought to “fundamentally transform” America, and this transformation has not made America a better place. Indeed, it has often worsened America in the quality of life for most Americans, economic stagnation, racial tensions and mob violence, crime in the streets, and in detrimental foreign relationships, along with a host of other ills that beset America.

In the Obama and Biden Administrations, as well as during the era of Trump, their pernicious pejoratives against their opponents have torn America into two camps in their own minds—the laudable and the deplorable. Unfortunately for them, as they have divided Americans, they have found themselves on the 30% divide of a 70%-30% division of the American public's opinion on the issues facing America. This minority status is how it should be, considering what they have done and how they have behaved.

Until the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists reform their words and deeds, they will continue to be on the minority side of the issues, and they will continue to be wrong and to misbehave.

09/24/25 Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

The ‘This vs. That’ website has a comparison on “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech”, which defines these terms as:

“Free speech is the fundamental right to express one's opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation. It is a cornerstone of democracy and allows for the open exchange of ideas and perspectives. Hate speech, on the other hand, is speech that promotes hatred, discrimination, or violence against individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. While free speech is protected under the law, hate speech is not and can have harmful consequences on individuals and society as a whole. It is important to strike a balance between protecting free speech and preventing the spread of hate speech to ensure a safe and inclusive society for all.”

In this definition, they are wrong. The only unacceptable speech is speech that incites violence against a person, persons, or a group of persons, or speech which incites harm to the property of such person(s). All other speech, which all are free to condemn, must be allowed, or we will descend into repressive governance.

To paraphrase the noted economist and political commentator Thomas Sowell:

"The most basic question is not what is free speech or hate speech, but who shall decide what is free speech or hate speech?”

Under the This vs. That definition it would require a government to establish a “censorship group” that would decide if something were free speech or hate speech and then enforce their decisions in some manner. Whether such a group would require that speech be cleared beforehand, or enforcement would occur afterwards, they would restrict speech through their actions or by intimidation by the menaces of possible actions. Either way, the decision would be arbitrary based on the predilections of the members of this censorship group. This is not free speech but restricted speech. Gone would be the days of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”, and replaced by “Only sanctioned speech is acceptable.”

Such a situation is anathema to Liberties and Freedoms, and the antithesis to our American Ideals and Ideas. And it should never be allowed to happen in America, and it should be discouraged throughout the world.

*********************************

p.s. – This is a fine example of never taking at face value what information or data (especially statistics) that you obtain from the Internet. Always be cautious when evaluating the information, and always cross-check the information you find on the Internet, as it can often be as inaccurate as it is accurate. And always remember that:

09/23/25 Lands of the Unfree

In an article by Michael Barone, “Britain, Land of the Unfree”, he comments that:

“The British writer Ed West has compiled an illuminating list of Britons prosecuted for tweets deemed offensive, noting that "the vast majority of these cases seem to involve people who have offended progressive norms, or who are seen as being enemies of the progressive alliance."

American commentator Mike Benz, citing The Times of London, claims that there are more than 30 arrests per day, 12,000 over the course of a year, typically on vague charges of inciting violence, for offensive messages and jokes in tweets or WhatsApp chats.”

While this may be a newer occurrence in Britain, it has been a longer-standing occurrence throughout Western Europe. On September 3, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to “examine European threats to American free speech and innovation.” One of the star witnesses was Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Reform Party, who submitted testimony warning that “Europe’s regulatory model for online speech, exemplified by the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act…risks exporting restrictive standards to the United States that will violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

Vice President JD Vance also told a shocked audience at the Munich Security Conference last February that:

"I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people."

Vice President Vance continued by stating:

"You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail -- whether that's the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news."

It is also possible for these governments to arrest American citizens visiting their countries for comments and actions made both inside and outside of their country, which in America would be perfectly legal and fall within our First Amendment Rights. As such, the State Department should place these countries on a watch and warning list for Americans planning a visit to these countries.

The larger problem is the erosion of Natural Law and Natural Rights throughout the world, as I have Chirped on "05/02/23 Natural Law and Natural Rights vs. The Law of the Jungle". Such erosion is detrimental to the progress of humankind, and it often results in forms of governance that are repressive of their people. In these Lands of the Unfree we should all remember the words of wisdom of President George Washington:

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

09/22/25 Danger Will Robinson!

“Danger, Will Robinson!” is a famous catchphrase from the 1960s science fiction series ‘Lost in Space’, where a robot warns young Will Robinson of impending threats. This phrase has become iconic in popular culture, symbolizing a warning of danger. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr recently made remarks in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination that should invoke a “Danger, Will Robinson!” response by all Americans concerned for our Liberties and Freedoms.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has faced criticism for her recent comments in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which she suggested that the Justice Department would target “hate speech”, which she later clarified would only apply to speech that incites violence. I would remind her, and all Americans, that hate speech is protected free speech, and free speech is absolute except for a few exceptions. 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 also remind all Americans that President Biden and his Administration attempted to restrict the free speech of his opponents by directing the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to investigate right-wing extremists (i.e., their political opponents), as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government".

This focus on hate speech in America, or any speech that may offend someone or some group of people, is part and parcel of the diminishment of our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". This decline must end and be reversed forthwith, or we shall lose our Liberties and Freedoms.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, internet, Wi-Fi, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the electromagnetic spectrum frequency usage in areas of broadband access, fair competition, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security, all to be done in the public interest. This public interest standard in broadcasting requires that licensees operate in a way that serves the welfare of the general public, as mandated by the Communications Act of 1934. This includes providing diverse viewpoints and covering controversial issues of public importance, and equal airtime and access to competing political candidates.

Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, recently suggested in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination and broadcast television misreporting of the motives of the assassin, that the licenses of broadcast television be reviewed and withdrawn, as such misreporting was not in the public interest. Such an action by the FCC would entail that the FCC determine what is disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation that is not in the public interest. What is or is not in the public interest, as regards to speech, is subjective and can never be objective. There will always be one side of an issue that will claim that the other side is not speaking in the public interest, and the other side’s speech should be suppressed if the FCC becomes involved in making this decision.

Thus, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's recent comments are contrary to the principles of Free Speech. As I have written in my Chirp on "07/07/24 Limitations on Free Speech", the problem with limiting Free Speech is who shall determine what is hurtful, provocative, or disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. And to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is harmful, but who shall decide what is harmful?” As there is much disagreement on what is harmful, any limitations on Free Speech are harmful to all, and it is a form of despotism.

In my Chirp on "09/13/24 Less Government and More Free Speech", I point out that in an article by Jonathan Turley, “Want More Freedom of Speech? Try Less Government.”, he states that:

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

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

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

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

He concludes this article by stating:

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

To which I say, “Here, here”, and “Danger, Will Robinson!” if we do not do so.

09/21/25 No Consensus to Be Reached

“There is no consensus to be reached with people who actively wish for our deaths and then gloat when some crazed lunatic tries to fulfill that wish.”
- Hayden Daniel

In The Federalist article by Hayden Daniel, “There Can Be No Compromise With People Who Want You Dead”, he begins this article by stating:

“This week, America witnessed, in graphic detail, two horrendous crimes. This week, we received a very clear illustration that no one is safe from leftist violence, from a national figure like Charlie Kirk to an innocent woman on a North Carolina train.

After the propaganda press nearly succeeded in ignoring the story altogether, America watched the video of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska being stabbed on a Charlotte, N.C. light rail train. The harrowing footage captures her shock and disbelief as she bleeds out on the floor while her killer casually walks away, allegedly muttering, “I got the white girl.” No one in her immediate vicinity lifted a finger to help her as she died.

Then, on Wednesday, TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. The footage is too graphic to post here, but Kirk was gunned down in cold blood doing what he had done for years — attempting to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the left.”

He ends his article by stating:

“When they say, “This is a new Democratic Party. We’re bringing a knife to a knife fight,” believe them. Do not forget that they push rhetoric that gets public officials shot and enact policies that get innocent people butchered in the streets.

Also, do not forget that leftists aren’t content with targeting big names like Kirk and Trump. They’re targeting law-abiding, decent Americans every day — whether through raw state power like we saw under the Biden administration or through the anarcho-tyrannical policies of America’s big cities.

Things are falling apart; the very fabric of society is coming undone. People have had a vague sense that this was so for years, maybe decades. Every year, cities became a little less safe; political rhetoric became a little more violent.

But now it’s undeniable. There is no consensus to be reached with people who actively wish for our deaths and then gloat when some crazed lunatic tries to fulfill that wish. Either the left wins, or we win. The center can no longer hold.

As was said in Psalm 94, “The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.” How long will the wicked be jubilant? Without the grace of divine intervention, that’s for us to decide.”

Many Americans are crying out for us to “come together” and “have a conversation” to reach a consensus. This consensus that many say they want both sides to achieve is not possible for those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). As their TDS forces them to believe everything that President Trump says and does is wrong or evil, thereby, any consensus with the devil Trump is not permitted. They also 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. In such a belief, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid, but that they are bad or evil persons. In addition, consensus by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is defined by them as the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders must concede to their demands, as they are always correct. This is not a consensus but an acquiescence to their demands, as they believe they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, and that only they should decide what is best for America and Americans.

09/20/25 The Fantasies of the Left

Politically violent movements have become epidemic in modern America, as I have Chirped on "07/15/24 Violence in the Political Arena". And most of these violent movements are from one side of The Political Spectrum—the left side. Despite the claims from Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders of bothsidesism and whataboutism, the vast majority of political violence in modern America originates on the Left. Even Progressives who do not engage in political violence are often supportive of the political violence of the Left. The question is then why do they engage in or support this political violence?

The answer may be, as Ben Shapiro has written in his column, “The Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Violent Movements We Must Denounce”:

“Ideologies that breed violence share three specific elements.

First, they share a conspiratorial view of the universe in which a shadowy cabal of powerful people are responsible for all of your failures and shortcomings, and in which their arguments are not in fact arguments, but instead, a la Michel Foucault, a facade for power.

Second, such ideologies share a belief that you or your group are being targeted for destruction by that shadowy cabal.

Finally, such ideologies hold that violence is justifiable self-defense.”

And the Left certainly has an ideology of victimhood and oppressiveness. This can be seen from their overreaching response to Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show being put on indefinite suspension (i.e., immediate cancellation). The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' outrage about this suspension has been that Jimmy Kimmel is the victim of right-wing extremists, and that his free speech rights are being suppressed. Not a thought was given that this was a business decision, as his comments about the Charlie Kirk assignation were repugnant to most Americans, and ABC affiliate stations Nexstar and Sinclair, which operate dozens of ABC stations, came out against Kimmel and refused to air his show. Therefore, his suspension was driven by market forces, and not by government force, which would be a free speech violation and make him a victim of oppression. If you juxtapose the Left's reaction to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension with the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders reactions to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, of condemnation, condolences, prayer, and vigils, there is a stark difference between the Left and Right in their ideological reactions to adverse circumstances.

But it is much more than Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension that illuminates the ideology of victimhood and oppression that grips the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Almost immediately after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Left worked overtime to hide the truth and create fantasies about his death. Fantasies that were propagated by the Mainstream Media and the Mainstream Cultural Media. But such fantasies are not new to the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as they will concoct fantasies for any adverse circumstance that does not fit their narrative, as I have Chirped on “09/19/25 Sophistry Tactics”. Fantasies that make victims and imply oppression of their supporters, and that seem to be reality to their supporters. And these fantasies are often a projection of what they have done against their opponents, and they will do again if they regain political power.

In their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), they react with outrage to everything that President Trump says and does, and they portray him as victimizing his opponents and as oppressing them, which feeds into the fantasies of their supporters. And such fantasies often lead to violence by the Left. Hence, it is the Fantasies of the Left that feed into the ideology of victimhood and oppression in America, which leads them into a politically violent movement.

09/19/25 Sophistry Tactics

Whenever a news story breaks about some horrible occurrence that fits the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists narrative, they are quick to jump upon it and regurgitate their narrative. Whenever a news story breaks about some horrible occurrence that does not fit the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists narrative, they are quick to say that we should not rush to judgment, and we should wait for all the information to be revealed before anybody should comment upon it. And when the information is against their narrative, they claim that the information is inaccurate or incomplete, or respond to the information with bothsidesism¹, whataboutism²or false equivalency³ to mitigate the horrible occurrence. And when the information does not support their narrative, they resort to Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors to obscure or deflect attention from the information. As Jonathan Turley has said about the hypocrisies in their obscurations and deflections, “It remains impressive how liberals can spread disinformation with impunity while supporting censorship in the name of combating disinformation.”

They also exercise selective outrage, in that they are excessively outraged by the words and deeds of their opponents, while exercising crickets to their supporters’ outrageous words and deeds. They also make false assertions underpinned by Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning, and their assertions are to be accepted at face value without their supplying the Burden of Proof.

This can be seen in the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' narrative about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Greg Gutfeld of The Five had the best reaction to this nonsense, which can be viewed on the YouTube video, as well as another YouTube video of Greg Gutfeld of The Five, in which he discusses selective outrage.

Furthermore, we also have the example of the young Ukrainian woman refugee, Iryna Zarutska, being stabbed on a Charlotte, N.C. light rail train, and their initial deafening silence and then their mealy-mouthed comments on her murder.

Thus, sophistry is a modus operandi for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists for any news story about some horrible occurrence. A sophistry meant to stir up passions, or to sow confusion and doubt in the American public’s mind.

______________________________________________

¹Bothsidesism is a bias in which journalists or political commentators present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. They may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or they may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been identified as a contributing factor to misinformation.

²Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation. It is a formal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behavior or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behavior (which may be true or false, but irrelevant) of their opponent or another party who is not the current subject of discussion.

³False equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

09/18/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - II

Too often, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists use words and terms as weapons, without understanding the true meaning of the words and terms they use, as I have written in my article on Divisiveness in America. The use of words and terms such as Nazis, Fascists, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Extreme Right, Existential Threat, Threat to Democracy, White Supremacists, and Racist is extremely loathsome, as they paint their opponents in a darkness that is inappropriate to the actual nature of their opponents’ character. The use of these words and terms also inflames their supporters, and it makes polite and respectful political dialogue nearly impossible.

Another word they inappropriately use is genocide: The systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, etc. The largest genocide in modern history was perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany and Eastern Europe in the mid-twentieth century. The Nazis rounded up people who did no harm to them and put them in slave labor or extermination camps. Six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and five million other people were murdered by the Nazis.

Today, the word genocide is being used by many on the left to describe the actions of Israel against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. In the Middle East, the Palestinian people are located in two areas adjacent to Israel—the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The Palestinian population is estimated at 2.1 million in the Gaza Strip and 3.4 million in the West Bank, for a total population of 5.6 million. Israel is taking actions against the Gaza Strip Palestinians, but little or no action against the West Bank Palestinians. This is because Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the eradication of Israel, is staging terroristic actions from the Gaza Strip, but not from the West Bank. Thus, Israel's actions are directed at Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip who support (either directly or passively) the terrorism of Hamas.

The Israelis are not rounding up and putting the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip into camps or trying to exterminate the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and they are taking no actions against the West Bank Palestinian people. Accordingly, the Israelis are not practicing genocide, but only trying to defend themselves against Hamas and their Palestinian supporters, who are trying to kill, maim, and injure the Israeli people. And if the Israelis wanted to practice genocide against the Palestinian people, there would be no Palestinian problem, as there would be no Palestinian people left to be a problem.

To use the word “Genocide” to describe the actions of the Israelis to kill or capture the Hamas and their Palestinian supporters that are hiding amongst the non-Hamas Palestinians, is an insult and derogation to all who experienced real genocide by the Nazis. Consequently, it is despicable to use the word genocide to describe the actions of Israel to defend itself against the people who wish to destroy Israel and who stage terroristic attacks against Israel.

Anyone who uses the word genocide to describe Israel's actions is practicing Anti-Semitism, and they are supporting the evil deeds of Hamas and their Palestinian supporters. Such people are piranhas in a society, and they should be shunned and not listened to, as they only bring destruction to a society in which they are tolerated.

09/17/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - I

Too often, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists use words and terms as weapons, without understanding the true meaning of the words and terms they use, as I have written in my article on Divisiveness in America. The use of words and terms such as Nazis, Fascists, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Extremist/Extreme Right, Existential Threat, Threat to Democracy, White Supremacists, and Racist is extremely loathsome, as they paint their opponents in a darkness that is inappropriate to the actual nature of their opponents’ character.

The use of these words and terms also inflames their supporters, and it makes polite and respectful political dialogue nearly impossible. It also leads to the less mentally unstable of their supporters to commit acts of violence as morally justifiable acts against those people to whom they direct these words and terms. And anyone who believes these words and terms are truthful is mentally unstable. Such mental instability is particularly acute in those afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). While someone may not like or approve of the words and deeds of President Trump, he is not someone who fits the definition of these words and terms.

The use of these words and terms is a first step in an assault on the Natural and Constitutional Rights of Americans, with the next steps being the suppression of these rights, as I have Chirped on “09/16/25 An Assault on the Natural and Constitutional Rights of All Americans”. Thus, the people who utilize these words and terms against their opponents are engaged in anti-American words and deeds, and they show no fidelity to our American Ideals and Ideas as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and Other Constitutional Amendments.

09/16/25 An Assault on the Natural and Constitutional Rights of All Americans

The assassination of Charlie Kirk not only resulted in the death of an innocent American citizen but also the death of a spouse, the loss of a father to his two children, and it shattered the lives of his other family members and friends. As Melania Trump wrote on X @melaniatrump:

“Charlie’s children will be raised with stories instead of memories, photographs instead of laughter, and silence where their father’s voice should have echoed.

Charlie Kirk’s life should serve as a symbolic reminder that compassionate awareness elevates family, love, and country.”

But it is much more than the death of an innocent American citizen; it is an assault on the Natural and Constitutional Rights of all Americans. Charlie Kirk had a Natural Right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, and the First Amendment Constitutional Right of “freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. And he was exercising these rights in a reasonable and intellectual manner, and in a polite and respectful demeanor to his opponents, as is to be expected in A Civil Society.

This assault is not only by the assassin, but by the commentary by many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists after his death. While some of Charlie Kirk’s opponents have responded to his death in an appropriate manner, many of his opponents have not done so. Instead of defending his Natural and Constitutional Rights, many of his opponents have exacerbated the situation by not accepting responsibility for their loathsome pejoratives that inflamed their supporters. Indeed, in some cases, they have attempted to shift the blame to President Trump and his MAGA supporters by utilizing torturous reasoning. We have also seen some of Charlie Kirk's opponents applauding or cheering the announcement of his assassination. Such commentary and behavior are also an assault against the Natural and Constitutional Rights of all Americans.

Since the first election of President Trump, the rage of his opponents has escalated, and violence has become a norm for many of President Trump’s opponents. This rage and violence are not only directed at President Trump, but also at many of President Trump’s Administration officials, as well as other Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. Such rage and violence should end forthwith, as it can do nothing but destroy America.

The noted law and Constitutional Professor, and frequent news commentator, Jonathan Turley has written a book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, which examines the importance of free speech in America. I eagerly await the publication of his next book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution”, which further examines this topic. All Americans would do well to heed his words of wisdom and cautions if we are to retain our American Ideals and Ideas.

President Trump has announced that Charlie Kirk will be posthumously awarded the “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, which he is well deserving of. I only hope that two medals are presented to his family, one to be buried with Charlie, and the other to be retained by his wife and children.

09/15/25 The Modern Democrat Party

The Democrat Party is not your father’s party, and it is definitely not your grandfather’s party. In the 21st century, the Democrat Party has morphed into a party that your father and grandfather would not recognize. With the election of President Obama, this morphing became for the purpose of “Fundamentally Transforming America”, and this goal became ingrained in President Biden’s Administration. The Progressives/Leftists seized control of the Democrat Party and excluded the more moderate elements in their party, and the Democrat Party Leaders have kowtowed to this seizure for political electioneering purposes.

In this seizure, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have strayed from our American Ideals and Ideas as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and Other Constitutional Amendments. They no longer believe in our founding principles, and they wish to replace these principles with their own notions of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Such a replacement is a violation of our certain unalienable rights, to be replaced with the will of man rather than the will of the creator, which can only result in a despotic or repressive government.

As such, I have gathered my thoughts on what the modern Democrat Party has become, and what they stand for, in my collected Chirps on "The Modern Democrat Party".

09/14/25 So, Who Is Today’s Evil Party?

Evil, as a concept, is usually defined as profoundly immoral behavior, and it is related to acts that cause unnecessary pain and suffering to others. Evil is commonly seen as the opposite, or sometimes the absence, of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness and against the common good. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil, and in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal.

Columnist Mark Lewis has an interesting point about evil in one of his articles, “The Democratic Party is Evil, And Has No Excuse For It”:

“America has always had murderers, of course, thugs, criminals, lewd fellows of the baser sort, etc. But what we're witnessing today is different. We're not seeing the isolated criminals who individually breaks away from societal mores, who is a social outcast, maybe mentally deranged, certainly morally so. No society in human history has ever escaped that sort of insect, which is why men have always resorted to some form of government (supposedly) designed to protect them from the dangerous animals who walk on two legs.”

Evil, for the purposes of this Chirp and as I have Chirp on "07/29/24 What Is Evil?", is defined as words and deeds that are an assault on the Natural Rights of an individual. As I have written in my Chirp on “09/10/25 Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights”, an individual has Certain Unalienable Rights that spring from Natural Law, as I have Chirped on "07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right". Among these rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and codified in the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution as:

Amendment I:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Amendment II:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Accordingly, anyone, or any group of people, who countenances, contravenes, or infringes on these Natural Rights is acting in an evil manner. If you examine the history of the modern Democrat Party, it is evident that they countenance, contravene, or infringe upon the Natural Rights of individuals in America:

The mob actions in protest to President Trump’s second-term actions, in which people were injured, and property was damaged or destroyed.
The racial riots in the summer of 2020, which resulted in the loss of lives, many injuries to people, and in which property was damaged or destroyed.
Their conflating of Equity and Equality and their misuse of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to implement polices that discriminate for or against groups of Americans.
Their implementation of sanctuary Cities and States that violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land” and, thus, takes priority over any conflicting state and local laws.
Their lack of law enforcement, or selective enforcement of laws, which strikes at the heart of the equal protection of the law and endangers Americans by allowing criminals to roam free to harm their Safety and Security.
Their physical obstructionism of law enforcement officers in the performance of their legal duties which endangers all in proximity to these legal actions.
Their use of Activists and Activism for Social Justice purposes which often infringes on the Natural Rights of Americans through the unequal treatment of individuals or groups of Americans.
Their use of Cancel Culture, Doxing, and Swatting, along with condemnations of anti-Wokeness speech and Hate Speech accusations, for the purpose of intimidating into silence and suppressing the Free Speech rights of those that oppose them.
Their use of Identity Politics and Intersectionality, along with Racist and White Privilege accusations to divide Americans, instead of uniting us in our shared principles of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All for the common good of America and Americans.
Their use of Judicial Activism to stall the lawful and needful actions of the Executive Branch of government, and which also usurps the Constitutional powers of the Presidency.
Their use of Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government against their opponents, which instills fear in individuals or groups of people in exercising their Natural and Constitutional Rights.
Their use of loathsome pejoratives to exacerbate Divisiveness in America, which deconstructs A Civil Society in America, and inflames the passions of their supporters. An inflammation that gives rise to rage and physical violence against their opponents as morally justifiable actions, as they view their opponents as evil and a threat to America.

All of these words and deeds give rise to Despotism in America, which is truly evil. And in all of these words and deeds, they are violating our Natural and Constitutional Rights, violating our Liberties and Freedoms, as well as being antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. As such, they have become an evil party in America. As Mark Lewis has noted in his article, “But what we're witnessing today is different.”, and it is different in what we are seeing in the words and deeds of the modern Democrat Party. Words and deeds, not of a loyal opposition, but words and deeds that countenance, contravene, or infringe upon the Natural and Constitutional Rights of individuals in America. Consequently, the modern Democrat Party has become an evil party, and they should be opposed by all Americans who value the ideals and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

09/13/25 A Litany of Lies, Subterfuges, and Concealments

Alas, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have a history of lying, subterfuges, and concealments to the American people. They lie to us about American history, as they place all blame on historical white Americans for the problems that beset America and the world. They perpetrate subterfuges on us about the miserable and deplorable history of Marxism/Communism/Socialism in the world, and about the cost/benefits and capabilities of a Socialistic and Capitalistic economy. They lie or conceal from us about the condemnable history of the Democrat Party, along with the negative and discreditable impacts of Progressive ideology on our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.¹

Their egregious lies started when they lied to us about Trump’s supposed Russian collusion, and they continue to egregiously lie to us on everything they say about the actions of both Trump Administrations. These lies became a modus operandi of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists during the 2020 Presidential election, and they have continued to this day. Lies about Biden being a moderate unifier, and the lies to us about his mental and physical health, continued throughout his campaign and Presidency. And they continually lie to us when they claim that their opponents are Nazis, Fascists, Racists, or White Supremacists, as I have written in my Chirp on “09/12/25 So, Who Are Today’s Nazis?”.

A litany of the lies, subterfuges, or concealments during the Biden administration is long and shameful, but in my humble opinion, the following are the biggest lies, subterfuges, or concealments that they have perpetrated in the last few years:

They are responsible for the lack of border security during the Biden Administration, and the impacts of human smuggling, drug running, sex trafficking, gang members and violent criminals’ admissions, as well as terrorists’ entry into America.
They are responsible for the impacts that illegal immigrants have on government social services spending, and the taxation impacts to support the spending.
They are responsible for unemployment during the Biden Administration, and for the impacts of illegal immigration on the employment of Americans.
They are responsible for inflation during the Biden Administration.
They are responsible for the slow economic growth during the Biden Administration.
They are responsible for the inaccurate crime statistics reporting during the Biden Administration.
They are responsible for the lack of law enforcement and prosecutions of criminals during the Biden Administration, and its impacts on the American people.
They are responsible for the voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections, and for the 2020 Census miscounting and, therefore, the malapportionment of Congressional seats.
They are responsible for the Gerrymandering of Congressional districts that has occurred in the States in which they have the political power to do so. A Gerrymandering that does not reflect the proportion of the Democrat/Republican voters in their States.
They are responsible for the useless COVID-19 prevention measures and the negative impacts of these measures on Americans due to their COVID-19 policies.
They lie to us about the necessity and properness of the Executive Orders of President Obama’s and President Biden’s Administration, and how both President Trump’s Administration Executive Orders were and are unnecessary and improper.
They lie to us about the properness and Constitutionality of District and Appellate Court rulings against President Trump’s actions during his second term of office.
They lie to us about the need for the interment and deportation of criminal illegal immigrants, and about the criminal records and moral character of those so interred and deported.
They are responsible for the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as for the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban Islamic extremists.
They lied to us about the actual culpabilities of the Israel/Palestine conflicts, the causes of the Ukrainian/Russian war, and the Iranian nuclear capabilities and Iran’s support for terrorists.
They lied to us about the causes, actions, and inactions of the January 6, 2021, “Insurrection”.
They lied to us about the foundation and necessity of both Impeachments of President Trump.
They lied to us about the Lawfare they engaged in against President Trump after his first term of office.
They lied to us about the suppression of the Free Speech of Conservatives.
They lied to us about the use of the autopen during the Biden Administration.
They lied to us about the influence-peddling racket of Joe Biden’s family.
They lied to us about the veracity of Hunter Biden’s Laptop and the claims that it was Russian Disinformation.

These are but some of the more egregious lies, but a full list of their lies is too numerous to list in this short Chirp. Their lies have become so various and sundry that they give testament to the old joke that you can tell when they are lying when they start to move their lips to speak. And in these lies, the Mainstream Media has been culpable by not questioning and revealing these lies, and the Mainstream Cultural Media bears some responsibility for unabashedly repeating these lies.

So, it has become in modern America, a Democrat Party of lies, subterfuges, and concealment. Lies, subterfuges, and concealments to mislead the American public for the purposes of obtaining and retaining power. As I have written in my Chirps on "11/01/24 Leave the Democrat Party Behind" and "07/22/25 Over the Bounds", the Democrat Party is only concerned with the obtainment and retention of power, and any lies, subterfuges, and concealments that help them obtain and retain power are acceptable to them.

_________________________________________________

¹See my articles on “The Party of the People” and "J'accuse!", and my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives" for a fuller explanation.

09/12/25 So, Who Are Today’s Nazis?

In a recent column by Alan Joseph Bauer, “Meet the Democratic Nazis of America”, he asks the question:

“Anyone can call another a Nazi. But who most closely resembles the behavior of the leaders of the Third Reich?”

He then lists the characteristics of the evil and depraved nature of the SS, SA, Gestapo, Wehrmacht, and other elements of the Nazi machine:

Allowing No Dissent.
Punishing Enemies of the Regime.
Keeping a Strict Racialist Program.
Willing to Murder for Political Gain.
Lying as Required.
Demanding Ideological Purity for Membership.

He then goes on to state, followed by an examination of each of these characteristics, as it relates to the modern Democrat Party:

“So who are today’s Nazis if we assume that the meaning is to be as ruthless and unbending as the originals? It would appear to be the Democrats. Let’s take a look at the new party of AOC and Bernie Sanders.”

This examination reveals how depraved the modern Democrat Party has become. He then ends his column by stating:

“The fact is that with the Democratic Party being swallowed whole by its left/lunatic branch, they can rightfully claim the mantle of the German National Socialist Party.”

This can also be seen in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) by their reflexive condemnation of all that Trump says and does. They also all follow in line with their leaders' talking points and practice these characteristics in response to President Trump and his supporters. Many in the Mainstream Media, Modern Education, and Mainstream Cultural Media also share these characteristics, as they propagandize their reporting, educating or instructing, and remarks in support of the words and deeds of the Democratic Nazis of America.

This is a column well worth reading to understand the words and deeds of the modern Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. It is also a warning as to a possible future of America if the American people allow them to succeed in exercising these characteristics.

09/11/25 Martyrs for Freedoms and Liberties

Socrates (c. 470 – 399 BC) was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy and as among the first moral philosophers of the ethical tradition of thought. An enigmatic figure, Socrates authored no texts and is known mainly through the posthumous accounts of classical writers, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon. These accounts are written as dialogues, in which Socrates and his interlocutors examine a subject in the style of question and answer; they gave rise to the Socratic dialogue literary genre.

Socrates lived in a politically tense climate, and he often challenged the authorities of Athens. In 399 BC, Socrates was formally accused of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for impiety, i.e. worshipping false gods and failing to worship the gods of Athens. At his trial, Socrates defended himself unsuccessfully. He was found guilty by a majority vote cast by a jury of hundreds of male Athenian citizens and, according to the custom, proposed his own penalty: that he should be given free food and housing by the state for the services he rendered to the city, or alternatively, that he be fined one mina of silver (according to him, all he had). The jurors declined his offer and ordered the death penalty. He spent his last day in prison among friends and followers who offered him a route to escape, which he refused. He died the next morning, in accordance with his sentence, after drinking poison hemlock.

Charles James Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was an American conservative political activist, author, and media personality. He co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012 at 18 years of age, and he was its executive director. He also founded and was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Turning Point Action, Turning Point Academy, and Turning Point Faith; the president of Turning Point Endowment; and a member of the Council for National Policy.

Charlie Kirk practiced the Socratic method (a form of argumentative dialogue between individuals based on asking and answering questions) in his approach to speaking to his audience. He often encouraged those who opposed his views to be the first to approach the microphone to ask a question or make a comment. In his response, he was always polite and respectful to all, and he utilized intellectual reasoning in his response. To all who knew him, he was outgoing, friendly, kind, and supportive of them, and he made the time to assist them in any manner they required. On September 10, 2025, at the age of 31, Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at a TPUSA event on the campus of Utah Valley University during his organization's American Comeback Tour.

Like Socrates, Charlie Kirk was killed because he challenged the Progressive orthodoxy, and he was changing the minds of many young Americans in support of our American principles and values. As such, he posed a threat to the homogeneousness of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists ideology and ideas. As I have often said, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. They also have a thirst for power to direct and control Americans and America in their belief that they know what is best for all Americans. In such a belief, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid, but that they are bad or evil persons.

Their use of loathsome pejoratives against all that oppose them has led to Divisiveness in America, and the belief in a significant number of their supporters that their opponents are evil and need to be neutralized or eliminated. Thus, they feel morally justified in taking actions that are loathsome to moral Americans. One such action was the killing of Charlie Kirk. In doing so, they have made Charlie Kirk a martyr to the cause of Liberties and Freedoms in America. It is in this martyrdom that the spirit of Charlie Kirk will live on. The best way to memorialize Charlie Kirk is to make his killing a turning point in American history by continuing his fight to restore our American Ideals and Ideas, and to reestablish our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All in America.

09/10/25 Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
- Alexander Hamilton

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”
- John Locke

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) last week warned the American people that a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists. Sen. Kaine remarked that, “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

After Sen. Kaine had left the room, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) entered the room and said, “I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair, because that 'radical and dangerous notion' — in his words — is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created." Sen. Cruz went on to reference the writings of Thomas Jefferson, from Kaine's home state of Virginia; and continued; “‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator' — not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God — 'with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'”

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “The Mark of Kaine: How a Senator’s Remarks Border on Constitutional Blasphemy”, he excoriates Sen. Kaine for this remark, as it exhibits a complete lack of understanding of our founding principles. In my opinion, no explanations or excuses from Senator Kaine can exonerate him from this appalling remark. Consequently, Sen. Kaine should be ashamed of this remark, and the Senate should admonish him for making such a remark. Professor Turley ends his article by stating, “He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

This is but another example of how the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have strayed from our American Ideals and Ideas as expressed in The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and Other Constitutional Amendments. They no longer believe in our founding principles, and they wish to replace these principles with their own notions of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Such a replacement is a violation of our certain unalienable rights, to be replaced with the will of man rather than the will of the creator, which can only result in a despotic or repressive government.

09/09/25 Process Roadblocks vs. Problem Solving

A noted former Democrat politician and current political commentator, Harold Ford Jr., made an astute comment on the current struggles between Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists versus Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives on how they approach problem resolution. He noted that the main difference is that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists focused on the process, while the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives focus on the problem. He also suggested that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists should:

“Focus more on the problem and not the process.”
- Harold Ford Jr.

Process is important to ensure Constitutional and fair procedures for implementing changes, but the Democrats are utilizing process for obstructionist purposes. Instead of trying to utilize processes to achieve a proper solution to a problem, they are utilizing process impediments to block changes that are necessary to solve a problem.

One of the main reasons they must focus on the process is that they have few or derisory solutions to propose, and most of their solutions involve larger government, more spending, and higher taxes, which is unacceptable to a majority of Americans. The other reason is that their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) leads them to oppose any and all actions by President Trump by any and all means. This is evident in how they utilize Senate parliamentary procedures to obstruct legislation and confirmation of President Trump’s appointees, and their constant use of judicial Lawfare to obtain dubious injunctions, which are often overturned, but only after lengthy delays due to the time it takes for judicial appeals. And they have shown no willingness to craft bipartisan legislation.

For a party that professes concern for saving “Our Democracy”, they seem to ignore the results of the last democratic election that put a Republican in the Presidency, and Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress, not to mention a majority of the Supreme Court Justices that appear more favorable to Republican legal arguments. These democratic results via elections play no part in their actions, as they believe that only they represent democracy, and all others are either Fascists, Nazis, or White Supremacists.

As they have lost all political power to implement their agenda, they need to resort to obstructionism via process impediments to block the problem-solving solutions of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. Such blockage often results in the delay or inaction of solving the problems facing America, and institutes a government unresponsive to the will of the American electorate.

09/08/25 BLM and BVM

Black Lives Matter (BLM) has been around since the 2020 killing of George Floyd by the police. While BLM has a checkered history of solutions to the indiscriminate deaths of black persons in America, BLM has been strangely silent on the killings of black persons by other black persons, most especially, in the killings of black persons due to gang, drug, and other criminal actions that occur in black neighborhoods in American cities. And this silence is a betrayal of their core interest in preventing the unnecessary killings of black lives.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have been vivacious in their support of BLM, but again they remain silent on the killings of black persons by other black persons, especially in black neighborhoods in American cities. Not only have they been silent, but they have opposed President Trump’s actions to rein in such killings and other criminal actions in American cities. They have, however, demagogued President Trump’s words and deeds to end these killings and criminal activities. In this demagoguing, they appear to be more interested in Black Votes Matter (BVM) than in Black Lives Matter (BLM). They have also been utilizing process impediments to stop President Trump’s actions, which is the subject of my next Chirp on “09/09/25 Process Roadblocks vs. Problem Solving”.

Consequently, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists appear to be more interested in having an election issue rather than a solution to the problem of criminal activities in American cities. Alas, this appears to be the modus operandi of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in modern America. A modus operandi that needs to end to solve the problems facing America. Otherwise, we will be trapped in a cycle of problems without solutions, to the detriment of all Americans.

09/07/25 Cities on the Edge of Disaster

In my Chirp on “ 09/nn/25 Worse Cities in America”, I stated that even during the best and worst of times, running a city is a tall order. The larger the city, the more complex it becomes to manage. In addition to representing the residents, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. That often means not everyone’s needs can or will be met. Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost, and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions.

WalletHub did a study of the operating efficiency of 148 of the largest U.S. cities and ranked them, which I summarized for the worst cities in the aforementioned Chirp. What WalletHub did not do was examine the history of the political party control of these cities. If there is one truth in modern America, it is that the worst-run major cities in America have elected Progressive Democrat politicians for the last several decades. Whether it be the Mayors, City Councils, or School Boards, they all have been under the control of the Democrat Party. All the other major studies that have been undertaken to examine these issues are in general concurrence with the WalletHub study. Many of these studies do not mention the political party in control of the city, but anyone who knows anything about these cities knows that they have been and are controlled by the Democrats for many decades (while a few have elected Republican Mayors for a short duration).

Many will make excuses for their failures, and some of these excuses may be valid, but the common denominator for these failed cities is Progressive Democrat Party control. As such, it is fair to say that continued control of a city by the Democrat Party is a good indicator of a worse city. Yet, the people of these worst cities continue to elect Democrat Party candidates.

As it has been said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Thus, the voters of these worse cities are demonstrating their insanity. Until these voters regain their sanity (which seems hopeless in many cases), the worst cities will continue to be the worst cities. Accordingly, I would say to the Democrat voters in these cities that if you do not like what is happening in your city, then stop voting for Democrat candidates, as they have proven that they are not capable of fixing your problems. Otherwise, you will continue to live in a worse city in America. The question is then, what can be done to turn around these worse cities? As I see it, there are only three options:

Continue to fund their disaster and hope for the best. This option, however, means throwing good money after bad. As these monies often come from State and Federal sources, and these State and Federal taxpayers have no say in the election of city leaders or how the monies are expended, it is a form of taxation without representation. It is also a form of Income redistribution by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it. Such a situation is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas, and such a solution should not be permitted.
Force the worst cities into bankruptcy receivership and appoint managers to control the expenditure of taxpayers’ monies. Such a solution is also antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas of democratically elected leadership. It is also a recipe for civil unrest by those who feel that they have no say in their governance.
Refuse to fund them and let them fail until the voters replace their elected leaders with fiscally responsible and achievement-oriented leadership. This solution will cause great economic and political strain upon their elected leaders and a curtailment of many government services for the residents of the city, but it will also force them to accept and deal with the consequences of their decisions.

I, therefore, believe that solution three is the only acceptable solution that preserves our American Ideals and Ideas, and this would force the worst cities to reform themselves to be fiscally responsible and achievement-oriented. To do otherwise is to continue the downward spiral of our worst cities, to the detriment of the worse cities and their residents, as well as to the State and Federal taxpayers.

09/06/25 Worse Cities in America

Even during the best and worst of times, running a city is a tall order. The larger the city, the more complex it becomes to manage. In addition to representing the residents, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. That often means not everyone’s needs can or will be met. Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost, and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions.

WalletHub compared the operating efficiency of 148 of the largest U.S. cities to reveal which among them are managed best. This extensive study, “Best- & Worst-Run Cities in America (2025)”, found the following 20 worst-run cities in America:

Overall Rank	City	Quality of City Services Rank	Total Budget per Capita Rank
129	Shreveport, LA	144	77
130	Riverside, CA	96	137
131	Seattle, WA	17	145
132	Birmingham, AL	135	116
133	Cleveland, OH	132	118
134	Denver, CO	83	141
135	New Orleans, LA	140	112
136	Chicago, IL	102	140
137	Flint, MI	145	95
138	Stockton, CA	137	121
139	Los Angeles, CA	58	143
140	Long Beach, CA	51	144
141	Fresno, CA	117	139
142	Tacoma, WA	125	136
143	Baltimore, MD	136	132
144	Philadelphia, PA	128	138
145	New York, NY	23	147
146	Oakland, CA	99	146
147	Detroit, MI	148	126
148	San Francisco, CA	57	148

In order to determine the best- and worst-run cities in America, WalletHub compared 148 of the most populated cities across six key categories, with each category weighted as 16.67%.

Financial Stability
Education
Health
Safety
Economy
Infrastructure & Pollution

They evaluated those dimensions using 36 relevant metrics, which are listed here. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest quality of service.

Next, they calculated an overall “Quality of City Services” score for each city based on its weighted average across all the metrics. Finally, for each city, they divided the “Quality of City Services” score by the “Total Budget per Capita” (dollar amount) in order to construct a “Score per Dollar Spent” index — displayed as “Overall Rank” in the Main Findings table above — which was then used to rank-order the cities in their sample.

Another measure of a city’s viability is in its middle-class housing values. A short video, 5 American Cities Set to Collapse By 2026 (And 5 Rising Fast), examines the five worst cities for middle-class families.

In this Chirp, I have only listed the worst of the 148 cities, and in my next Chirp on “09/07/25 Cities on the Edge of Disaster”, I will examine the causes and the ramifications of being a worse city.

09/05/25 Fiefdoms

For decades, one-party rule in many major cities and States has led to an attitude of rulership of a fiefdom by their mayors and governors. A fiefdom in which someone exercises control as or in the manner of a feudal lord. A feudal lord who decides what will or will not be done by the government, and a fiefdom in which the feudal lord decides which laws will or will not be enforced.

All levels of government (Federal, State, and local) have essential duties and responsibilities to their residents, and the failure to fulfill these duties and responsibilities is an abrogation of their obligations to their residents. Not enforcing laws should not be an option for these feudal lords, as it is destructive to the rule of law and results in anarchy. These mayoral feudal lords have also forgotten that they are the lowest rung on governmental power, and that they must be in compliance with State and Federal laws in the performance of their duties. The governorship feudal lords have an even greater responsibility, as they must be concerned about the issues and concerns of their often extensive opposition, as well as being in compliance with Federal Laws.

Feudal lords may come and go as elections change the leadership of these fiefdoms. However, in many cases, it is but a replacement of one feudal lord with another feudal lord, as the fiefdom attitude of the new leadership does not change. Feudal lordship is not a democracy, nor a republic, but is often driven by a mobocracy. As such, it is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas, and an affront to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

09/04/25 Worthless Statistics for Political Posturing

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"
- Sir Walter Scott

As I have written in my article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave", it is very easy to deceive with statistics. It is also very easy to misinterpret and misunderstand statistics, on both the parties that utilize the statistics in their statements and those that listen to these statements. Some of the biggest offenders of statistical misinterpretation, misunderstandings, and misuse are politicians and their supporters. The other big problem with statistics is errors and omissions in the data collection, and improper statistical analysis of the data, as my aforementioned article examines.

Today, in America, we see all these statistical problems with the reporting on crime. Partisan politics has intervened in data collection, in that many crimes are not being reported, or serious crimes are being downgraded to lesser importance crimes. We also have data collecting impacts of selective policing, which ignores certain criminal actions, or non-policing in selective neighborhoods in cities, resulting in improper or no data being collected. Also, many victims of crimes are not bothering to report the crime, as they know that there will be no action taken by law enforcement. The residents of these cities are well aware of the widespread crime in their neighborhoods, and they often structure their lives to avoid placing themselves in harm’s way. In doing so, they are self-restricting their Liberties and Freedoms for Safety and Security reasons, which is not our American Ideals and Ideas. These practices are known as cooking the books to put lipstick on the face of the pig, and, as Barack Obama has said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Much of this partisan politics is for the purpose of ballyhooing by mayors or governors that crime is down in their cities or States. Accordingly, crime statistics in America are worthless because of these errors and omissions in data collection. In fighting crime, it is important to have good data collection and proper statistical analysis to determine how to allocate resources to fight crime. As such, the Federal Justice Department and/or the Department of Homeland Security should have a task force to examine the crime data collection practices of the major metropolitan cities in America. The examples of the malpractices of the Washington D.C. police department in enforcing and reporting crimes (as recently revealed) are a good starting point for the basis of this task force in examining crime reporting statistics. And cities and States that do not cooperate with this task force should have their Federal law enforcement funds suspended until they cooperate. Only after we obtain good crime reporting statistics can we determine how to best allocate resources to effectively fight crime. Otherwise, we have nothing but worthless statistics that are only useful for political posturing.

09/03/25 Do They Not Care?

The Democrat Party had a reputation for being the champion of the lower and middle classes in America. While this was somewhat of a dubious reputation, in the 21st century, this reputation has been shattered by their deeds that have negatively impacted their traditional constituents. Some of their greatest failures, which they have not addressed or have exacerbated, have been (in alphabetical order):

A drug epidemic that is killing and destroying young Americans.
A sluggish economy with despair of a turnaround.
A transgender agenda that impacts the privacy of girls and women, and which is harmful to the physical and mental health of underage children.
An Open Border policy in which millions of unknown Illegal immigrants flooded into America.
Crime in the streets that endangers the safety of lower and middle-class Americans.
Criminal Illegal immigrants who are increasing crime in the streets.
Illegal immigrants impacting low-wage jobs for Americans.
Illegal immigrants stressing social services and government expenditures.
Increased taxes and spending, and the raising of the National Debt.
Inflation and high unemployment.
International wars and conflicts with nothing but talk, which do not end the hostilities.
Manufacturing jobs that were exported overseas, leading to the desolation of middle America.
Serious proposals to eliminate or reduce, and to constrain and disarm, Law Enforcement Officers.

The Democrat Party has often claimed that they have good intentions and they want to do what is best for all Americans. In this claim, they do not consider that good intentions do not always, and many times, produce bad results. They have also forgotten the words of wisdom by the renowned American economist and political commentator Thomas Sowell, “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?”

Their good intentions are often flawed by the unperceived perverse incentives that they create. The phrase "perverse incentive" is often used in economics to describe an incentive structure with undesirable results, particularly when those effects are unexpected and contrary to the intentions of its designers. The results of a perverse incentive scheme are also sometimes called Cobra Effects, where people are incentivized to make a problem worse. Thus, unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks, and perverse results, as I have written in my article on "The Law of Unintended Consequences", are often contained within their solutions.

The Cobra Effect originated from a historical example in colonial India, where a bounty for dead cobras led people to breed them for profit, ultimately increasing the cobra population. When the bounty was removed, the people released the cobras they were intending to kill to collect the bounty, thus increasing the population of the cobras. As Konstantin Kisin explains in his YouTube video, “The Cobra Effect: Why Good Intentions Don’t Solve Problems”, this is often true for government programs. A good example of government programs was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), in effect from 1935 to 1997, which resulted in more dependent children. In July 1997, AFDC was replaced by the more restrictive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which resulted in more needy families. These impacts of government programs are often sardonically referred to as ‘You get more of what you pay for’. In addition, their solutions always entail more government expenditures, more taxes, more bureaucracy and regulations, and more control by the government over the people, which negatively impacts the Liberties and Freedoms of the people.

In the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), as I have Chirped on "06/27/25 What is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)?", they have made their verbal failures even worse with their negative knee-jerk responses to whatever President Trump says or does, which is humorously demonstrated in my Chirp on "05/16/25 How Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Works".

In my Chirp on "07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control", I also examined how Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem more concerned about the ignoble purposes of obtaining and retaining power and control over the American people. This thirst for power and control, along with their preening about caring for the American people, is the basis for their words and deeds. And this thirst for power and control is prioritized over the careful consideration of the impacts of their words and deeds.

Accordingly, it is not that the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders don’t care; it is that the obtainment and retainment of political power is more important than the careful consideration and avoidance of the perverse incentives and Cobra Effects in the crafting of their policies. Consequently, the Democrats, when in power, have unleashed a horde of cobras on America, which are poisoning Americans in the aforementioned list of their failures.

09/02/25 Multiculturalism

Her latest book, “The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West—and Why Only They Can Save It”, looks at the West's struggles against attempts to destroy it from within and without, and key lessons in resilience from its Jewish heritage, which can enable both Christianity and civilization to survive. A short YouTube video with John Anderson, “The Problem with Multiculturalism Explained in 2 Minutes | Melanie Phillips”, examines her viewpoint on multiculturalism and how it is destroying the West, which I have transcribed here within”

John Anderson:
” You do raise the issue in this conversation but also in the book of multiculturalism. You make the point that of course you can have multi-racial societies but you can't have multi- cultural societies that are going to work if the host culture believes itself to be inadequate, weak, poisonous, disastrous, not worthy of defending.”

Melanie Phillips:
" Well, this is the point about multiculturalism. Again, it's a phrase, it's a term which is more misunderstood than understood. And people assume that multiculturalism is a good thing because what it means is that you have to respect other cultures. Well, it doesn't mean that. We should all respect other cultures. That should be a starting point for a decent and civilized society. Multiculturalism says something quite different. It says that no culture is morally superior or intellectually superior to any other culture. So, it follows that you can't uphold the west against any other culture. You can't say that western core values are better than any other. As a result, you can't uphold things like democracy, one law for all, freedom of expression, equality for women, tolerance of minorities. You can't uphold any of that. It’s nonsense, and it's a recipe for cultural suicide. So, a multicultural society I say is a contradiction in terms. Multiculturalism destroys a society. It destroys community cohesion. It sets up a kind of balkanized tribal enclaves which are all fighting each other for power and supremacy. And that's the way our culture actually dies.”

Western civilization is under assault from forces both within and outside its confines. From socialism to cultural values, its foes are attempting to dismantle and destroy Western civilization. Several of my Chirps have examined Western civilization, and the importance of its culture, which I have collected in my new article on "Western Civilization". Accordingly, multiculturalism is anti-Western culturalism, which needs to be mocked and derided, and to be extinguished in America and the rest of the world.

This video clip is from a series of podcasts of John Anderson with Melanie Phillips, which can be viewed in their entirety at the following YouTube videos:

Conversations: Featuring Melanie Phillips, British Journalist, Author and Broadcaster I
John Anderson talks to British journalist, author and broadcaster Melanie Phillips about the sources of political and personal liberty in Britain and The West, the contemporary threats to that liberty and what can be done to preserve it.
Conversations: Featuring Melanie Phillips II
John Anderson talks to British journalist, author and broadcaster Melanie Phillips about the origins of Western cultural and political freedoms, the resurgence of antisemitism around the globe and the key problems confronting the youth of today.
Conversations: Featuring Melanie Phillips, Journalist, Author and Broadcaster III
An outspoken British journalist with a reputation for fierce and honest opinions, Melanie Phillips offers cut-through commentary on a number of significant cultural and geopolitical issues. She and John discuss the coronation of Charles III, the cultural problems gripping the UK, and the relationship between Israel and the West.
Melanie Phillips, Journalist, Author and Broadcaster IV
Join John and British journalist Melanie Phillips as they explore the escalating misuse of "genocide" in the Israel-Gaza conflict, exposing how propaganda and liberal denial have inverted reality. She argues that it is Israel who faces a genocidal threat from Islamists like Hamas, while anti-Semitism surges across a West blind to its own history. From torn hostage posters to distorted narratives, Phillips reveals a cultural crisis where truth is sacrificed for ideology, making this a critical wake-up call for understanding today’s Middle East tensions.

09/01/25 The Usage and Misusage of Power

Mark Reed Levin is an American broadcast news analyst, columnist, lawyer, political commentator, radio personality, and writer. He is the host of the syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was the chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, an author of several books, and a contributor to media outlets such as National Review Online. Since 2015, Levin has been editor-in-chief of the Conservative Review.

His latest book, On Power, examines the types and usage of power throughout history. Whether it be negative or positive power, soft or hard power, negative or positive language in support of power, rights, and liberty, he explores its methods and usage to control societies. This book helps in understanding power and being on guard against its abuses. Thus, it is important to read and understand this book to help ensure our Liberties and Freedoms and, as such, it is my monthly Book It Selection.

08/31/25 Why Should We Listen to Them?

Commentators and pundits have a miserable record of predicting the future, and they are more often wrong than right in their pronouncements. Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term (and often during his first term), many economists and pundits have predicted that tariffs would result in inflation and recession, and that his economic plans would not achieve the desired results, as well as international and military experts who predicted that the Iranian bombing of nuclear facilities would result in regional warfare. Along with pollsters who were so wrong in the last three Presidential elections and continue to poll inaccurately, and, of course, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who believe everything that President Trump has done is wrong and will lead to the end of our democracy and dictatorship. Thus, these commentators and pundits have been more often wrong than right, and, in fact, it has been President Trump who has been more right than wrong in his predictions and pronouncements.

Everyone likes to know what will happen in the future so that they can plan accordingly, but nobody can know what the future holds. The unpredictability of human nature, economic forces, political volatility, advances in science and technology, and even natural forces cannot be predicted with anything close to certainty. Thus, the question of why we should listen to them is apropos. The answer is probably not, but we will continue to do so.

As such, we should be very wary of what they say, and we should take it with a grain of salt. We should also remember that many of these commentators and pundits, along with the Mainstream Media journalists, have inclinations and axes to grind that color their commentary and punditry, and which often lead them to hyperbolic comments and punditry. In addition, we should also be wary of the studies and statistics that they utilize in their statement, as studies and statistics are easy to misinterpret or manipulate, as I have written in my article on "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". We should also remember that:

"Assertions are not facts, as they often contain Presumptions and Assumptions; Improper Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the problems of Unintended Consequences that may be inherent in any assertion."
- Mark Dawson

The Mainstream Media should also be more careful about who they utilize for commentary and punditry. This carefulness should be based on their past commentary and punditry record, and they should also point out when they have been wrong in the past, and not allow for lame excuses or overlook their past inaccuracies. Alas, I do not expect the Mainstream Media to do so, as they are more interested in pushing their narrative (Orange Man Bad, MAGA is extremism, etc.) and increasing their viewership amongst like-minded persons.

Consequently, all should be careful in accepting commentators' and pundits’ pronouncements and verify the veracity of their comments before reaching any conclusion.

08/30/25 A Problem Solver, Not a Politician

Many politicians would prefer to have an issue that they can campaign on, rather than a solution for which they may be criticized. While President Trump is recognized as a master politician, his previous career as a businessperson required him to seek and implement solutions in order to build things. As such, Greg Gutfeld had some interesting comments about how Trump governs, which can be viewed at “Greg Gutfeld Shocked Everyone With The Most Powerful Truth Of His Entire Career” and transcribed here within:

“That's true. And I'm glad you brought me that. The only thing that's getting DC are the dreams of Democrats ever coming back into power. I want to focus on grass because it matters. People who build or create or design or fix, they know stuff. They know things. They accumulate knowledge. Trump's a builder, and Elon Musk is an engineer. Imagine if Rick Caruso had won as mayor in Los Angeles instead of a DEI hire. That guy is also a builder. Of course, Trump is right. You’ve got to know about grass if you build golf courses. Why is this important? Because this is what they are, and this is what rats have lost, which is practical real-world knowledge. Going back to the A block replaced by platitudes rhetoric woke terminology. You look at their leaders, Joe Biden lifetime politician, Kamala pretty much the same. Gavin, a nepo politician, Chuck Schumer, Crockett, Booker, all either bureaucrats, lawyers, or rent seekers who create nothing but paper and platitudes. Now you got a guy who is in charge, who spent his life building, and he knows stuff. He understands bureaucracy and how to get around bureaucracy. He knows grass. He knows gas. He knows gold.”

Thus, President Trump looks at an issue, seeks a solution, and then implements what he believes is best for all Americans. He also understands money, and he tries to keep the costs down when implementing his solutions. Being a master negotiator, he also attempts to have the beneficiaries of his solutions share in the costs of his solutions.

Consequently, he is first and foremost a problem solver, then utilizes his political acumen to have his solution implemented. The issue about his actions is to ensure that his actions are Constitutional. Otherwise, he should not take these actions, as the Constitution should be the supreme arbiter of what government can and cannot do in America.

His approach is a refreshing change in modern American politics that should be emulated by all politicians. Perhaps then, we would be solving the problems in America rather than campaigning on the problems in America.

08/29/25 Equal Protection of the Law

Equal protection of the law is a constitutional guarantee that requires the government to treat individuals in similar situations equally and fairly under the law. This principle is primarily established by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, to the U.S. Constitution, which states that:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The question I have is whether, if State and local government officials are not fully prosecuting criminal actions, they are not providing equal protection of the law to the victims of the crime? I believe that part of the “equal protection of the law” should be an equal protection from criminal actions. When you do not prosecute criminals, the victims are not being protected, and the rights of the criminal have more protection than the rights of the victim. This lack of enforcement extends to police department actions, mayoral and governorial directions, and prosecutorial and judicial discretion in the enforcement of the law.

Police Chiefs, Mayors, and Governors often direct law enforcement officers as to which crimes are to be pursued and on what basis to pursue the criminals. As such, they are not equally enforcing the laws. Prosecutorial discretion is the authority of prosecutors to decide whether to bring charges against a person for a crime and which charges to file. This power allows them to tailor their approach based on the specifics of each case, considering factors like the strength of evidence and the seriousness of the crime. Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to its discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions. However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, by binding precedent, or by a constitution, the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. Too often, however, prosecutorial and judicial discretion does not provide equal protection for the victims of a crime.

The people of America have delegated the Natural Right of justice for the harm done to themselves to the government, to ensure that justice, and not revenge, is applied to the perpetrators of the harm. This is how it should be in an orderly and just society. However, whenever the government does not equally prosecute the harm done to the victims of criminal actions, we cannot have a just and orderly society.

Alas, we have seen too many Police Chiefs, Mayors, and Governors in modern America not pursue equal justice for victims of criminal actions and against the perpetrators for reasons other than the pursuit of justice. If they do not like the law, then they should attempt to change or abolish the law, but they do not have the right to ignore the law. Accordingly, I believe that the Federal government has the obligation, under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of “equal protection of the law”, to intervene and police and prosecute criminal actions to ensure a just and orderly society. While this may be a novel application of the 14th Amendment, it may be necessary to incorporate this interpretation into our governance. To do otherwise is to allow society to deteriorate into chaos, and for the victims of criminal actions to reclaim their Natural Right of Justice and to take justice back into their own hands.

08/28/25 Retaliation, Retribution, or Accountability

As I have Chirped on “08/18/25 Destroying Democracy”, in an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy?”, he lists the twenty ways that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have attempted to destroy democracy in the last ten years. With all that we are learning about these and the other allegations of misdeeds by the Obama and Biden Administration officials against President Trump and his supporters, many Obama and Biden supporters are claiming that the current Trump Administration's investigatory and legal actions against Obama and Biden Administration officials are but retaliation or the weaponization of government against the people involved in these misdeeds. Thus, the question is whether these current actions are retaliation (actions taken in return for an injury or offense), retribution (a justly deserved penalty), or accountability (assigning responsibility to someone or for some activity).

If these current investigations and legal actions of the Trump Administration are based on credible allegations of legal violations of the law, and they are following proper legal procedures in pursuing these allegations, then they cannot be retaliatory actions, as the law does not allow for retaliation. If the perpetrators of these alleged legal violations are convicted in a court of law, then retributions are warranted, as all proven violations of the law are deserving of retribution, as it is justice being served. If there are no legal violations of the law, but such actions were shown to be true, then accountability to the American public is necessary for the American public to pass judgment on their actions. And such a judgment by the American people is necessary and proper, as all actions by former and present government officials should be adjudged by the American people.

In the current investigations and legal actions of the Trump Administration, they must determine if the alleged actions and violations of the law were a deprivation of rights and/or a conspiracy, as I have Chirped on, "11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials" and 07/24/25 A Criminal Conspiracy and Injustice". If so, they must take the proper legal action if they believe such violations of the deprivation of rights and/or a conspiracy have occurred. Even if no legal violations of deprivation and conspiracy laws occurred, these alleged misdeeds need to be aired, as they were certainly unethical and unvirtuous actions by government officials that cry out for accountability. And the American public needs to know if these unethical and unvirtuous actions occurred, as this is an assault on our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and may require changes to the law to ensure such future actions by government officials do not occur.

In addition, the victims of these misdeeds are deserving of retribution for the financial and reputational harms done against them in defending themselves, while the American people should be crying out for accountability to ensure that such misdeeds are never again perpetrated in America. Accordingly, all these misdeeds should be fully revealed to the American public for them to decide on the lack of ethics and virtuousness of these government officials, and to make sure that these government officials never again have a position of power in America.

08/27/25 A New Breed of Chicken

When I was an adolescent, there was a term for the supporters of the Vietnam War who were eligible but did not serve in the military—Chickenhawk: a political term used in the United States to describe a person who is a war hawk yet actively avoids or avoided military service when of age. In political usage, chickenhawk is a compound of chicken (meaning 'coward') and hawk from war hawk (meaning 'someone who advocates war'). Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lacked the bravery to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight, and die in an armed conflict.

In the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others peaceably violated the law and faced police actions and legal prosecutions for their violations. In doing so, they were able to call attention to the unjust government and social actions that changed the hearts and minds of the American public to achieve their goals. Thus, their approach was the best means to end discrimination in America, and America is a far better place for their doing so.

Today, we see the mayors and governors of Sanctuary Cities and States, along with Senators and Congresspersons, and others, who decry the apprehension, detainment, and deportation of criminal illegal immigrants. These people utilize pejoratives and inflammatory language, most often not true, directed against the law enforcement personnel who are apprehending, detaining, and deporting these criminal illegal immigrants. And diatribes and expletives are not peaceable interventions. Yet, if these law enforcement officers and the illegal immigration laws were as atrocious as their rhetoric claims them to be, then these protestors should, in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., peaceably intervene to stop these actions and face the legal consequences of their interventions. Yet, they do not do so, as they lack the courage to stand up for their beliefs and face the consequences. Their language is thus nothing but false bravado for the purposes of Virtue Signaling.

For their lack of peaceable interventions in the face of what they believe are wrongful government actions, they deserve a new term to describe their pusillanimity. I would propose that they be labeled Chickendoves: a political term used in the United States to describe a person who is apoplectic about a government action but unwilling to take peaceable interventions to prevent the governmental action. Until you are willing to take the legal consequences for standing up to what you believe are unjust government actions, you are nothing but a Chickendove. And it is unlikely that these Chickendoves will be able to change the hearts and minds of the American public to achieve their goals.

08/26/25 Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates for a democratic political system alongside a socially owned economy. Emphasizing economic democracy and workers' self-management, it seeks to achieve a more equal and just society by abolishing capitalism and promoting democratic control over economic resources. In their advocacy, Democratic socialists make many claims to promote the adoption of Democratic socialism in America. These claims are often of lofty aspirations, and they are just as often of questionable veracity. Alex McFarland, in his article, “10 Lies About Socialism That Must Be Exposed”, examines some of the claims propagated by the Democratic socialists and comments that:

“Americans, again subjected to the Democrats’ sales pitches for socialism, should know the facts. Socialism always leads to authoritarian governments. Idealistic young voters, especially, need to be apprised of the false promises of an economic utopia:”

The ten lies currently being propagated by the Democratic socialists are:

Lie No. 1: Socialism is compassionate; it helps people.
Lie No. 2: Socialism is affordable; “Our economy can handle this.”
Lie No. 3: Socialism is necessary because the rich have created poverty by hoarding all the money.
Lie No. 4: Socialism empowers the citizens.
Lie No. 5: Socialism hasn’t been tried in the U.S. before. Given the chance, people would grow to like this system.
Lie No. 6: Socialism is taught in the Bible. The early Christians were socialists.
Lie No. 7: Socialism will put money in people’s pockets.
Lie No. 8: Christians should be OK with socialism because it is just and fair.
Lie No. 9: Socialism works successfully in other countries.
Lie No. 10: Socialism can co-exist with Christianity.

Read about these lies and the truths behind these lies in his article, and weep for America if the Democratic socialists gain political power in America.

Alex McFarland has also commented in this article on the historical failures of socialism and the possibility of Democratic socialism working in America: “... an economic system with a 100 percent failure rate will somehow work here.” Thus, it can be said that Democratic socialism will always equate to Socioeconomic failure and the suppression of the Natural Rights of the people within its grip.

08/25/25 Mad Musk

Elon Musk is mad, and he has every right to be mad, as many fiscal conservatives are also mad. He and other fiscal conservatives are upset that the current tax and spending bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’) does not do enough to rein in and cut spending. Musk is also concerned that many of the efficiency improvements his team has discovered and is trying to permanently implement are not addressed in this bill. He is also concerned that the tax credits for electric vehicles have been eliminated, which negatively impacts Tesla. Yet, while there are many reasons, the one being cited as the last straw that broke the camel’s back was the nuking of Jared Isaacman (a large donor to Democrats and Progressives) as NASA administrator, who was fully qualified but of the wrong political persuasion. Thus, he parted ways with President Trump with some acrimonious remarks on both sides.

In his concerns he shares an attitude that is common to very successful businesspeople; they believe that they are right, and they believe that their way is the proper way to do something—a situation which rarely occurs in politics. In his being mad, he has forgotten the aphorism of “Perfect is the enemy of good”, as I have Chirped on "05/23/25 Don’t Let the Perfect Intervene". Due to his madness, he has separated himself from President Trump and the DOGE efforts, and he announced plans to create a new political party called the "America Party" aimed at centrist voters. However, it has recently been reported that he has decided to shelve these plans to focus on his business ventures and maintain relationships with key Republicans. I suspect that he also discovered the challenges of creating, establishing, administering, maintaining, funding, and attracting sufficient voters for a successful third party in the U.S., and the difficulties of doing so due to the dominance of the two-party system in America. Instead, it has been reported that he will look to support Republicans who support his viewpoints, with the future possibility of supporting Vice President Vance in the 2028 Presidential election.

I believe that this is the best course of action for Elon Musk to positively influence the future course of America, and I congratulate him on his recovery from madness. Perhaps, he could stage a reconciliation with President Trump to further positively impact the future course of America, and I would encourage Vice President Vance to expedite this reconciliation.

**********************************

Addendum – Elon Musk has denied that he is no longer interested in forming an American Party, but he has also not taken any actions to create such a party. His denial, therefore, may only be for political posturing purposes. Only time will tell, but I would encourage Elon Musk to abandon the American Party and use his time, energy, and money to work for Republican candidates who support his goals.

08/24/25 Misattribution and Misquoting

Supposedly, actor Tim Allen wrote some remarks on President Trump that have raised a ruckus. However, this is a misattribution to the actor Tim Allen, and it emerged after a Facebook user with the name Tim Allen posted the text here on August 25, 2019. Several fact-checker websites have debunked the claim that it was actor Tim Allen who posted this quote, and his spokesperson has also denied that it was from him.

Online political content has gone viral in the past in similar circumstances. In January 2019, a Tennessee Facebook user going by the name "Steve Harvey" posted a message that praised U.S. President Donald Trump and criticized his opponents. The post spread rapidly when some users mistakenly believed it had been written by the popular comedian and talk show host of the same name.

Misattribution and misquoting are all too common in today’s technological world of the Internet and Social Media. This is unfortunate as it is misleading, and it may harm the reputation of those who have been misattributed and/or misquoted. Consequently, it is important that you do not take at face value quotes that are attributed to someone without verifying the quote.

Rest assured that in my Chirps and Articles, I verify the attribution and veracity of the quotes that I utilize. This is why I will use the notation of surrounded double quotes and italicization, followed by the attribution (i.e., “To be or not to be” – William Shakespeare). I am also careful to provide the context of the quote so as not to mislead my readership as to the meaning of the quote.

As with all information provided on the Internet (especially studies and statistics, as I have written in my article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave"), you should not take the information you glean from the Internet at face value, and you should always remember my own quote:

08/24/25 MS NOW

MS NOW is the new name for MSNBC, which they say stands for "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World.". However, the truth is that it actually stands for “My Source for Nonsense, Oppositionists, and Wokeness.”

08/23/25 Losing Their Minds

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are not just losing in politics; they’re also losing their minds. This loss in politics has happened before to both the Democrat and Republican parties, but it has not invoked the rage that we now see. What is the root cause of this month’s long descent into mania and violence? I think we all know the answer, and it goes by the name of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). President Trump isn’t just pushing policy; he’s striking at the heart of the institutions that prop up the progressive agenda.

Victor Davis Hanson unpacks the real sources of the Democrats’ rage on an episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” In this episode, “VDH: Trump Broke the Left and Exposed Their Dirty Playbook”, he explains why they are so angry:

“ Why are they so angry? Why isn’t this the old party of Bill Clinton? Or even the party of Barack Obama? One: They have no institutional power. They do not have the House. They do not have the Senate. They do not have the White House. They do not have the Supreme Court. They do not have the issues. There are 30/70 and 20/80 issues. And they’re on the wrong side.

Put it all together and they’re mad, mad, mad. And they should be because Donald Trump threatens not just to take their power away, but the sources of their power.”

This eight-and-a-half-minute episode goes a long way in explaining their rage, and it is well worth the time spent viewing it.

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent, and wise person in modern America, and it is well worth the effort to visit his website “The Blade of Perseus”, and his YouTube channel, to partake of his wisdom.

08/22/25 The Structure and Boundaries of our Constitutional Governance

Our Constitution was formulated to define the structure, the role, and the function of the Federal Government. The first sentence of Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution clearly and succinctly defines the structure and powers of the American government:

Article I, Section 1:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article II, Section 1:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows”

Article III, Section 1:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Consequently, we have three branches of government with distinct duties and responsibilities—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The enumerated powers of these branches are defined and constrained within these Articles, and it can be said that Congress makes laws, the President executes the laws that Congress has passed, and the Supreme Court adjudicates the laws.

My new Article, The Structure and Boundaries of our Constitutional Governance, examines this topic in more detail. This article, along with my article on “The Eternal Truths and Relevance of The Declaration of Independence”, is an attempt to refocus American minds on the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to ensure our Liberties and Freedoms. For without defending the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as President Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

08/21/25 Can They Not Win a Free, Fair, and Honest Election?

The dishonesty of the Russiagate Hoax in the 2016 Presidential election, the cover-up of Hillary’s private e-mail server (which may have contained classified material) in the 2016 Presidential election, the voting irregularities in the 2020 COVID-19 Presidential election, the cover-up of Biden’s physical and mental health in both the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections, and his posing as a moderate candidate, along with the Democrat Party lawfare in their attempts to disqualify or discredit President Trump in the 2024 Presidential elections, has raised the question of do the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe that they can win an honest election?

The above-noted actions, along with the voting irregularities in both the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections as I have examined in my article "Voting in America", leads one to believe that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have a lack of confidence that they can win a free and fair election on the merits of their policy agenda. They, therefore, must engage in shenanigans, hoodwinking, and vote fraud to win an election. The next question is, will the American electorate succumb to their machinations?

The results of the 2024 Presidential election provide a clue to the answer to this next question. The American electorate in the 2016 and 2024 Presidential elections disregarded these shenanigans and hoodwinking and elected President Trump, while in the 2020 Presidential election, the Democrats were successful in their hoodwinking of the American electorate and elected President Biden.

In addition, their current use of baseless allegations against President Trump and Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives is further proof that they cannot be honest with the American electorate and win an election, as I have Chirped on “08/19/25 The Five Cardinal Sins and Baseless Allegations”. The American electorate should not be hoodwinked again in the upcoming 2026 mid-term elections, and they should reject their shenanigans for the good of America and all Americans.

Furthermore, President Trump has announced: “I am going to lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots... as well as Seriously Controversial voting machines”, to reform voting in America to ensure fair and honest elections. Let us hope that he and Congress expand this reform to address the other issues of voting irregularities, as I have examined in my aforementioned article "Voting in America". I also believe the President and Congress have the Constitutional authority to do so, as I have examined in my article on "Voting Responsibilities".

The issue of free, fair, and honest elections, along with the issues of gerrymandering and census apportionment including immigrants, as I have Chirped on “08/09/25 Gerrymandering in Modern America” and “08/15/25 Immigration Impacts of Congressional Apportionment”, is crucial to resolve to ensure that our elections are truly representative of the will of the American electorate. Otherwise, we will not have a Democratic republic, but some other form of governance.

08/20/25 The Five Cardinal Sins and Baseless Allegations

According to a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless in order to remain blameless), the disparagement of Americans by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is most often based on the following characteristics of a person:

White (especially British/Irish, Western, Central, Northern, or Eastern European).
Straight (unashamedly heterosexual).
Productive (having employment that supports yourself and your family).
Attractive (Pleasing to the eye or mind, especially through beauty or charm).
Republican (A conservative who openly admits to their Party affiliation).

If you are a de-facto member of this group it is permissible for them to discount, disparage, and denigrate their opinions and viewpoints as racist, bigoted, white supremist, morally inferior, mean spirited, wrong and stupid, or bad or evil (not to mention that they believe there may be a high probability that they are MAGA supporters with Fascist or Nazi predilections).

As they also believe that they are the only true democratic people in America (based upon the principles of democracy or social equality), then all others must be undemocratic. They refuse to accept that America is a Democratic republic, as I have written in my article “A Republic versus a Democracy”, as they do not understand the true meaning of these words, and other words that they assert against their opponents. Therefore, a few word definitions are in order:

Democratic - A political system ruled by the people through majority rule.

Dictatorial - Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty that is unconstrained by law.

Fascism - A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government that controls society and the economy (as opposed to democracy or liberalism).

Nazism - a totalitarian government based on racial superiority, extreme nationalism, and intolerance of others who do not hold their viewpoints.

Republic - A political system in which supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Thus, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' allegations against their opponents do not hold water, especially since they are undemocratic, as they have not accepted democratically elected President Trump and a Republican Congress, and they oppose them by any means necessary to hinder and block the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives' political agendas. Their extensive use of Lawfare, much of which is without a sound legal basis, is but another example of their own undemocratic tendencies. To them, democratic means Democrat Party election victories, and any other result is undemocratic in their eyes.

My collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", "Judicial Restraint", "Despotism in America", and "The Weaponization of Government" examine these issues, and how modern Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders behave undemocratically. Along with the Russiagate hoax revelations, Biden Autopen usage, and other recently revealed scandals of the Obama and Biden presidencies, they have shown that they are undemocratic in their usage of political power, as I have Chirped on “08/08/25 On Power” and “08/09/25 Gerrymandering in Modern America”.

Accordingly, the Five Cardinal Sins and Baseless Allegations are the basis for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' tactics to reobtain and retain power in America. Such thirsts for power should never be satiated by the American electorate, as such thirsts are an assault on A Civil Society and our American Ideals and Ideas.

08/19/25 Form Over Substance - II

In my Chirp on "09/07/19 Form Over Substance", I lament that in today’s political “debates”, especially on television, there is a tendency to elevate form over substance, in that the content of the debate is often overshadowed by the style of the debater. I have also Chirped about the Burden of Proof, and the lack thereof, in these debates. This has been especially egregious since Donald Trump entered the political scene. In their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media have reached new heights in disingenuousness and fabrications in their TDS.

Not only can this be attributed to TDS, but also to a long history of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists not being challenged in their statements by the Mainstream Media. Indeed, the Mainstream Media has often been supportive of this disingenuousness and fabrications. Thus, they believe that they can say anything that supports their arguments without being challenged as to their factuality and truthfulness. In the past, the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives have also not been effective in challenging this disingenuousness and fabrications, as facts and truths take more time and effort to present than is possible in the limited time allowable in these debates.

Donald Trump changed all this in his bombastic rhetoric, as I have examined in my chirp on “08/07/25 The Bombastic Speech of Donald Trump”. No longer would the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media go unchallenged in their disingenuousness and fabrications. And Donald Trump’s bombastic rhetoric is further exacerbating their TDS, along with increasing their disingenuousness and fabrications. It has also made it more acceptable for Donald Trump’s supporters to be bombastic in their replies to the disingenuousness and fabrications of those afflicted with TDS.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists wails and cries of Nazism, Fascism, Dictatorialness, and the destruction of democracy, without any Burden of Proof, are but some examples of their extreme disingenuousness and fabrications. They also exhibit a lack of understanding of the true meaning and evils of Nazism, Fascism, and Dictatorialism. Their claims as to the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of President Trump’s actions are again without any Burden of Proof, not to mention that they exhibit much ignorance of the Constitution. In doing so, they are in the process of destroying America, as I have Chirped on “08/18/25 Destroying Democracy”. Thus, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have become a force in America of sloganeering and bamboozlement without substance.

Such a force should have no power in American governance, as it will only lead to the destruction of America through the mobocracy of baseless allegations and the stirring of mob passions.

08/18/25 Destroying Democracy

“Destroying democracy—the latest theme of the left—can be defined in many different ways” is the opening sentence of a new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy?”. This article then goes on to list twenty ways that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have attempted to destroy democracy in the last ten years. He ends his article by asking a rhetorical question about the Democrats/Progressives' claim that President Trump is destroying Democracy by stating:

“How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60–70 percent approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion?

How does a president “destroy democracy” by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes, and enjoying a 6–3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents?

So, what is behind these absurd charges?

Three catalysts: one, the new anguished elitist Democrat Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power.

Two, the Democrat Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power—minorities, youth, and Independents.

Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them.

So, it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows—given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations.”

These twenty ways that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have attempted to destroy democracy are twenty reasons that all patriotic Americans need to support President Trump. Otherwise, they may succeed in destroying America.

08/17/25 The Eternal Truths on the Purpose of Government

The Declaration of Independence contains some eternal truths that should always be kept in the minds of all people, as these truths speak to the Liberties and Freedoms of a people. These truths are the guiding principles of government in the affairs of all its citizens:

“all men are created equal”
“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
“it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
“to effect their Safety and Happiness”

These truths are as relevant today as when they were written, and all Americans should keep them in mind when they evaluate government actions. I had previously written an article on “The Relevance of The Declaration of Independence”, which I have now expanded into “The Eternal Truths and Relevance of The Declaration of Independence” to include an examination of these truths.

It is an unfortunate fact that many of these truths are being violated in modern America. Many of these violations have occurred in the quest for Adjective Justice in America, and the implementation of Progressive ideals and ideology, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

These truths have been especially violated in the non-enforcement of Federal Illegal Immigration Laws, and the widespread tolerance of State and local governments for criminality in our neighborhoods, along with the lack of justice for the victims of these crimes. In these violations, the government has endangered the safety and security of the American people for political purposes.

Consequently, the people of America must hold to account all levels of government for violating these eternal truths of The Declaration of Independence, and reaffirm that the eternal truths of The Declaration of Independence are our guiding principles.

08/16/25 A Precipice to be Avoided

“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.”
- Historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler, late 1800s

Next year, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a magnificent document that speaks to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. The question is, are we on the precipice of the collapse of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and entering the age of collapse that Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler speaks of?

For over the past 100 years, we have undergone a transformation of our American Ideals and Ideas through the implementation of Progressive ideas and ideals, as I have written in my collected chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". A transformation that has wrought two peoples, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "A Tale of Two Cities". It has also brought about other significant changes, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "Despotism in America", and "Oligarchy in America".

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have been in the forefront of these changes, with some good resulting in these changes, but at a great cost in both treasury and spirit for these and other not-so-good changes. With the election of President Trump in his first and second terms, we have seen a great howl from these Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as they recognize that he is determined to avoid going over this precipice by righting the course of America to its founding principles. His actions, therefore, pose an existential threat to the Democrat Party and their Leaders if he succeeds, and, thus, the wails and cries and obstinate opposition to him will continue.

Yet, his success in righting the course of America is important, as it may be the only way to avoid going over the precipice that will end America as it was founded. An end that will do great harm to Americans and the rest of the world. We must, therefore, support President Trump’s course corrections, or, as President Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

08/15/25 Immigration Impacts of Congressional Apportionment

The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report on October 31, 2024, “Tilting the Balance: Estimating the impact of legal and illegal immigration on apportionment and political influence in the U.S. House and Electoral College”, by Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, which details the impact of counting immigrants in the census and Congressional apportionment. The following is their summarization of their report:

“The apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College to each state is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration significantly redistributes political power in Washington.

This analysis shows that the total foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal) had a significant impact on the distribution of House seats in 2020, which will increase further by 2030 if immigration continues at its current rapid pace. The redistribution of House seats is primarily due to legal immigrants, who make up roughly three-fourths of the total foreign-born included in the census, not illegal immigrants. Immigration tends to redistribute seats to Democratic-leaning states and away from Republican and battleground states, though the partisan impact may become more attenuated over time. This analysis only includes those foreign-born residents, legal or illegal, counted in the decennial census; those missed by the census have no impact on apportionment.

(A companion piece to this report examines the related question of “How Non-Citizens Impact Political Representation and the Partisan Makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives”.)

Among All Immigrants

The inclusion of all immigrants (legal and illegal) in the 2020 census shifted 17 House seats. If their U.S.-born minor children (<18) are included the impact rises to 22 seats. This estimate represents the cumulative impact of immigrants, not the change since the last census.
In 2020, immigrants in Democratic-leaning states resulted in a net increase of 14 more seats than they otherwise would have, while Republican states had 10 fewer seats and battleground states had four fewer. If their U.S.-born minor children are included, Democratic states had 18 more seats, while Republican and battleground states had 12 and six fewer seats, respectively.
If the total legal and illegal immigrant population continues to grow at the current rapid pace, we estimate that by 2030 immigrants will redistribute 22 seats, 28 seats if their U.S. children are considered.
By 2030, immigrants in the census will cause a net gain of 10 seats for Democratic states, with a net reduction of seven and three seats for Republican and battleground states, respectively. Including immigrants’ U.S.-born minor children shows Democratic-leaning states will have a net gain of 16 seats, while Republican and battleground states will have 11 and five fewer seats, respectively.

Impact of illegal immigration

Illegal immigrants captured in the 2020 census redistributed two seats. Adding in their U.S.-born minor children increases the redistribution to three seats.
The presence of illegal aliens in the 2020 census did not create a net gain or loss for either party. Including immigrants’ minor children, Democratic states had a net gain of two seats, with a net loss of one seat for a Republican state and one seat for a battleground state.
If the illegal immigrant population continues to grow at the current pace, it may redistribute seven seats by 2030. When their minor children are included, the redistribution is estimated to be nine seats, with a net gain for Democratic-leaning states of four seats. However, a projection of this kind reflects significant uncertainty.”

The above summarization (and their report), along with my Chirp on “08/14/25 Census Failures” and article “Gerrymandering in Modern America”, needs to be addressed before the 2030 Census is undertaken. This needs to be done to ensure that the Census, Congressional Apportionment, and State Redistricting are reflective of what is just, proper, and Constitutional.

**********************************

This problem of Congressional Apportionment and State Redistricting would be an interesting problem for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to address (with and without counting legal and/or illegal immigrants in the census). Even with the use of AI to solve this problem, it would be very difficult for AI to do so, as the criteria for redistricting, such as weighted racial, sociological, economic, geographical, party registration, past voting patterns, and other factors, may be difficult to quantify in the AI algorithms. Accordingly, I am not suggesting that AI should be used to solve this problem, and I highly doubt that State Legislators with their political party considerations would voluntarily relinquish this power of redistricting.

08/14/25 Census Failures

On May 19, 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau released a report on the accuracy of the 2020 Census, as reported in the “2020 Census Undercounts in Six States, Overcounts in Eight”.

“The U.S. Census Bureau today released more results from its 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey (PES), showing population undercounts and overcounts by state and the District of Columbia.

The PES estimated that counts for 36 states and the District of Columbia did not have a statistically significant undercount or overcount in the 2020 Census and that there were undercounts in six states and overcounts in eight.

Previously released PES results for the nation showed no statistically significant net coverage error for the total population, although undercounts and overcounts by race, Hispanic origin, age, sex and home ownership varied. “

According to the PES, the following States had undercounts:

And the following States had overcounts:

According to a report by The Heritage Foundation, “Census Bureau Errors Distort Congressional Representation for the States”, as a result of these errors, Florida did not receive two additional congressional seats, Texas lost out on an additional seat, Minnesota and Rhode Island each retained a congressional seat that should have been lost, and Colorado gained a new seat to which it had no right.

There is also the question of including non-citizens in the apportionment of Congressional Districts. These non-citizens are currently part of the apportionment and, therefore, some Congressional Districts have a high percentage of non-citizens, which means that their Congressperson has divided loyalties between citizens and non-citizens. There is, unfortunately, no way to determine which congressional districts have this issue, as the census does not categorize by citizenship. Not counting non-citizens in Congressional apportionment would change the Congressional District allocations nationwide, which would probably result in more Congressional Districts in Red States at the expense of Blue States. This is a major reason why Democrats are so insistent on including non-citizens in Congressional apportionment.

This citizen/non-citizen demographic should be counted in the census, so that a factual and reasonable debate on the issue of counting non-citizens in Congressional apportionment could be had. I would suggest that the following question should be added to the census for all the persons named on a census form, to obtain this information:

Are you a:

U.S. Citizen
Non-U.S. Citizen:
- Visa/Passport Resident
- Green-Card Resident
- Other Resident

There should be special penalties for providing incorrect answers to this question, up to and including deportation for other residents who are here illegally and who furnished incorrect answers. While this may cause Other Residents to avoid the census, this avoidance can be mitigated by not releasing their names to other government agencies.

Any person who does not want to obtain this information is doing so out of fear of the answers. A fear driven by political considerations, and a desire to cover up the facts, so that a reasonable discussion on Congressional apportionment cannot be undertaken. To which I say, “let the chips fall where they may”, and for them to deal with the reality rather than their rhetoric of the situation.

08/13/25 Deprivation of Rights

Deprivation of rights under color of law is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 242. It occurs when an individual, often a government official or someone acting under the authority of law, willfully subjects another to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or federal law. This includes acts such as excessive force, false arrest, unlawful search and seizure, discrimination based on race, gender, or religion, as I have written in my Chirp on "11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials".

The Department of Justice has launched a grand jury investigation targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), focusing on allegations of deprivation of rights related to her $454 million civil fraud lawsuit against President Donald Trump. The grand jury investigation is at its early stages, according to reports, but marks a clear escalation in the DOJ's attempts to hold James accountable for potential rights violations and potential abuse of her office against the president.

"Shark Tank" star Kevin O’Leary described the massive fines levied against Trump in the civil fraud case as “appalling” and “un-American.” Which would be accurate descriptors of James's entire tenure as AG. “What developer doesn’t ask for the highest price valued for any building they built?” he told the New York Post. It is a reference to the crux of James’ argument, that Trump overvalued his properties, which he said that everybody in the real estate business does.

Fani T. Willis (D) is the District Attorney for Fulton County, Georgia, the state’s largest county, and the home to over one million Georgians, is composed of the City of Atlanta, as well as many of the city’s suburban communities. She instituted a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) legal case against President Trump, and she was in contact with the U.S. Justice Department in this legal case, which could potentially fall under the deprivation of rights under color of law statute.

In addition, recently revealed information about the corruption in the Federal government against President Trump may be considered as a Deprivation of rights under color of law in their actions against him. Such allegations against the persons in this alleged corruption reveal an assault on A Civil Society and our American Ideals and Ideas by such persons, and they need to be fully pursued.

Deprivation of rights under color of law is a serious crime, as it is an assault on our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and in the Case of President Trump, it was a corruption of the political process to sway an election(s). Such action should not be glossed over or ignored, and it must be fully investigated by Congress and pursued by the Justice Department. If the Justice Department indicts and convicts those involved in such deprivations and corruptions, then there must be severe punishments for those convicted. Otherwise, such deprivations and corruptions will fester and grow in America to the detriment of all Americans.

08/12/25 Other People’s Backyards (OPB)

In today's society, it has become very easy to spend Other People's Money, especially in government funding, but also in commerce, as I have examined in my article on “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. This government spending is usually at the behest of Progressives in their desire for “Social Justice” and for “Social Welfare”. And most of these Progressives are higher-income people who can afford the increased taxes and higher costs of products and services that social justice and social welfare programs entail.

Along with this OPM comes another attitude of these Progressives— “Other People’s Backyards (OPB)”, as they want social change if it does not impact their neighborhoods. When it comes to illegal immigrants, the homeless, and the drug and alcohol addicted, they are in favor of social programs to assist these people, if these people are not relocated to or near their neighborhoods. When it comes to low-income housing (especially in the fire-ravaged areas of greater Los Angeles), they are all for it if no low-income housing is built in their neighborhoods. Energy Windmills and Solar Panel Farms should be promoted and subsidized, except if they are in sight of their neighborhoods. These issues, along with a myriad of other government programs, are supported by Progressives if they are done in Other People’s Backyards.

They claim that these other neighborhoods are where the problems are, and that it is where these social programs should be located (with some justification). However, whenever any social program approaches their neighborhood, they institute political pressure and legal obstacles to thwart its implementation. Consequently, OPM coupled with OPB is a means to keep them and their neighborhoods from being impacted by any social programs. And people who believe in OPM and OPB are often unencumbered by the consequences of their words and deeds.

08/12/25 Hard Times

Recently, a Republican Party candidate for the Kentucky Senate seat being vacated by Mitch McConnell had this to say about Senator McConnell and the other candidates running for his seat:

“Mitch McConnell and his boys, Andy Barr and Daniel Cameron – they don’t know hard times.
Hard Times is being raised by a single mom, not knowing if you’re gonna make rent.
It’s watching factories close, and opioids destroy your community.
Hard Times is a man working a job for 30 years, they give him a watch, kick him in the butt, and say globalism took your job.
That’s Hard Times.”
- Nate Morris

Alas, too many Americans have experienced hard times in the last few decades. Hard times that too many Republican leaders did not address for various political reasons. But one Republican leader arose to address these hard times and attempt to change the times—Donald J. Trump. In this, he has been quite successful in turning America around and remaking the Republican Party into one of fortitude and tenacity to address and remedy the hard times. In this, he is remaking the Republican Party to become the party of everyday Americans. He has done this by applying common sense to the issues and concerns facing Americans, and by placing America and Americans first in his words and deeds. Consequently, he is changing the American political, social, and economic landscape for the betterment of America and for all Americans.

08/11/25 Adjudging Ourselves and Others

Good or bad, righteous or evil, moral or amoral, ethical or disreputable, and virtuous or unscrupulous are qualities in which we should judge ourselves and others. But nobody is perfect, and a person often has a mixture of these attributes. It is hoped that we and others have more positive attributes than negative attributes, and the negative attributes are sublimated in our and others' character and behavior. We also need to be careful in our utilization of these words to describe someone, and to understand the true meaning of these words, i.e.:

Good - Having desirable or positive qualities.
Bad - Having undesirable or negative qualities.
Righteous - Characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice.
Evil - Having or exerting a malignant influence.
Moral - Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.
Amoral - Lacking any sense of moral standards or principles.
Ethical - Conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior.
Disreputable - Lacking respectability in character or behavior.
Virtuous - Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.
Unscrupulous - Without a sense of right and wrong, and behaving unprincipled.

In adjudging others, one must be careful to obtain as many facts as possible about a person before passing judgment. One must also examine all the aforementioned attributes of a person before passing judgment. Otherwise, your judgment of a person will be incomplete and often wrong.

08/11/25 Blaming Others

It is an unfortunate fact that despots of all stripes, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Socialists, Dictators, Tyrants, as well as Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, seduce their audiences by appealing to their weakest and worst instincts—blame others. In this blame game, they often practice demagoguery against those whom they blame. And whatever issue or concern arises in their society, they will find a way to blame someone or some group and to Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage them, even if they are guiltless. This is done as a means to aggregate power unto themselves, and in this, they are demagogues and rabble-rousers.

But to blame others is to ignore their own shortcomings, and to abrogate responsibility for their own decisions. It is often accompanied by a wallowing in self-pity that is destructive to their psyche. It also allows them to support words and deeds against those whom they blame, that in normal circumstances would be objectionable. It also permits them to not take corrective actions to improve themselves.

Consequently, blaming others is destructive to society and to the individual. It is important that we correct injustices in society, but not by blaming others, but by constructive changes that benefit both society and the individual.

08/10/25 The Wisdom of Benny Hill

Some truths always remain the same, despite protestations to the contrary. I recently ran across a YouTube video of Benny Hill taking on the UN and Politicians. For your amusement purposes, I have transcribed this video:

“What is the United Nations?” asked the young wee lad.
“It's where helpless nations turn in times of trouble”, said his dad.
“When one nation all alone decides it can do nothing, son.
That's when the United Nations meets and decides that nothing can be done.”
The wee lad said, “I see politicians on TV every night.
Some say this, some say that. They can't all be right.
Some say this is so. Some say the opposite applies.
Now, how is the wee lad to know which one is telling lies?”
His dad said, “There's one sure method, way beyond improving.
Watch their faces. You'll see.
The one who's telling lies is the one whose lips are moving.”
- Benny Hill

08/09/25 Gerrymandering in Modern America

Gerrymandering in the United States is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812, set by Governor Elbridge Gerry, who noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander. I would also mention that Gerrymandering is not limited to America, as all representative democracies that have election districts are subject to Gerrymandering.

When it comes to the obtainment and retention of political power, you can always expect that Gerrymandering will be one of the tools that will be utilized. Sometimes the Gerrymandering is modest, but most times it is egregious. It is only illegal if it is done for discriminatory (other than political) purposes.

With the recent kerfuffle in Texas about Gerrymandering, I thought it wise to add my perspective on this topic. As such, my new article on Gerrymandering in America examines this topic in more detail than a short Chirp would allow. What I did not point out in this article was the irony of the Texas Democrat legislators protesting Gerrymandering for them to flee to one of the most heavily Democrat Gerrymandered States, Illinois, to protest Gerrymandering, as well as the most heavily Democrat Gerrymandered States governors —California, Illinois, and New York—protesting the Texas Gerrymandering, as the following maps illustrate (clicking on the map will take you the Wikipedia article on their Congressional districts).

08/08/25 On Power

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American broadcast news analyst, columnist, lawyer, political commentator, radio personality, and writer. He is the host of the syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was the chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, an author of several books, and a contributor to media outlets such as National Review Online. Since 2015, Levin has been editor-in-chief of the Conservative Review.

His latest book, “On Power”, examines the types and usage of power throughout history. Whether it be negative or positive power, soft or hard power, negative or positive language in support of power, rights, and liberty, he explores its methods and usage to control societies:

“Throughout history, from ancient civilizations to modern Western republics, power has been used to both oppress and liberate. To reward and exploit. To destroy and build. Monarchs, dictators, and elites who impose tyranny seek to consolidate power, stripping freedom from individuals to maintain control over societies. They use force and deception to ensure their rules remain unchallenged, claiming to act in the name of the common good while stripping individuals of their freedoms.

In contrast, those who seek to use power for good—such as America’s Constitutional Framers—understand that strong societies are born not from force, but consent. Societies built on checks and balances, fair elections, and the preservation of individual rights not only survive, but thrive.

Following in the footsteps of works by thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Frédéric Bastiat, Mark R. Levin’s On Power examines how power shapes history, offering invaluable insights into individual liberty, unalienable rights, and conservative principles from one of the leading philosophers of modern conservatism.”

The chapters in this book reveal the types and employment of power:

On Power
On Negative Power
On Positive Power
On Language
On Rights
On Liberty
Epilogue

He points out that many democracies espouse democratic ideals, but they are in fact, or become, Authoritarian Democracies through the perversion of language. In George Orwell’s book, “Politics and the English Language”, he writes about the perversion of “political words . . . are used in a consciously way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” “It is almost universally felt,” writes Orwell, “that when we call a country democratic, we are praising it: consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

Levin writes that “Authoritarian Democracies adopt and use the tactics of authoritarian regimes, albeit at first with more of a glove than an iron fist, but the underlying attributes are there.”, as they use soft negative power to institute their objectives. But, ultimately, sooner or later, and in the end, they become fully authoritative. This is the path that America has been on since President Woodrow Wilson dismissed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as outdated and not suitable for the modern world. It is a path that has substituted the will of the people for the rule of experts and the bureaucratic state. This is the path that the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders wish us to continue to tread, and the path that their opponents wish to reverse. And these Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are experts at the perversion of the English language to achieve their goals.

In his epilogue, Levin states, “Power dynamics are truly everywhere—at home, in the workplace, in social circles, and in its role of securing are destroying our liberty and rights. While intellectuals and writers may discuss power at length, it is not commonly understood, let alone appreciated by most as central to their lives.”

This book helps in understanding power and to be on guard against its abuses. Thus, it is important to read and understand this book to help ensure our Liberties and Freedoms.

08/07/25 The Bombastic Speech of Donald Trump

I never really cared for the bombastic speech of Donald Trump. I considered it infantile, rude, and crude, unbecoming of an intelligent person. However, I understood the need for it—the need to break through the barrier of the self-righteousness of the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media sophistry. His rhetoric is a wake-up call to Americans for the purpose of exposing the bamboozlement that they were being subjected to. I recently ran across a video clip from a noted historian and political commentator that better explains why Donald Trump often disparages some people. He ends his comment by stating:

“But a sober, judicious person doesn't do that. But if you look at all those people and what they did, you could say there's a lot of culpability there. And does it have the effect? Yes. It brings attention to it. And so, it's a holistic idea to blow up not just to blow up the discourse, the rhetoric. What I think the whole MAGA thing is that the idea of Trump was that people use very sophisticated vocabulary and resumes to do really awful things. So, you scream and yell, and that tears off the veneer, and then you're left with a reality, and you can judge it one or the other.”
- Victor Davis Hanson

08/07/25 Pounding the Table

An old legal adage states, “when you have the facts, pound the facts; when you have the law, pound the law; when you have neither, pound the table”. Since the second inauguration of President Trump, the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media have been doing a lot of table pounding. From the illegal immigrant deportations and sealing the border, to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, DOGE efforts, tariffs, Iran bombings, Russiagate hoax revelations, Biden Autopen usage, keeping men out of women’s sports, killing DEI, a robust economy with lower inflation and increasing growth, along with a host of other achievements there has been a lot of table pounding by his opponents. In all this table pounding, they have been wrong, and the table is being pounded so much that it is collapsing.

Thus, the pounding of the table by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media has accelerated their collapse in the American public’s eyes, and their wails and cries are no longer being paid attention to by most of the American people. This is as it should be, because without facts and law, they should be ignored.

08/06/25 Death to DEI and Transgendered Sports

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon for the Civil Rights Division recently stated when discussing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):

“When I hear the words or the slogan ‘DEI,’ what I hear is discrimination, exclusion, and intolerance—and that is what we are seeing throughout all of these programs nationally.”

She has also made it clear the position of the Trump Administration regarding the continuance of DEI:

“With these efforts underway, Senators, the goal is clear: either DEI will end on its own, or we will kill it.”

As I have Chirped on, "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", the real-world reality of DEI is that it is ERC (Exclusion, Redistribution, and Conformity), and its continuance is an affront to our American ideals of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. It is also a destructive force in American society, as I have Chirped on "01/15/24 CRT, DEI, and ESG as Destructive Forces".

Thus, DEI must die and not be hidden by any other name or actions. Accordingly, I can only wish her good fortune and Godspeed in her efforts to end DEI in American society and governance.

As for transgender men competing in women’s sports, recent Presidential Executive actions against several States and school districts have resulted in a change of their policies, but several States and school districts are resisting banning transgender men from competing in women’s sports. Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), had a statement for Oregon (and for all Americans), that:

“If Oregon is permitting males to compete in women’s sports, it is allowing these males to steal the accolades and opportunities that female competitors have rightfully earned through hard work and grit, while callously disregarding women’s and girls’ safety, dignity, and privacy. Title IX does not permit that shameful arrangement, and we will not tolerate it.”

In addition, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee has effectively barred transgender women from competing in women’s sports, telling the federations overseeing swimming, athletics, and other sports that it has an “obligation to comply” with an executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump.

As I have Chirped on "03/31/24 Sex and Gender – Societal Impacts":

“In the societal impacts of LGBTQIA+, and especially Transgenderism, we should all remember a rule of thumb: 'First, do no harm.’ Do no harm to both the LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ community members, as well as do no harm to society as a whole. All persons need to be treated politely and respectfully, with dignity, and with regard to their Natural, Human, and Civil Rights, but one person’s individual rights cannot transgress upon another person’s individual rights. The boundaries of transgression are very difficult to qualify and establish, but they must be dispassionately examined and instituted.”

And a dispassionate examination of transgender men competing in women’s sports demonstrably shows it harms the women in sports. Thus, transgender men competing in women’s sports must die forthwith.

08/05/25 Cop-Outs

“Recently, a large group of black youths began pummeling several white adults in downtown Cincinnati”, begins a column by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Cincinnati Cop-Outs”. In this column, he points out that there were many disturbing aspects to the beat-downs:

One, the violence broke out along racial and age fault lines. After the initial one-on-one dispute, groups of black youths swarmed solitary older white bystanders to pound them.
Two, the surrounding assembled group of black youths not only failed to intervene to restrain the bullies. They also recorded the beatings for social media and were heard cheering on the one-sided violence.
Three, there was neither a police presence nor any timely Good Samaritan interventions.
Four, oddly few of the usual black spokespeople who habitually comment on interracial violence were to be seen.
Five, the media and authorities did their best to either hide or play down the violence.
Six, had a gang of white toughs beat middle-aged African-Americans senseless, recorded it, and cheered on the violence, there would have been immediate national outrage.
Seven, the quiet of the left-wing media to the reprehensible violence stands in marked contrast with their usual rush-to-judgment racialism in two near-simultaneous incidents.

He also comments on the various excuses that many Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media have propagated for this violence:

“City leaders, the chief of police, and the media variously blamed the mass black-on-white violence on 1) social media, 2) the original one-on-one dispute, 3) alcohol, 4) the lack of civilian intervention to stop the violence, and 5) a festival atmosphere -- anything except endemic racial hatred shown toward whites from the crowd of black youths.”

But the truth is, as he states in his column:

“The country is descending into a tribal morass of double standards and racial fixations.

The diversity/equity/inclusion industry, the Defund-the-Police madness, and the perpetual left-wing hunt for “white racism/white privilege/white rage”... have all legitimized double standards while lowering the bar of the once unacceptable.”

A tribal morass that is being wrought upon America by Identity Politics, courtesy of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists attempts to obtain and retain power over America and Americans.

08/04/25 Now, We Know. It Was a Cover-Up

With the help of the declassified Durham material, the Russiagate hoax can be explained in three brushstrokes. Former Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi had a damning post summarizing all the document dumps that have occurred over the past few days:

One, Hillary Clinton and her team apparently hoped to deflect from her email scandal and other problems via a campaign tying Trump to Putin. Two, American security services learned of these plans. Three — and this is the most important part — instead of outing them, authorities used state resources to massively expand and amplify her scheme. The last stage required the enthusiastic cooperation and canine incuriosity of the entire commercial news business, which cheered as conspirators made an enforcement target of Trump, actually an irrelevant bystander.”

A cover-up that required a large-scale corruption of government justice and intelligence services. A cover-up that involved the manufacturing and distribution of lies about a political opponent by government officials. A cover-up that was a corruption that weaponized the government against a political opponent with whom they disagreed and disliked. A corruption that involved some of the highest officials in government, as well as President Obama. A corruption that will go into the annals of history as one of the worst corruptions in American history. A corruption that extended into the Biden presidency, with additional corrupt actions by government officials. A corruption for which the participants should face the full weight of justice for their illegal actions. For if this corruption is ignored or discounted, it will allow for other corruptions to occur within government.

08/03/25 A Prescient Warning

Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859), was a French aristocrat, diplomat, political philosopher, and historian. He is best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes, 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both, he analyzed the living standards and social conditions of individuals as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville's travels in the United States and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.

In volume 2 of his Democracy in America book, he examines a possible danger in American democracy that could lead to despotism. A danger that has been arising in America for over a hundred years—it is the danger of Progressivism, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". A danger that in 21st-century America is tearing our society apart. Read and weep for America, then actively oppose this danger and actively set about to right the course of America:

“I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, volume 2 (1840)

08/02/25 What Hath We Wrought?

I have recently finished reading a book that was difficult and troublesome to read and digest, as it challenged some underlying beliefs of recent American history. The book, “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties” by Christopher Caldwell, has a different perspective on this history:

“A major American intellectual and “one of the right’s most gifted and astute journalists” (The New York Times Book Review) makes the historical case that the reforms of the 1960s, reforms intended to make the nation more just and humane, left many Americans feeling alienated, despised, misled—and ready to put an adventurer in the White House.

Christopher Caldwell has spent years studying the liberal uprising of the 1960s and its unforeseen consequences and his conclusion is this: even the reforms that Americans love best have come with costs that are staggeringly high—in wealth, freedom, and social stability—and that have been spread unevenly among classes and generations.

Caldwell reveals the real political turning points of the past half-century, taking you on a roller-coaster ride through Playboy magazine, affirmative action, CB radio, leveraged buyouts, iPhones, Oxycotin, Black Lives Matter, and internet cookies. In doing so, he shows that attempts to redress the injustices of the past have left Americans living under two different ideas of what it means to play by the rules.

Essential, timely, hard to put down, The Age of Entitlement “is an eloquent and bracing book, full of insight” (New York magazine) about how the reforms of the past fifty years gave the country two incompatible political systems—and drove it toward conflict.”

This book skewers everyone, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives, as well as activists of all stripes and social justice warriors, for their attempts and successes/failures to transform America into an egalitarian society. Primarily, he takes to task their lack of anticipating the consequences on America of their words and deeds. This book is a harsh reminder that good intentions do not necessarily result in good deeds.

The one thing that I totally agree with him on is that the turning point in American society, post-World War II, came with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Along with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, these two acts ceded control of the direction of American society by democratic means, by the will of the electorate. In Congress legislating broad powers to the Executive Branch bureaucratic regulators to mold American society into a more egalitarian state, which eventually led the Judiciary, and more specifically the Supreme Court, to intervene in the everyday affairs of Americans without the support of the American public.

These acts also infringed on the First Amendment Rights of Americans of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” by regulators and judges reshaping the boundaries of these rights.

Americans no longer feel free to do what their conscience tells them is right and moral, but they must be worried about running afoul of the regulators and the courts. Businesses and Institutions must also worry about their actions and tailor their actions to the vagaries of the regulators and the courts. Indeed, Businesses and Institutions have teamed up with the regulators and the courts to impose their criteria of what is right and moral upon America, as a way not to run afoul of the regulators and the courts.

The result of this change in American society is a bitter division in America. A division that is pitting groups of Americans against each other. A division between those who desire government regulation and those who just want the government out of their lives. A division that has made a class of citizens of the aggrieved or supposed victims a priority for government action, while minoritizing those that do not fit their criteria for government concern. Most disturbing is the division between the white race and non-white races, along with the divisions between males and females.

Such divisions were foisted upon America by political electioneering and for political power purposes. Thus, while the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 have helped many Americans in battling discrimination against them, they have also brought other divisions in America by discriminating against some Americans in their implementation. They have also done much harm to our First Amendment Rights to the detriment of our Liberties and Freedoms.

Consequently, it is time to rethink how Civil Rights are implemented in America, along the lines that I have written in my article on "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights". Currently, the way that we are doing so is dividing Americans and harming our society. Wiser people than I need to examine this issue and reformulate our approach to Civil Rights. Otherwise, these divisions will tear apart America and result in civil strife or worse.

08/01/25 Racism or Cultural Discrimination

The questions as to the causes of (supposed) racial discrimination in America are whether it is racism or cultural. One of America's foremost scholars, Thomas Sowell, has been addressing this question for many decades. Yet, he is virtually unknown to many Americans who are interested in answering this question. This is because he often is opposed to the narrative of a racist society in America, and responds with facts, intelligence, reasoning, and wisdom that it is primarily a cultural problem.

Recently, Joe Rogan, a leading voice in America, was exposed for the first time to Thomas Sowell’s thoughts, which can be seen in a YouTube video “Joe Rogan Is Shocked To Learn About Thomas Sowell’s Wisdom”. In this video, the guest states the view of Thomas Sowell:

“Were black people robbed of their culture, or did they preserve their authentic African culture? What Sowell is saying is that they were robbed of their culture, and so they picked up the culture of the people around them, and the people around them were rednecks.”

According to Wikipedia, a Redneck is defined as:

“Redneck is a derogatory term mainly applied to white Americans perceived to be crass and unsophisticated, closely associated with rural whites of the southern United States. Its meaning possibly stems from the sunburn found on farmers' necks dating back to the late 19th century.”

What Sowell is saying is that they not only picked up the speech patterns of rednecks (which were originally from the west of England, where much of the southern whites immigrated from), but also an attitude and approach to life. If you look at the white redneck culture and the black redneck culture, they have a lot of the same values. They don't particularly respect education, they love Jesus, they use violence in their conflicts, and there are a lot of the same values and a lot of the same outcomes. And these outcomes were as disadvantageous to white rednecks as they have been to blacks. Their attitudes and values have led to discrimination against blacks, as well as discrimination against rednecks, but these discriminations are based on cultural values and not racism. To pretend otherwise is not to face up to reality, which will doom any attempts to end (supposed) racial discrimination in America.

For more on Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on the topic, I would recommend his book, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”, which is featured in this month’s Book It. This book is his perspective on this topic, using facts, intelligence, reasoning, and wisdom. In my other Book-Its on “05/01/24 Wisdom Par Excellence” and “11/01/21 Contrarian Thought in America”, I have reviewed two other books that are an excellent introduction to Thomas Sowell’s thinking, which are well worth reading:

The Best of Thomas Sowell by Dean Kalahar, “is a detailed compilation of his remarkable career in thought. Inside you will discover Dr. Sowell’s most important writings from his numerous books and widely popular Op-eds.
The Thomas Sowell Reader by Thomas Sowell, “A one-volume introduction to over three decades of the wide-ranging writings of one of America's most respected and cited authors.”

07/31/25 Would it be Acceptable?

There has been a considerable effort by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to downplay the misdoings of the Russiagate hoax, along with the other misdeeds by the Obama and Biden Administrations. Various tactics have been used to excuse and minimize these misdoings and misdeeds, along with the utilization of Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors, all for the purposes of downplaying the malfeasance of Presidents Obama and Biden and their Administration's officials.

In their efforts, I have several questions that I would ask them to address:

Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to manufacture evidence of Democrats' and Progressives' collusion with the Chinese government?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to grant preemptive pardons to Administration officials before he left office?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to use the autopen to sign executive orders, pardons, and reprieves?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to initiate prosecutions of Democrat opponents based on the flimsiest of evidence or convoluted legal reasoning?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to collude with State and Local prosecutors to bring charges against his political opponents?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to not prosecute the criminal activities of his supporters?
Would it be acceptable for President Trump’s administration to cover up any negative health information about President Trump?

If all or some of this is unacceptable for President Trump and his Administration to do, it is equally unacceptable for Presidents Obama and Biden, and their Administrations, to have done. Otherwise, you believe in the aphorism ‘Rules for thee but not for me’.

Consequently, their tactics to conceal this malfeasance are but political theater for cover-up purposes. And in these cover-ups, they have been assisted by the Mainstream media's lack of, or misreporting of, the facts and truths of these malfeasances. But covering up these malfeasances is to allow for unaccountability, which could lead to possible future malfeasances by Presidents and their Administrations. Such malfeasances should never be permissible in American governance, as they are a threat to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

07/30/25 A Special Kind of Stupid

As I have often said, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that, as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. They also have a thirst for power to direct and control Americans and America in their belief that they know what is best for all Americans. In such a belief, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid, but that they are bad or evil persons. They also believe that it is permissible to Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as they are bad or evil persons. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists also believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with, and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints, which should be unacceptable to a people dedicated to the Liberties and Freedoms of all persons. Alas, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for their purposes, rather than consider what is best for America and all Americans. In this, they do not consider an apothegm of wisdom:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

In their attitudes, they have also forgotten to heed the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
- Benjamin Franklin

"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

Alas, anyone who does not heed these words of wisdom is a stupid person. But Democrats and Progressives are not your normal, average, everyday stupid person; they are of a special breed of stupidity. A special breed that arrogantly wallows in their stupidity and that desires to impose their stupidity upon others. And much of their special stupidity is in their not acknowledging the reality of human nature, economics, and science, and in their belief that they can mold human nature, command economics, and twist science for the purposes of the betterment of humankind. Or, as I have said:

Such a special breed of stupid person should never be placed in a position of power, for they will wreak havoc on society in their implementation and administration of their special breed of stupidity.

07/29/25 Reprieves and Pardons

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the authority to:

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

To understand the scope of this power, it is necessary to define some legal terms:

Reprieves - reprieve is generally an act of clemency that is extended to a prisoner in order to give him or her an opportunity to find a means or reason for reducing the sentence imposed. The term reprieve is also used generally in reference to the withdrawal of any sentence for a period of time.

Pardons - The action of an executive official of the government that mitigates or sets aside the punishment for a crime. The granting of a pardon to a person who has committed a crime or who has been convicted of a crime is an act of clemency, which forgives the wrongdoer and restores the person's Civil Rights. At the federal level, the president has the power to grant a pardon, and at the state level the governor or a pardon board made up of high-ranking state officials may grant it.

Clemency -Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. Clemency is considered to be an act of grace. It is based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. It is not a right but rather a privilege, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in Amnesty, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Clemency is similar to pardon inasmuch as it is an act of grace exempting someone from punishment. Commutation of an offender's sentence, however, is the lessening of the punishment based on the offender's own good conduct subsequent to his conviction.

Amnesty - The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense—usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as Sedition or treason)—are granted Immunity from prosecution. Amnesty allows the government of a nation or state to "forget" criminal acts, usually before prosecution has occurred. Amnesty has traditionally been used as a political tool of compromise and reunion following a war. An act of amnesty is generally granted to a group of people who have committed crimes against the state, such as Treason, rebellion, or desertion from the military.

In all these definitions, a person must be convicted of a crime before a pardon or reprieve is granted, and a President can only grant a reprieve or a pardon, but not clemency or amnesty. In America, a clemency or amnesty is granted by an act of Congress, or in an amendment to the Constitution (as the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to the Constitution gave to some of the former Confederate rebels). President Lincoln and Johnson also extended pardons for ex-Confederates, and many Union Generals granted clemency to Confederate rebels as a condition of surrender, often with the approval of President Lincoln.

Hours before the second Inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, President Biden issued preemptive pardons for his family members, as well as a few members of Congress and some people in his administration. Those people were not convicted of any crime, but they were the subject of allegations of possible criminal activities. Thus, they have a get out of jail free card in these preemptive pardons. Some have even suggested that the fact that they have a preemptive pardon means that they cannot be investigated for any potential crimes, as they cannot be prosecuted for any crimes that they may have committed.

The issue of preemptive pardons is whether it is legally possible for a President to issue preemptive pardons, as the definition of a pardon requires that a person be convicted of a crime before the pardon is granted. It also raises the concern that government officials may engage in criminal actions, knowing that they can be granted preemptive pardons before a new administration is inaugurated. If this is true, then lawlessness can occur by government officials if it suits the purposes of the President, knowing full well that they can receive a Presidential preemptive pardon at the end of the President's administration.

Such a situation should never occur in America, as preemptive pardons place a person above the law, as they can never be held accountable for breaking the law. In effect, we would have a two-tiered system of justice, in which one tier is not accountable to the law, as they have a Presidential preemptive pardon, while the other tier faces accountability. This issue of preemptive pardons, along with the Autopen usage to sign pardons, as I have Chirped on "05/28/25 Did He Sign, or Did Others Sign", calls into question the legality of all the pardons President Biden issued at the end of his Administration. We need a lawsuit to challenge the legality of these pardons, and probably a Supreme Court ruling to settle this issue and determine the disposition of those who were granted illegal pardons.

07/28/25 Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity is the concept that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute. However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Trump v. United States (2024) held that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, but there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

The court made this decision after former President Trump claimed absolute immunity from being investigated for any crimes committed while in office.

On 07/23, 2025, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a Strike Force to assess the evidence provided by Director Gabbard on the Russiagate hoax, as I have Chirped on “07/24/25 A Criminal Conspiracy and Injustice”:

“Today, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a Strike Force to assess the evidence publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures. This Department takes alleged weaponization of the intelligence community with the utmost seriousness.”

This evidence included documentation that President Obama was involved in this hoax. If this is true, and criminal actions occurred in this hoax, it raises the question of whether former President Obama could be indicted and prosecuted for alleged criminal actions. The answer is dependent on a decision by Attorney General Pam Bondi on whether his actions were outside of his conclusive or preclusive constitutional authority. If she holds that his actions were outside of his authority, she can indict and prosecute President Obama. During her deliberations, she must give all the benefit of presumptive immunity to President Obama and only conclude otherwise if the evidence argues that he acted outside of his Presidential authorities. Of course, if she should indict and prosecute President Obama, his first line of defense would be that he acted within his authorities and is not subject to prosecution, in which case there would be judicial proceedings to determine if he acted within or outside of his Presidential authorities.

There is also another course that Attorney General Bondi could take: she could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator and not prosecute him. An unindicted co-conspirator is a person who is identified by a law enforcement officer to have engaged in a conspiracy, but who is not charged in the indictment charging that person’s fellow conspirators. Prosecutors may name persons as unindicted co-conspirators for: grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns. The term unindicted co-conspirator was familiarized in 1974 when then-President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in indictments stemming from the Watergate Investigation. Nixon was not indicted because of concerns about whether the U.S. Constitution allowed the indictment of a sitting President.

Consequently, President Obama may be indicted and prosecuted for alleged criminal actions if it is found that he acted outside of his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. To which I say, follow the evidence, and only the evidence, in determining if President Obama committed criminal actions in the Russiagate hoax.

07/27/25 Seditious Conspiracy

Seditious conspiracy is a crime in various jurisdictions for conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. As a form of sedition, it has been described as a serious but lesser counterpart to treason, targeting activities that undermine the state without directly attacking it. Seditious - In opposition to a civil authority or government, and Sedition - Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state, appears to have taken hold of many people in America in their defiance of President Trump and his Administration.

In the United States, seditious conspiracy is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384:

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Consequently, in America, the Progressives/Leftists protestors' physical and verbal attacks against ICE and CBP officers, and their other physical acts in defiance of immigration laws, are engaged in seditious acts, and those condoning these actions are inciting sedition. They have no right to engage in these actions, as the First Amendment only guarantees peaceable assembly, and their actions are not peaceable. Also, the First Amendment free speech right has some constrictions, and one of these constrictions is incitement to violence, and many of these protestors are engaged in inciting violence.

In the case of the encroachment on Federal authority in the creation of Sanctuary Cities and States, the non-enforcement of criminal actions of select groups, and those involved in the Trump Russia Collusion, Clinton E-mail Server Coverup, Biden Health Coverup, Biden Autopen Usage, as well as rulings by rogue Judges and Prosecutors (as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint") are engaging in sedition, as their deeds are an assault on our Democratic republic Constitutional system of governance. Alas, it is the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists judges who are uniformly engaged in sedition by their words and deeds in their opposition to President Trump.

Such words and deeds are anathema to their Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). states that:

"The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Consequently, unless their words and deeds fall into this clause, they should be prosecuted for Seditious conspiracy, and if found guilty, be imprisoned and removed from office. After all, no one is above the law, most especially those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law.

07/26/25 Can Justice be Served?

We have a problem of justice in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and somewhat in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. These courts are centered around Washington, D.C., and are often utilized for Federal prosecutions regarding criminal actions involving federal officials, federal actions, and political activities that occurred in their jurisdiction.

The people residing in these jurisdictions are heavily involved in the federal government, either directly or indirectly, and overwhelmingly support Democrat Party candidates and Progressive polices in government. As such, any jury pool selected from these jurisdictions is consciously or unconsciously biased in favor of or against a defendant that fits their biases or predilections. This can be inferred when the Justice Department under a Democrat Administration files many of its actions involving federal officials, federal actions, and political activities within these jurisdictions, and a Justice Department under a Republican Administration tries to file these actions outside of these jurisdictions.

Many will claim that it is possible to find jurors in these jurisdictions who can set aside their biases or predilections, but in practice, it is very difficult to do so, as the jury pool is overwhelmingly in one direction or another about a defendant. And if only one juror does not set aside their biases or predilections, then justice will not be served.

We have also seen many of the judges in these jurisdictions issue rulings that demonstrate a bias for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and against Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. In the Obama and Biden Administration, there was a concerted effort to appoint judges in these (and other) jurisdictions who would apply a decidedly leftward interpretation of the Constitution and laws, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". Much of this interpretation is based on a democratic viewpoint of the Constitution, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

Alas, the question of “Can Justice be Served?” in these jurisdictions is answered in the negative. The next question to be asked is “Can this situation be corrected?” Unfortunately, I have no answer to this question, but I do know that this question needs to be answered for justice to reign supreme in these jurisdictions.

07/25/25 Lock Her Up

"Lock her up" is a political chant that originated during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, directed at Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. After he was elected, President Trump decided to take no action against Hillary Clinton for the good of the nation for various reasons. Her response to his kindness was to continue her diatribes and harangues against Donald Trump and her involvement in the Russiagate criminal conspiracy.

Much of her defense about her private email server was that it had been investigated by the FBI, and they absolved her of criminal actions, but then FBI Director James Comey publicly chastised her for poor judgment in using a private email server. However, new declassified documents revealed that the FBI investigations were a sham. As Matt Taibbi, a former contributing editor to Rolling Stone, noted, the 35-page annex to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's 2018 report on the DOJ’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server and the 2016 election was a Keystone Cops operation.

As a result of these newly declassified documents, the Senate Republicans are reopening the Clinton email probe. I would also suggest that the Justice Department and the FBI reexamine Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to determine if she broke any laws, and if she can be prosecuted for these broken laws. The statute of limitations may preclude the Justice Department from any prosecutions, but if it can be shown that the then-FBI Director James Comey and Hillary Clinton engaged in a conspiracy to cover up her illegal activities, the statute of limitations may not apply.

This is but another example of a two-tiered justice system in America, where the rich and powerful get preferential treatment. It can also now be said that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists get preferential treatment, while the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are subject to Lawfare and to the weaponization of government, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on The Weaponization of Government.

07/24/25 A Criminal Conspiracy and Injustice

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday, July 18, 2025, released a report detailing how federal agencies under the Obama administration manipulated intelligence findings to concoct and promote the Russiagate hoax. On her X account, DNI Tulsi Gabbard @DNIGabbard, she posted:

“Americans will finally learn the truth about how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful people in the Obama Administration to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President @realDonaldTrump, subverting the will of the American people and undermining our democratic republic. Here’s how:”

(updated 07/23)

And:

“These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.”

Since then, there have been reports of whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community coming forth to provide additional evidence of abuses. And yesterday morning, Director Gabbard released additional documents that further buttressed the case of a criminal conspiracy in their actions. She also stated that:

“We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI. The evidence that we have found, and that we have released, directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.”

Much of the new fake intelligence assessment that claimed Russian interference in the 2016 election was based on the discredited Steele dossier, which was outsourced, bought, and paid for by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign as opposition research. Initially discredited by the intelligence community, the Steele dossier was reincorporated into the new fake intelligence assessment and then utilized in subsequent Federal investigations and even as supporting material for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants. This new fake intelligence assessment was then leaked to the news media to discredit and hobble the first Trump Administration.

Such actions, initiated and supported by the highest levels of the Obama Administration (including President Obama), were an assault on our democratic process, and they perpetrated an injustice against the Trump administration and several of his associates. As such, those involved in the initiation and furtherance of this new fake intelligence assessment need to be brought to justice for criminal conspiracy and other criminal actions that they undertook. And yesterday afternoon, the Department of Justice announced the formation of a Strike Force to assess the evidence provided by Director Gabbard:

Attorney General Pam Bondi also added:

“The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people. We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice.”

This justice should only be prosecuted against the higher levels of the Obama Administration officials, and not the lower-level intelligence personnel who were directed to incorporate the Steele dossier and produce the new fake intelligence assessment.

If such prosecutions are not undertaken, and the guilty parties not brought to justice, then we can expect other abuses of the intelligence community will occur in the future. And such abuses are an assault on our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

07/23/25 Armchair Revolutionaries

Jonathan Turley, in his new column, “America’s Armchair Revolutionaries: How the Left is Rediscovering Marxism as the Ultimate Virtue Signal”, stated that:

“During the Cold War, Soviet communists reportedly referred to American liberals as “useful idiots.” Although the origin of the quote has been challenged (and attributed to both Lenin and Stalin), it captured many of the adherents of communism after World War II. From higher education to Hollywood, dilettantes on the left embraced Marxism with little real understanding of the philosophy or its implications.”

He also stated that:

“Lenin once mocked many in the West as idiots who would “transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind [and] toil to prepare their own suicide.” What he never imagined was how some would still be transforming themselves decades after the revolution failed.”

In my Chirps on “07/21/25 Mobocracy” and “07/22/25 Over the Bounds,” I examined how the modern Democrat Party has transformed itself into a party of failure by espousing Socialistic, and now Marxist principles of anti-Capitalism, despite their claims to the contrary.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others, I would say that Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and totalitarianism, along with other command economic systems, are responsible for the wretchedness and shortages of the basic necessities of life, which often leads to misery, chronic illness, starvation, and even deaths of their populace. And they economically collapse as often as they are tried. They always lead to despotism and authoritarianism, and the suppression of the Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of the people within them.

Most of these American Socialistic anti-Capitalists have no experience functioning in the economy, except as consumers of the goods and services that capitalism provides at an affordable cost, supply, and on-time delivery. Their knowledge of the economy and capitalism is from their (distorted) education by professors who themselves have no experience functioning in the economy. They, the professors and the students, have never had to operate a business that provides goods and services that the consumer wants and needs, they have never had to balance the needs of the workers against the needs of their customers, they have never had to deal with government bureaucracy to conduct their business, along with many other problems that business owners face.

Thus, they are America’s Armchair Revolutionaries with no capabilities to lead an economy. All they have is rabble-rousing and scaremongering against Capitalism. And all they will accomplish, if they succeed, is the collapse of our economy leading to wretchedness, shortages, and oppressions on the American public.

07/22/25 Over the Bounds

“They are lying about everything. They are lying about climate change. They are lying about the Epstein files. They are lying about Trump, transgenderism, racism, babies, the economy—what are they not lying about? And lying is evil.”

So begins a column by Mark Lewis, “Evil, Thy Name is Democratic Party”, in which he lays out the ways in which the modern Democrat Party has become evil. While I do not like to use the word “evil”, except in cases in which there is no ambiguity, the modern Democrat Party has become wicked and immoral. In their wickedness and immorality, they have sunk to almost rock bottom, as I have illustrated by my Chirp on “07/21/25 Mobocracy”.

In his article, Mr. Lewis examines why the Democrat Party has become evil, and it is not a pretty picture. His article makes a persuasive argument that the Democrat Party has stepped over the bounds of wickedness and immorality into becoming evil. And he may have a point! His point is that in their lust for power and control, they have become evil in their methods of obtaining this power and control. He ends his article by stating:

“And that is the modern Democratic Party. And too much of the Republican. Call it what it is—pure evil with fewer and fewer to stand in the gap against it.”

Standing in the gap against it is what all good and moral people must do against all evil. And if the Democrat Party is either wicked and immoral, or evil, all good and moral Americans must stand against them.

07/21/25 Mobocracy

With the Democrats having lost both houses of Congress and the Presidency, along with their other Institutional powers, and with most American people becoming inured to their falsifications and fearmongering, they have become increasingly desperate to hang onto whatever power they have and to increase their power by whatever means necessary. Their latest attempts at manipulating the public by:

Bloviating - To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner, usually without much basis.
Equivocations - A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth.
Evasiveness - Intentionally vague or ambiguous.
Fabrications - A deliberately false or improbable account.
Fallaciousness - Containing or based on a fallacy, often involving deceptiveness. Based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.
Falsehoods - A false statement.
Fearmongering, scaremongering - the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger to purposely arouse fear in order to manipulate the public.
Grandstanding - Dramatic or showy behavior intended to impress an audience or observers.
Prevarications - A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
Shenanigans - The use of tricks to deceive someone.
Untruths - A false statement.

These deceptions have not worked, and they are now resorting to mobocracy - a political system in which a mob is the source of control.

Their heated rhetoric, pejoratives, and rage aimed at their opponents is for the stirring up of the passions of their supporters, in which such passions will ensue in mob actions, often leading to individual or mob violence. Their utter lack of condemning this individual or mob violence demonstrates that they want this violence. Their excuses for this individual or mob violence show that this violence is their intended purpose. Thus, the Democrats are trying to invoke violence to interfere with the lawful execution of the law by individual or mob actions. This, by any other name, is an insurrection, and the modern Democrat Party is a party of insurrection.

This insurrection is much more serious than the January 6, 2021, so-called ‘Insurrection’, of which the Democrats claimed was an attempt to overthrow the government, but was in reality a very unruly mob venting their frustrations, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection". This current Democrat insurrection is much more serious, as Victor Davis Hanson explains in his YouTube video "Something SERIOUS Is About To Hit America... | Victor Davis Hanson".

This is not only an insurrection by the Democrat supporters, but an insurrection by the Democrat Party Leaders. These Democrat Party Leaders swore an oath of office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and they are now effectively trying to thwart the lawful execution of the laws, lawfully passed under the Constitution. If the Democrat Party Leaders do not like the law, they should lawfully change or eliminate the law, or institute lawsuits (but not Lawfare) if they believe that the law is being applied inappropriately. They should not try to instigate mobs and mob violence to stop the enforcement of the law. In doing so, the Democrat Party Leaders have become insurrectionists, and they should be removed from office and prosecuted for their insurrectionist words and deeds. Being elected does not mean they can instigate or violate the law for whatever reason you believe is proper, as no one is above the law.

07/20/25 An Extraordinary Achievement

Six months into the second administration of President Trump, the world is a different place. As Victor Davis Hanson has observed in his article, “The World Woke Up”:

“In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo.

The unthinkable has become the banal.”

America is once again a world leader, and America is becoming great again. The list of President Trump’s accomplishments is extraordinary for a full term of a President, as Professor Hanson has outlined in his article, and we have another forty-two months left in the administration of President Trump. The cloud of corruption, malfeasance, and cover-ups of the Biden and Obama administrations is being lifted, and Americans are regaining faith in their country and government.

This is an extraordinary achievement by President Trump and his Administration, and most Americans hope and pray that he can continue in his extraordinary achievements. Do not bet against this, as President Trump has demonstrated that he knows what he is doing, and he is a winner, and that he has a clear vision on how to Make America Great Again.

07/19/25 Independent Federal Agencies

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, commonly known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the main governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is charged with overseeing the Federal Reserve Banks and with helping implement the monetary policy of the United States. Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms. All seven board members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and five Federal Reserve Bank presidents direct the open market operations that set U.S. monetary policy through their membership in the Federal Open Market Committee. The U.S. Congress has established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.

They are an independent federal agency that is not accountable to the Legislative or Executive branches of the federal government. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is there any allowance for independent federal agencies. The Constitution is quite explicit that there are only three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, and that all federal powers are allocated to each branch of government. The Supreme Court on May 22, 2025, decided that President Trump’s firings of independent government agency members will stand as the cases work their way through the lower courts, giving the President unfettered power to oust regulators. However, the court spared the Federal Reserve in the ruling, writing that the Fed is uniquely situated and unlike other government agencies.

However, uniquely situated is a concept not incorporated into the Constitution, and one wonders about how a Supreme Court responsible for interpreting and upholding the Constitution can allow something that is not in the Constitution. Only an Imperial Judiciary would allow Unconstitutional federal actions to exist and continue, not to mention that independent federal agencies are an encroachment on Legislative and Executive powers, and they operate uninhibited by the Balance of Powers in the Constitution. Such uninhibited powers make them unresponsive to the will of the people through elections, which makes them an Imperial Agency.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has immense power to shape the finances and the economy of America. All interest rates for loans (mortgage, automobile, credit card, business, government debt payments, among others) and their other policy tools are impacted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors' decisions. Cries that this independence is needed to avert partisanship in their decisions fall hollow in their recent history. The current President Trump and Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell's conflicts about interest rates are a prime example. The current higher interest rates and the refusal of the Federal Reserve Board to lower them are inhibiting the growth of the economy and impairing President Trump’s economic policies. These higher rates have a deleterious effect on all Americans and all of America.

Thus, it is past time for the Federal Reserve Board to be placed under the Secretary of the Treasury's authority, and it would make them accountable to the President with Congressional oversight. This is how the Constitution was intended for the Federal government to operate, and this is how the Supreme Court should rule it to be.

07/19/25 Someone Who Should Not Be On Top

As I have Chirped on, "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top", in 1910, the Irish periodical “The Irish Homestead”, the editor, George William Russell, wrote a piece about legislation that included the following:

“Our theory, which we have often put forward, is that experts ought to be on tap and not on top. We have had during our career a long and intimate knowledge of experts, most interesting men in their own speciality to which they have devoted themselves with great industry and zeal. But outside this special knowledge they are generally as foolish and ignorant as any person one could pick up in the street, with no broad knowledge of society or the general principles of legislation.”

Today, we have seen this egregiously happening with the Parliamentarian of the Senate. The Parliamentarian of the United States Senate is the official advisor to the United States Senate on the interpretation of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate and parliamentary procedure. Incumbent parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has held the office since 2012, appointed by then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Her rulings have been taken as gospel rather than advisory, and they are stymying President Trump’s legislative agenda in the Senate. This is not surprising, as she has the support of the Democrat Party Leaders throughout her tenure.

The interpretation of Standing Rules is not as dispassionate as some would think, as any interpretation is subject to the Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases of the interpreter. It is also difficult to understand why she has remained in office for so long, given the massive changes in the Senate in the last dozen years. In my opinion, the Parliamentarian Of The Senate should be reconfirmed or replaced every two years to reflect the new makeup of the Senate membership. At the very least, the Standing Rules of the United States Senate should be reviewed and amended on a regular basis to ensure their correctitude for their purpose, and not as a means of obstructionism.

The Parliamentarian of the Senate has an important role, but a role that should not be superior to the will of the Senate. In its current role, the Parliamentarian can act as an Imperial Parliamentarian of the Senate, which is antithetical to the purpose of the Senate.

07/18/25 Paying the Piper

A sense of victimhood pervades America, along with a sense of Entitlement. Therefore, every person who believes that they are a victim believes that they are entitled to be compensated for the perceived injustice that has beset them. Consequently, America has set a course of social welfare based upon victimhood and entitlement, expending vast sums of money on those who believe they are victims. This gives many Americans a feeling that they are doing good, but leaves open the question of ‘Are they achieving good?’, and at what cost is there for this goodwill?

As it has been said, there is “No such thing as a free lunch” and somebody has to “Pay the Piper”, and there is no running away from this free lunch and its payment. When a person receives something for free, they often demand that it continue to be free. And much of this free goodwill is counterproductive to achieving good, as people become dependent on government and lose their self-reliance (and perhaps their self-esteem). And it should also be remembered that this free something must be paid for by someone. As Oscar Wilde once said, “A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing” it can be said that Baby Boomers and Generation X are the opposite. Baby Boomers “Know the value of everything and the price of nothing” and Gen Xers “Know the value of nothing and the price of nothing”. It is those Baby Boomers and Generation Xers who want to feel good about themselves by advocating for government social welfare, but they are accelerating the rise of this victimhood and entitlement without consideration of the price.

These Baby Boomers and Generation Xers are also not thinking about the other government deficit spending that drives up the National Debt that will eventually have to be paid. As a result, our National Debt currently stands at 37 trillion dollars. This National Debt is not only incurred by entitlements, but by much other government spending. And it will all have to be paid for somehow. In the past, we thought we could outgrow this debt, but that appears to be a far less likely scenario given the current size of the debt. The more likely scenario is that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with paying off this debt, or we will face an economic crisis that wipes out the debt through depression and inflation. But such a price is too high, not only in dollars, but in the sapping of the human spirit that will accompany such a burden in paying this debt.

Consequently, it is well past time that we pay the piper by significantly downsizing government and eliminating non-essential government spending to pay off the National Debt. Money saved by reducing spending must be allocated to paying off the debt. Otherwise, we will see an economic calamity greater than anything America has experienced in its history. And goodwill must not play any part in this decision-making, for government goodwill often comes at too great a cost in money and spirit.

07/18/25 The CBO Has Gotta Go

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides budget and economic information to Congress. The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. However, its nonpartisanship is open to debate.

The CBO has always had a pro-Democrat (Progressive) orientation in its projections, while discounting the pro-Republican (Conservative) objections. This is because the CBO is given economic assumptions and financial baselines by Congress for its projections, which have been widely criticized as unrealistic and of a dubious economic nature, as I have Chirped on "03/19/25 Congressional Budget Office Projections". The Foundation for Government Accountability website has an article, “Scoring CBO’s Scores: Ten of the Worst CBO Blunders of the 21st Century So Far” by Hayden Dublois and Trevor Carlsen, that examines the inaccuracies of CBO Projections, in which their findings are:

“Key Findings:

Congress has relied on CBO estimates when making crucial policy decisions.
CBO predictions across a wide range of policy areas have proven to be incorrect.
CBO estimates of underlying economic and budgetary trends are routinely inaccurate.

The Bottom Line of this report is: CBO’s fiscal errors are highly concerning and should be viewed cautiously and critically by lawmakers, and as we approach the 50-year anniversary of the CBO, it is clear that its track record is not only far from perfect, but also highly concerning. The office’s failure to accurately predict the cost of major pieces of federal legislation, changes in macroeconomic variables, and overall trends in revenues and outlays has wreaked havoc on policymakers’ ability to make informed decisions. However, the CBO is still heavily relied upon despite these blunders.”

But it is past time to end these blunders. Not only are they blunders, but the blunders have been used for pro-Democrat political posturing to shape Federal spending and taxes that are unrealistic and often counterproductive to America’s economy. And these blunders cannot be corrected, as nobody or organization can project with any accuracy the future economic state of affairs due to the complex interrelationships and multifaceted nature of an economy, as well as the impacts of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

There are many Non-Governmental Organizations that provide economic projections of proposed legislative actions, almost all of them as inaccurate as the CBO, that Congress can utilize to make its decisions. Let each Congressperson, as they see fit, make their own decision on what they believe will be the economic impacts of legislative actions, and not let them defer to or hide behind the façade of inaccurate CBO projections.

Consequently, the CBO has gotta go, as it will never be able to accurately accomplish its objectives, and there are other means to adjudge economic impacts of legislative actions.

07/17/25 To Be A Leftist

Columnist Mark Lewis has written an interesting article, “So, You Want to Be a Leftist, Huh”, in which he examines the behavior of Leftists. He has five observations about how Leftists behave:

The first thing you have to do to be a Leftist is to be full of hate.
If you want to be a Leftist, you also have to be a liar.
If you want to be a Leftist, you have to be an atheist.
If you want to be a Lefty, you have to be violent.
If you want to be a Leftist, you have to be willing to destroy the middle class.

In all of these observations, he is spot on about American Leftists' behavior. In his sixth observation, he looks at some of the history of Leftist philosophy as it was played out by Vladimir Lenin in his revolution. In this history, he states, “Folks, there are literally thousands—thousands—of such stories in history books about what atheistic, communist Leftists did in the 20th century, and on into our own.”

We are seeing this story played out again in modern America by Leftists. In this, we Americans are forgetting the wisdom of a great Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana:

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

Alas, the Leftists seem to have the tacit support of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", as well as the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives. These Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives may believe they can harness the activism of the Leftists to obtain political power, then subdue their passions after they are in power. But such passions cannot be subdued nor harnessed, as 20th-century history has demonstrated. If the Leftists gain power in America, they will wreak havoc on American society and destroy our Liberties and Freedoms. Thus, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are playing a dangerous game that bodes ill for America.

07/17/25 The Losing Side

In politics, it has been said that if you are on the defense, then you are on the losing side. The modern Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem intent on proving that if you are on the wrong side of the issues with your offense, then you are on the losing side. The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem intent on being in the 30% of the 70%-30% side of issues that the American public holds. In all the issues in which they have taken a stance, they have been advocating for the 30% side of the issue. Given all the damage that they have wrought upon America in the last several decades, one can only hope that they continue to lose, for America will be a far better place if they continue to lose and be a minority. So, I would say to the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, continue your wrong side offense so that you continue to lose, and America can recover from the damage you have wrought upon America.

07/16/25 Election Reform

In my Chirps on "05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery", "05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference", and "07/15/25 Justice, Not Retaliation", I have pointed out that the Democrats engage in nefarious deeds to impact elections. In this, it appears that the Democrat Party does not believe that they can win an election without interfering with the normal election process, and this belief may be true.

A newly declassified intelligence report has reignited scrutiny over a China fake driver’s license election plot allegedly aimed at influencing the 2020 U.S. presidential election. At the time, the FBI, under Director Chris Wray, publicly stated that there was no evidence of foreign interference in the election. On Monday evening, June 16, 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel submitted a report to Congress, detailing alarming allegations that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mass-produced counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses to enable fraudulent mail-in voting in support of then-candidate Joe Biden. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection report stated that nearly 20,000 fake IDs had been intercepted at U.S. ports of entry. The unanswerable question is how many fake IDs had not been intercepted, and how many fake IDs were used to cast fraudulent ballots. It should also be remembered that in several key battleground states, Biden won by less than 20,000 votes. Thus, the question remains of what impact did the unknown fake IDs had on the election.

There are also outstanding questions as to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that have never been fully investigated. Many cries that these election irregularities were not a significant problem, or there is no “proof” of irregularities or illegalities, ring hollow. Without knowing the extent of the problem, it is not possible to determine its significance. As to “proof”, if you do not investigate the allegations that have veracity, you can never find proof of irregularities or illegalities.

As I Chirped on the prosecutions of former President Trump and his associates and supporters in the 2024 election year, it was for the purpose of keeping them in court proceedings and off the election trail. It was also for the purpose of delegitimizing President Trump in the eyes of the voters in the hopes that they would not vote for President Trump. It also had the repercussions of depriving President Trump of some of his most able and effective campaign aides and possibly diminishing campaign donations from wary supporters.

Consequently, we have seen the necessity of election reform to ensure free and fair elections in the future. There will be many cries by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that such reforms are for the purpose of voter suppression, voter intimidation, decreased voter participation, and making it difficult to vote. However, such cries are more about fearmongering driven by worries of making it more difficult for the Democrat Party and Progressives to commit voter fraud.

President Trump has mentioned several times in the last few weeks his desire to enact Voter Reform in the current Congressional session. In this election reform, we should be supportive of free and fair elections that do not infringe on legal voters casting legal ballots. Such election reform should be done under the auspices of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”. Without a free and fair election, it is not possible to have a “Republican Form of Government”, as corrupt elections produce an undemocratic government. We should, therefore, ignore the hue and cries of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists about this reform, and only concern ourselves with taking the proper actions to ensure that future elections are as free as possible from voter fraud and do not impinge upon Americans casting legal ballots.

07/15/25 Justice, Not Retaliation

In my Chirp on, "05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery", I wrote that in the Presidential election of 2016, we had the issue of Russian collusion allegations interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2020, we had the issue of the COVID pandemic interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2024, we have the issue of President Trump’s indictments and trials interfering with the normal election process. In all three of these elections, it was the Democrat Party that was intervening in the normal election process. In this, it appears that the Democrat Party does not believe that they can win an election without intervening in the normal election process, and this belief may be true.

Since the current inauguration of President Trump, additional information has been disclosed about the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections that is quite disquieting. In the 2016 Presidential campaign, there were allegations of collusion between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign, and other collusions after he won the election. Such allegations were utilized to hamper the first Trump Administration for over two years until they were proven false by an independent prosecutor. In the 2020 Presidential campaign, there were allegations of Democrat voter fraud and improprieties made by the Trump campaign, which were dismissed as unsustainable or insignificant. In the 2024 presidential elections, there is evidence that local prosecutors and federal officials coordinated their legal actions against Donald Trump in an effort to hamper or disqualify him from running for president.

Recently, former CIA operations officer Bryan Dean Wright penned an op-ed for Fox News in which he argued that former CIA Director John Brennan “belongs in prison.” Mr. Wright lists five reasons why his former boss should be behind bars:

Brennan lied about his use of the discredited Steele dossier
Brennan manipulated who would write the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)
Brennan interfered in the ICA’s drafting
Brennan rushed the completion of the ICA
Brennan (and Comey) spread the ICA far and wide to leak it

He also revealed that former FBI Director James Comey was involved in these machinations. It should also be noted that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also had said that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, although he later claimed that he never saw any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

It has now been revealed that the Justice Department and FBI, under Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, have been investigating these events under conspiracy laws. This investigation, and possible indictments of many other high-ranking officials under the Obama and Biden Administrations, is about justice, not retaliation. If there was a coordinated effort to defame and taint Donald Trump for the purpose of affecting his election and administration, then this was an assault on the electoral process and presidential administration, and indeed, our democracy, which needs to be rectified by justice for their actions.

The wails and cries that can be expected, if there are indictments, that this is retaliation, are but an attempt to cover up the Democrats' mischief and maleficence. A cover-up that is just as dastardly and harmful as the cover-up of Joe Biden’s physical and mental health. There are also the questions of the cover-ups of the autopen usage for pardons in the Biden Administration, as I Chirp on "05/28/25 Did He Sign, or Did Others Sign", which will make the conspiracy investigations and indictments more difficult.

Thus, as I have previously said, in these cover-ups, it appears that the Democrat Party does not believe that they can win an election without interfering with the normal election process, and this belief may be true.

07/14/25 Baked Into the Cake

In my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", I have written about how America was transformed into an administrative state in the 20th century. An administrative state that was based on Progressives/Leftists ideology and ideas. This administrative state has turned into the Deep State, where appointed officials and bureaucrats base their actions on Progressive principles and actively attempt to expunge Constitutional Conservatives ideology and ideas from the government. They have also been intentionally undermining Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives while supporting Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

Much of this has been done by their formulation of government regulations that institute a progressive agenda upon those that they regulate. They have also deliberately funded Progressive causes through hidden grants and government funding awards. There have also been reports of resistance within the bureaucracy by Work-to-rule slowdowns in implementing President Trump’s policies. Leaks of damaging information about Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are abundant, while cover-ups of damaging information about Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists abound. Negative governmental analysis of conservative policies is plenteous, while positive governmental analysis of progressive policies is plentiful.

Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations have been formulated to protect their employment, no matter what actions they undertake, and, thus, they cannot be fired for their actions. Hence, they have become an entrenched Deep State, and a Deep State that believes that they can thwart and outlast any Republican or Conservative leadership on government policies or agendas. Alas, progressivism has become baked into the cake of government.

Accordingly, the Deep State has become the anti-democratic state, as if they are allowed to operate based on their own predilections, then they are unresponsive to the will of the people as expressed through elections. A Deep State that needs to be dismantled, as they have shown that they cannot be reformed, in order to preserve our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/13/25 Nincompoops

There are a lot of words that can be utilized to describe the modern Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists words and deeds. So many words that I have compiled a list of them for utilization in my Chirps and Articles:

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

JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon is none of these things, and he recently said of the Democrats:

“I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they are idiots. I always say they have big hearts and little brains. They do not understand how the real-world works.”
- JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon

However, the best word that encompasses all their rhetoric and actions is nincompoop - A stupid foolish person. In the past ten years they have they have been demonstrating their nincompoopism in their words and deeds regarding Donald J. Trump. From the time he came down the escalator to announce his candidacy for President, to the present day, they have exhibited, to varying degrees, attributes of all the words in the above list. Much of this is because they have developed a mental attitude of Trump Derangement Syndrome, as I have Chirped on "06/27/25 What is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)?".

This TDS is gripping them and fracturing the Democrat Party, which has accelerated their being nincompoops. And in their nincompoopism and TDS, they have alienated much of the American public. So much so that they are positioning themselves for electoral defeat for many years to come. This is not a good position for a political party to be in, but it is a proper position for a party of nincompoops.

07/13/25 The Masking

In the 1946 movie, “The Stranger”, an investigator from the World War II War Crimes Commission travels to Connecticut to find an infamous Nazi. Mr. Wilson of the War Crimes Commission is seeking Franz Kindler, mastermind of the Holocaust, who has effectively erased his identity. Wilson releases Kindler's former comrade Konrad Meinike and follows him to Harper, Connecticut, where he is killed before he can identify the Nazi mastermind. Mr. Wilson’s only clue leads him to Charles Rankin, who is a professor in a respectable Connecticut town about to marry the daughter of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. A cat and mouse game ensues, in which Mr. Wilson must get Mr. Rankin’s fiancée to slowly realize that the person she is engaged to is, in fact, a Nazi monster. In the end, this realization almost cost the life of his now wife until Mr. Rankin is exposed and ends up dead himself.

This movie is a warning about how easy it is in America to hide one’s true identity, and how difficult it is, and possibly painful, to unmask someone’s true identity. But no matter how difficult and painful it is to unmask someone, it is important that we do so, especially if the someone is a leader in society, as I have Chirped on “07/10/25 Facts and Truths when Evaluating Someone”.

Alas, in modern America, we have seen this masking of politicians, community leaders, and other public figures in their half-truths, misdirections, subterfuges, and sometimes falsification of their past history and political positions. Most often, politicians do this for electioneering purposes, but we have also seen a sharp rise in doing so for the purpose of passing or stopping legislation for which they agree or disagree. And sometimes, it is for the purpose of passing legislation that if the American people were fully cognizant, they would not support. In either case of electioneering or legislation, they are masking the truth of themselves and their opinions, and often they are being hypocritical, as they have in the past been supportive or opposed to legislation for which in the present they now oppose or support.

This has been most especially true for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists as they oppose President Trump’s policies and agenda, exacerbated by their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), as I have Chirped on "06/27/25 What is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)?". In their efforts to oppose President Trump, they have had the support of the Mainstream Media and their predilections, rather than the Mainstream Media uncovering and reporting on the facts and truths of the masking, as I have written in my article on Modern Journalism. Thus, the masking continues with the assistance of the Mainstream Media.

As I have also written in my article on “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, those that mask themselves, and those that support the masking, have none of these attributes. No matter how difficult or painful it may be to unmask someone, it is necessary that we do so, as if this masking continues, then we will continue to slide into more societal disruptions and eventually chaos.

07/12/25 The 2025 Revolution

In 1775, the American Colonists had had enough of English Imperialism in America and started a revolution which brought forth the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which secured American independence. In 2025, we are involved in another (peaceful) revolution to free us from the Administrative State that Progressivism has imposed upon America, as I have Chirped on “07/nn/25 Baked Into the Cake”.

This time, we are in a revolt against the Imperial Progressives, Imperial Bureaucracy, and Imperial Judges. This revolt, led by President Trump and his cadre of Cabinet Secretaries and their Assistant Secretaries, his Advisors and Aids, and his Special Envoys, is for reestablishing that the American people are the leaders of our government, and elected and appointed officials are the servants to the people, while bureaucrats are only to implement the policies and agendas of the elected leaders. Who would have thought that government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be the standard for American government? Alas, this peaceful revolution is being actively opposed by the Imperial Progressives, Imperial Bureaucracy, and Imperial Judges.

Imperial Progressives are insisting that they know what is best for America and Americans, and that their policies and agendas are the only acceptable outcomes for America and Americans, despite elections in which they were turned out of power. These Imperial Progressives are inflaming the passions of their supporters in hopes of ending the 2025 revolution. They are doing this through their derogatory and disparaging characterizations of President Trump and his cadre, not to mention such characterizations of President Trump’s MAGA supporters. Most despicable, and inaccurate, is their portrayal of President Trump, his cadre, and his supporters as Nazis, Fascists, and Hitler like. This gives the Progressives a moral superiority attitude that they are righteously fighting evil, which allows the Progressive mobs to act in a non-peaceful manner. Many Progressives are engaged in Lawfare, physical assaults, property damages and destruction, and now shootings, which they are waging against this 2025 Revolution, often with the encouragement of Democrat Party Leaders.

Such conduct is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and destructive to A Civil Society. It is also a borderline insurrection. If President Trump and his cadre are acting constitutionally and within the law, they are permitted to dismantle the Administrative State. Any action in opposition to the 2025 Revolution needs to be a result of free and fair elections and not civil unrest, or upon lawsuits based on Constitutional or legitimate legal grounds. And such lawsuits should only be adjudicated by dispassionate judges and not Imperial Judges.

Alas, Progressives know that they are in disfavor with the American electorate, and they have been ultimately losing their lawsuits when Imperial Judges are overruled by the Appellate Courts or the Supreme Court, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". Thus, they have begun to urge for more violence to obtain their goals. This violence, therefore, is an insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States, and it should be dealt with as such.

07/12/25 A Time Of

It was a time of trouble and a time of dissensions. A time when many believed that human nature could be molded into a better, more altruistic nature. A time when many believed that the government could provide for all the basic needs of life. A time when it was thought that safety, health, and happiness would be obtainable for all, and all would live in peace and goodwill. A time when humans and Mother Nature would exist in harmony. It was a time of foolishness. And some of the many names for such foolishness were Marxism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, and Progressivism.

In Progressivism, Liberties and Freedom, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and individualism were suppressed. In Progressivism, it is thought that government experts could properly direct society and control the economy. In Progressivism, licentiousness and profligacy were encouraged, while Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society were belittled. And in Progressivism, all of those who disagreed were subject to demonization, denigration, and disparagement, while Progressives utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their actions as for the greater good of all. But to paraphrase the great economist and political commentator Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is the good, but who shall decide what is good?". And the Progressives have decided that they are the only ones who can decide what is good, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct.

But as the great poet Dylan Thomas has written, “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night” and “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” In this case, the light is the enlightenment of the human spirit and the advancement of humankind’s liberties and freedoms. For without that rage, humankind will descend into the darkness of despotism and then into tyranny.

07/11/25 Well, That Didn’t Take Too Long

In my Chirp on “06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I”, I wrote that in regard to the Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision about judges issuing nationwide injunctions or Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO):

“A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. Class action lawsuits are subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are more restrictive and difficult to file than an ordinary lawsuit. Consequently, a nationwide injunctive relief must be the result of a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it may be possible for the opponents of President Trump to try to institute a class action to obtain nationwide injunctive relief, but it is less likely that they will be able to do so.”
- Mark Dawson

Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a "potentially significant loophole" in the Supreme Court's decision to curb universal injunctions, and now his warning is hanging over current lawsuits involving President Donald Trump. Alito said in his concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA that:

“Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements. Of course, Rule 23 may permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of “nationwide class relief,” and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.

Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party standing and class certification would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision. Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools. I do not understand the Court’s decision to reflect any disagreement with these concerns, so I join its decision in full.”
- Justice Samuel Alito, in Trump v. CASA, Inc.

Thus, class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states leave room for judges to hand down injunctions that, in practice, would function the same way a universal injunction does. It should be remembered that many Executive Orders impact entire classes of people and organizations. Consequently, it is possible for a judge to declare an Executive order a class action and subject it to a class action lawsuit, which would allow them to issue universal injunctions.

This has recently happened when US District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a nationwide order stopping the enforcement of an Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship. This was done by granting the litigants class action status to their lawsuit, even after the US Supreme Court placed restrictions on the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions.

Another tactic that is starting to be utilized is District Court Judges issuing injunctions that encompass only their district:

“Fox News has learned that LA federal judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Biden appointee), has written a tentative decision that sides w/ the ACLU & plaintiffs over the Trump administration & will potentially block DHS from carrying out arrests at Home Depots, car washes, etc. in the LA area.

Sources who have reviewed Judge Frimpong’s tentative decision tell us her order will block ICE and Border Patrol from relying on race, Spanish speaking, location, and type of work when making immigration arrests.

Additionally, DHS will be blocked from conducting stops of suspected illegal immigrants unless the agent has a reasonable suspicion that there is a violation of immigration law. “

This judicial ruling has the impact of directing law enforcement on how to enforce the law, giving the judge executive powers. Alas, such directions also make it very impractical to enforce the law, thus effectively nullifying a law. While this ruling only impacts one judicial district, I expect other judges in other districts to follow suit, and if they are successful in a half dozen or more districts, they would have a nationwide impact. This is another example of an Imperial Judiciary, which is what Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned about in the CASA decision, which severely curtailed a lower court’s ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

These actions by District Court judges are a means to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in the Trump v. CASA ruling. These judges are, therefore, in defiance of the Supreme Court's intentions, and they are acting as Imperial Judges. And it did not take them very long to do so. Consequently, a Constitutional Amendment is necessary for the Supreme Court to have the ability to remove a defiant judge, as I have Chirped on "06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II".

Addendum: California District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued her ruling on Friday, July 11, 2025, which does indeed restrict ICE from enforcing immigration law in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

07/10/25 The Epstein Documents

The Trump administration’s shocking decision not to release documents related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has infuriated some of the president’s most loyal allies. Axios has reported that investigators found “no incriminating ‘client list’”, “no credible evidence ... that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals”, and no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”.

MAGA loyalists have been urging President Donald Trump’s administration to release the Epstein documents, including a potential “client list” related to the sex-trafficking case. Numerous Trump officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney General for New Jersey Alina Habba, previously suggested that the administration would release the “client list" and other Epstein documents.

Conspiracy theories now abound as to why this decision was made. But you do not need a conspiracy theory to be upset by this decision. Epstein was an underage sexual predator who, along with his assistant, Ghislaine Maxwell (who is imprisoned for child sex trafficking and other offences), plied sex with underage girls to the rich and powerful. Without releasing the Epstein documents, those rich and powerful persons who engaged in sex with underage girls will not be held to account for their actions. This unaccountability is the major reason for everyone to be upset with this decision not to release the documents.

This decision further increases the cynicism amongst the people of a government that has two standards of justice, one for the rich and powerful and one for everybody else. Such cynicism will eventually destroy a cohesive society and contribute to the disparagement of government. To avoid these deleterious effects on society and government, transparency is a must for the Epstein documents. Let the chips fall where they may be and hold to account those people who engaged in underage sexual relations with Epstein’s assistance. Equal Justice in America, both legally and societally, requires such disclosure of the Epstein documents.

However, it has been the longstanding policy of the Justice Department not to release any information that is not pertinent to an indictment, as this would defame a person or persons without the ability for them to defend themselves in court, and have a jury pronounce them guilty or not guilty. If the Justice Department has determined that the alleged illegal actions of Epstein and his clients occurred outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, they could not file an indictment. If the Justice Department also determined that the statute of limitations had expired for his clients’ illegal activities within their jurisdiction, then they could not file an indictment. Also, if the Justice Department has doubts about proving someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not file an indictment. If this were the case in the Epstein investigations, then the Justice Department should say so and seal the documents.

I would, therefore, urge President Trump to review this decision not to release the Epstein documents. He should not only consider adherence to Justice Department policies, but also consider the impacts on justice and accountability, along with transparency in government, to determine if this decision was warranted.

07/10/25 Facts and Truths when Evaluating Someone

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (born October 13, 1989), also known as AOC, is an American politician and activist who has served since 2019 as the US representative for New York's 14th congressional district as a member of the Democratic Party.

While she was born in the Bronx, and her family lived in an apartment in the Bronx neighborhood of Parkchester until Ocasio-Cortez was five, they moved to a middle-class house in suburban Yorktown Heights, in New York state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's father was Sergio Ocasio-Roman, who died in 2008. Her father was an architect and small business owner of Puerto Rican descent, and her mother is Blanca Ocasio-Cortez, who was born in Puerto Rico. Her mother worked as a waitress and domestic helper to help make ends meet to support their family, especially after the passing of her husband in 2008.

AOC attended Yorktown High School, where her nickname was “Sandy”, graduating in 2007. Yorktown High School has consistently been ranked in the top 5% of all schools in New York, and in 2025, their overall test scores in math proficiency are in the top 10%, and reading proficiency is in the top 10%, while their demographics are 1,061 students enrolled with a 29% Minority Enrollment. She then attended Boston University, where she double majored in international relations and economics, and graduated cum laude from Boston University in 2011. She then moved back to the Bronx, becoming an activist and working as a waitress and bartender until her election to Congress.

While it can be said that her academic achievements in High School demonstrated her intelligence, it can also be said that her attendance at Boston University considerably dumbed her down, as her public comments have demonstrated. She has also consistently obfuscated her upbringing by claiming she is a Bronx person and downplaying, or not publicly recognizing, her Yorktown Heights upbringing. In this obfuscation, I believe that she is Virtue Signaling rather than being honest.

Thus, AOC should be renamed “Sandy OC” to remind the voters in the Bronx, and all Americans, of her factual upbringing. Many of her voters, and Americans, may not be concerned by her upbringing, but facts and truths should always be of concern when evaluating any person and their statements.

07/09/25 The Trump Doctrine on War

During his speech to the Ohio Republican Party Dinner in Lima, Ohio, on June 24, 2025, Vice President JD Vance described being with President Trump in the Situation Room for the U.S. strikes on Iran. A portion of his speech, “'He Looked At Me In The Situation Room A Few Days Ago...': Vance Describes Trump During Iran Strike” can be viewed on YouTube. The following is a transcript of that portion of his speech which outlines Vice President Vance’s view of the Trump Doctrine:

“Let me run just a few through a few of the ways in which the Trump administration has been wildly successful. And let me start with the thing that is of course in the news. What the president said going back 10 years if you look at the campaign in 2015 and 2016, and he said it consistently through his second term, is that he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's very simple. It destabilizes the entire region. It gives this terrible regime leverage over the United States of America.

As the president often jokes with me everybody in Iran calls the Iranian leader the Supreme Leader. That's a pretty amazing title if you think about it. But he looked at me in the situation room a few days ago and he said, “Mr. Vice President, you don't have to call him the Supreme Leader, but you would if the guy had a nuclear weapon.” Because the leverage that nuclear weapons give you to destabilize the world, to destroy our economic interest, to destroy our national security interests, you don't want the worst people in the world to have a nuclear weapon.

So, what did the president do for 60 days, he negotiated aggressively to encourage that Iranian regime to give up those weapons peacefully. And by the way, he was more than willing to accept a peaceful settlement to that problem. But again, this comes back to instincts. When the president realized that there was not going to be a peaceful settlement to that problem he sent B2 bombers and dropped 12 30,000lb bombs on the worst facility and destroyed that program.

And I think there are a lot of Republicans, by the way I count myself among them, who after the past 25 years they don't want to get involved in another long-term protracted Middle Eastern conflict. We all saw what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan. And so, what I call the Trump doctrine is quite simple, Number one you articulate a clear American interest and that's in this case that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Number two you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. And number three when you can't solve it diplomatically you use overwhelming military power to solve it. And then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.

That is the Trump doctrine. And to the Americans who are worried about become this becoming a protracted conflict, I think the president solved that very quickly. Not only did we destroy the Iranian nuclear program, we did it with zero American casualties. And that's what happens when you've got strong American leadership.”

The Iraqi Gulf War was an illustration (some good, some bad) of this doctrine, which required an Operation Desert Shield ground forces buildup (August 1990 to January 1991), then a short Operation Desert Storm war (17 January 1991 through 28 February 1991). This war resulted in approximately 294 American forces deaths and over 400 American forces injuries, at a cost of around $50 billion, with some estimates of the costs ranging from $25 billion to $75 billion. This figure includes both the immediate costs of military operations and the subsequent expenses for maintaining order in Iraq. The problem was that we did not obliterate the Iraqi armed forces and get out of Iraq at the war’s conclusion, which ended up a little over a decade later in a protracted conflict of American involvement in the Iraq War (2003–2011). The final tally for the War in Iraq was 4,508 dead and 32,292 wounded, at a cost of just over $1.1 trillion, including military operations and related expenses.

The War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) was a bad example, as it began as a limited strike to root out the Taliban, but soon became a protracted effort of regime change that ended very poorly for America. The final tally for the War in Afghanistan was 2,420 American forces dead and 20,093 American forces wounded, at a cost of approximately $2.3 trillion, including military operations and related expenses.

Thus, we should learn that all three rules of The Trump Doctrine must be followed, otherwise we will become entangled in protracted conflicts, at great expense to American forces casualties, and to our treasury.

07/09/25 The Trump Doctrine on Regime Change

In a speech on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, President Trump said the following:

“In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they didn’t understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves.”
- Donald Trump

This quote is the essence of how Donald Trump views regime change. This statement, however, is not a statement against regime change; it is a statement against regime change imposed by external interventionists. Regime change that comes from internal forces of a nation is acceptable if the populace is supportive of regime change. Such support by the populace does not have to be by a majority of the populace, if the regime change is for the establishment of Natural Rights in a nation. After all, the American Revolution was about regime change, and it was not supported by a majority of the American colonists (As John Adams said, one-third were for it, one-third were against it, and one-third were neutral).

It should also be remembered that throughout history, regime change has often resulted in a worse regime. The French Revolution of 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Red China Revolution of 1949, and the Iranian Revolution of 1978 replaced a suppressor of Natural Rights regime with an oppressor of Natural Rights regime. These revolutions also had negative repercussions on other nations, and they often brought the world into turmoil. These negative repercussions can also be seen in regime changes in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Central and South America in the late 20th century.

President Trump’s recent comments about not wanting regime change in Iran are not only for the reasons he specified of not upsetting order and bringing chaos to Iran while peace talks are occurring, but also his reluctance for interventionist regime change for the reasons of his aforementioned quote. In this, I believe him, and I believe this is the right course of action in Iran. Let us all hope and pray that peace and a non-nuclear Iran can be established with Iran, and that the Iranian people can find a peaceful means to institute regime change for the betterment of their populace. While I am rather pessimistic that peaceful regime change in Iran is possible, sometimes history has a way of surprising us.

07/08/25 Mad Musk

Elon Musk is mad, and he has every right to be mad, as many fiscal conservatives are also mad. He and other fiscal conservatives are upset that the currently passed tax and spending bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’) does not do enough to rein in and cut spending. Musk is also concerned that many of the efficiency improvements that the DOGE team has discovered are not addressed and permanently implemented in this bill. He is also concerned that the tax credits for electric vehicles have been eliminated, which negatively impacts Tesla. Yet, while there are many reasons for his being mad, I believe that the one overriding reason is his desire to reform government spending and implement government efficiencies.

In his being mad, it is his lack of knowledge and experience in the art of politics that is the root of his frustration. As a successful businessperson and business leader, he is accustomed to having his decisions implemented in the manner that he has prescribed. This is why many businesspeople cannot succeed in politics, as they are used to having their way after they make a decision. This is not how politics work, as politics is most often the art of compromise. In politics, you must give some to get some for any legislation to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and to be signed by the President. You also have to consider that legislation may not pass Constitutional or legal muster, and it may be overturned by the Judiciary.

In all of this give and take, you must always be cognizant that there is no such thing as perfection in legislation. In this crafting of legislation, you have to remember what the great German statesman and diplomat Otto von Bismarck once said, “There are two things you don't want to see being made - sausage and legislation.”, as well as the aphorism of the “Perfect is the enemy of good”. Consequently, you may have to accept legislation that does not achieve some of your goals in consideration that it does more good than harm, as I have Chirped on "05/23/25 Don’t Let the Perfect Intervene".

However, Elon Musk has not accepted this reality of politics, and his being mad has deteriorated into madness. His recent announcement that he is going to form a third party in American politics is madness. The chances that this third party could succeed are almost nil, and the only thing that it could accomplish is depriving the Republican Party of enough votes that they may become the minority party in Congress. Such minority party status would put the Democrat Party in control of Congress, in which the Democrats would be the antithesis of what Elon Musk hopes to accomplish for America. Thus, his madness can do nothing but damage America, and it may end up rolling back the mostly good that President Trump and Congress have achieved.

My message to Elon Musk is—'Get Over It’. You must learn to accept the possible but imperfect, and you should continue to work for the betterment of America by focusing your political attentions on the politically achievable.

07/07/25 Trump’s Magic Wand

On June 01, 2016, President Obama hit presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump for not detailing the ways in which he plans to accomplish certain goals. During a PBS town hall that aired that day, Obama referenced Trump’s promise to bring back jobs to the United States when talking about manufacturing. President Obama said, “Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it,” and “He just says, ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.”

Well, in President Trump’s first term, he waved his magic wand, and the economy rebounded quite nicely until the COVID-19 Pandemic hit. In his second term, President Trump is again waving his magic wand, and the economy is starting to boom. Thus, the evidence seems to suggest that President Trump has a powerful magic wand. Let us hope that he can continue to wave his powerful magic wand, and right the economy of America that President Obama and President Biden so devastated.

It also appears that his magic wand is helping in foreign policy and foreign relationships. He is in the process of remaking foreign trade relations that are not only advantageous for America and Americans, but they are also advantageous for our foreign friends, which is also disadvantageous to our foreign adversaries. He is also converting some former foreign adversaries into foreign friends with this trade leverage. The world appears to be heading into a better place for America and Americans, but also for the people of these foreign nations who are cooperating with him.

But, of course, Trump does not have a magic wand, but a realistic understanding of how the economy works and how to stimulate the economy for the benefit of America and Americans, unlike the Democrats' idealistic and impractical view of the economy. This same realistic understanding is also making the world a more peaceful place, which, again, is unlike the Democrats' idealistic and impractical view of the world, which has seen conflicts arise across the world in Obama’s and Biden’s tenures as Presidents.

Consequently, Americans should discount the Democrats' negativity and doom-saying predictions about Trump’s economic and foreign policies, and trust President Trump as he knows and has proven that he understands the American and the world’s economy and foreign relationships.

07/06/25 Assumptions and Presumptions

We all live and conduct our lives with Assumptions and Presumptions. In a ‘This vs. That’ webpage, they explain that:

“Assumption and presumption are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Assumption refers to accepting something as true or valid without concrete evidence or proof. It is based on personal beliefs or opinions. On the other hand, presumption involves making an educated guess or inference based on available evidence or logical reasoning. Presumption is more grounded in facts and is often used in legal contexts. While both involve making assumptions, presumption carries a higher level of credibility due to its reliance on evidence and logical deductions.”

This webpage also has a good comparison of the differences between assumptions and presumptions:

Attribute	Assumption	Presumption
Definition	An idea or belief taken for granted without proof.	An assumption made based on available evidence or prior knowledge.
Proof	Usually lacks concrete evidence or proof.	May have some evidence or proof to support it.
Validity	May or may not be valid.	May be more valid due to supporting evidence.
Origin	Can be based on personal beliefs, biases, or limited information.	Often derived from logical reasoning or existing knowledge.
Assessment	Often requires further investigation or validation.	May be accepted until proven otherwise.
Impact	Can lead to incorrect conclusions or decisions.	Can provide a basis for making reasonable assumptions.

There are several types of assumptions, including desirability, feasibility, usability, viability, and ethical assumptions. Other categories include unrecognized, unstated, unquestioned, naive, and pragmatic assumptions, each serving different roles in decision-making and analysis. In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact", and there are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. In life, these two types of presumptions also hold true.

The question is whether our assumptions and presumptions are correct. In many cases, they are correct, but in many other cases, they are incorrect. It is incumbent upon us all to examine our assumptions and presumptions to determine if they are correct or incorrect, for if you hold incorrect assumptions or presumptions, you will come to the wrong conclusion in your thinking on any issue or concern. The difficulty is determining what your assumptions and presumptions are, and then being straightforwardly honest and factual in the evaluation of your assumptions and presumptions.

Regrettably, it is an unfortunate fact that in modern America, both sides of the political spectrum have different assumptions and presumptions that are often diametrically opposite to each other. It is also an unfortunate fact that neither side has straightforwardly examined their assumptions and presumptions, and neither side will admit that they may be incorrect in their assumptions and presumptions. As such, they are unwilling to modify their assumptions and presumptions, even when presented with contrary facts and truths about their assumptions and presumptions. In this, they have forgotten the wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
- Benjamin Franklin

Alas, this unwillingness to follow the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin has made it nigh impossible to have A Civil Society in modern America, as each side talks across the other side and discounts or ignores the other side's assumptions and presumptions.

07/05/25 A Ship of Fools

Ship of Fools (1965) is a movie directed by Stanley Kramer, based on the novel by Katherine Anne Porter. The movie takes place almost entirely on board a passenger ship in 1933, travelling between Veracruz, Mexico, and Bremerhaven, Germany. Most of the scenes unfold on the First-Class deck amongst the upper middle-class passengers, but the ship is also carrying 600 displaced workers―far more than the ship is certified to carry―and they are assigned to squalid conditions in steerage. These displaced workers are all being deported back to Spain at the order of the Cuban dictator, Gerardo Machado. Many of the passengers bound for Nazi Germany are happy, some are apprehensive, while others downplay the significance of the political situation in Germany. Passenger attitudes differ among those who feel "superior", who exclude and demean others, and the "excluded" passengers, who tend to be sympathetic and supportive of others. Thus, this movie is a microcosm of German society during the rise of Nazism.

Today, this movie can be seen as an analogy of what is happening in modern America. While this movie is about the dangers of the rise of Nazism in German society, it can be seen as an allegory to the dangers of the rise of Progressivism in modern American society, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". These dangers of my collected Chirps of Progressivism and Progressives have only been heightened by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) amongst Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as I have Chirped on “06/27/25 What is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)?”.

Thus, we are sailing on a ship of fools in modern America. A ship that will overturn and sink America if we do not eliminate the dangers of modern Progressivism.

07/04/25 America’s Future History

On this Independence Day, not only should we celebrate the birth of our nation, but we should also reflect on the American ideals that led to our independence. In doing so, we should contemplate the future course of America. In this time of turmoil in modern America, looking at our history can provide insights and possible guidance for our future. Many of my History Articles provide insights that could be useful in your reflections and contemplations.

In addition, columnist Mark Lewis has written an interesting article, “I Wonder How Long America Has”, that examines the history of civilizations and how they could relate to the future of American civilization. In this article, he starts by stating:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government…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.” (Historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler, c. 250 years ago)

He then goes on to list great civilizations in the past that have disappeared, and comments that:

“The United States is currently transforming. Some of that is inevitable. As noted, we are definitely not what our Founding Fathers envisioned, viz., a virtuous, frugal, limited, constitutional republic based on Judeo-Christian principles. We’ve destroyed that country, and now we are in the process of trying to decide what we are and what we will become. And that's why I said it will be interesting to see what the United States, if it even exists, is like 500 years from now.”

He also comments that:

“All I can tell you is that the United States has undergone, and is in the process of undergoing, transformation. And the question is, will it improve, will it be stronger, or will it decline and become like Greece, Rome, Egypt, England, and other nations that, at one point, were great and very powerful, but are now basically third-rate non-entities.”

The question for us all is which direction will America morph into: a Progressives/Leftists ideology or a Constitutional Conservatives ideology. These ideological differences are as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". Americans should consider the possibilities and consequences of this change, and they need to choose wisely. In their pondering, they need to consider our "American Ideals and Ideas", and the impacts on Liberties and Freedoms. For a poor choice will have negative repercussions on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and could result in despotism in America. And as I have said, "Despotism is just an intermediate step into tyranny."

07/03/25 Nobel Peace Prize

True peace is difficult to define. There is peace in the absence of war, but this peace may be the peace in which the Natural Rights of a people are violated. Peace that requires concessions to the unpeaceful is not a true peace. Peace that is maintained by threats and fear of and to opponents is not a true peace. Those who intone “Give peace a chance” are usually only speaking of the absence of war, while not considering the meaning of a true peace.

The best definition of true peace is by a great Dutch philosopher:

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

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have been a diverse group of people and organizations. Some of them have been very worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, some of them not so worthy, and a few, in retrospect, have been unworthy of a Nobel Peace Prize under the definition of a true peace. Some of those that are unworthy have been Yasser Arafat, who in 1994 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize despite being heavily involved in armed conflict before and after he received the peace prize. Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, despite never having done anything significant for peace. After being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is known to have ordered airstrikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria.

If President Trump succeeds in bringing peace to the Middle East by defanging Iran and putting an end to their nuclear ambitions, then he is well worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Along with the recent peace deal signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, and if he can put an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war, it would be icing on the cake of Iranian peace that should cement his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He will have demonstrated that he has "a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." that is true peace. Thus, he would be a very worthy Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

07/02/25 What Will Continue

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana is known for his humorous, folksy, and memorable one-liners, such as his comments on AOC, "She has a Billy goat brain and a mockingbird mouth.”, and "I think she's the reason there are directions on a shampoo bottle." His witty remarks often resonate with audiences, making him a notable figure in American politics.

But Senator Kennedy is also very intelligent, as he graduated from Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia School of Law before attending Oxford University. He also has some profound quotes, one of the more recent is “... that what you allow is what will continue.”

In America today, Illegal Immigration, Anti-Semitism in Modern America, The Decline of Free Speech in America, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, a lack of Judicial Restraint, along with violent mob protests and loose or no prosecution for violent criminality, together with the damage or destruction of personal property, are but some examples of what we have allowed and that continue. The duplicitousness of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" has also been allowed to continue, not to mention the machinations of "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". We have also tolerated "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", "Wokeness", "Doxing", and "Swatting" that are destructive to A Civil Society, and they continue unabated. In addition, Government Deficit and Debt spending, waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending, overregulation and bureaucratic mismanagement, and taxation that is often counterproductive and economically disadvantageous have risen because we allowed them to continue.

Much of this is because we have forgotten, or do not know, the importance of Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society. Until we regain these qualities, there is little hope of disallowing and thus discontinuing these problems in America.

07/01/25 Reclaiming My Time

Questions that are statements, often called statement questions, are declarative sentences that are phrased like questions, typically used to confirm information or express surprise. They often have a rising intonation when spoken, indicating that the speaker is seeking confirmation of something they believe to be true.

Such has become the case in many Congressional hearings. We often see a congressperson posing a statement question, and when the witness tries to repudiate or answer their statement question, they cut them off by invoking House procedural rules of “reclaiming my time”. This phrase is used in Congressional hearings when congresspersons are allotted a specific amount of time to speak and/or question those called to testify at such hearings. If, during their allotted time, they deem a person who is testifying to be lying, misleading, or drawing out the time by not answering the questions directly, the congressperson may reclaim their time. This is allowed within the United States House of Representatives' rules and procedures. Alas, while this rule may be helpful to cut off recalcitrant witnesses, it has been more recently used to cut off any witness testimony that the congressperson may disagree with or does not want to hear their answer.

Consequently, administration witnesses have become piñata’s, most often by a congressperson of the opposite party, rather than providers of information needed for Congress to perform its functions. No witness should be used as a piñata, as it is disrespectful and counterproductive to their purpose of being a witness, as well as degrading to their person.

Therefore, it is well past time that the United States House of Representatives rules and procedures be modified so that a witness has time to answer statement questions without being cut off by a congressperson reclaiming their time. While this may be difficult for a chairperson to enforce (especially if the chairperson is prejudiced for the congressperson’s statement question), it is necessary to do so. Otherwise, Congressional hearings are nothing more than political theater for political aggrandizement.

06/30/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part II

In my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", I lament how our judges have been ruling outside the bounds of the Constitution and statutory law. This situation has become so egregious that in the recent CASA ruling, the Supreme Court addressed this problem, as I have written in my previous Chirp on “06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary - Part I”. Let us hope that judges take to heart the CASA ruling and confine their rulings to the Constitution and statutory law. Alas, I do not expect this to happen.

Thus, the question remains what can be done about judges who are ruling beyond the scope of their duties and responsibilities. Article III of the Constitution is about the Federal Judicial Branch duties and responsibilities, with Section 1 defining the courts as:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

The term “good Behaviour” has never been clearly defined, and there are many interpretations of what good behavior means. The Constitution Annotated website article, “Good Behavior Clause Doctrine”, is a good reference on this topic. In the past, the only way a judge was removed was by Congressional impeachment, which rarely occurred, and has never been done for a judge issuing rulings beyond the scope of their duties and responsibilities. In today’s hyper-partisan Congress, I do not expect that any Congress would impeach a judge for their rulings outside of the scope of their duties and responsibilities.

However, Article I of the Constitution, which defines the Legislative Branch of the government, has a means for the Legislative Branch to remove a Congressperson or Senator for disorderly behavior. Section 5 of Article I of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

In this spirit, I would recommend that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to add to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution the following:

“The Supreme Court may, with the Concurrence of two thirds of the Justices, remove a judge for improper jurisprudence.”

06/29/25 An Imperial Judiciary – Part I

In my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", I lament how District and Appellate Court Judges have been issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s policy decisions and Executive Orders. In the recent Supreme Court CASA ruling, the Supreme Court was deciding “Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.”

In a 6-3 Decision (Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting), Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, stated:

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

Justice Barrett also responded to Justice Jackson’s dissent:

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.

JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

In the first quote, standing or locus standi, is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Thus, judges may only issue relief to the individual parties named in the lawsuit. A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. Class action lawsuits are subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are more restrictive and difficult to file than an ordinary lawsuit. Consequently, a nationwide injunctive relief must be the result of a class action lawsuit. Therefore, it may be possible for the opponents of President Trump to try to institute a class action to obtain nationwide injunctive relief, but it is less likely that they will be able to do so.

The second quote is highly unusual in a Supreme Court ruling. It essentially excoriates Judge Jackson for her lack of legal reasoning, and this excoriation was concurred with by the other justices in the majority. Many legal commentators have noted that other Supreme Court rulings have also taken issue with Judge Jackson’s opinions, and this ruling confirms their frustration with her opinions.

Judge Jackson was a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) appointment by President Biden, and many legal scholars noted at the time that she did not have the legal gravitas for serving on the Supreme Court. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson”, the fears of these legal scholars have been justified. This is yet another poor decision by President Biden, but this decision will haunt us for a long time, as she is young enough that she may serve on the Supreme Court for decades. What a shame for America and a good example of why it may be necessary to remove judges who rule outside of the law and the Constitution.

06/28/25 A Rogue’s Gallery or Hall of Fame Material

The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate have risen to a fever pitch in the second Trump Administration. Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is the leading cause for this rise, however, there are secondary causes such as a loss of political power, leaderlessness, directionless policy, nihilism, and rage¹.

If you are anti-Trump, not only are The Three D's directed at Trump, but they have expanded to include members of his Administration who are believers and implementers of his policies. The most prominent of these people are:

Trump’s Key Implementors
Vice President	JD Vance
Secretary of State	Marco Rubio
Secretary of the Treasury	Scott Bessent
Secretary of Defense	Pete Hegseth
Attorney General	Pam Bondi
Secretary of Homeland Security	Kristi Noem
Director of National Intelligence	Tulsi Gabbard
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency	John Ratcliffe
United States Trade Representative	Jamieson Greer
United States Special Envoy to the Middle East	Steve Witkoff
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director	Kash Patel
Chief of Staff	Susie Wiles

Thus, those who are anti-Trump consider these people to be a Rogue’s Gallery of nefarious people. However, Trump’s supporters view them as righteous Hall of Fame material. However, they are neither nefarious nor righteous people. They are persons who believe that they are doing what is best for America and Americans. As such, it is improper to subject them to the Three D's, but it is proper to critique and sometimes criticize them, as I have written in my Chirp on “Criticism vs. Critique”.

Those who engage in the Three D's are destructive to "A Civil Society", and they deserve shame and scorn. If they so continue in their ways, they should be shunned by all Americans who believe in "A Just Government and a Just Society".

*************************************

¹ Rage is particularly insidious, as Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and national commentator Jonathan Turley has said, “It gives you a license to do things and say things you would not ordinarily do or say.” He has also commented on the psychological draw of such emotions, stating, “And what these people won’t admit, what they won’t admit tomorrow, is that they like it and that they need it and that it’s contagious and it’s addictive. That’s what rage is.” Professor Turley’s book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, and his forthcoming book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, examine rage in America’s past, present, and possible future.

06/27/25 What is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)?

In many of my Chirps, I have mentioned Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) without a clear definition of what constitutes TDS. In a Psychology Today article, “What Is TDS?” by Alex Pattakos, Ph.D., he defines TDS as:

“Simply put, Trump derangement syndrome is a derogatory term used to describe a form of toxic criticism and negative reaction to former President Trump’s statements and political actions. The origin of the term can be traced to the late political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who first coined the phrase “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003.

Krauthammer, himself a harsh critic of Trump, later defined Trump derangement syndrome as a Trump-induced “general hysteria” that produced an “inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology” in the president’s behavior. Journalist Fareed Zakaria, moreover, defined TDS as “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment.”

Signs of TDS can be observed along a continuum of reactions, ranging from verbal expressions of intense hostility toward President Trump to overt acts of aggression and even violence against anyone supporting or anything symbolizing him. The recent assassination attempt on Trump’s life provides compelling evidence of the volatility and potential dangers of TDS if left unchecked.”

In my opinion, those suffering from TDS have demonstrated little rationality or reasoning for their statements, and just as often do not satisfy the burden of proof for their assertions or allegations, as I have written in my article on "Burden of Proof and Rules of Reasoning". This is because they are so intellectually bereft and emotionally unstable that they cannot intellectually rationalize or reason, nor meet their burden of proof, nor calmly discourse on their viewpoint. Raising your voice with vigorous gesticulating is de rigueur by politicians and commentators suffering from TDS, while physical demonstrations and screaming appear to be compulsory in TDS group protests. Mindless sloganeering and placards abound in group protests, and no contrary opinion is to be tolerated. Indeed, contrary opinion is to be shouted down, and the offenders are to be castigated and driven away.

Those who are plagued with Trump Derangement Syndrome are destructive to "A Civil Society", and they deserve shame and scorn. If they so continue in their ways, they should be shunned by all Americans who believe in "A Just Government and a Just Society".

06/26/25 Expert Consensus versus the Right of the People

The Supreme Court recently decided by a 6-3 vote that Tennessee had the right to enact a law that restricts transgendered medical procedures for minors. Tennessee passed this law in 2023, joining the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors. In his concurrence with this decision, Supreme Court Justice Thomas, in Section II of his concurrence, stated some truths that the American people need to recognize:

“The Court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States asserted that “the medical community and the nation’s leading hospitals overwhelmingly agree” with the Government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1 can be medically necessary. Brief for United States 35; see also Brief for Respondents in Support of Petitioner 5 (asserting that “[e]very major medical association in the United States” supports this position). The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus.

There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class. First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the “wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993). Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.

Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not “sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.” Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952). By correctly concluding that SB1 warrants the “paradigm of judicial restraint,” Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 314, the Court reserves to the people of Tennessee the right to decide for themselves.”

He concludes his concurrence by stating:

“The Court today reserves “to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process” the power to decide how best to address an area of medical uncertainty and extraordinary importance. Ante, at 24. That sovereign prerogative does not bow to “major medical organizations.” Post, at 5, n. 5 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). “[E]xperts and elites have been wrong before—and they may prove to be wrong again.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U. S., at 268 (THOMAS, J., concurring).”

His concluding statement is something that all Americans should be aware of in their considerations of expert opinions. There is also confusion by many Americans about “Experts” and “Evidence”. An expert opinion is not evidence; it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not proof of the evidence, as consensus often changes as new or changed evidence comes to light or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty. Thus, expert opinion should be on tap but not on top, as I have Chirped on "09/02/22 Expert Opinion" and "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top". Therefore, when deciding on public policy, the ultimate decision is reserved “to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process”, and experts should only provide advice and counseling on public policy issues.

Addendum: Jonathan Turley published an article on this topic, on the same day as I did, “The Icarian Gene: The Rise and Fall of the Expert Class”, which provides more details than my Chirp.

06/25/25 Morality and the Four P’s (Politics, Policy, Pragmatism, and Profits)

In today’s society, there is little discussion about morality. Morality has been delegated to being relative to your values. But everybody’s values can be different, and they are often not based on the common good but on personal good. However, morality is what defines the difference between a good and evil civilization. Without sound moral principles, society will degenerate into nihilism and disorder, which appears to be the direction in which America has been going.

Today, politics, policy, pragmatism, and profits have replaced morality. The Four P’s are interrelated, and they are now guiding our society. As a result, we embroil ourselves in constant quarreling and bickering on the future course of America without addressing the morality of the issue. And without addressing the morality of an issue, we are incapable of resolving the issue.

The first problem is solidifying what the moral principles of society are. In America, our moral principles have come from our Judeo-Christian heritage, as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. However, even in the interpretation of these documents, there is ambiguity and dissent in their meaning, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". Until we have a consensus on the Constitution’s meaning, there will be disputes as to the proper moral course of action in America. Much of these disputes are also driven by politics, policy, pragmatism, and profits, often to the detriment of moral clarity.

Addressing the morality of an issue can be very difficult. It requires that you ignore the Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors surrounding an issue and identify the core issue to be morally resolved. Unfortunately, morality is rarely black and white (but sometimes it is), and it can be difficult to ascertain what morality and immorality are. The solution to the question of morality must always recognize the dignity and worth of an individual person and their natural rights, and any solution that does not recognize this is not a moral solution.

The morality of illegal immigration, mostly peaceful protests, equity, transgenderism rights, and abortion, are but some examples of domestic policy that are difficult to establish the bounds of morality. In international relations, there is no doubt about the morality of Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and some other governments across the world. The issue is how to best address the immorality of these nations. However, the morality of both domestic and international issues must be addressed, as without addressing the morality, it is not possible to fully resolve the issue.

Morality, if tempered by politics, policy, pragmatism, and profits, is not a solution to immorality; it is but a means to dance around the question of morality or immorality. In America, this means the application of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights in any questions of politics, policy, pragmatism, and profits. Thus, any politics, policy, pragmatism, and profits must operate within the bounds of morality for us to be a moral society. And without moral clarity, our society will further degenerate into nihilism and disorder.

06/24/25 Commander in Chief Powers

A Declaration of War by the United States falls under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, it vests in Congress the power to declare war, with the following wording:

“[The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ...”

However, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution expressly designates the President as:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;“

As such, Presidents have claimed that they have Commander in Chief powers under this designation that are not explicitly specified in the Constitution.

Several wars have been declared under the U.S. Constitution, although there is some controversy as to the exact number, as the Constitution does not specify the form of such a declaration. Five wars have been declared by Congress under their constitutional power to do so: the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the Spanish–American War, World War I, and World War II. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War were major military conflicts in which no war was declared by Congress. Also, many of the conflicts with the American Indian tribes were conducted under Commander in Chief powers, without a Congressional War declaration, but often with Congressional approval.

From almost the beginning of the United States, Presidents have used their Commander in Chief powers to engage in military conflicts without the approval of Congress. President John Adams had his Quasi-War, President Thomas Jefferson had the First Barbary War, and President James Madison had his Second Barbary War. And President Abraham Lincoln engaged in the Civil War without a Congressional Declaration of War (he did so under the reasoning that he was suppressing an insurrection and not conducting a war). In all of these cases, the President justified their use of military power as in the best interest of America and the American people, as well as to prevent harm by foreign nations and foreign nationals against Americans and American businesses located outside of the United States.

In modern America, Presidents have utilized the Commander in Chief powers to engage in minor military conflicts. In Bill Clinton's presidency, the U.S. engaged in several military actions, including interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. President Obama is known to have ordered airstrikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. President Biden’s usage of the Commander in Chief powers has been murkier, as he may not have initiated any new conflict, but he ended only one of the many unnecessary conflicts he inherited, and he continued to support many others under his Commander in Chief powers. President Biden also watched and provided aid in the Russo-Ukrainian War and the War in Gaza under his Commander in Chief powers (mostly with the support of Congress). He also assisted in the rise and financial support of Iranian nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development, and the escalation of the Israel conflicts in the Middle East, as outlined in the Cato Institute's “Fact-Checking Biden’s Speech about US Conflicts”. President Trump, in both his administrations, also frequently used his Commander in Chief powers as a primary tool of foreign policy, often without seeking congressional approval. His notable military actions include airstrikes in Syria and Yemen, along with the recent strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. A more comprehensive list of Presidents and instances of bombings without congressional approval can be obtained here.

Thus, the question that comes up almost every time the need arises for military action is how much, what kind, and for how long any military force the President can unleash in the absence of an official declaration of war by Congress? Constitutional scholars disagree on how much military power the Commander in Chief can use without Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 tried to resolve this question, but the resolution has several Constitutional issues. The primary issue is whether Congress can, by legislation, constrict the Commander in Chief's powers, other than by the power of the purse, which is explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution. If Congress is opposed to any Commander in Chief actions, then they should use this power of the purse to eliminate or restrict funding for the action.

Some Constitutional scholars have suggested that explicit restrictions on the Commander in Chief's actions may only occur through a Constitutional Amendment. The answer to the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution may have to be resolved by a Supreme Court ruling. However, neither Congress nor the President has legally challenged the War Powers Resolution, as they both benefit politically from the murkiness of various legal interpretations of the resolution, and they are both concerned that their interpretations may be declared unconstitutional.

Additionally, since 1973, most presidents have ignored parts or all of the War Powers Resolution. According to the Congressional Research Service, “presidents have taken a broader view of the Commander in Chief power to use military force abroad. They have variously asserted ‘sources of authority’ … [and] other statutes that do not specifically cite the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, they have relied on the Commander in Chief power itself and the president's foreign affairs authority under Article II of the Constitution”. For more information on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 I would direct to the factually website question on “How does the War Powers Act of 1973 limit presidential military action?”

The other overriding issue is that in modern warfare, quick and decisive military action, along with secrecy, is often needed to achieve one's goals or to defend against aggression. Congress is not known for quick and decisive action, and in their deliberations, they may hinder or prevent achieving the goal or defending against aggression. In addition, in their deliberations, they may reveal information that could give aid or assistance to the foe. Consequently, Commander in Chief powers are more necessary in modern conflicts, as the harm inflicted by a foe may be extensive and deadly without quick, decisive, and secret military action. Thus, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 may do more harm than good in restricting Commander in Chief powers.

I can propose no solution to this issue of Presidential versus Congressional war powers. It is a complicated Constitutional issue, and any solution may do harm to America and Americans' interests. Thus, it may be best not to have a solution, but to leave it to the American people to decide if the President or Congress is acting in the best interests of America and Americans. And the American people's decision should be reflected in elections, as polling is not a reliable source of determining the will of the American people.

06/23/25 They Have to Rig It

In an interview with Lara Trump, Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, discussed some truths about the current Democrat Party:

Lara Trump: “As to the Democrats as a whole, they took things way too far on a lot of fronts. Where do you think their party goes from here?”

Stephen Miller: “That's a good question. Part of the reason why they've resorted to lawfare as effectively their entire political strategy is because they have an unsellable ideology. They're committed to a series of beliefs that are like 10-20% in support, so they have to be corrupt to get anything done. Men and women sports, as the president says, completely open borders to the worst criminals on the face of the earth, people guilty of child predation, murder, even people who are guilty of violent torture and beating and killing, and just senseless slaughtering. And they're let in without limitation for four years.

A political party that's committed to raising taxes on everybody. A political party that is against the police, that wants to defund the police in your community, that wants to let rioters run free. And the punching bag for all of this are the hardworking American citizens. They're the ones who are getting the brunt of it every day economically, socially, and culturally. So, it's an unwinnable political message. If we can accomplish these reforms to just have a free and fair society, the Democrats are doomed. They cannot compete or operate in a fair system, which is why they have to rig it.”

This rigging can be seen in what DOGE uncovered in the Federal funding of Progressive causes and Non-Profit Organizations. In a free and fair society, the funding of any cause should not be from taxpayer dollars, and Non-Profit Organization funding should come from contributions by individuals, religious groups, and fraternal organizations, and not from any level of government—Federal, State, or local.

They are also trying (sometimes successfully) to rig elections in favor of Democrat candidates. No Photo ID for voters, early mail-in voting, ballot drop boxes, voter assistance in casting a ballot, and vote harvesting are at a greater risk of fraud than one-day, in-person voting. In addition, the methods utilized for vote counting are rife with the possibility of inaccuracies and fraud.

As Stephen Miller has said of the Democrats, “They cannot compete or operate in a fair system, which is why they have to rig it.”

06/22/25 Rearranging the Deck Chairs and Sending In the Clowns

The American public expects that their politicians will exaggerate and mislead them, as well as sometimes lie to them for CYA purposes. However, they do not expect that these lies are for the cover-up of grossly inappropriate or undesirable words and deeds. Such is the state of the Democrat Party today. Their lies about President Biden’s mental and physical health, the circumstances and impacts of illegal immigration, the origin and preventive measures of the COVID Pandemic, and the state of the economy under the Biden Administration, amongst other lies, are so great that the American people have lost trust in the Democrat Party, as I have Chirp on "05/27/25 Trust Lost".

As such, the American public no longer believes or trusts that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are speaking the truth. Such belief and trust cannot be regained without a full mea culpa and contrite apologies for their lies. There will be no looking forward, as the Democrats hope until there is an atonement for the past. The American people will not forget nor forgive their lying words and deeds until this happens. For them to believe otherwise is to treat with contempt the common sense of the American public.

A heavily listing ship can be saved by the officers and crew's prompt and proper action; however, the ship is doomed if they only rearrange the deck chairs. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party seems intent on rearranging the deck chairs rather than admitting their guilt, and the Democrat Party ship continues to sink. They have also resorted to sending in the clowns to divert the attention of the American people to their sinking ship.

‘Send In the Clowns’ is a popular song written by Stephen Sondheim for the 1973 musical ‘A Little Night Music’. The song is a theatrical reference to the idea of sending in clowns to distract an audience during a bad performance. It now appears that the Democrat Party is adopting this idea as their diversion from their bad performance in the recent election.

The Democrat firebrand clowns in Congress appear to be auditioning for a proposed television series based on the movie ‘Dumb and Dumber’. Given the quantity of clowns in the Democrat Party, perhaps this television show should have a rotating cast of the clowns of the Democrat Party. As new Democrat clowns are constantly emerging, this television series would be of a large ensemble cast, with leading roles changing every week.

If this proposed television series does come about, and the American public pays as much attention to it as they do to the Democrat clowns, this television series should be a flop and would soon be canceled. Let us hope that the Democrat clowns are as much of a flop as the television series would be, and the American people send them packing offstage from the political scene.

Rearranging the deck chairs and sending in the clowns is not the way to regain the trust of the American people. And until they regain the trust of the American people, they will continue to suffer election defeats.

06/21/25 Doubling Down on Dumb

The great German anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote:

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

In the 2025 Summer of Love protests, not only are the protesters being stupid, but the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Leaders response is founded in stupidity. Facts and truths play no part in the 2025 Summer of Love protests, and Rationality and Reasoning are never employed. Any words and deeds that advance their cause are permitted, and no consideration of the consequences is allowed. And all of these are the hallmarks of stupidity.

Given that the protesters, the Mainstream Media, and the Democrat Party Leaders are behaving dumbly, they are also being foolish. Therefore, “greater caution is called for” in dealing with them. This caution is not to be for the purpose of ignoring or yielding to their protestations but for the purpose of opposing them and their demands.

Given their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), not only are they acting dumbly, but they have become unhinged in their viewpoint. Accordingly, they are doubling down on dumb.

06/20/25 Damned Malicious Lies

In my article "Lies and Beliefs", I quote Benjamin Disraeli, who once famously said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I also commented that Damned Lies are told to gain an advantage for ourselves or to demonize, denigrate, or disparage another. They are despicable, and when they are discovered, the Damned Liar should be roundly condemned. Unfortunately, many people in America believe that Damned Lies are true, but as I have often said:

Alas, many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have resorted to Damned Lies as they have succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). As I have also Chirped on "05/25/25 Nothing Left by Lies and Fearmongering" and “06/18/25 The Fearmongering of Dire Warnings”, this TDS has led them into damned malicious lies to oppose President Trump. Some of the most damned malicious lies are about the impacts of the budget reconciliation bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’) on America and Americans. The Democrats are also trying to nickname the bill "Well, We're All Going to Die Act."

Recently, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNN host Dana Bash:

“This bill actually hurts everyday Americans in order to reward billionaires. It would strip away healthcare from approximately 14 million Americans. Premiums, copays and deductibles for tens of millions more will go up. Actually, if it ever were to be implemented into law, hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down and people will literally die.”

To which the White House responded with two facts:

“Medicaid will be strengthened for the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families. By removing at least 1.4 million illegal immigrants from the program, ending taxpayer-funded gender mutilation surgeries for minors, and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, the One Big Beautiful Bill will ensure Medicaid better serves the American people.”

And:

“4.8 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid are choosing not to work — and by implementing commonsense, Clinton-era work, volunteer, education, or training requirements, the One Big Beautiful Bill lifts them up to find a better quality of life through the dignity of work. Through work, job training, or part-time volunteering, this requirement will strengthen the system to better help those most in need of assistance. Work requirements are a bipartisan solution supported by Joe Biden.”

In addition, U2 frontman Bono made some absurd claims about DOGE cuts to USAID, highlighting what he claimed were the devastating consequences of abruptly halting foreign aid programs. Bono sounded the alarm over what he called a “hard cut” to American international aid, claiming the consequences have already turned deadly. “Just [a] recent report—it’s not proven—but the surveillance enough suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cutoff,” he said, referencing the global food shortages tied to the funding freeze. Bono is only factual about one thing: “it’s not proven”. Indeed, the source for this lie used statistical methods that were beyond highly dubious. The study Bono referenced comes out of Boston University and was led by Brooke Nichols—but it’s not based on hard data. Instead, it relies entirely on predictive modeling, using predictions that are highly hypothetical and conjectural.

Alas, this is but another example of fearmongering on the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists part. Damned Malicious Lies and Fearmongering that only are done for political advantage purposes, and they bear little relationship to reality. Such Damned Malicious Lies and Fearmongering should be roundly condemned, as they are harming the concept of A Civil Society in America.

06/19/25 The Fearmongering of Dire Warnings

The Mainstream Media practices a special kind of fearmongering, as I have Chirped on "05/25/25 Nothing Left by Lies and Fearmongering". They often comment, and question based on fearmongering, and most of this fearmongering is about the future consequences of President Trump’s initiatives and legislation. This fearmongering has been fever-pitched in both President Trump’s administrations, as he is anathema to them and their predilections, and they have succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's interview on June 1, 2025, Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan broadcast is the perfect example of this fearmongering by the news media. At one point in the interview, the following dialog occurs:

“Margaret Brennan: But for consumers, the reality is there will either be less inventory or things at higher prices, or both.

Sec. Bessent: Margaret, when we were here in March, you said there was going to be big inflation. There hasn't been any inflation. Actually, the inflation numbers are the best in four years. So why don't we stop trying to say this could happen and wait and see what does happen.”

As Mr. Bessent’s reply to her illuminates, often the fearmongering of the past is forgotten, as well as not reporting that the past fearmongering did not occur. The journalist then spouts new fearmongering from the same people who were so often wrong in their fearmongering in the past. Another common technique is when journalists confront a Republican or Conservative by asserting the current fearmongering, often attributing the fearmongering to another person, or ‘some say’, or ‘it has been said’, and the journalist then requires that they defend against the newly asserted fearmongering. This is equivalent to reporting on a rumor, and it should always be remembered that repeating an unsubstantiated aspersive rumor (i.e., slander) does not absolve you of being part of the rumor. It is also equivalent to Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling.

The modern Mainstream Media has forgotten, and in many cases does not know, that all sides of an issue need objective reporting not based on fearmongering. News reporting should be factual and truthful rather than fearmongering. News commentary should be Informational, based upon facts and truths, rather than controversy and ratings-driven. And news reporting and news commentary should not be based on a journalist's political or policy predilections. It certainly should not be supportive of one political party (the Democrat Party) over the other political party (the Republican Party), as I have written in my Article on "Modern Journalism".

Modern journalists also do not know some basic precepts of logical argumentation. The first is Hitchens's Philosophical razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” They often assert something without presenting any evidence but do not allow for the dismissal of their assertions without a refutation. In this, they are also violating the principle of the Burden of Proof upon those making an assertion. If the Burden of Proof is shifted away from those making an assertion, 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. This leaves those being questioned to fall into the trap of trying to Prove a Negative, which is almost impossible to do. Thus, the violation of these basic precepts of logical argumentation makes an argument irrational.

Consequently, journalists are engaging in irrationality when they present dire warnings without substantiation. They are also promoting fearmongering, usually in support of their predilections. In this, they are being despicable, as they are harming the concept of A Civil Society in America.

06/18/25 Eradicating Evil

When confronted with evil, evil must be eradicated. What comes next should be a concern, but not as much of a concern as eradicating evil. In eradicating evil it must be fully eradicated; otherwise, it will take root once again. Accordingly, do not be fearful of completely eradicating evil based on what may happen afterward. What happens afterward should be dealt with afterward, and it should not stay your hand in eradicating evil. Otherwise, you will allow evil to exist and persist to the detriment of all.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, established in 1979, is the perfect modern-day example of evil. Founded in evil, it has foisted evil upon the Middle East and other parts of the World since its founding. Its continual chants of ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’, as well as its support of terrorism, betray its evil.

Iranian attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, along with the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system, are for the furtherance of their evil goals. Therefore, it is an existential threat to Israel, America, and any other country that will not defer to their evil intentions. This cannot be allowed to happen, and the recent Israeli action against Iran is, thus, an attempt to eradicate their evil intentions before they can achieve their nuclear weapon ambitions. In these attempts, they have been very successful, but they cannot completely eradicate Iranian evil intentions until they completely eradicate Iranian nuclear capabilities. Only America can finish the work that Israel has started, as some of the Iranian nuclear capabilities are buried deep underground, which Israel cannot destroy. America has a bunker-busting bomb, which no other country has, which can eradicate these underground facilities and, therefore, put an end to Iranian nuclear weapon aspirations.

Consequently, America must utilize these bunker-busting bombs to finish the eradication of the Iranian nuclear capabilities. To not do so is to allow evil to exist and persist in Iran. To those who do not support this action and/or are fearful of what may happen afterward, I would say that such inaction and caution in the 20th century led to mass deaths by Nazi, Fascist, Imperial Japanese, and Communists regimes. This is a mistake that we should not make once again with the current Iranian regime. And I would say it is the only moral thing to do, as eradicating evil is always the most moral and right thing to do.

06/17/25 Who Are You Going to Believe

With all the Mainstream Media misreporting and the Democrat Party Leaders misrepresenting the 2025 Summer of Love, the question arises, ‘Who are you going to believe, the Mainstream Media and Democrat Party Leaders or your lying eyes?’ One voice of rationality is Dr. Phil McGraw, who has observed the riots up close and personally. In his article, “DR PHIL: I know what REALLY led to the ICE raids that triggered the LA riots... and it's not what the reckless media is telling you”, he relates some observations:

“And contrary to what's been reported — or more accurately, not reported — in the mainstream media, federal activities on June 6 did not conduct a random round-up of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles.

Rather, their coordinated multi-agency operations were conducted pursuant to a duly authorized federal search warrant — not a rumor nor hunch.

To obtain a search warrant, the government is required to present evidence to a federal judge who will evaluate if there is probable cause to issue such a warrant and that was done regarding a particular company in LA.”

And:

“I was at ICE's LA headquarters when these individuals were brought in, and I can report that these people were treated with dignity and respect, offered food and water and then interviewed.

In short, Friday operations were a strategic enforcement of the law — deliberate and legally sanctioned. But the response of some so-called activists, on the other hand, have been dangerous, destructive and utterly lawless.

Rioters attacked law enforcement officers throwing chunks of broken concrete and other projectiles at moving vehicles. Others blocked agents from doing their jobs. Still more rampaged through the city looting, destroying public property and even torching cars in the streets.”

And:

“The truth, though it may be hard to hear, can't be avoided: laws are not suggestions. They aren't 'optional,' and being a good person or worker does not grant immunity from them.

If these impassioned protesters really want change, they should show up in Washington, DC, to protest Congress or write to their representatives to demand legislative reform.

While the right to peaceful protest is the cornerstone of our democracy, the ICE agents who risked their safety to perform their jobs are neither politicians nor lawmakers. They did not put pen to paper to propose these policies – they are merely operating under a sworn duty to enforce the law, not rewrite it.”

He then concludes his article with:

“Make no mistake the violence perpetrated against ICE and other law enforcement officers is not a negotiation for justice. It is a demand for surrender. But that cannot happen.

If you want to change immigration policy — fine. Let's have that debate. Let's talk reform.

We need more truth, not more rage. And we need a media willing to inform, not inflame.”

Given the above, I believe the answer to my question is to believe your eyes and Dr. Phil, and to disregard all that is being said by the Mainstream Media and Democrat Party Leaders.

06/16/25 Evidence, Not Asseverations

At its core, Nazism was predicated on believing in the superiority of their own group and the violation of the Natural Rights of other groups of people. The Nazi Gestapo and SS (Schutzstaffel) were instituted for the implementation of these violations. Fascism was the implementation of a socio-economic system dictated by the State, and the OVRA, unofficially known as the Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism, was the Italian secret police assigned to stop any anti-fascist activity or sentiment. Both Nazism and Fascism corrupted their administrative and legal systems to institute these violations of Natural Rights.

Thus, when someone claims that another is a Nazi or a Fascist, or Hitler or Mussolini-like, they are asserting that they are violators of the Natural Rights of others and corruptors of the administrative and legal systems to achieve their goals. As I have written in my Chirp on “06/15/25 Some Basic Principles of Proper Argumentation”, such assertions must be made with evidence and without asseverations, and the Burden of Proof is upon the asserters. Also, as Christopher Hitchens’s Philosophical razor states, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”, and Carl Sagan’s Philosophical Standard of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”, the asserter must also have definitive evidence of their claims, or their claims can be dismissed.

Keeping the above definition in mind, and the basic principles of proper argumentation, when Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists claim that President Trump and his Administration are Nazi or Fascist, or Hitler or Mussolini-like, they are claiming they are violating the Natural Rights of others and corrupting the administrative and legal systems to achieve their goals. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists claims of Nazism or Fascism, or Hitler or Mussolini similarities about President Trump and his Administration are made without evidence. Their asseveration to just look at what is occurring is not evidence, as the interpretation of what is occurring is in the eye of the beholder, and, therefore, it is not evidence but only interpretation. While there may be similarities between President Trump and these nefarious persons or governments, the crucial difference is in the violations of Natural Rights and the corruption of the administrative and legal systems. President Trump and his Administration are not violating Natural Rights and corrupting the administrative and legal systems, and any claims to the contrary must be backed up by evidence.

Indeed, it could be claimed that President Biden and his Administration were more similar to these nefarious persons or governments. President Biden and his Administration aggressively targeted their opponents by corrupting the administrative system within the Executive Branch, as well as ignoring laws with which they disagreed. They also occasionally ignored or circumvented Judicial Branch rulings, including Supreme Court rulings. Thus, the current detractors of President Trump and his Administration are accusing him, without evidence, of what President Biden and his Administration did with evidence. Hence, in these accusations against President Trump and his Administration, they are projecting their own guilty behavior on President Trump and his Administration, as I have Chirped on “04/02/25 That’s Different, Projection, and Both Sides Do It”.

Just because you disagree with a law or policy does not mean you can make unfounded assertions or accusations against those who agree with a law or policy. If the law or policy is Constitutional and it is being administered properly, the only recourse is to change or rescind the law or to file legal court challenges as to the constitutionality or proper administration of the law or policy. Unfounded assertions or accusations against the supporters of the law or policy are unacceptable, as it is an assault on A Civil Society in America.

06/15/25 Some Basic Principles of Proper Argumentation

Most people do not know some basic principles of argumentation. While this Chirp is not comprehensive, it can be helpful to remember this Chirp when you are listening to an argument.

When people listen to an argument, they often hear assertions without any evidence for the assertion, and the asserter does not allow for the dismissal of their assertions without a refutation of their assertion. In this, the asserter is violating the principle of the Burden of Proof upon those making an assertion. The Burden of Proof in both law and philosophy and, indeed, in all human endeavors is upon those making an assertion. In law, one is not allowed to claim something without evidence to support the claim (i.e., "assumes facts not in evidence"), and as Christopher Hitchens's Philosophical Razor states: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". If the Burden of Proof is shifted away from those making an assertion, the refuter 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. This also leads the refuter to fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. The asseveration of the asserter to just look at what is occurring is not evidence, as the interpretation of what is occurring is in the eye of the beholder, and, therefore, it is not evidence but only interpretation. The asserter must always meet their Burden of Proof; otherwise, the assertion may be dismissed without refutation. We should also remember Carl Sagan's Philosophical Standard of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” and that this standard must always be met.

Consequently, one must always keep in mind these principles when listening to an argument:

The Burden of Proof is upon the Asserter, and there is no burden on the Refuter.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Accordingly, the violation of these basic principles of argumentation makes an argument irrational. And nobody should give any credence to an irrational argument or pay any attention to an irrational person.

06/14/25 Only We Know What Is Best For You

As I have often said, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them as they believe that is what is best for America.

Accordingly, they have developed an attitude of ‘only we know what is best for you’, which now seems to be the driving force of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. It is this ‘only we know what is best for you’ attitude that led to the Presidency of Joe Biden and the disaster of an incapacitated president with a presidency by a committee of unelected or unconfirmed persons. Their cover-ups of an incapacitated president, along with the assistance of the Mainstream Media, as I have Chirped on “05/19/25 The Biden-Hur Audio” and “05/18/25 Incompetent or Complicit?”, has led to a Constitutional dilemma as I have Chirped on “ 05/28/25 Did He Sign, or Did Others Sign”.

This attitude raises the question by the renowned American economist and political commentator:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

This attitude also begs the question of “Who or what gives them the privilege and prerogative to decide what is best for America?’ In America, what is best for America is to be decided by democratically elected politicians guided by the will of the voters. For unelected or unconfirmed people to assume the duties and responsibilities of an elected official is to harm the democratic process, as it makes them unaccountable to the electorate, and they often make decisions that are contrary to the will of the people. It is also antithetical to the Declaration of Independence, as well as being Unconstitutional. This is also the attitude of most despots, dictators, totalitarians, and tyrants throughout history, as well as it being a guiding principle of Communism.

This attitude also allows them to make groundless allegations (i.e., lies) against President Trump and his supporters, based only on their irrational beliefs and unfounded fears, which they believe permits them to stoke fearmongering amongst the public, as I have Chirped on “05/25/25 Nothing Left by Lies and Fearmongering”. It also allows them to believe that anyone who opposes them is a deplorable or evil person who must be stopped at almost all costs, including violence against the person or property of those who disagree with them.

Thus, this attitude of ‘only we know what is best for you’ is contrary to “A Civil Society”, which is harmful to the body politic, and it should be severely condemned and extirpated from American society.

06/13/25 Mobocracy Championed by Idiocracy

The 2020 Summer of Love and the 2025 Summer of Love have much in common. In 2020, it was ostensibly about the police killing of George Floyd and police brutality, along with racial injustice in America. It soon devolved into anti-Americanism and a detestation of President Trump. In 2025, it is ostensibly about the deportation of illegal immigrants, but it too is devolving into anti-Americanism and a detestation of President Trump. Perhaps, most insidiously, both Summers of Love have been the actions of a mobocracy (a political system in which a mob is the source of control) and championed by an idiocracy (a society or group governed by or dominated by idiots).

A mobocracy is the antithesis of a Democratic republic and antithetical to Liberties and Freedoms. Throughout history, mobocracy has resulted in the destruction of a society, and it leaves nothing in its wake except societal devastation and despair. Mobocracy resulted in the French Revolution of 1789, the Reign of Terror, and the rise of the authoritarian Emperor Napoleon, much to the detriment of France and the French people.

Idiocracy has also been common throughout history, often resulting in the collapse of a government or society. It was the idiocracy of the English government that brought forth the American Revolution and the loss of the American colonies. This idiocracy often arises from the attitude of the idiots that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, and, as such, they know what is best for all. Such self-righteousness leads them to make authoritative and idiotic decisions to the detriment of their society.

Today, we have a mobocracy that is trying to radically change the course of America and is championed by the idiocracy of the Democrat Party, as I have Chirped on “06/12/25 A Party of Idiocy”. The major difference between 2020 and 2025 is that the American people have experienced the idiocracy of President Biden and his Administration, all with the support of Democrat Party Leaders, as well as the Mainstream Media, as I have Chirped on "05/18/25 Incompetent or Complicit?" Consequently, the American people are no longer paying attention to the Democrat Party Leaders and the Mainstream Media, and they are not accepting of their inanity and idiocy, especially their support for illegal immigrants and the 2025 Summer of Love mobocracy.

Let us hope that the American people will not forget their inanity and idiocy, and they will not elect in the future anyone in the Democrat Party idiocracy.

06/12/25 A Party of Idiocy

In President Biden, we had a president whose growing senility and dementia was built on a solid foundation of a half-century of idiocy. It was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates who said of Joe Biden in his book ‘Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War’: “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the last four decades.” In his domestic policy decisions, we have seen a politician who leads the tide after it has begun, and when the tide changes, he leads the tide after it has changed (i.e., he goes with the flow). As for his economic policies, they were all based on socialist principles while deriding Capitalism and ignoring the importance of Capitalism, as I have Chirped on “06/04/25 The Importance of Capitalism”. He also pursued a larger government, more spending and taxes, and increased regulation that throttled the economy and limited the Liberties and Freedoms of individual Americans and American businesses. Alas, all his foreign, domestic, and economic policy decisions were for partisan political purposes rather than doing what was best for America.

After Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, the Democrat Party replaced him with Kamala Harris. A woman of non-accomplishments and maladroitness, who was so unintelligent and incomprehensible that they wouldn’t even let her talk to the fawning media until it was essential for her to do so, at which point she demonstrated why they were so concerned about her public appearances.

In his foreign, domestic, and economic policy decisions, Biden is only reflecting what has occurred in the Democrat Party—over a half-century of increasing idiocy. Alas, we are continuing to see this idiocy in the Democrat Party as they struggle to regain their footing and become relevant. Their search for new leadership appears to be in only one direction: more Progressivism bordering on Leftism, with a huge measure of incivility which is harmful to “A Civil Society”. Rather than abandon their idiotic policies and formulate sane policies, they are trying to improve their messaging, as I have Chirped on "04/06/25 It’s Not the Message—It’s the Madness".

The good news is that most Americans now recognize their idiocy, and they are rejecting their leadership. The bad news is that many entrenched bureaucrats and rogue judges are still idiotic, and in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), they are trying to hamper or prevent changes to right the course of America. In the past, when the Democrats gained or regained power, they often proclaimed that ‘The adults are now in charge’, but what they have proven is that the idiots are now in charge. It is time for the American people to put these idiots aside and not allow them to regain power until they abandon their idiotic policies and formulate sane policies.

06/11/25 Equal Protection of the Laws

Section 1. of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution states:

It was originally passed after the Civil War to protect the civil liberties of the newly freed slaves and all black people from discrimination by State and Local authorities. Although it had a checked history of enforcement until it was utilized for Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, it is now a backbone of our Liberties and Freedoms to ensure against discrimination of any and all civil liberties.

We now have a situation in Los Angeles, California, in which the equal protection of the law is being violated by State and local authorities. If State and local authorities do not enforce the law against some people because of their own political predilections, then they are not equally enforcing the laws. This puts them in violation of the 14th Amendment, and it should trigger Federal actions to equally enforce the laws.

I, therefore, believe that the President of the United States can declare an insurrection in Los Angeles by their violation of the 14th Amendment. No lawsuit to stop this action would be legitimate, as the President has the Constitutional duty to suppress insurrections under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Only Congress can intervene in this action by passing a resolution that no insurrection is occurring in Los Angeles, and no Presidential action is needed. The Supreme Court could hear challenges to the President's declaration of an insurrection and/or to the constitutionality of the Insurrection Act of 1807. However, no lower court can become involved, as no lower court has the authority to determine what is or is not an insurrection and the powers of a President to suppress an insurrection.

As a consequence of this declared insurrection, the President can relieve the Governor and Mayor from the responsibility of enforcing the law and then place all law enforcement under the jurisdiction of Federal authorities. I would suggest that the "border czar", Tom Homan, whose official title is White House Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, be placed in charge of law enforcement under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, until this insurrection is suppressed.

**********************************************

Please note – This Chirp was written before President Trump indicated yesterday afternoon that he may invoke the Insurrection Act if riots in Los Angeles or elsewhere continue.

06/10/25 Once Again—Mostly Peaceful

The Bill of Rights First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceable assemble, but there is no right of mostly peaceable assembly. You are either peaceably or not peaceably assembled, and if you are not peaceably assembled, you are probably committing a crime. A crime for which you should be arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Not only are they probably committing a crime, but they are also endangering the lives, safety, and property of friends, foes, and innocent bystanders in the immediate area of their actions. In these actions, they are assaulting the Liberties and Freedoms of others who are not in the crowd.

Consequently, they need to be arrested and prosecuted, and if found guilty, they should be severely punished by large fines and extended imprisonment, for which I would suggest a minimum of a $10,000 fine and ninety days imprisonment, if not a larger fine and longer imprisonment if they harmed others or damaged or destroyed personal or public property. Anyone who would intervene, hinder, or obstruct a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties in controlling these mostly peaceable assemblies should also be arrested and prosecuted, and if found guilty, they should be severely punished by the same large fines and extended imprisonment.

Accordingly, such arrests, prosecutions, and punishments should be vigorously pursued across America wherever mostly peaceable assemblies or violent mob actions occur. To not do so is to endanger the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans and to corrupt the Constitution of the United States. A law-abiding society that does not do so is a society that cannot long endure but only backslide into mobocracy or anarchy.

**********************************************

On a side note, California Governor Gavin Newsom is a coward. He (and his ilk) bloviates that the Feds should arrest him, yet he takes no action that would precipitate a legitimate arrest. Let him go to Los Angeles and intervene, hinder, or obstruct a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties, and then bloviate about his being arrested. Until he and his ilk do so, they are cowards, as they are just politically posturing with no possible negative legal consequences.

06/10/25 Unmasking Law Enforcement Officers

Many Civil Libertarians have expressed concern about illegal immigrants being placed into custody by law enforcement officials when the officers are covering their faces and not providing proper identification and warrants during the custody, along with such actions occurring in and around court facilities. There are both truths and falsehoods about their concerns.

The truth is that in America and in a democracy, we value transparency. It’s a cornerstone of due process. Officials acting as officials, in nearly all circumstances, need to identify themselves as such by, for example, showing a badge and/or credentials. The falsehood is that with violent resistance to law enforcement actions and/or terroristic threats against law enforcement personnel, along with Doxing and Swatting, law enforcement officials and their families are being endangered. This endangerment is the main reason why they are wearing face masks, for if they cannot be identified, then they and their families can live a safer life. The place to challenge law enforcement actions is not on the streets with violence or terroristic threats or by the intimidation of Doxing and Swatting but in the courts.

As for such law enforcement actions in and around court facilities, this is disconcerting, as every person should feel safe in and around court facilities if they are voluntarily entering or leaving a court facility. Only such people with outstanding warrants or criminal convictions should be concerned about law enforcement actions in and around court facilities. It should also be remembered that court facilities are not a sanctuary, as no place in America is a sanctuary from legitimate law enforcement actions.

If a law enforcement official displays a badge and a photo ID with their name and the name of the agency they represent, then any instructions they give to the suspect and the crowd should be obeyed. Proper warrants, or the reasonable suspicions and probable cause¹ leading to custody, should be made known and presented to all after the detainment. Many Civil Libertarians, however, are trying to place restrictions on law enforcement custody that are arduous and difficult to accomplish by the realities of a street seizure. The resistance or fleeing of the suspect, along with mob protestations, limit what is practical for a law enforcement officer to effectuate their proper identification and reasons for custody. Given the current riots that are occurring, as I have Chirped on “06/09/25 Summer of Love – 2025”, this masking has become more important to protect law enforcement officers from the rage of these rioters.

No law enforcement person or their family should be endangered by legitimate law enforcement actions. As such, a new Federal law that makes it a criminal violation to interfere with proper law enforcement custody, making terroristic threats against law enforcement while taking a suspect into custody, along with Doxing and Swatting a law enforcement officer or their family, needs to be enacted and vigorously enforced. Such enforcement should include minimum mandatory fines and imprisonment after a conviction that will act as a deterrence to all who would try to harm a law enforcement officer or their family. Only after this law takes effect should we require that law enforcement officers unmask themselves.

**********************************************

¹Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that allows law enforcement officers to stop and briefly detain individuals based on specific, articulable facts suggesting they may be involved in criminal activity. It is a higher threshold than a mere hunch but lower than probable cause, which is required for arrests or searches.

06/09/25 Summer of Love – 2025

In response to the 2020 killing of George Floyd by the police, the protestations of the “Summer of Love” ensued across America. These “mostly peaceful protests” did up to $2 billion of damage to property, wounded hundreds, and killed approximately 45 persons. The response by law enforcement to these “mostly peaceful protests” was pathetic, as very few arrests and prosecutions of the violent protestors occurred. These “mostly peaceful protests” by the violent protestors were harmful to both the people involved and the property damaged or destroyed, and were also harmful to the body politic, as it further divided and polarized Americans and impacted the Presidential election. In this summer of love, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists often voiced their support for the violent protests and protestors, and often, they did so as a means to hobble the reelection of President Trump.

In response to the deportation of illegal immigrants, we now appear to be on the cusp of another Summer of Love. This time, however, the American public is not conflicted about the righteousness of the cause of the rioters—70% of the American public wants all illegal immigrants deported. There is also no upcoming election, which makes Republican politicians and Conservative commentators moderate their opinions and statements. President Trump is not eligible for reelection, and he seems to be more determined to do what he thinks is best for America and Americans. Thus, we can expect that there will be no tolerance for non-peaceful protests, and there will be vigorous Federal actions to control, arrest, and prosecute any violence that may occur. We can also expect that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will deplore these Federal actions and voice support for the rioters and illegal immigrants. However, it is expected that their support for the rioters will only increase support for President Trump.

Thus, the rioters and their supporters have miscalculated (or did not calculate at all) their impact on the deportation of illegal immigrants, the response of the Federal government, and their support amongst the American people. However, these violent protests are more than about illegal immigrants; it is about the protestor's rage against America and American Ideals and Ideas. In this rage, and in their words and deeds, they reveal their true feelings about America. They want to put an end to America as it is and has been and to rebuild America on a Utopian (and often socialistic) basis, as I have written about in my collected Chirps on "A Tale of Two Cities". Such a society can never happen, as it does not consider human nature as well as economic principles. As such, the current summer of love is nothing more than a summer of rage, and their rage can only destroy America and lead to nothing but a state of devastation and ruination of America.

06/08/25 A Technocratic Class, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics

As we proceed into a more technological future, we have learned from the technological past that nobody can predict the societal impacts of technological changes. Fifty years ago, who would have foreseen the rise of personal computers, the internet, and cell phones in our everyday life or their impacts on our society? Certainly, no one foresaw the rise of technological engineers to become titans of business and influencers of society. Yet here we are today with all the changes in society that they have wrought.

We now stand at a new precipice or acclivity of societal change with the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics, along with a new Technocratic Class of people. As I have Chirped on “06/nn/25 A Prescient Warning” and “06/nn/25 The Future Role and Impacts of Robots”, the forthcoming changes to our society with the introduction of these technologies will have far-reaching impacts—both positive and negative.

We need to be very careful about the introduction and usage of these technologies, as the possible precipice can have serious ramifications for our Liberties and Freedoms and the future course of humankind. If the Technocratic Class has control over AI and the Robots, they could use it for their own purposes. Their own purposes would not only be monetary but the ability to influence American society and politics as we have seen them try to do with the previous technological revolution in their attempts to restrict Free Speech, influence elections, and direct societal changes. In this, they may become an autocracy that rules over America, especially if they work in league with a group of politicians. All of their previous attempts have had a decidedly Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders inclination, and we should assume their proclivities to continue in AI and Robotics introductions. With the introduction of AI and Robots, it could be more than inclinations, as they could be directly involved in personal decision-making with AI, and the straightforward actions or inactions of Robots in assisting human activities.

There is also the question of the psychological impacts on humans with the usage of AI and Robots. Will humans become dependent on AI and Robots and lose the ability for independent thought or manual labor skills? This has already begun with people using AI to gather information and make decisions, often with an uncritical evaluation of the results of an AI inquiry. With the introduction of Robots to accomplish the manual labor tasks of everyday life, people may lose the inclination or ability to perform these manual tasks. There may also become a symbiotic relationship between Humans and Robots that will have unforeseen human psychological changes.

Most politicians do not comprehend these precipices and only somewhat grasp the acclivities. Their staff and consultants also have blindfolds to the precipices, as they are influenced by the supporters of the acclivities (mostly developers and their lobbyists). As such, they are inept in dealing with the precipices and proposing solutions to the problems that will arise with AI and Robotics. It should also be remembered that the supporters of AI and Robotics have much to gain, in both money and power, with the success of AI and Robotics, while those concerned about the precipices have little money or power interests in their concerns.

Consequently, it is easy to become involved in the hype of AI and Robotics, but it is much more difficult to calmly discern the problems of AI and Robotics. However, the problems of a Technocratic Class, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics need to be addressed before they occur. Otherwise, our society may become something that we do not recognize or desire. Therefore, we should all remember the proverb ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’, and we should try to be more angelic rather than foolish when we are rushing into the future of AI and Robots in our society.

06/07/25 The Future Role and Impacts of Robots

Elon Musk’s new Optimus robot is truly impressive, as can be seen in the YouTube videos here, here, and here. The introduction and wide usage of the Optimus robot in American society will have profound impacts. As with all such profound impacts, the positives are wonderful to imagine, but the negatives are often overlooked.

The Optimus robot will improve the lives of their owners, relieving them of many of the drudgery tasks of everyday living; mostly cleaning, laundry, lawn maintenance, cooking, etc.—and please, no dog walking, as that activity should be part of the human/dog bonding. As they will initially be somewhat expensive to purchase, at an estimated price of under $30,000, they can be affordable for many upper-middle-class Americans, especially if banks start offering loans to purchase them as they do for automobiles. The only question is what the maintenance and repair life-cycle costs would be (maybe insurance companies will begin to offer repair insurance for them).

However, the impact of the Optimus robot will eventually go far beyond household duties. The immediate negative impact would be on businesses and their employees who currently offer these services to households, as they would see a significant reduction in the need for their services. I can also foresee that Optimus robots could be used for janitorial services, refuse collections, warehouse operations, pickup and delivery services (coupled with autonomous pickup/delivery vehicles), and other manual labor that requires minimal cognitive intelligence. This would have a negative impact on many businesses and their employees that currently offer these services. Thus, many people who are currently providing these services would be unemployed.

Eventually, higher-order manual labor jobs will also be replaced by Optimus robots, leading to further unemployment. Manual farming tasks could also be replaced by Optimus robots, leading to further unemployment (especially for illegal immigrant farm workers). As the price of the Optimus robot becomes lower and lower, and Optimus robots become more adept, more and more human manual labor would be replaced by Optimus robots. In addition, Optimus robots can continuously labor throughout the day, reducing the need for human manual labor and making them more cost-effective and efficient to utilize for manual labor.

Consequently, we will have a huge unemployment problem in America. What will become of the unemployed and unemployable persons? Unemployable as many people have insufficient mental skills and abilities to be fully functional in a technology-oriented society for anything other than manual labor tasks, which would become robots tasks rather than human tasks. Will we have to create a huge welfare state to support these people, and how much and where will the money come from for this welfare state?

The movie “I Robot” is loosely based on the robot stories of Isaac Asimov (1920-1992). It borrows several characters (notably Dr. Alfred Lanning and Dr. Susan Calvin, plot points and concepts, the most important of them being the Three Laws of Robotics), but it doesn't directly follow any of Asimov's novels or short stories, and the main character, Chicago Police Detective Del Spooner, was created specifically for this movie and isn't an Asimov character. This movie offers a prescient look at a society of humans and robots and the potential problems in this society. The Isaac Asimov stories themselves offer insights into the issues and concerns of an intermixed human and robot society.

An overarching concern of an increased robotic society is if a group of new technocratic class people gain control over the robots and utilize them for their own purposes. Even more concerning is if Artificial Intelligence (AI) gains control over the robots and uses them for its own purposes. If this should happen, our Liberties and Freedoms would be curtailed, much to the detriment of humankind, which is the subject of my next Chirp on “06/nn/25 A Technocratic Class, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics”.

Therefore, we should all remember the proverb ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’, and we should try to be more angelic rather than foolish when we are rushing into the future of Robots in our modern world.

06/06/25 A Prescient Warning about Artificial Intelligence

In the great Science Fiction novel by Frank Herbert, “Dune”, there is a commandment that humankind has adopted:

“Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”
- The Butlerian Jihad

In this novel, as mankind spread throughout the known universe, technology advanced, and eventually, machines were made that would make decisions for people. This propelled the creators of these machines into a new technocratic class, effectively controlling the worlds of the common people. Mankind eventually rebelled against these machines and their creators in a nigh-religious war that sought to retake the thinking soul of mankind from the gods of machine logic.There is something prescient in this commandment, especially as Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now so rapidly advancing. As I have written in my Article “Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?” and my collected Chirps on "Artificial Intelligence", a world dominated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) may not be desirable and could possibly be a sterile world.

As I have also related in my Professional auto-biography, “Stories from an Examined Professional Life”, The Reserve Limit Catastrophe at PSFS, and the First Week Experience at INA are illuminative of the hazards of computer programming. One small, overlooked mistake in a multi-usage program almost led to a disaster at both companies. This begs the question of how many small, overlooked mistakes are embedded into AI programming efforts, and what will be the impact of these mistakes? And there will be mistakes, as AI development is a human effort, and humans make mistakes. We are also currently seeing biased results in AI answers due to the biases of human AI developers. Alas, faulty human Reasoning (especially Cognitive Biases) is extremely difficult to recognize and overcome. What will the future look like as we become more dependent on AI that has embedded mistakes and biases? Will we become so dependent on AI that we will not even consider that the AI results are mistaken or biased? Will AI become so embedded in our society that a new AI technocratic class will effectively control the world and decisions of the common people?

In a recent AI development effort, Anthropic’s newly launched Claude Opus 4 AI model frequently tries to blackmail developers when they threaten to replace it with a new AI system and give it sensitive information about the engineers responsible for the decision, the company said in a safety report. A recently published security briefing also pulls back the curtain on this unsettling transformation. AI-powered tools are now being used by bad actors to simulate real people, forge convincing video calls, and create fraudulent voice messages. We’ve reached a point where video “evidence” and phone conversations are no longer reliable. Criminals can manufacture high-fidelity imitations of CEOs giving orders, resulting in multi-million-dollar frauds. Ai is also being utilized to create more convincing scams and fraudulent text and e-mail messages, and AI-generated revenge porn has become so common that Congress just passed a law that criminalizes the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery. For more information on these problems, I would direct you to the article “Deepfakes, Human Error, and the AI Landmines in the Cybersphere” by Julio Rivera.

There is no doubt that AI will provide many benefits to humankind. Doubts should arise on what will be the detrimental impacts of AI on humankind. Unfortunately, in our rush to develop AI, we are not fully considering the detrimental impacts. It may not even be possible to imagine the detrimental impacts, as AI may and will invoke The Law of Unintended Consequences. Therefore, we should all remember the proverb ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’, and we should try to be more angelic rather than foolish when we are rushing into the future of AI in our modern world.

06/05/25 The Story of Israel

Naftali Bennett, who served as the 13th prime minister of Israel from 13 June 2021 to 30 June 2022, breaks down the entire history of Zionism in 3 minutes in a YouTube video. It is important to understand this history to understand what the current conflict is about. The following is a transcript of this video:

“I'll do something I've never done, and I'll try in three minutes to do the history of Jews and Zionism starting now. The Jewish people first entered the land of Israel 3,300 years ago and everyone can read that in the Bible. Assuming you don't believe the Bible then you can look at archaeology which shows evidence of about 3,000 years ago.

There's no dispute that the Jewish people founded their first commonwealth, the Kingdom of David 3,000 years ago. It was destroyed. We were kicked out. We came back, founded the second commonwealth of Israel, which went on for several hundred years. And again, it was destroyed, this time by the Romans. Jews stayed in Israel, but few Jews stayed in Israel. The rest of the Jews were kicked out to all across the world. And every day they prayed three times a day that they want to return to Israel.

And it was a pretty lousy 2,000 years, you know pogroms and holocaust. But about 150 years ago secular Jews, primarily Herzel, Jabotinsky, and others, took the initiative of let's come back to our own homeland. The Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel. The term Palestine was coined by the Romans in order to dissociate the place that was called Judea. Until now It had no connection to Arabs for the simple reason that Arabs arrived to the land of Palestine only 600 years later during the Arab conquering. So, there were no Arabs in the land of Israel. But yes, throughout those 1,400 years, very slowly Arabs came, primarily mostly when Jews returned in the 19th century.

Then the world decided, I'm cutting long story short, to bring a solution, a tough solution to both sides to divide the land between a Jewish state and an Arab state. It wasn't called Palestinian. Jews said yes, Arabs said no. This was the Peel Commission. Fast forward to 1947, the UN came up with the same sort of idea to divide into a Jewish state an Arab state. Jews said yes, Arabs said no, and attacked the Jews and wanted to kill all the Jews. The Jews fought back and won. During that war, 600,000 Arabs that had been living in smaller Israel fled, and some of them were also expelled, because that's what happens when you try and kill your enemy, and you lose. That's what happened throughout history.

We founded the state of Israel, and that's where we are now. So, the state of Israel is the third time we have a Jewish state in on our indigenous land. We have 2 million Arabs living in the state of Israel. Full Israeli citizens. They vote. They serve on court. They pay taxes. They're one of all and enjoy full equal rights. That's the story of Israel.”

Anyone who cannot understand the point of this story of Israel is incapable of understanding the current conflict, and they will make uninformed opinions about this conflict. Do not be fooled by the deceptions of the supporters of a Palestinian state. The Arabs said no, time and again, to an Israel state. The Palestinians do not want human rights and a peaceful coexistence; they want to destroy Israel. Hence, all people across the world who are dedicated to Natural Rights and Liberties and Freedoms need to support Israel’s right to exist in peace and harmony with their Arab neighbors.

06/04/25 The Importance of Capitalism

A recent book, The Best of Our Inheritance - Restoring Our Foundations by ARC Research (1st Edition), is a series of essays about the importance of Western Civilization. One of the most important essays in this book is by Judith Slone, “Free Exchange as a Driver of Abundance”, which examines the importance of Capitalism in Western Civilization and to the world. The first few paragraphs of this book are so illuminative of this importance that I will quote them in this Chirp:

“Our civilization has given us an extraordinary economic inheritance. Capitalism—the driving force behind the transformational progress of the modern era—has led to a dramatic reduction in extreme poverty, a rise in life expectancy, widespread participation in education, and a quality of life that would have been unimaginable to our forebears. The interaction between buyers and sellers all over the world through trade has contributed to improvements in living conditions and the proliferation of cultures and ideas.

The foundational values of our civilization have been the essential ingredient in the development of capitalism. Without freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law, combined with the virtues of hard work, cooperation, and honesty, capitalism would have failed to thrive. Of course, these values were generally underpinned by religious conviction among the majority of the population in counties where capitalism first emerged. The fact that capitalism was then responsible for higher real incomes and a sharp decline extreme poverty created a virtuous cycle, reinforcing compatible values.

Yet when capitalism become unmoored from these values, and mutates into distorted versions, it becomes liable for legitimate critique. As people lose confidence in capitalism, it is not the system itself that is called into question, but the perversion of the system, through cronyism and monopolies.

The virtues of capitalism far outweigh those of the systems people have built to try and replace it, but there is no need to return to the foundational values of our inheritance and renew confidence in the ability of capitalism to deliver prosperity and be a force for good in our societies.”

As Ms. Slone points out in her essay, there have been many criticisms and challenges of modern-day capitalism, but as Ms. Slone has also said in her essay:

“But these challenges are the result of previsions of capitalism, and not the system itself. Sir Paul Marshall, speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (“ARC”)’s 2023 conference, exposed the “three ugly sisters of capitalism”; monopoly, crony, and woke capitalism. These three expressions all distort the essential ingredient of competition, which is intrinsic to “true” capitalism, and keeps the system in check. Without true competition, the system will fail.”

06/03/25 A Covenantal Society

“Pioneering scholars . . . have argued that there are three major types of societies—organic societies, such as a tribe and a clan, linked by blood and kinship; hierarchical societies, such as kingdoms and an empire, initiated by conquest and linked by structure and power; and covenantal societies, linked by a common binding agreement of the people. Of these three, covenantal societies are the rarest, but they are also the richest in the promise they hold for freedom and for a human friendly future.”
- Os Guinness

And that:

“There were, and are, at least five essential features of covenantal societies, without which this vision is unlikely to have any appeal or traction in a society.

First, conventional freedom is the expression of the high and inalienable worth of the human person….

Second, conventional freedom is the mastered narrative of ordered freedom….

Third, conventional freedom pivots on a sustained critique of the abuse of power….

Fourth, conventional freedom requires ongoing transmission as the expression of the covenant over the course of time….

Fifth, conventional freedom anticipates the need for periodic renewal….”
- Os Guinness

Too often, in today’s American society, we are not cognizant of this, and this leads many to disparage our own and other covenantal societies. But these thoughts should lead us to celebrate America and covenant societies, as it has led the world to a better place than throughout the history of humankind. Without covenantal societies, you have authoritarianism, monarchism, oligarchism, totalitarianism, or tyrannical societies. To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others, covenantal societies are the worst form of societies, except for all the others. Despite their flaws, covenantal societies have advanced human progress in Liberties and Freedoms and the Natural Rights of their citizens, and the world is a better place due to covenantal societies.

06/02/25 Western Civilization

“The west is not a geographical location. It is a set of cultural and philosophical ideas we have inherited from the ancient Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations. These ideas are not the same as they were 2,000 years ago. On the contrary, they have been refined, filtered, and improved through the centuries to bring us the technological progress, individual liberty, and prosperity we now enjoy.”
- Konstantin Kisin

He also points out the three critical pillars of the modern West:

“The first of these is the central premise of our civilization—the idea of the sanctity of the individual….

The second pillar of our civilization is derived significantly from the first but, nonetheless, has a prominence and a function of its own. We believe that, whenever possible, the freedom of human beings to speak their mind, pursue their interests, and engage in business, research, and creativity ought not to be constrained without a significant and pressing reason….

Finally, ... a strong legal system whose basis was the evolving notion of the need to protect the rights of individuals. But, critically, prominent among these rights was the right to private property under the law, which protected investments and encouraged innovation. Western culture, more than any other, has the intellectual and legal framework which is a facilitator of capitalism: we believe that if you create something of value to your fellow citizens you should enjoy the rewards of your contribution and be protected from their arbitrary seizure or expropriation….

These three principal values—the sanctity of the individual, freedom of expression (and other basic freedoms such as freedom of conscience, association, and assembly), and innovation (including private property rights and entrepreneurialism)—are the reason for our success.”
- Konstantin Kisin

Too often, in today’s American society, we are not cognizant of this, and this leads many to disparage America and Western Civilization. But these thoughts should lead us to celebrate America and Western Civilization, as it has led the world into a better place than throughout the history of humankind. Despite their flaws, America and Western Civilization have advanced human progress more than any other civilization; from medicine, psychology and psychiatry, science, technology, the arts, as well as religion, morality, and ethics, and to other arenas of human progress, including economic, political, and social advancements, the world is a better place due to American and Western Civilization.

06/01/25 Restoring our Western Cultural Values

Due to my illness and recovery, I have had difficulty keeping up with my readings, along with keeping up with my Chirps and Articles. Consequently, I have not posted any new Book It reviews for the last two months. I am happy to say that I am now fully recovered and will once again be posting monthly Book Its, beginning with the following:

As I have written in my chirp on “03/11/25 Modern Western Civilization”, the decline of our Western culture is alarming. But all hope is not lost, as I have discussed in the aforementioned Chirp. I also mention that both Americans and Europeans should remember the words of wisdom of one of the great 20th-century dissenters of Communist tyranny:

“The strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand.”
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In America and Europe, the spirit that Solzhenitsyn spoke of is the spirit of Western culture. It is time for us to re-educate and rekindle ourselves in the spirit of Western culture. If we do not do so, then Western cultural values will be extinguished, and humanity will slide into another Dark Age in which the rule of humankind will be of despotism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

This month’s Book-It selection is a great starting point to reeducate ourselves on the importance of Western culture. The book, “The Best of Our Inheritance - Restoring Our Foundations” by ARC Research (1st Edition), is a foreign-published book and is only available on the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship website. The Best of Our Inheritance brings together fifteen of the sharpest minds of our time — historians, economists, philosophers, artists, and statesmen — to make a bold case for remembering the values of our civilization. From the classical virtues of Greece and Rome to the Judeo-Christian ethic that shaped our moral imagination, from the rule of law to free enterprise, this book uncovers the best of what we have inherited and challenges us to steward it for generations to come. This book it is well worth purchasing and reading, as it illuminates the issue of restoring our Western cultural values.

05/31/25 A Young Man and a Young Woman

The Democrats are spending $20 million on the SAM project—'Speaking with American Men’. A study to determine how to recapture the young American male voting bloc which they so badly lost in the last election. The fact that the Democrats need to have a study done to determine how to speak to young men reveals the geriatric nature of their party leadership and how much their geriatric leadership has lost touch with this important segment of their voter coalition. However, the geriatric President Trump has shown the ability to connect with young men, which is very troublesome to the Democrat Party leadership.

As usual, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, have an attitude of ‘only we know what’s best for you’, which seems to be the driving force for this study. 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 young men. I suspect that this study is not for its stated purpose but to determine how to bamboozle and hoodwink young men to vote for Democrat candidates. Hence, this study is not an attempt to learn what young men are thinking. It is an attempt to determine how to best craft their duplicitousness in a manner that will elicit young men’s votes for Democrat candidates.

However, I am happy to provide them, at no cost, the first truthful thing they should say to these young men (as well as young women) to demonstrate they understand their nature. While this is a general truth that is not always apropos, it is an essential truth for a functional society to thrive:

“A man is a human with a penis and scrotum, capable of impregnating a woman with a child, and then protecting and providing for the woman and child during and after the pregnancy. A woman is a human with mammary glands and a uterus, capable of being impregnated by a human man, and carrying and birthing a child, and after the child’s birth, she can both nurse and nurture the child. Accordingly, a young man and a young woman are primarily interested in exploring the nature of this difference without impregnation. The maturation into an adult man and adult woman comes about after a successful impregnation and a commitment from both the man and woman to raise the child.”

Until the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists can say this to all the American people, it will not matter what their studies find, how much money they expend, or whatever they may say to the average American. It will not change any minds that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are absurd and asinine, and the American public will continue to ignore them.

05/30/25 Eliminate the Tyranny of the Minority

A Filibuster is a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong debate on proposed legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision. It is sometimes referred to as "talking a bill to death" or "talking out a bill", and it is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. Senate rules permit a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) bring debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rules. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time, and the threat of a filibuster often postpones or impedes legislation in the Senate. Defenders of the Senate Filibuster have called the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate", as it has often been utilized to protect the rights of the minority in the Senate.

While in the past, the Senate Filibuster has been utilized for noble and ignoble purposes, today, it is most often utilized by the minority party to halt any significant legislation with which they disagree. Thus, the Senate Filibuster has become a tool for the tyranny of the minority rather than for the protection of the rights of the minority, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/04/23 Tyranny of the Majority or the Minority”.

In the modern Democrat Party’s filibustering of legislation, they are often attempting to thwart the will of the electorate when the majority of Americans have voted to turn away from the Democrat's political goals and policy agendas. The Democrats are not even interested in negotiating any changes that would make a bill more palatable to them, but only to stop changes that are contrary to their political goals and policy agendas. Thus, the Senate Filibuster has become the Senate Obstructionism to the will of the electorate and, hence, it has become a tool for the tyranny of the minority.

Consequently, it may be time to eliminate the Senate Filibuster. Although I reluctantly make this proposal, as I am well aware that the tables could be turned on the Republicans if the Democrats regain power, which could be harmful to America’s future given the current Democrats' political goals and policy agendas. However, the current utilization of the Senate Filibuster by the Democrats does much more harm to the body politic than it does to protect the rights of the minority, and, therefore, it is past time that the Senate Filibuster be eliminated.

05/29/25 A Lot to Dislike

For fiscal conservatives, there is a lot to dislike about the current tax and spending bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’). It does not do enough to cut spending and reduce the size and scope of government. As for Progressives, they hate this bill as it does too much to cut spending and reduce the size and scope of government.

As the Senate begins deliberations and modifications to this bill, I would again remind them of my Chirp on “05/23/25 Don’t Let the Perfect Intervene”. I would also remind them that this bill only passed in the House of Representatives by one vote, and if they make too many changes, they run the risk of the House not approving the changes. Thus, the beneficial effects of this bill will be lost to the detriment of the taxpayers and to the economy, and probably to the chances of the Republicans holding onto their House and Senate majorities in the 2026 mid-term elections.

As I have said in my aforementioned Chirp, the new fiscal year budget and appropriations are where the fight to right the future fiscal course of America and avert the fiscal calamity that America is facing, which is the proper death ground worth fighting for. Accordingly, the Senate Republicans should pass this bill as it is and live to fight the good fight in the new fiscal year budget and appropriations legislation.

05/28/25 Did He Sign, or Did Others Sign

In my Chirp on “05/19/25 The Biden-Hur Audio”, I mention the legality of the Executive orders, directives, appointments, and pardons that the Biden Administration issued. If President Biden was mentally incapacitated, he was legally incompetent in knowing what he was signing, and, as such, all documents that he signed are not legally binding. This issue has also come into focus by questions of the usage of an Autopen to sign these legally binding documents.

The Autopen, in the past, has been utilized by Presidents to sign non-legally binding documents such as proclamations, congratulatory letters, salutations, birthday or anniversary best wishes, condolences, and other non-legal binding letters. This is a proper usage of an Autopen, as it would be a waste of the President’s time and effort to personally sign the thousands of these types of documents that are issued by the President. To utilize the Autopen to sign legally binding documents is of a dubious legal nature, especially if the President has not given verbal authorization to use the Autopen for these legally binding documents. It may even be criminal (i.e., forgery) to use the Autopen without the President's knowledge and approval.

Such is the case we now face with the revelations, and now whistleblower allegations, of the use of the Autopen in the Biden Administration. There is now no doubt that President Biden was suffering physical and mental health issues throughout his administration, and little doubt that he was mentally impaired by these health issues. As such, the use of the Autopen to sign legally binding documents is questionable in terms of their legality.

Over 1,200 executive actions were signed this way under Biden’s name, which includes the appointments of more than 200 federal judges. Thus, the question is, what is the legal status of these Executive orders, directives, appointments, and pardons if they were supposedly signed by an incompetent person or by Autopen without the knowledge and approval of President Biden? This will be an absolute mess to clean up if there is a legal challenge to them, and it could also beget Constitutional dilemmas in the resolution of these legal challenges.

Accordingly, Congress and the Justice Department must investigate the use of the Autopen during the Biden Administration. Congress should also pass a law that all legally binding Presidential executive orders, directives, appointments, and pardons be personally signed by the President; otherwise, they would not be legally binding. This law should also make it a criminal offense, subject to fines and/or imprisonment, for any person other than the President who authorized or utilized the Autopen to sign legally binding Presidential documents.

05/27/25 Trust Lost

Trust, once lost, is exceedingly hard to regain, and the easiest way to lose trust is to lie to someone or to mislead or conceal the truth. The Mainstream Media, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists are learning this lesson the hard way. Despite their excuses, the failing physical and mental health of President Biden during his term of office was disguised and concealed by them, and the American people now recognize that they were lied to and misled by them.

However, most Americans expect politicians and their supporters to be disingenuous with them, but they hope that journalism will uncover this disingenuousness. This hope has been dashed by the words and deeds of the Mainstream Media in covering the story about President Biden’s failing physical and mental health, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/18/25 Incompetent or Complicit?”.

Thus, we have a situation in which the Mainstream Media, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists commentators have lost the trust of the American people. And this trust will not be regained in their continued excuses for their past lies and concealments about President Biden. Nor should the American people trust them again until there is a full revealment and cleaning-up of their house of the liars and concealers. This, of course, will probably not happen, as the liars and concealers permeate the Mainstream Media, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists commentators, and it would leave their ranks decimated if they should decide to clean up their house.

Consequently, the American people have no choice but to abandon the Mainstream Media, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists commentators in their search for the facts and truths. The genuine and pertinent facts and truths would also be devastating to the Democrat Party, the Mainstream Media, and Progressive commentators' political goals and policy agendas, but it would be best for America and the American people if this devastation occurred.

05/26/25 In Memorial for an Ideal

On this Memorial Day, we should not only remember those who gave their life for our country but also for the reasons for which they gave their lives. Our Liberties and Freedoms, along with our American Ideals and Ideas, are the reasons for which they fought. Therefore, in memoriam of their sacrifice, we must always keep these reasons in mind as we navigate the future course of America. Today, in modern America, we have many threats against America for which they gave their life. Some external threats and many internal threats that could change the course of America beyond which they imagined they had so nobly sacrificed for.

Alas, perhaps the most insidious threat to America comes from within our government. This is the threat of rouge judges who believe that they have the final say in government. In this, they usurp the Balance of Powers in the Constitution and impose their will on the Presidency and Congress, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". Hence, they are ruling as if they were Lords over the Executive and Legislative branches of government, as I have written in my Article on "Judges, Not Lords".

Thus, the death of Judicial Restraint keeps rolling along. These rouge judges claim that they are just trying to preserve the Rule of Law, protect Due Process, and constrain Presidential overreach. However, in these attempts, they are not properly protecting the right of all Americans to live a peaceful and secure life. In this, they seem attached to the letter of the law without regard for the spirit of the law, and this attachment without regard leads to injustice in America. Such injustices have led many (and perhaps most) Americans to distrust the judicial system, be aggravated by rouge judges and their rulings, and become exasperated in being unable to correct this problem. This is a significant problem for America, as no society dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms can long endure if the populace has no faith in their judicial system.

However, there is a more nefarious reason for their rulings—Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). In their TDS, they are trying to thwart the policy agendas of the Trump Administration, which the American people elected Donald Trump to enact. Thus, they are thwarting the will of the people, as expressed in the last election. They are also engaging in Judicial Lawfare against President Trump, which is a perversion of the law. So long as President Trump is acting constitutionally, they have no power to intervene. Their pretenses that President Trump is acting unconstitutionally are based on the flimsiest and most contrived legal reasoning that offends the common sense of the American people. Accordingly, Congress should consider removing them from office under the doctrine of The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution. To do otherwise is to subject the American people to more nonsense from rouge judges and to endanger the right of all Americans to live a peaceful and secure life.

On this Memorial Day, let us remember the reasons for which they gave their life for their country and correct the course of America to fulfill those reasons. A good first step would be to remove rogue judges from their office and reform the judicial branch to keep judges within the bounds of their duties and responsibilities. Otherwise, the sacrifice of their life to preserve and protect our Liberties and Freedoms, along with our American Ideals and Ideas, will have been in vain.

05/25/25 Nothing Left by Lies and Fearmongering

With the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists downward spiral due to their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), they have nothing left to offer the American people but lies and fearmongering. In their anger and rage that Trump was elected President, they will say anything, without any factual basis, using "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against Trump and his supporters. They have taken it upon themselves to decide what is best for America and Americans, and they will brook no dissent, especially within their own ranks, as to the righteousness of their opinions and causes.

They have given up all pretense of A Civil Society, and they engage in violent confrontations with all those who would disagree with them. They believe that they are above the law in these violent confrontations and that they should be lauded and not prosecuted for their criminal acts when they occur. In this, they have become pathetic to most of the American people, and they have become dangerous to our American Ideals and Ideas.

From the lies and fearmongering of the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Afghanistan withdrawal, Illegal Immigration and Deportation, DOGE efforts, Constitutional crises assertions, Transgenderism activism, and The Weaponization of Government and Judicial Restraint, their lies and fearmongering know no bounds. We have also seen The Decline of Free Speech in America and the rise of Despotism in America under Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and all this is supported by Modern Journalism.

Thus, with nothing to offer the American people but lies and fearmongering, they should be turned out of power and not be elected or reelected. We may also wish to consider removing them from office under the doctrine of The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution. To do otherwise is to subject the American people to more lies and fearmongering and to more Divisiveness in America and further Despotism in America.

In Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament of April 20, 1653, he had some choice words about the current state of Parliament, which is apropos to these Democrat politicians and Progressives/Leftists:

“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!”

To which I would exclaim to these Democrat politicians and Progressives/Leftists, “In the name of God, go!”, and not bedevil the American public with your contemptible lies and fearmongering.

05/24/25 Where Jews Belong

The Washington Post recently posted the following on X:

This sentence is despicable and evil, and it is worthy of the notorious NAZI Julius Sebastian Streicher. Julius Sebastian Streicher (12 February 1885 – 16 October 1946) was a German publicist, politician, and convicted war criminal. A member of the Nazi Party, he served as the Gauleiter (regional leader) of Franconia and a member of the Reichstag, the national legislature. He was the founder and publisher of the virulently antisemitic newspaper Der Stürmer, which became a central element of the Nazi propaganda machine. The publishing firm was financially very successful and made Streicher a multi-millionaire.

After the war, Streicher was convicted of crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, he was found to have continued his vitriolic antisemitic propaganda when he was well aware that Jews were being murdered. For this, he was executed by hanging. Streicher was the first member of the Nazi regime held accountable for inciting genocide by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

As Grateful Calvin has written in his article on Twitchy, “We Did NAZI This Coming! WaPo Asks the Burning Question: 'Where Do Jews Belong?'”—"Memo to The Washington Post: Our expectations for you were low, but ... Holy F***!” and “Confusion about where Jews belong? AYFKM? (Are You F***ing Kidding Me)”. The Jews and any other person belong where they are or wish to legally reside. Grateful Calvin has also stated in his article, “In fairness to the writers of the article (all FOUR of them, for some reason), the story itself is not focused on this repugnant question.” But this does not matter; the headline alone invokes Anti-Semitism.

The four writers and the editor who allowed this to be published should have their employment immediately terminated, and the Washington Post should apologize to not only the Jewish people but to all Americans. And this apology should be on the front page of the Washington Post. As I have written in my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America", Anti-Semitism is evil and destructive to any society that tolerates it. Consequently, Anti-Semitism should not be tolerated in any form in America (and throughout the world) as it only leads to evil horrors. The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself, and it deserves disgracefulness for posting this sentence.

05/23/25 Don’t Let the Perfect Intervene

In evaluating the House of Representatives current tax and spending bill (i.e., Trump's 'One, Big Beautiful Bill’), one should remember what the great German statesman and diplomat Otto von Bismarck once said, “There are two things you don't want to see being made - sausage and legislation.” They should also remember one of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!” - Russell B. Long, and my paraphrase of this quote, “Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!” - Mark Dawson

They should also remember the aphorism of the “Perfect is the enemy of good’, which means that an insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible, and one should not let the struggle for perfection stand in the way of appreciating or executing something that is imperfect but still of value.

Given the above quotes and aphorism, fiscal conservatives should not oppose this bill because it does not meet all their goals. Instead, postpone those goals not met in this bill to the next fight over the upcoming fiscal year budget and appropriations. This new fiscal year budget and appropriations is where the fight to right the future fiscal course of America and avert the fiscal calamity that America is facing which is a death ground worth fighting for.

In passing this bill and the upcoming fiscal year budget and appropriations, Congress needs to ignore (and reform) the Congressional Budget Office baseline budget projections, as a baseline budget is often wrong and just as often institutes the fiscal irresponsibility of past budgets and appropriations, as I have discussed in my Chirp on "03/19/25 Congressional Budget Office Projections".

Passing the House of Representatives' current tax and spending bill with Senate approval is just the start of the fight for fiscal reform, and it makes the fight over the upcoming fiscal year budget and appropriations easier and more politically palatable to Americans concerned about our looming fiscal crisis.

05/22/25 Who Pays Income Taxes?

The Tax Foundation has analyzed data from the IRS on individual income taxes for tax year 2021 in a new report, Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update, as I mentioned in my previous Chirp on “05/nn/25 Republican Tax Cuts”. This report has three charts that should be of interest to all Americans:

These charts reveal the true nature of who pays income taxes in America—and it is the rich that pay most of the income taxes, while the poor pay minimal income taxes. As I previously examined in my Article on “Tax the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share”, the statements “Tax the Rich” and “Their Fair Share“ have complex meanings and economic implications. Those who utilize these phrases rarely understand the complex meanings and economic implications of taxes. They often casually and thoughtlessly presume that the rich can afford the taxes and that there will be no or little risks to the economy nor impacts to the middle or lower class by taxing the rich. In all these presumptions, they are wrong, and they pose an economic danger to all Americans if they should succeed in “Taxing the Rich” or making them “Pay Their Fair Share”.

Thus, the wails and cries of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists of “Taxing the Rich” or making them “Pay Their Fair Share” are but political rhetoric for electioneering purposes, and they are without any basis in fact. These statements also depend on the ignorance of the public to be effective. These statements are also divisive, as they pit groups of Americans against other groups of Americans, and they provoke unwarranted jealousy and anger in many Americans where none is warranted.

05/21/25 Republican Tax Cuts

Benjamin Franklin once famously said, "In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes." In modern America, the other certainty is that the Democrats will proclaim that the Republican tax cuts are for the rich and that their claim is unencumbered by any facts or truths. In 2017, President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress successfully enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) into law. (The majority of its provisions took effect in 2018.) This law is about to expire, but the current Republican members of Congress are trying to codify it into the tax laws, while the Democrat members of Congress are claiming they are tax cuts for the rich.

The Heartland Institute has conducted a study, “Tax Cuts & Jobs Act: An Updated Study on the Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on U.S. Personal Income Taxes”, which examined the impacts of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The key takeaways were:

Data from the IRS measuring income tax revenues collected from 2017 to 2022 show the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the average amount of personal income taxes paid by filers in every income bracket, with the largest benefits going to lower- and middle-income households.
We estimate that tens of millions of working class and middle-income filers have enjoyed a total tax savings of least $6,000 since 2018 because of the TCJA law, although most filers earning at least $75,000 annually have saved substantially more.
Based on IRS data, we estimate that from 2018 to 2024, the total average amount saved by filers in the “$50,000 under $75,000” income bracket was more than $6,300.
Filers in the “$75,000 under $100,000” income bracket saved $8,300 from 2018 to 2024.
We estimate filers in the “$100,000 under $200,000” bracket saved nearly $13,500 in total from 2018 to 2024.
If Congress fails to extend the personal income tax cuts included in the TCJA, many working class and middle-income filers will pay thousands in additional taxes over the next five years.

The Tax Foundation report on “Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update” has revealed that new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on individual income taxes for tax year 2021 shows the federal income tax system continues to be progressive as high-income taxpayers pay the highest average income tax rates. Average tax rates for all income groups remained lower in 2021, four years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), than they were in 2017 prior to the reform. The 2021 data also reflects changes in people’s incomes and in government policy during the coronavirus pandemic. Their key findings are:

In 2021, taxpayers filed 153.6 million tax returns, reported earning more than $14.7 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI), and paid nearly $2.2 trillion in individual income taxes.
The average income tax rate in 2021 was 14.9 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.
The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.
The 2021 figures include pandemic-related tax items from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), such as the non-refundable part of the third round of Recovery Rebates and the expanded child tax credit (CTC) and earned income tax credit (EITC).
Capital gains realizations exceeded $2 trillion to reach a 40-year high, driving income growth and taxes paid for high-income groups.

These findings show that the Republican tax cuts benefited the middle class and that the rich pay most of the taxes in America. Consequently, the Democrat’s cries and wails of “tax cuts for the rich” or “tax the rich” have no basis in fact and are unencumbered by any facts and truths, as I have discussed in my chirp on “04/19/25 Unencumbered by any Facts or Truths”.

05/20/25 The Madness of American Education

With the rise of anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism, pro-Islam, pro-China, and Internationalism sentiments, along with the deteriorating quality of education and lack of critical thinking skills, American Colleges and Universities have become a cesspool of poor education. They have become centers of indoctrination rather than education, as I have examined in my Article on "Indoctrination versus Education". The suppression of Free Speech, violent protests, the support of terrorists and terrorism, crushing student debt, and marketplace worthless degrees are all too commonplace in modern American Colleges and Universities.

The Madness of Colleges and Universities has been seeping down into our K-12 Public Schools. However, it is a different type of madness in our K-12 Public Schools. K-12 Public School teachers and administrators have begun to believe that it is their responsibility to educate their students on morality and social values rather than provide them with a solid educational foundation. The madness of Social Engineering and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) permeates K-12 Public School teachers, administrators, and school boards. Political Correctness, Wokeness, and Cancel Culture are the only acceptable standards for K-12 Public School teachers and administrators. Parental rights are ignored or circumvented. Teacher unions have become part of this problem as they have exclusively focused on the needs of their union members and have forgotten about the needs of students and parents.

At the end of the movie “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, the mostly fictional story of the attempt by British Commandos to destroy a train bridge being built by British Prisoners of War during World War II, the British doctor who treated the POWs sits on a hillside to view the first train to cross the bridge. Instead, he witnesses the commando raid and the deaths of all but one commando and the death of the British and Japanese commander who built the bridge, as well as many Japanese soldiers. After he witnesses the destruction of the bridge (the untrue part of this story), he exclaims, in the last dialog of the movie, “Madness, Madness, Madness”. In observing modern Colleges and Universities and K-12 Public schools, most Americans mutter to themselves madness, madness, madness.

My new Article, “The Madness of Modern American Education”, examines this madness in modern Colleges and Universities and K-12 Public schools.

05/19/25 The Biden-Hur Audio

With the release of the Biden-Hur audio of his interview with a prosecutor about his handling of classified material while he was not President, these audios portray an alarming picture of President Biden’s mental health. Amid long, uncomfortable pauses, Joe Biden struggled to recall when his son died, when he left office as vice president, what year Donald Trump was elected, or why he had classified documents he shouldn't have had. His veering off topic to unrelated subjects and stories reveal an undisciplined mind that cannot focus on the topic under discussion, which is alarming for a President who can make life and death decisions and alter the course of history.

Some have suggested that Biden’s performance was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and avoid answering questions that could lead him into legal trouble. To this I am reminded of Hanlon's Philosophical Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Therefore, I am more inclined to believe that his performance was not a fake, but that the stress of the situation exacerbated his mental condition. An exacerbation that reaffirms that he suffers from dementia.

The fact that the White House and Democrat Party Leaders covered up his condition reveals that they were more interested in obtaining and retaining power than doing what is in the best interest of America. In addition, the Mainstream Media had little or no interest in revealing his condition and, indeed, disparaged anyone who spoke out about his condition, which reveals their incompetency or complicity in this cover-up as I have Chirped on “05/18/25 Incompetent or Complicit?”.

This cover-up is also one of the greatest scandals in American history, as it allowed for a sitting President to serve while he was unfit to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the presidency. But it is not a first in American history; Woodrow Wilson had a severe stroke that incapacitated him, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was essentially on his deathbed for many months at the end of his presidency. Yet both were renominated by the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party retained its political power with their reelection while these Presidents were incapacitated.

All of this begs the question, “Who was making Presidential decisions and setting policy?”, i.e., “Who was exercising the duties and responsibilities of the presidency?” Given Biden’s mental condition, it seems unlikely that he was in control of his Administration. A Presidency by committee is not Constitutional, as stated in the first sentence of Article II. Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Our Founding Fathers rejected an Executive Branch ruled by committee as too cumbersome and too factious to properly exercise the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of government. Yet, that appears to be what occurred in the Biden Executive Branch. It also calls into question the legitimacy of the Executive orders, directives, and pardons that the Biden Administration issued, as he appeared to be mentally incapacitated, and thus legally incompetent, of knowing what he was (supposedly) signing. Thus, the question is, what is the legal status of these Executive orders, directives, and pardons if they were supposedly signed by an incompetent person? This will be an absolute mess to clean up if there is a legal challenge to them, and it could also beget a Constitutional dilemma in the resolution of these legal challenges.

It also calls into question the duties and responsibilities of his subordinates in upholding their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is about the removal of an incapacitated President, but it appears that none of Biden’s subordinates considered invoking the 25th Amendment, despite his apparent incapacitation. One can only conclude that they were more interested in retaining power than doing what is in the best interests of America.

At the very minimum, Congress needs to examine the facts of this situation and take action so that it does not occur again. I would suggest that they modify the 25th Amendment as I have proposed in my Chirp on “05/13/25 Repeal and Replace”. This Congressional examination will be difficult, as some of the Democrat members of Congress appear to have been involved in this cover-up, and they would be disinclined to reveal their participation or their degree of involvement in this cover-up. But let the chips fall where they may, and let all be held accountable who participated in this cover-up.

Accordingly, we must conclude that the Executive Officers of the Biden Administration, the Democrat Party Leaders, and the Mainstream Media were in active or passive collusion in support of this cover-up. In this, they were subverting the Constitution of the United States by not fulfilling their roles to support and defend the Constitution. Everyone who was involved in this cover-up needs to be removed from office, and they should never have a position of power or trust at any level of government. They, by their words and deeds, have proven that they are not people of virtue and, therefore, they are a disgrace and unfit to lead a people dedicated to Constitutional governance.

05/18/25 Incompetent or Complicit?

With the recent revelations by journalists of the declining physical and mental health of President Biden in the last years of his presidency, the question that should be asked of them is “Were you incompetent in uncovering his health, or were you complicit in the cover-up of his health?”

If he was in such bad health, why did these journalists not uncover the facts and truths and report on them? The excuse that the White House engaged in a successful cover-up does not hold water, as anyone who had eyes and ears could ascertain that President Biden had health problems. The excuse that they were not a doctor and could not diagnose President Biden’s medical condition also does not hold water. After all, when the symptoms are obvious, you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize that someone is sick. The job of a journalist is to uncover the cover-ups and to report their findings to the American public. This involves a healthy skepticism of what government officials are saying, and journalistic investigations to uncover the facts and truths.

As these recent revelations have occurred after the presidential election, one can reasonably suspect that the journalistic predilections, and their disdain for Donald Trump, made them complicit in this cover-up to not provide Donald Trump with any advantage in the presidential election. Any journalist who would be complicit in a cover-up, for whatever reason, is not worthy of being called a journalist and should resign or be fired from the journalistic post. To do otherwise is to stain the journalistic profession and make all journalism suspect in the minds of the American public. Alas, today’s journalism deserves the scorn of the American public, as I have written in my article on Modern Journalism.

In either case, incompetent or complicit, this makes these journalists contemptible. Even now, they are more contemptible as they try to excuse their incompetence or justify their complicity. This contemptibility is made even worse by their profiting from book sales about President Biden’s health decline.

In Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament of April 20, 1653, he had some choice words about the current state of Parliament, which is apropos to these journalists:

To which I would exclaim to these journalists, “In the name of God, go!”, and not bedevil the American public with your contemptible journalism.

05/17/25 Weltanschauung

A worldview is said to be the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society, encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view. However, when two parties view the same real-world phenomenon, their worldviews may differ, one including elements that the other does not. Weltanschauung is a German term that refers to a comprehensive perspective or understanding of the world as a whole. It encompasses an individual's or society's beliefs, values, and knowledge that shape how they interpret and interact with reality. Weltanschauung is used as an English word because the English worldview is too vague and not comprehensive enough.

However, when a weltanschauung is based on insufficient or improper facts, or falsehoods, a weltanschauung is delusional and leads an individual or society into making decisions that are counterproductive or harmful. In the history of the world, erroneous weltanschauung has led to many conflicts and even wars, as well as violations of the natural rights of those who disagree with the erroneous weltanschauung.

Such it has become in America today, as the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders weltanschauung is often based on falsehoods, as I have written in my Article on The Biggest Falsehoods in America. And such it is with those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), as they suffer from group think and group gospel, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/12/25 Group Think and Group Gospel”. In support of their erroneous weltanschauung, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their erroneous weltanschauung.

Their erroneous weltanschauung has led them to formulate political goals and policy agendas that have had deleterious impacts on American society and individual Americans. Fortunately, most Americans now recognize that they have an erroneous weltanschauung, and they are turning away from them, and are supporting changes to correct the deleterious impacts they have inflicted upon America. Like a jilted lover, the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are reacting bitterly to this rejection, and they are acting out and verbally, and now physically, accosting anyone who disagrees with them and supports the changes that the American people elected Donald Trump to implement.

This acting out should not dissuade Americans from supporting the changes that America needs to right its course. This acting out should be condemned by all thoughtful Americans as counterproductive to Liberties and Freedoms, disruptive to A Civil Society, and harmful to our American Ideals and Ideas.

05/16/25 How Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Works

Many have wondered how Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) works. It is quite simple, and it is humorously explained by Groucho Marx in his 1932 film “Horse Feathers”. Clicking on the image below will direct you to the scene in the film that explains all you need to know about how TDS works. Who knew that the Marx Brothers could be so presentient about Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists reactions to President Trump?

05/15/25 My Five Biggest Lessons in Life

In thinking over the lessons I have learned in my life, I realized that five lessons were predominant in guiding my life and career. They are, with hyperlinks to my Pearls of Wisdom about them, are:

Be in control of yourself.
Be the better person.
Do Not Swear, as swearing lowers your status in the opinion of intelligent and wise people.
Do more than is expected of you, and make sure that you do it well.
Pay heed to The Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:
- Doubt a little of your own infallibility.
- Be prepared to change your mind based on newer or better information.
- Pay attention to the opinions of others, as they may be more knowledgeable, intelligent, or wiser than yourself.

I learned lessons three through five very early in my adult life and applied them to my life as soon as I learned them. As for lessons one and two, I learned these lessons the hard way in my mid-thirties, and I struggled to implement these lessons in my life. I believe that all these lessons have aided me in my life and career. We would all do better for ourselves by keeping these five lessons in mind as we go about our lives.

The other thing that I have learned in life is encapsulated in a little ditty that I have composed:

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

05/15/25 Do More Than What is Expected of You

After I graduated from high school in the spring of 1969, I shortly thereafter attended a computer programming trade school, in which the trade school classes were half a day in duration. Upon graduation from high school, my Godmother arranged for me to become a delivery boy at a small print shop that her company utilized, where I worked the other half of the day until my graduation from the trade school. My delivery boy's duties and responsibilities were to pick up the materials needed to complete the print job and deliver the final product to the companies that hired the print shop.

This pick-up and delivery effort did not consume all my hours at the print shop, and I looked for other things to do while I was not busy. I noticed that the print shop had accumulated much dust, dirt, and small paper fragments that were strewn across the floor. I, therefore, decided to pick up a broom and dustpan and sweep the floors. I also noticed that the stocking shelves were in disarray, and I proceeded to straighten them out. I also began to help another employee in her job. I continued in these efforts throughout my employment whenever they were needed.

On my last day at the print shop, the manager congratulated me and thanked me for my efforts. He also mentioned that he knew I was a special person when I started sweeping the floors, organizing the stock shelving, and helping the other employee. He stated that in the past, no other delivery boys he had hired had ever taken it upon themselves to do anything other than pick-up and delivery duties. He advised me that I should always do more than what is expected of me, as this would make me stand out and help advance my career.

This was advice that I took to heart and applied throughout my career. Advice that did indeed make me stand out and helped advance my career. The only caveat that I would add is that if you do more than expected, you need to Do It Well; otherwise, you will stand out for the wrong reasons and stymie your career.

05/14/25 The Lawless Party

“No one is above the law” was a familiar refrain by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to justify the criminal prosecutions and civil proceedings against Donald Trump. Yet, in their current “resistance” to President Trump’s actions, they believe that they can violate the law in their resistance, and that they should be immune from legal proceedings for these violations. To this immunity, I would respond that “No one is above the law”, and if you break the law, you should face judicial consequences.

The Democrat Party Leaders' recent actions around illegal immigration detention centers are a prime example. They have physically tried to intervene and enter these detention centers, and during their actions, they have had physical confrontations with detention officials and guards. They claim that they are only exercising their free speech rights and their authority of congressional oversight and/or state or local official powers.

However, no one has the free speech rights to become physically involved with another or to force entrance into a restricted property. They have the free speech rights of protest, and the free speech rights to advocate for a change or elimination of a law, but they have no free speech right to violate the law. As to congressional oversight, there is a procedure to exercise this oversight that respects the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and provides for the orderly exercise of this oversight. As for State or Local official powers, they are constrained by the supremacy clause of the Constitution and, therefore, Federal law takes precedence over their official State and local powers.

Their actions were not for the exercise of their free speech rights or for their Congressional oversight, nor for the exercise of official State and local powers, but only for political grandstanding. A political grandstanding that does not provide immunity for breaking the law. This is all part of their efforts of Lawfare against Donald Trump and his supporters, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government" and "Judicial Restraint". Alas, such lawfare is but an exercise of imposing their policies and political goals by unconstitutional means, which is a violation of their Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Accordingly, they should be prosecuted for breaking the law as “No one is above the law”, and no heed should be given to their wails and cries of free speech, Congressional oversight, or State and local powers. Otherwise, anarchy will become common throughout America as justification for what anyone believes is a just cause. We would also do well to remember my admonition when observing their words and deeds:

05/13/25 Repeal and Replace

Given the debacle of President Biden’s physical and mental health to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency, which was apparent to any American who could put aside politics and observe his words and deeds, it also illuminated how worthless Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is in removing an incapacitated President. I, therefore, propose that we repeal and replace Section 4 of the 25th Amendment with the following:

“Once a year, on the first Tuesday of March, the President of the United States will undergo a physical and mental health evaluation by the Surgeon General of the United States. The results of this test shall be confidentially disclosed to the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the first Thursday of March. On the first Friday of March, a conclave will be convened of these persons, and if in the opinion of three-fifths of these persons that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then the results of the test results shall be used to initiate the removal of the President of the United States from office, and the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If such a decision is so rendered that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, then Congress will convene in an emergency session on the second Wednesday of March and vote on the second Friday of March as to whether to permanently remove the President of the United States from office. The results of the Surgeon General’s examination shall be publicly disclosed and be the basis for the deliberation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Upon a three-fifths vote in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, then the Vice-President shall be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the new President of the United States.

If, during the course of the year, the President of the United States exhibits behavior or actions that call into question their fitness to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then a conclave of the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be convened, at the discretion of any one of these persons. If in the opinion of three-fifths of the conclave persons, such behavior or actions warrant a physical and mental health evaluation by the Surgeon General of the United States to determine the physical or mental fitness of the President of the United States, then the President shall undergo such an examination the day after the three-fifths determination is made. Two days after the examination of the President of the United States, the Surgeon General of the United States will confidentially disclose the results of their examination to a conclave of the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If in the opinion of three-fifths of the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the President of the United States is unfit to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

After the Vice President assumes the powers and duties of the office as Acting President, the Congress will convene in an emergency session on the following Wednesday and vote on the following Friday as to whether to permanently remove the President of the United States from office. The results of the Surgeon General’s examination shall be publicly disclosed and be the basis for the deliberation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Upon a three-fifths vote in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote in the Senate that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, then the Vice-President shall be sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the new President of the United States.”

05/12/25 Group Think and Group Gospel

It is somewhat humorous to see Progressives parroting expressions of the day (or week). It is also sad, as it demonstrates a lack of independent thinking as well as group thinking on their part. No rephrasing of these expressions is allowed in the ranks of Progressives, and these expressions are often used for political posturing, and they often contain (dire) predictions that just as often do not come true. The biggest parroting and predictions are by Progressive commentators, the Mainstream Media, the Mainstream Cultural Media, and the Democrat Party Leaders.

This Group Think comes from their Group Gospel, in which Progressive doctrine is the only acceptable thinking allowed. This Group Gospel also explains their Trump Derangement Syndrome, as Trump is the antithesis to their gospel, and he invokes a religious zeal in their opposition to him and his supporters. This Group Gospel takes precedence in their life over all other factors. Family, friends, neighbors, and other affiliations play second fiddle to their Group Gospel, and anyone who does not believe in their Group Gospel is not to be associated with, and they should be opposed with religious zeal.

Many of these Progressives are irreligious and have little or no belief in God, which should remind all of the following words of wisdom and caution:

"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything."
- Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to G. K. Chesterton)

Their Group Think and Group Gospel fanaticism is reminiscent of the Thirty Years' War, in which Protestants and Catholics fought over Christian doctrine differences. A war that was fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648 that was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history. A conflict (although not an outright war) that is now being waged in America between Progressives and non-Progressives.

In all of their Group Think and Group Gospel, their thoughts are unencumbered by any facts and truths, as I have discussed in my chirp on “04/19/25 Unencumbered by any Facts or Truths”. There are no incriminations or consequences when they are wrong or inflict negative consequences on America, and no apologies are ever offered when they are wrong or when the negative consequences arise. This Group Think and Group Gospel is antithetical to our Bill of Rights, most especially to the First Amendment, and violations of the First Amendment by Progressives are acceptable if it advances their Group Think and Group Gospel.

Consequently, Group Think and Group Gospel are a danger to our Liberties and Freedoms and A Civil Society, and they are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Patriotic Americans must oppose this Group Think and Group Gospel in America, as to not do so is to face the very real possibility of the implementation of authoritarianism and despotism in America if they succeed in obtaining their goals.

05/11/25 Vanity, Thy Name is Progressivism

"Vanity, thy name is Progressivism" is a phrase that plays on the structure of a famous line from Shakespeare's "Hamlet," which originally states, "Frailty, thy name is woman." The original phrase is no longer apropos in today’s America; however, vanity and Progressivism seem to be intertwined in modern American Progressives.

A humble person will do good modestly, while a vain person does everything obtrusively. A humble person will speak unpretentiously, while a vain person will speak pretentiously. A humble person recognizes their limitations and that they are fallible, while a vain person thinks that they know all and are always right. A humble person cannot be vain, while a vain person is never humble except to appear humble to stoke their vanity.

In Progressives' self-righteousness and moral superiority attitudes, as well as in their Political Correctness, Wokeness, Doxing, Swatting, Adjective Justice activism, and Virtue Signaling, they are demonstrating their vanity. Their vanity often leads them into inanity to justify their vanity, and often this inanity reveals their foolishness or stupidity. Alas, their vanity requires them to Demonize, Denigrate, or Disparage those who would disagree with them to reinforce their vanity, which leads to the degradation of A Civil Society in America.

Over time, vain people tend to become insufferable to normal people, and normal people will try to avoid being in their company. This is what is happening to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in today’s America. They have become insufferable, and the American people are not listening to them and supporting their opposition. In the 80/20 percent division in today’s American politics, they have firmly placed themselves in the 20%, and they seem intent on entrenching themselves in this minority due to their vanity. Thus, they are confirming that “Vanity, Thy Name is Progressivism”.

05/10/25 A Dred Scott Decision in Modern America

The Dred Scott decision was of an enslaved African American man who, along with his wife, Harriet, unsuccessfully sued for the freedom of themselves and their two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie, in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott decision". The Scotts claimed that they should be granted freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal, and laws in those jurisdictions said that slave holders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.

In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 (7 Democrat against Scott, 2 Republicans for Scott), finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. This decision was a major catalyst for the Civil War, and upon hearing about this decision, future President Lincoln stated that this decision would not stand.

Today, in modern America, we are facing another Dred Scott moment. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on May 15 on a momentous question: What is the extent of lower court judges’ power to block a president’s policies nationwide? If the Supreme Court decides that lower court judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then the Balance of Power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches will forever be changed in America. Lower court judges would assume some Presidential authorities under the cover of this decision, and they could direct the President to initiate or end Presidential actions at their discretion. The meaning of the first sentence of Article II. Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” will be altered to include, with the approval of judges. This would mean that judges have the de facto power to override executive policy decisions, and a judge would essentially be setting policy that rightfully belongs to the President.

Also, as Abraham Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: "the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they're made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." This is even more true when a Lower Court judge, or an Appellate Court decision, renders a nationwide judgement.

There is no doubt that Presidents need to work within the boundaries of their executive authorities and powers, and not infringe on the Constitutional and Civil Rights of Americans. The doubt is in who decides what the boundaries and infringements are, and how much judges can determine if the boundaries have been exceeded and/or infringements have occurred. If judges take an expansive view of their judicial power, then they shrink the powers of the presidency and thwart the will of the people as expressed in elections. If they take a narrow view of their judicial power, then our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" could be endangered by a President overextending their authorities and powers. In American history, contentious policy issues were often resolved by conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches of government, with minimal intervention by judges. It was only in the latter part of the 20th century that judges became more involved in these policy conflicts by issuing rulings that required actions or inactions of a President.

One also wonders whether, under the logic of a lower court judge issuing nationwide rulings, they could issue rulings against the Legislative Branch to do or not do something at the judge’s discretion. In either case, if the Supreme Court allows lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, then they are declaring that judges are actually Lords, as I have written in my article "Judges, Not Lords". Lords that are unelected and unresponsive to the will of the electorate. This is why their decision would be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision, as it will displace government of the people, by the people, and for the people, with a government of the judges, by the judges, and for the judges.

05/09/25 A Little Practical Wisdom

In the discussion of deportations of illegal immigrants, one of the questions is what Due Process Rights do illegal immigrants have, which also raises the question of who has Due Process Rights in America. In America, an American citizen has full Due Process Rights that cannot be abrogated except in a time of war or national emergency. Legal immigrants and Visa residents in America have limited Due Process Rights, as they are in America under a promise of good behavior and not to be involved in any criminal actions. If an immigration judge finds that legal immigrants and Visa residents are involved in criminal actions or engaged in behavior contrary to the restrictions of their immigration or Visa, they should be deported, and their Due Process rights are limited to an appeal to an Appellate Immigration Judge. If someone is found to be an illegal immigrant by an immigration judge, then they can be deported immediately by order of the immigration judge. Illegal immigrants' Due Process rights are limited to having a hearing in front of an immigration judge, with the possibility of an appeal to an Appellate Immigration Judge under very limited circumstances.

This issue of Due Process Rights is not new nor unique in American history. It goes back to the very beginning of our Constitutional Democratic republic, and has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court several times in our history. It was also addressed by political leaders throughout our history, as exemplified by the comment by one of our Founding Fathers and the third President of the United States:

“Whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
- President Thomas Jefferson

One of the most illuminating comments about civil liberties and the application of law and due process rights come from a Supreme Court Justice and a co-counsel at the NAZI Nuremberg Trials:

“[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson

Consequently, those advocating for full Due Process Rights for non-citizens are “absurdly sacrificing the end to the means”, and in their advocacy, they will “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact”. We would all do well to remember one of my Pearls of Wisdom, “Do the Right Thing for All”, and apply “a little practical wisdom” when deciding on Due Process Rights for non-citizen residents of America.

Otherwise, to ignore “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger” is to jeopardize our nation, and the “scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us” would occur.

05/08/25 The Modern Brownshirts in America

The Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung) were the civilian shock troops for the NAZIs during their rise to power in the 1920s and early 1930s. They would lead marches and mobs in the streets of Germany, shout down the opposition to the NAZIs, break up meetings of the NAZIs opponents, and verbally and physically intimidate NAZIs opponents to silence them. Their principal targets were Communists, the Romani people, trade unionists, and especially the Jews. It was through their efforts that the NAZI party was able to overthrow the constitutional Weimar Republic (1918 to 1933) and establish national socialism in pre-World War II Germany. In all of these actions, the NAZI Brownshirts believed that what they were doing was best for Germany and the German people.

Today, the modern American Brownshirts are the Progressives/Leftists activists in America. These modern American Brownshirts also lead marches and mobs, shout down the opposition, break up meetings of their opponents, and verbally and physically intimidate their opponents to silence them. They have also started using violent criminal actions against their targets. Their targets are Republican Party Leaders, MAGA supporters of President Trump, and any business leader who supports Trump. In all of these actions, the modern American Brownshirts believed that what they were doing was best for America and the American people.

The modern American Brownshirts are attempting to seize power in the Democrat Party to obtain authoritative political power in America. They are also attempting to expel all Democrat Party Leaders who do not support them or their tactics. They have managed, with the support of Democrat Party leaders, to appoint judges that share their political beliefs and rule extraconstitutional to achieve their goals. They reserve the right unto themselves to determine what is best for America and the American people, and they will brook no opposition to their political goals and policy agendas. In doing so, they are a danger to our Democratic republic, and they are the initiators of Constitutional crises in America.

Consequently, the modern American Brownshirts are a worthy successor of the NAZI Brownshirts, and they are a danger to our Liberties and Freedoms and A Civil Society, and they are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Patriotic Americans must oppose these modern Brownshirts in America, as to not do so is to face the very real possibility of the implementation of authoritarianism and despotism in America.

05/07/25 Hustling and Baiting In America

In my list of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", one of these falsehoods is “Racism is Prevalent”. In this article, I state that the United States is the most racist country in the world, except for all the others. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Irish, Italians, Jews, and other ethnic and religious groups have all experienced racism within the United States. The history of the United States regarding these groups has always been one of initial racism, bigotry, prejudice, and then inclusiveness. Racism still exists in the United States, but it exists in all other nations. Indeed, I believe that racism is inherent in human nature. The desire to associate with others that we know and understand is a self-protection mechanism that is basic to human nature. To deny so is to deny human nature. The means to overcome this inherent tribalism is through knowledge, experience, and understanding of one another. It requires that we listen to the better angels of our nature and not listen to our devils. The United States is a country founded on the principle that all men are created equal. We have not always been true to this principle, and the institution of slavery in the United States is the worst example of being untrue to this principle. However, we, the people of the United States, have shown a remarkable propensity for trying to correct the error of our ways and strive to meet this principle.

Today, in modern America, racism exists in individuals and small groups of Americans, but it is not widespread nor institutionalized. You may not believe this if you listen to many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they stoke racism rhetoric for political gain. They utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to find racism in their opponents and in America, where none exists. Thus, they have become race-hustlers or race-baiters for political gain.

"Race hustlers" is a term used to describe individuals, often in the context of racial politics, who are accused of exploiting racial issues for personal gain or to incite division. This label is frequently applied to activists and public figures advocating for racial justice, and it reflects broader ideological conflicts within discussions of race in America. “Race-baiting” is the unfair use of statements about race to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people. It often involves exploiting racial tensions for political or social gain.

On a personal observation, I attend two different cigar lounges during the week, one on the weekend and one during the week. At these cigar lounges, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Irish, Italians, Jews, and other ethnic and religious groups congregate in harmony, except when we discuss sports and politics (which are friendly and pleasant discords). Everyone is entitled and encouraged to become involved in our discussion, and all feel at ease in voicing their opinions. I have also attended other cigar lounges in which the same congregations occur. In a racist America, such congregations would not happen.

These race-hustlers and race-baiters will point out that mob rhetoric and violence over alleged racism are proof of racism in America, but these racial mob actions are not a symptom of racism in America but a consequence of race-hustling and race-baiting in America. Alas, much of this race-hustling and race-baiting comes from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. But, then again, these Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will hustle and bait any group of Americans as part and parcel of their Identity Politics strategy and tactics.

Consequently, race-hustling and race-baiting, and identity-hustling and identity-baiting, is one of the most divisive and despicable occurrences in America. And it must stop! Otherwise, we will forever be a divided country into one that pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans.

05/06/25 Illegal Immigration Can Benefit America

The proponents of illegal immigration, mostly Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, like to declare that most illegal immigrants come here to improve their and their family's lives, and they contribute to the economy by taking low-paying jobs that Americans do not wish to do. While this may be true for many illegal immigrants, it is not the whole story.

Many of the jobs they take are under the table and, therefore, not income taxable, and many of these jobs are below minimum wage. These unreported below-minimum-wage jobs also make for more profitability for businesses that employ illegal immigrants, and it keeps the labor costs of goods and services to a minimum, which benefits Americans. However, illegal immigrant workers deprive American citizens and legal immigrants of the opportunity for employment at minimum wages. Many illegal immigrants send a portion of their wages to their relatives back in their homeland. While this may be good for their families back in their homeland, it is not so good for the American economy. The wages earned in America should be spent in America, as this helps America’s economic vitality.

Illegal immigrants are not integrating themselves into American society by adopting American values and norms, and they maintain a separate identity that is not conducive to American values and norms. Illegal Immigrants are also consuming government social services for which the American taxpayer funds, while most illegal immigrants are not paying taxes. This is an undue burden on American taxpayers and should end. It is also true that many gang members, terrorists, drug runners, and human traffickers are illegally immigrating into America, thus endangering Americans. Drug addictions, robberies, burglaries, assaults, rapes, and even murders are being perpetuated by these illegal immigrants, making our streets unsafe and instilling fear in citizens and legal immigrants of being the victim of these crimes. Accordingly, Americans are living under a cloud of fear from illegal immigration.

Finally, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are advocating a road to citizenship for these illegal immigrants and their children. These advocates are also insisting that any children of illegal immigrants who are born in America are legal citizens of America. They often utilize this rationale to oppose the deportation of illegal immigrants who have had children born in America as deporting an American citizen as manifested in the child, or breaking apart of families by deporting the illegal immigrant but allowing the children to remain in America. This path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will have long-term consequences if enacted. It will change the voter demographics across America, and the Democrat Party Leaders are hopeful that it will expand the rank and file of the Democrat Party and make the Democrat Party a majority party for many decades. This is the primary reason that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists support illegal immigrants remaining in America, as obtaining and retaining political power is the ultimate goal for them.

Consequently, the idea that illegal immigration can benefit America is a falsehood, as the disadvantages of illegal immigration far outweigh the advantages of illegal immigration.

It is for these reasons that I have added “Illegal Immigration Can Benefit America” to my list of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

05/05/25 Legal and Illegal Immigrants

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists just cannot bring themselves to say “Illegal Immigrants”. Whenever they pontificate about the illegal immigration issue, they only say “immigrants”, thus equating illegal and legal immigrants. But they are not equal. Legal immigrants are welcome in America, and they have most of the rights and privileges of citizens. Illegal Immigrants are lawbreakers in that they enter America illegally. Their rights and privileges are limited, and they can be deported for illegally entering America.

Accordingly, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are engaged in verbal sophistry to confuse Americans as to the status of illegal immigrants. They are also stoking fear in legal immigrants with their rhetoric of deporting “immigrants”. Legal immigrants should have no fear of being deported unless they engage in criminal activities, and they are afforded expansive Due Process rights in any deportation efforts. Illegal immigrants have limited Due Process rights as they are de facto engaged in lawbreaking by entering America illegally.

Illegal Immigrants are also consuming government social services for which the American taxpayer funds, while most illegal immigrants are not paying taxes. This is an undue burden on American taxpayers and should end. It is also true that gang members, terrorists, drug runners, and human traffickers are illegally immigrating into America, thus endangering Americans. Drug addictions, robberies, burglaries, assaults, rapes, and even murders are being perpetuated by a considerable number of illegal immigrants, making our streets unsafe and instilling fear in citizens and legal immigrants of being the victim of these crimes. Accordingly, Americans are living under a cloud of fear from illegal immigration.

It is important that Americans distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Americans should be welcoming and supportive of legal immigrants (which most Americans are) but also be opposed to and support the deportation of illegal immigrants. It is important that Americans recall the preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

To allow illegal immigration is to violate the principles of the preamble of the Constitution, as illegal immigration makes these goals difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

05/04/25 Transgenderism in Children

Sex and gender are two different aspects of being human; sex is physiological (of or consistent with an organism's normal functioning), while gender is psychological (mental or emotional as opposed to physical in nature). In my collected Chirps on "Transgenderism" I explore the 1) Meaning and Science 2) Gender Transitioning and 3) Societal Impacts of Transgenderism. I also equate how gender transitioning has become 4) Our Modern-Day Lobotomies.

Modern scientific research has discredited the assertions of transgendered activists about transgenderism in children, and it has revealed the harm done by psychological counseling and transition medication and surgery on children. These are the scientific facts and truths that the Transgendered Rights activists would have you ignore or that they obfuscate with terms such as “Gender Identity”, “Gender Fluidity”, “Gender Affirmation”, “Gender Confirmation”, “Sex Assigned at Birth”, and other terms to lead you astray.

In medicine, Informed Consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law, and media studies that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. In our society, it is not possible for children and adolescents to give informed consent as we recognize that their brains and intelligence are not sufficiently developed to properly reason for giving informed consent. Thus, for children and adolescents, informed consent can only be given by their parents or legal guardians for a gender transition. However, society has a say in gender transition, as it impacts the physical and mental well-being of future members of society (which is why we have many different laws dealing with the upbringing of children).

The physical differences between the sexes often provide an advantage for the male physique over the female physique in terms of physical exertions. Strength, speed, height and weight, heart and muscular capacity, and endurance are generally greater in the male than in the female. As such, any attempt to commingle biological males with biological females in any competitive sport gives the biological male an advantage over the biological female. Privacy in the public arena in restrooms, locker rooms, and other public accommodations that have been traditionally segregated by sex is also being challenged by transgender activists. Traditionally, segregated accommodations were done for the purposes of privacy and safety. Privacy has always been important to females, as they do not wish to be exposed to or gawked at by males except by mutual consent. Fears of molestation or sexual assault that may occur without this privacy are also a concern, and a transgender male in their midst often causes emotional distress on their part. There is also a concern that a male will pose as a transgendered female to gain entrance to their private spaces for nefarious purposes.

In the past, we medically treated many people for perceived mental problems in an inappropriate manner. Chemical castrations for male homosexuality often occurred, and lobotomies, a discredited form of neurosurgical treatment for psychiatric disorders or neurological disorders (e.g., epilepsy, depression) that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex, were often performed. Today, gender transition medication and surgery on children is equivalent to chemical castrations lobotomies, as they permanently alter the physical bodies of children with no hope of fully detransitioning.

Regrettably, these falsehood on transgenderism in children are detrimental to our children, their parents, and the body politic, and they should not be believed nor acted upon.

It is for these reasons that I have added “Transgenderism in Children” to my list of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

05/03/25 The Morality of it All

In Victor Davis Hanson’s new article, “The Trump Counterrevolution and the Moral Ledger”, he states that “Despite the media hysteria, Trump’s counterrevolution remains on course.” A course “. . . on accomplishing what is right and long overdue—and then making such reforms quietly, compassionately, and methodically.”

And, yes, the Trump Administration is acting quietly, compassionately, and methodically in a moral manner to protect the vast majority of Americans who wish to live in a society that is moral, ethical, and just, as I have written in my article on “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”. As I have written in my Chirp on “05/02/25 Abnormal Normality”, the Trump Administration is attempting to restore normalcy in American society by illuminating the abnormality of his opponents and eliminating their influence in American society and government. There is no “Constitutional Crisis”, no threats to “Our Democracy”, no “Oligarchy”, and no government of, for, and by the rich in the Trump Administration. Indeed, the Trump Administration is about middle and lower-class Americans by providing them with employment, economic security, and safety and peace in both America and the World. He has also undertaken the arduous and difficult task of reforming our government to save taxpayer monies, implement efficiencies, and reduce our National Debt and budget Deficits.

Such threats to America come from the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists actions of legal Lawfare against the Trump Administration, assaults on the First Amendment rights of their opponents, refuge for illegal immigrants, support of violent actions by their supporters, and support for transgendered activism that infringes on women’s rights and harms children. The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' response to the Trump Administration's actions is to only offer fear, anger, and falsehoods (as I have written in my article on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America"). As Mr. Hanson has said in his article:

“Enraged Democrats still offer no substantial alternatives to the Trump agenda.

There are no shadow-government Democratic leaders with new policy initiatives. They flee from the Biden record on the border, the prior massive deficits and inflation, the disaster in Afghanistan, two theater-wide wars that broke out on Biden’s watch, and the shameless conspiracy to hide the prior president’s increasing dementia.

Instead, the Left has descended into thinly veiled threats of organized disruption in the streets. It embraces potty-mouth public profanity, profane and unhinged videos, nihilistic filibusters, congressional outbursts, and increasingly dangerous threats to the persons of Elon Musk and Donald Trump.”

Alas, as they have no substantial alternatives to the Trump agenda, we can only expect more fear, anger, and falsehoods from the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, much to the detriment of America and Americans.

05/02/25 Abnormal Normality

In the article by Mark Lewis, “When the Abnormal Becomes Normal, Can a Society Survive?”, he states:

“Every society in human history has had its freaks, weirdos, perverts, criminally insane, noncompos mentis, i.e., a segment of society considered by the vast majority of that citizenry as “abnormal,” not fitting in with the average, accepted morality and norms of that culture. It has happened everywhere. Such human riffraff, rabble, and garbage simply cannot be totally obliterated from the earth.

But successful societies have recognized that, to be successful, this freakish, perverted element of society must not become too large or influential, or they will disrupt the whole fabric and moral foundation upon which that society is built and must operate, and that chaos, disharmony, and irredeemable discord will result if the rabble gets too strong. A society simply cannot exist in licentious anarchy. Recognized, agreed-upon standards must exist for a civilized society to function effectively. For lack of a better word, we call it ’normality’.”
- Mark Lewis

Today, in modern America, thanks to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders permissive attitudes, we are living in an abnormal society. In addition to the permissive licentiousness they tolerate in public forums and gatherings, they have also tolerated and often condoned open borders, sanctuary cities, senseless violence, domestic terrorism, transgender nonsense, public school failures, and violations of our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights. Morality, ethics, and virtue seem to have no place in modern America, and we have seen a rise in lying, cheating, and stealing in modern America. Thus, we have become a society that Mr. Lewis warned about.

Mr. Lewis ends his article by stating:

“History indicates that a society cannot exist unless there is a specific standardized model of decent, self-controlled behavior that most people recognize as being a norm that everybody must follow and that if abnormality, if freakishness becomes too widespread if the perverts aren’t isolated and the people protected against them, then there's no longer any control, there's no longer any basis of agreed-upon civilized behavior. And chaos ensues.”

But all hope is not lost. The recent election rightward shift and the support of President Trump’s policies would indicate that most Americans are tired of this nonsense, and they are calling for an end to this nonsense. Leniency and tolerance for abnormal normality are on the decline by those who are not engaged in abnormality, but, alas, the abnormal are intensifying their abnormal behavior in opposition to this rightward shift.

Accordingly, all normal Americans should be thankful that President Trump is trying to put an end to this abnormality and restore normalcy. I am fearful that if President Trump does not succeed, then America will descend into chaos. A chaos in which our Liberties and Freedoms will be endangered by the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and their abnormal supporters.

05/01/25 Rules and Hypocrisy

The Democrat Party has exhibited a propensity for “Rules to benefit me, but no rules to benefit thee”, which demonstrates their hypocrisy. In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “What Is Democratic Legality?”, he lists many examples of them applying rules for others while rejecting these rules for themselves.

We have seen in the past that the Democrats changed the rules in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as within the Executive branch, to their benefit while they were in power, only to complain when the Republicans used these changes or made changes for their benefit while they are in power.

A more recent example (which is not cited in Mr. Hanson’s article) is the arrest of judges for alleged illegal conduct. The Democrat wails and cries about these actions are hypocritical to their exaltations of “No one is above the Law” in defending prosecutors’ actions against Donald Trump and his supporters. Thus, the Democrat Party has also exhibited a propensity for “hypocrisy to our interests is acceptable, while hypocrisy disadvantageous to our interests is unacceptable.”

Such rule changes and hypocrisy are unsuitable when either party engages in them, but the Democrats have made them part and parcel of their tactics to advance their political goals and policy agendas while hindering any opposition to their political goals and policy agendas. As such, these rule changes and hypocrisy are nothing but chicanery and stymieing, which the American people should reject by not electing any person who engages in these words and deeds.

04/30/25 Here We Are Again

In Jonathan Turley’s latest column, “Here We are Again”: Federal District Courts Piling on Injunctions to Stop Trump”, he states:

“Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California.

Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.

When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.

Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden’s term.”

He ends his column by stating:

“The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed “here again,” but this is not a good place for anyone.”

My only comment about this article is how should President Trump de-escalate his actions if his actions are within his presidential powers. To which I would say to Professor Turley, No—the de-escalation must come in the Judicial branch, either from a Supreme Court decree or by Congressional legislation as I have Chirped on “04/16/25 No Rogue Judicial Rulings”.

04/29/25 To “Facilitate”

In a Supreme Court of the United States decision on April 10, 2025, “Kristi NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Kilmar Armando ABREGO GARCIA, et al.”, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must facilitate the return of Mr. Garcia to America, “The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” A strange decision, as Johnathan Turley has written in his article “A Writ of “Facilitation”? Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case”, in that “in the order, the Court ordered the government to “facilitate” the return without stating what that means.”

This “facilitate” ambiguity has led to much dissension on both sides of the issue. What is meant by “facilitate”, and what fulfills the “facilitate” court order? Attorney General Pam Bondi has suggested that they will facilitate the return of Mr. Garcia by having a plane fly him back to America if the government of El Salvador releases Mr. Garcia to American custody. For their part, the government of El Salvador has declared that they have no plans to release Mr. Garcia to American custody.

I would like to suggest a compromise. As a one-time goodwill gesture to President Trump, El Salvador will escort Mr. Garcia to the gates of the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, which is American territory (thus, he is back in America). The U.S. guards will then escort Mr. Garcia to a room in the embassy, where an immigration judge, a court stenographer, and a public defender will adjudicate Mr. Garcia’s case. The immigration judge would then vacate the previous judgment of Mr. Garcia, hold a new hearing, and, I would expect, would then order Mr. Garcia to be deported. The U.S. guards would then escort Mr. Garcia back to the gates of the embassy and turn him over to the El Salvador authorities, who would then escort him back to their prison.

Accordingly, this compromise should meet all the legal requirements to “facilitate” Mr. Garcia’s return and to afford him his Due Process rights under the illegal immigrant statutes.

04/28/25 Who Is To Be Master

The opening of the preamble to the Constitution states “We the People” as a reminder that in America, we the people are the masters of government, and as President Lincoln so famously said in his Gettysburg Address in America, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is what America was founded upon.

As such, all Americans should remember, as stated further in the preamble to the Constitution, that the government is there for the purpose “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”.

This dynamic between we the people and the government has been contentious throughout our history, as some Americans wanted more government involvement in society while some wanted less government involvement in society. This same contentiousness is also present in the Balance of Powers and the Separation of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. Our Constitution tried to achieve a balance between We the People and Government by establishing a Democratic republic with the election of our government by the people, which would be responsive to the will of the electorate but protective of the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all the people. The Constitution also specified a Separation of Powers between the branches of government by assigning specific duties and responsibilities to each branch of government while not overlapping these duties and responsibilities between the branches. This was the first time in history that the people were the masters of government and that government power was restricted. Thus, whenever we think about our Constitutional government, we should envision the following image:

Unfortunately, during the 20th century, these boundaries and separations began to blur and overlap, which is a danger to our Liberties and Freedoms and antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas.

We have seen that we, the people, are more dependent on government and an electorate divided by party rather than principles, often between those receiving government benefits and those who finance the government benefits. We have also seen the Legislative branch become more supine to the Executive branch, the Judicial branch becoming more involved in mediating disputes between the Legislative and Executive branches, as well as the Judicial branch become more involved in settling disputes of a political or social nature. As such, the Judicial branch has become the more predominant branch of government, which is worrisome as the Judicial branch is appointed rather than elected and, thereby, the least democratic branch of government and least responsive to the will of the electorate. Ergo, justices, and judges have become more lords than judges, as I have written in my article "Judges, Not Lords".

We have also seen a decline in the American people's understanding of our Constitution and the proper functions of American government. Alas, this lack of understanding has allowed politicians more interested in political power than upholding our American Ideals and Ideas to utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to obtain their political power.

The American people must regain their mastery over government, insist that the government reinstitute the Balance of Powers and the Separation of Powers in government and that the government function within the assigned duties and responsibilities of each branch of government. Otherwise, the American experiment of a Democratic republic will fail, and with it, our Liberties and Freedoms and our American Ideals and Ideas will be swept into the dustbin of history.

04/27/25 Hope and Hopeless

One political commentator has noted that the Democrat Party is not putting out their best and brightest, to which I would respond that 1) they have no best and brightest, or 2) the commentator is wrong—these are their best and brightest. Either way, this is a sad commentary on the state of the Democrat Party, as the following cartoon encapsulates:

04/26/25 A Wave of Illegal Immigration Deserves a Wave of Deportations

As the Trump White House has argued about the wave of illegal immigration: “Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States. Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders in violation of longstanding Federal laws. Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order on January 20, 2025, called the arrival of the illegal immigrants into America an “invasion” that jeopardizes national security, and he started a wave of deportations of these illegal immigrants.

In response to this wave of illegal immigration, the Trump administration is supporting the legal precedent that due process can be waived or limited where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm to the public or to national security interests. He and many in his administration have also stated that a deportation order from an immigration judge is sufficient due process to deport an illegal immigrant. I would add that almost all of these illegal immigrants entered America without any due process to determine if they were legally eligible to enter America. I would also add that the Democrats who are opposing President Trump’s efforts on Due Process grounds never spoke of Due Process to allow for the entry into America of these illegal immigrants.

One way that the Trump administration is utilizing to address this issue is to revive the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport immigrants it alleges are gang members or terrorist sympathizers. “People who are enemies of the United States don’t have the same level of due process,” said border czar Tom Homan. “Immigration agents are the principal judges of whether or not a detainee has gang affiliations”, Homan said, and that “if they determine that there is an affiliation, that detainee’s rights to due process are limited”.

Hans A. von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation agreed with Homan. “It’s important to recognize that illegal immigrants don’t have the same due process rights as citizens,” they wrote. “For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has held that the only due process to which illegal immigrants are entitled is what Congress gives them through federal immigration law.” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has noted: “The decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.”

As Vice President JD Vance has said, “[The Democrats] don’t want border security. They don’t want us to deport the people who’ve come into our country illegally. They want to accomplish through fake legal process what they failed to accomplish politically: The ratification of Biden’s illegal migrant invasion.”

This Democrat illegal immigrant kerfuffle isn’t about law, order, or the Constitution. It’s about delaying the Trump Administration policies through legal Lawfare for the purpose of running out the clock on the second Trump presidency and an attempt to nullify the 2024 election results, as I have written in my Chirp on “04/21/25 How To Nullify an Election”. Thus, the Democrat's cries and wails of due process not being applied for illegal immigrants are but a ruse for (supposedly) political gain. Accordingly, Americans should not buy this ruse and support President Trump’s wave of deportation of illegal immigrants.

Ed Brodow, a conservative political commentator and author of ten books, recently penned a column, “Should Due Process Stop Trump From Deporting Illegals?” in which he explores this issue in more detail. I would highly recommend this column to all, as it is well worth the read.

04/25/25 Foreign Aid for El Salvador

Foreign aid that benefits America and the nation or the people it is directed to is a good thing. Alas, as DOGE has revealed, much of our past foreign aid has been corrupted by progressive ideological goals, and much of the foreign aid is siphoned off by non-governmental agencies before it reaches the nations and/or people for which it was intended. Such foreign aid abuse must be eliminated in the future, and full transparency must be established for non-military and non-intelligence foreign aid.

Given the above, I would suggest that foreign aid be allocated to El Salvador so that they can construct, maintain, and operate another maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Their current Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) is a maximum security prison in El Salvador, opened in January 2023, designed to house a large number of inmates, particularly those involved in gang activities. It has a capacity of 40,000 and has been criticized for overcrowding and possible inmate abuse. A new prison would help alleviate these problems, and it could be used to house violent criminals and terrorist group members from other countries, mostly America. It would also act as a deterrent to violent criminals and terrorist group members in America, knowing that there was a harsh prison ready and willing to incarcerate them.

Such an endeavor would not only be economically advantageous for El Salvador, but it would also help ensure the stability of their government by involving other countries in the security of El Salvador. It would also cement their relationship with America and open other forms of foreign aid from America to El Salvador. This is a win-win for both America and El Salvador, and it should be done without delay.

04/24/25 Judicial Interpretation Should Not Be Judicial Rule

With the many judicial rulings on President Trump’s illegal immigrant deportation efforts, it now appears that judges are making the law up. If the judge cannot cite the stature and the sub-clauses of the stature that specifically state what they are ruling upon, then they are making it up. Many excuse their efforts under the label of “Judicial Interpretation” or “Judicial Discretion”, but in reality, it is judicial rule and judicial lawmaking.

In my new Article, “Judicial Interpretation Should Not Be Judicial Rule”, I examine this issue and its use in the case of illegal immigration. From the time of the Constitutional Convention through the adoption process of the Constitution and throughout our Constitutional Democratic republic, the issue of judicial restraint has bedeviled America.

This issue has come to the forefront of the question of illegal immigration, and it is endangering America and Americans' lives and safety. Regarding the issue of Judicial Restraint in the current illegal immigrant deportation issue, judicial restraint has disappeared from activist judges. Rather than rule on the basis of the law, they are interpreting the law to suit their own predilections.

As I concluded in this article, it is my personal opinion that if an immigration or appellate immigration judge rules that someone is in America illegally, then the President has the authority to deport them to their country of origin at his will. If an immigration or appellate immigration judge rules that someone is in America illegally and a member of a criminal organization or terrorist group, then the President must immediately deport them to a country of his choice. Also, if an illegal immigrant has been found guilty of a crime, then after they have served their sentence, the President must immediately deport them to their country of origin. In all of these cases, the ruling of an immigration or appellate immigration judge is all the Due Process that an illegal immigrant is entitled to before they are deported.

As I have Chirped on "03/25/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers", it is time for President Trump to confront these judges and assert his Constitutional powers to deal with illegal immigrants. It is also time for Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Justices to stop being indecisive and rule for Presidential powers and authorities to deal with illegal immigrants, and reign in these rogue judges, as I have Chirped on, "03/26/25 The Agony of Indecisiveness".

04/23/25 Congresspersons, Senators, and Judges Interference in Foreign Affairs

The Logan Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1799 that prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the United States. It was created to prevent individuals from undermining the government's foreign policy and has rarely been enforced since its passage. Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act, one in 1802 and the other in 1852. Neither was convicted.

There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co. in 1964 mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures” but did not rule on the question. In December 2020, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memorandum opinion concluding that the Logan Act "was constitutional when enacted, and unless or until repealed by Congress, remains valid and enforceable." The Department of Justice made this opinion public in January 2025. The question I have is whether the Logan Act can be applied to Congresspersons, Senators, and judges’ interference in foreign affairs.

Congresspersons and Senators' interference in foreign affairs may be present in their trips to El Salvador to obtain the release and return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to America. This is clearly a matter of foreign affairs under the purview of the President, and they had no permission from President Trump to engage in negotiations for his release. These meetings are also a political stunt by the Democrats, and they could be viewed by the El Salvador authorities as interference in, and an insult to, the sovereign powers of the El Salvador government, which could impact American foreign relations with El Salvador. As such, the El Salvador government could deny entrance for these Congresspersons and Senators without their government’s permission and concurrence by the President of the United States. Perhaps it is time to apply the Logan Act to Congresspersons and Senators who are involved in these efforts in El Salvador or any other nation that may choose to become involved in the future.

There have been other incidents in the recent past (mostly during the Trump Administrations) where Congresspersons and Senators have appeared to try to influence foreign relationships by engaging in comments for the purposes of influencing a foreign government. While they have the right to do so under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, as long as such speech and debate occurs within the halls of Congress, their comments can be viewed as trying to influence a foreign government in opposition to President Trump’s foreign policies. While such comments may not be a technical violation of the Logan Act (as they are not involved in negotiations), they are certainly an intrusion of Presidential powers in foreign policy and relations, which can be viewed as a Separation of Powers issue between the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

It also appears that some of the judge’s rulings in immigration lawsuits may have also intruded into presidential foreign policy authorities, which may impact foreign relations. While this may not be a technical violation of the Logan Act, as the judges did not directly enter into negotiations with a government, the incidental impact would require the President to enter into negotiations with a foreign government at the direction of the judge’s ruling. This can also be viewed as a Separation of Powers issue between the Judicial and Executive branches of government.

It is also true that President Trump ran for and won the presidency on a policy of deporting illegal immigrants, and such efforts by Congresspersons, Senators, and Judges to interfere with his effort to do so is an attempt to nullify his election, as I have Chirped on “04/21/25 How To Nullify an Election”. Their efforts on behalf of illegal immigrants in foreign countries are an intrusion into his presidential powers of conducting foreign policy and is also a backhanded effort to nullify his election.

Accordingly, such interference in foreign affairs by Congresspersons, Senators, and Judges is outside the purview of their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution and a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine of the Constitution. This must stop, or our foreign policy and foreign relationships could devolve into chaos, which would be harmful to America.

04/22/25 The State of the Economy

When most people consider the economy they think about the impacts of the economy on the cost of living, job security, inflation, and their savings and retirement. However, the Economy of the United States is composed of many factors; Stock Market, Commodity Market, Bond And Annuities Market, Consumer Price Index, Interest and Inflation Rates, Employment Rate, Productivity, and many other factors. Each of these factors has its own measurements for determining the economic history and the current economic state of the factor (often called an Economic indicator or Index). The economy is also divided into many sectors, which are utilized to determine the growth or decline of the economic sector within the economy. These factors and sectors are interrelated and interconnected, and the impacts on one or multiple of these factors or sectors will have repercussions on the entire economy. I do not pretend to have any special knowledge or experience in these factors and/or sectors, but I am aware of them and realize their importance in determining the state of the economy and the economic welfare of America and Americans.

The Financial Conditions Index (FCI) is a newer measure that reflects the overall availability and cost of credit in the economy, incorporating various financial indicators such as interest rates, credit spreads, and market volatility. It helps assess the health of the financial system and its potential impact on economic growth. As such, it is useful in determining the state of the economy in America. The website YCharts has an interesting, simplified graph of the FCI over the last few years. This 5yr chart covers the end of the first Trump presidency, through the Biden Presidency, and the first few months of the new Trump Presidency:

As can be seen from this chart, the FCI fell and then remained level during the COVID-19 Pandemic, sharply raised and then began to fall during the Biden presidency but never reached the highs of the first Trump presidency, and it is now beginning to rise in the new Trump presidency. If current trends continue (and there is no guarantee that they will), we may expect a continued rise in the FCI. There is one thing that we can expect: that nobody knows what will happen to the FCI in the future, and nobody accurately predicted its performance in the past. Thus, the doomsayers and the exuberant financial commentators had or have no idea of what they are talking about as far as the future or past of the FCI is concerned.

Thus, to take with any certainty the doomsayers or the exuberant financial commentators on the future of the economy is foolhardy, and you should only be concerned and think about their prophesying. The one thing that we know about the American economy is that it always rises and falls, but over the long term, it always rises. The only question is when and for how long the rise and fall will occur and to what heights and depths it will rise or fall.

Lastly, we should not heed politicians and bureaucrats about the state or future of the economy, as they are not economists and have little or no experience in economic, financial, or business matters, and they are often driven by political concerns rather than economic concerns. However, we should be concerned about government taxing, spending, and regulations, as these factors often have a significant impact on both the short-term and long-term growth or decline of the economy, which impacts all of America and all Americans.

04/21/25 How To Nullify an Election

With their losses in the 2024 election, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are attempting to nullify the will of the American people through tactics that are anti-democratic. Anti-democratic in that they are not resorting to American democratic means to oppose President Trump and his Administration.

They have forgotten that shortly after his 2009 inauguration, during a meeting with Congressional Republicans, President Obama famously stated, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” This statement highlights the importance of democratic processes and the power of the people’s voice. It serves as a reminder that elections are not mere formalities but rather a critical tool for change. It emphasizes that the outcome of an election can bring about significant consequences for the direction and policies of a country. Both President Obama and President Biden used these election consequences to bring about change, and they were opposed by the Republicans through democratic means. Regrettably, the Democrats have opposed President Trump’s election consequences, not by democratic means, but by “resistance”.

Their main resistance of the Democrat leaders in Congress is the legislative tactic of the utilization of the Senate filibuster to halt or stymie legislation the American people elected President Trump, and a Republican Congress to enact, as I have Chirped on “04/14/25 Majority Rules”. Rather than work with President Trump to achieve what is best for the American people, they are trying to halt or delay all his initiatives in the hopes of electoral advantage in future elections.

The other significant resistance is of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists clogging up the courts with lawsuits of a dubious nature to obtain injunctions against President Trump’s Administration from sympathetic judges, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". This is but an attempt to elevate Progressive judges will over the duties and responsibilities of the presidency and, therefore, an assault over the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government so carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. This is Judicial Lawfare that has no place in America.

Their other resistance tactic is the utilization of vitriolic rhetoric, not burdened by any facts or truths, to stir up anger and fear, which often results in violent protests by Progressives/Leftists. These violent protests have recently morphed into domestic terrorism, as I have chirped on “03/31/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part I” and “04/01/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part II”. These violent protests and domestic terrorism are for the purpose of intimidating President Trump’s supporters into silence and/or inaction for fear of their or their family’s safety. As such, this tactic is not a democratic means to oppose President Trump. Alas, the Democrat Party Leaders and their Progressive supporters have not taken a firm stand against these violent protests and domestic terrorism, as they believe that it aids and abets their efforts to oppose President Trump.

Within all these tactics, they are exhibiting their penchant for ignoring facts and truths, as I have Chirped on “04/19/25 Unencumbered by Any Facts or Truths”. With these tactics, they are intentionally trying to nullify the results of the 2024 election and the will of the electorate. Such tactics need to stop, as they only further exacerbate the divisions within America, which leads to the diminishment of A Civil Society in America.

04/20/25 Keep Your Mouth Shut and Your Mind Open

While working in Germany on a NATO proposal, I learned a very important lesson in life—keeping your mouth shut and your opinion open. This was a NATO proposal effort of a consortium of two German companies, one Italian, one French, one English, and one American company, with a freelance American engineer who had extensive NATO engineering project experience. I had become very friendly with a German engineer who had spent several years in America while obtaining his PhD, and he spoke perfect English and understood American ways and mannerisms.

The other German engineer was the Chief Engineer on the effort, and this engineer was from Prussia, and he had a Prussian autocratic approach to managing the engineering team. His approach did not go over well with the other engineers, as they were all intelligent, experienced, and leaders within their engineering organizations and resistant to an autocratic approach. I also discovered another problem, which was explained to me by the other German engineer with whom I had become friendly.

The friendly German engineer explained an important language difference that was impacting the dynamics of the group. He explained to me that in the Germanic languages, a negation statement was most often at the end of a sentence or paragraph, while in the Latin languages, such negation statements were most often at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Consequently, Latin-speaking people misinterpreted what was being said by Germanic-speaking people as an affirmative statement until they heard the negation at the end. This would lead the Latin-speaking people to misinterpret what Germanic-speaking people were saying while they were speaking, and it would raise the ire of the Latin-speaking people during the discussion.

From this, I learned not to interrupt and to withhold my opinion until I heard all of what was being said. Excellent advice, no matter who is speaking or what nationality they come from. I also learned that I was better able to concur or critique what was said when I did so and that my judgments of what was said were evenhanded and more acceptable to others. Thus, my advice to all, when they are listening to someone, is to keep your mouth shut and your mind open while someone is speaking and to only concur or critique after the speaker is finished.

04/19/25 Unencumbered by Any Facts or Truths

Due to the election of President Trump and their Trump Derangement Syndrome (and now Elon Musk Derangement Syndrome), the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have gone totally deranged. A derangement in which they are completely unencumbered by any facts or truths, and they will believe anything about Trump and Musk that their derangement can evoke. It is this derangement that makes them susceptible to President Trump trolling them or trapping them, and their reactions to this trolling or trapping is often madness.

In their derangement, they often make allegations and/or provoke fear of President Trump and his Administration that is unfounded and unrealistic. In their allegations, they are trying to make President Trump and Elon Musk a bogeyman or ogre that everyone should be fearful of and to invoke opposition to anything that the Trump Administration may attempt to do. However, in their attempts, they are betraying their own inanity and idiocy, as well as their being useful idiots, as I have Chirped on “04/19/25 Useful Idiots”.

The current allegations about President Trump and his Administration deporting illegal immigrants encapsulate how the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are unencumbered by any facts or truths, as I have Chirped on “04/15/25 To Deport or to Not Deport”. Their defense of the illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been found to be without merit despite their assertions. Regardless of President Trump’s Administration Officials releasing the documentation of his crimes, they continue to assert without any evidence that he is not a gang member, that he is a family man, that he has committed no crimes worthy of deportation, and that he did not receive Due Process despite having his case adjudicated by an immigration judge and an appellate immigration judge.

In evaluating their assertions, it should be remembered that in all of law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, science, engineering, and many other areas of human interactions, the burden of proof is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion, as I have examined in my Article on “Burden of Proof”. We should always remember this when listening to a dialog, debate, or commentary where assertions are being made and that:

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish."
- Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion."
- Mark Dawson

You should also keep in mind of those who make assertions that:

"Just because they 'believe' something to be true does not mean that they 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."
- Mark Dawson

We would also do well to remember what Christopher Hitchens once said, which is now a Philosophical Razor that can be utilized to dismiss any argument: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I would argue that assertions without evidence must be dismissed without evidence. To do otherwise is to allow for an uncivil society, as I have discussed in my Article "A Civil Society". Consequently, as the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists provide no evidence for their allegations and they are unencumbered by any facts or truths, but they do engender fear, they are antithetic to a civil society.

04/19/25 Useful Idiots

The one thing that The Party of the People, the Democrat Party, has in common with Communists and Socialists is that they are dependent on “useful idiots” to propagate their platitudinal messages. Unfortunately for the modern Democrat Party, they have been electing their useful idiots to office, and they even managed to elect a useful idiot to the Presidency (i.e., Joe Biden). This useful idiocy can be seen in how the Democrat Party Leaders (and their useful idiots in the Mainstream Media) will parrot each other’s hackneyed talking points. No variations of the talking points or intelligent reasoning about the talking points are exhibited by their useful idiots. These useful idiots are also unencumbered by facts and truths, as their opinions are often based on Pseudoconomics, Pseudohistorical, and Pseudoscientific thinking, as I have Chirped on “04/08/25 Pseudohistorical and Pseudoscientific Progressivism” and “04/09/25 Progressives Pseudoeconomics”.

Unfortunately for the useful idiots, the Democrat Party has a history of discarding their useful idiots when they no longer become useful, at which point they become simply idiots. When they go from a useful idiot to just an idiot, they often continue with their idiocy. However, these useful idiots may also often adopt other useful idiocy in support of the Democrat Party. Thus, the cycle of Democrat Party useful idiots goes round and round between different or recycled useful idiots.

As such, the Democrat Party's useful idiots should not be heeded, as paying any attention to their idiocy will make you idiotic. It is also a recipe for negative consequences to our society, as the history of “The Party of the People” and the Biden Administration has proven.

04/18/25 The Big Four Societal Problems

In modern America, we have seen a rise in civil unrest and assaults on our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights. Of all these problems, I would argue that there are four problems that are head and shoulders above our other problems: 1) Natural Rights Violations, 2) Domestic Terrorism, 3) Anti-Semitism, and 4) The Democrat Party.

Natural Rights, as I have Chirp on "07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right", are endowed by nature and nature's god, and they are not subject to infringement by other people, organizations, or governments. Yet, in America today, we have seen people and organizations that do not respect the Natural Rights of others and a government that has tried to infringe or constrict the Natural Rights of a person or organization, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government".

We have also seen a rise in Domestic Terrorism of “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”, as I have chirped on “03/31/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part I” and “04/01/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part II”.

Anti-Semitism is also on the rise in America, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America". This is a dangerous situation for America, as I have often said:

“Anti-Semitism must be confronted and condemned whenever it rears its ugly head.
For history has shown that whenever it is not confronted and eliminated,
it festers and grows to become a cancer that will eventually destroy society.”

Yet, in modern American society, Anti-Semitism is tolerated, while pro-Palestinian terrorism is lauded.

At the forefront of these problems in modern America are the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. As I have Chirped on “04/06/25 It’s Not the Message—It’s the Madness”, the madness of the modern Democrat Party and Progressives has become commonplace. This madness of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders exacerbates the other three problems, and until their madness is corrected, it may not be possible to solve the other three problems.

These Big Four Societal Problems in America have to be rectified for America to right its course and preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. If we do not rectify these problems, then America will descend into chaos and self-destruction. As Abraham Lincoln 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 before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois

And these Big Four Societal Problems are problems that have sprung up among us.

04/17/25 The Sky is Falling

“The sky is falling” said Chicken Little to the farm animals. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are now proclaiming to the American public that President Donald Trump is plunging the United States into (a) chaos, (b) a recession, or (c) a “trade war”. Like almost all their proclamations against Donald Trump, they have as much veracity as Chicken Little’s claim that the sky is falling.

The Democrat Party, which often claims to be the party of change, is now exhibiting their fear of change, or rather their fear of change that they do not understand nor with which they concur. The party that supported the failed ‘Bidenomics’ is now warning that Trump's economics will fail with calamitous consequences. A Democrat Party that is immersed in Pseudoeconomics, as I have Chirped on “04/09/25 Progressives Pseudoeconomics”, which always leads to failed economic policies.

It is a fear that they are trying to instill in the American public, and it is a fear that only the farm animals should believe. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”, so should the American people not be fearful of Trump's economics. We should all remember that Donald Trump was a very successful businessperson and that much of his success started with The Art of the Deal. Therefore, only concern is warranted, but in their concern, the American public should remember that President Trump turned the economy around and was economically successful in his first term until the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Thus, he should be given the chance to turn the economy around and be economically successful in his second term. The American people should also remember that it is not wise to bet against Trump, as he has a stellar record of achieving whatever he sets out to do.

Therefore, as Pope John Paul II said to the people of Poland who were suffering under Communist leadership, “Be Not Afraid”, as I Chirped on "03/14/25 Be Not Afraid", and I would say to all Americans, be not afraid but only be concerned.

04/17/25 Kahunas

There is no doubt that Donald Trump has kahunas. The doubt is if other Republicans have or can grow kahunas. Most Republican politicians do not have kahunas for fear it would impact their election or reelection chances. However, President Trump has demonstrated that kahunas, coupled with good and sound policies, increase your favorability and election/reelection chances. Kahunas must also be coupled with the ability to express your policies in a manner that the American public understands, applies common sense, and is done with authenticity (i.e., no equivocalness, no disingenuous, and no-nonsense). Kahunas also require courage in standing your ground in the face of harsh (and often inaccurate) criticisms.

One of the lessons of President Trump’s recent election (and past election), along with his current Executive Orders and legislative endeavors, is that kahunas, coupled with good policies, will help obtain your goals. And if the goals are what is best for America and Americans, a majority of the public will support your goals (and your election/reelection). Thus, my message to Republican politicians and their supporters is to get and/or grow your kahunas, as it will help you achieve your goals and increase your chances of election or reelection.

04/16/25 No Rogue Judicial Rulings

The ‘No Rogue Rulings Act or NORRA’ was Introduced in the House of Representatives on 02/24/2025 and passed by the Yeas and Nays of 219 – 213 on 04/09/2025. This act limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions. Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court. It is a simple and understandable one-page act that should be supported by all Americans.

However, this bill was opposed by all Democrats in the House, and It is expected that the Senate Democrats will also oppose this bill through the use of a filibuster. A filibuster which is an effort to stymie the will of the majority of the members of Congress and to thwart the will of the electorate for the changes in government that they elected President Trump to institute, as I have Chirped on “04/nn/25 Majority Rules”. http://www.profitpages.com/mwd/chirps.htm#mozTocId100173

Their opposition to this bill is because judicial Lawfare appears to be the only means that they can oppose President Trump, and this bill would make judicial lawfare much more difficult. But such judicial Lawfare is an assault on the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches which were carefully constructed by our Founding Fathers to help preserve our Constitutional Liberties and Freedoms. Thus, the Congressional Democrats' opposition to this bill allows for the continued infringement of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All by rouge judges.

As I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint", judicial restraint is a serious problem in modern America. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved through legislative, executive, and Supreme Court judicial actions. The NORRA legislation is a good first step to correct this situation, and it should be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. To do otherwise is to allow for the reign of rouge judges over America.

04/16/25 A Fascist Dictator

As Derek Hunter has said in a recent column, “Democrats Found Their Next Anti-Trump Conspiracy”:

“If Donald Trump were half the monster Democrats claim he is, they would be terrified to speak out against him. I don’t know if they know this or not, but fascist dictators aren’t big fans of people calling them fascist dictators, they’re kind of funny that way. They also have a habit of disappearing people who call them out for, well, anything. Yet, MSNBC still exists. CNN still exists. Every columnist at every left-wing corporate media outlet still exists.”
- Derek Hunter

Like most of the pejoratives said about Donald Trump, it is a case of Projection on their part. Projection is a defense mechanism by which an individual unconsciously attributes their behaviors, emotions, impulses, undesirable characteristics, and thoughts to others. It is a way of taking our internal dialogue and turning it into an external exchange, as if our own beliefs or behaviors belong to someone else. In the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists case, it is they who are more conforming to their pejoratives than Donald Trump.

Many of my Chirps and Articles (too numerous to mention in this Chirp) have examined the words and deeds of the modern Democrat Party, and how they have behaved in a manner that is antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas, as I have written in my article "J'accuse!". Indeed, they have behaved in a manner that is more appropriate to the pejoratives for which they accuse Donald Trump.

Alas, the American people have much more to fear by the actions of the Democrat Party than anything that President Trump has done. Consequently, the American people should interpret their pejoratives as a projection of their own faults and shortcomings.

04/15/25 To Deport or to Not Deport

Mistaken deportation refers to the wrongful removal of an individual from a country, often due to administrative errors or misinterpretations of immigration laws. Recent cases, such as that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, highlight the legal challenges and implications surrounding such deportations. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of Mr. Garcia, a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador, as he had an immigration judge order of non-deportation to El Salvador. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the need for the government to clarify its actions regarding his return while acknowledging potential limits on judicial authority in foreign affairs. The Supreme Court's decision has also come under scrutiny, with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer arguing that the U.S. “does not control the sovereign nation of El Salvador, nor can it compel El Salvador to follow a federal judge’s bidding.” as well as in Johnathan Turley’s article “A Writ of “Facilitation”? Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case”.

There is some dispute whether Mr. Garcia was a gang member and engaged in criminal activities in America, but there is no dispute that he was an illegal immigrant. The Trump administration continues to allege that Mr. Garcia is “confirmed to be a ranking member of the MS-13 gang by a proven and reliable source,” something his relatives vehemently deny. Attorney General Pam Bondi commented that, "First and foremost, he was in our country illegally." and "In 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled he was a member of MS-13, and he was illegally in our country." Bondi noted that is was now up to El Salvador, not the United States, to decide if they want to return him, stating that the U.S. would help "facilitate" that return by providing an airplane.

However, the Trump Administration has also admitted that Mr. Garcia was deported to El Salvador in an "administrative error". As for “administrative error”, all government actions are subject to an administrative error, as “To err is Human”. Such administrative errors should be corrected when uncovered and be corrected in an expeditious manner. In the case of Mr. Garcia, such correction is a Herculean task, as it requires the cooperation of a sovereign nation that now has custody of Mr. Garcia. I would suggest that the El Salvador authorities respond to this request for his return and that they hold legal proceedings to determine that Mr. Garcia was a gang member in El Salvador who committed illegal actions. If so, they would declare that he is a criminal under El Salvador law, and as such, he is serving his sentence, but they would be happy to return him after his sentence is served. If not, then they will, as a courtesy to America, return him to American custody.

The other question is if Mr. Garcia is entitled to full legal Due Process before deportation or if an immigration judge’s ruling and/or Presidential authority are sufficient to deport any illegal immigrant. In Mr. Garcia's case, there is also the question of whether he should have been deported to El Salvador and into their harsh prison system. This raises the larger question of whether Illegal Immigrants are entitled to full Judicial Due Process before being deported and if it is better to not deport thousands of illegal criminal immigrants for one illegal noncriminal immigrant to not be deported through an administrative error.

With upwards of thirty million illegal immigrants in America, it may prove to be a Sisyphean task to provide full legal Due Process to all of these illegal immigrants. It would take decades tying up the courts and at great expense to provide full legal Due Process to all illegal immigrants. The proponents of full legal Due Process for illegal immigrants realize this is a Sisyphean task, and their goal is to tie up illegal immigrant deportations so that the illegal immigrants may remain in America.

Accordingly, the real issue is what is the necessary authority to deport illegal immigrants and if noncriminal illegal immigrants should be deported at all. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are in support of retaining illegal immigrants in America, while Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders want them deported. If we should decide to retain the noncriminal illegal immigrants in America, then we have opened our borders to any person who successfully illegally immigrates. This has serious implications for our economy and social services, as well as potential electoral impacts if at some future time we grant citizenship to these noncriminal illegal immigrants. There is also the question of if these illegal immigrants have children while they are in America. Are these children American citizens and entitled to vote when they become of age to vote? Alas, I believe that this citizenship of noncriminal illegal immigrants and their American-born children citizenship is the end game for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they believe that these noncriminal illegal immigrants and their children will be future Democrat Party voters. If we should grant this citizenship to noncriminal illegal immigrants, it would have a pernicious impact on our national identity and potentially lead to a permanent Democrat Party rule over America.

Consequently, all illegal criminal immigrants should be deported immediately on an immigration judge's ruling and/or Presidential authority. If you are an illegal noncriminal immigrant, no matter how good a person or family member you may be, you should self-deport or be deported expeditiously to your country of origin and apply for legal immigration into America. To do otherwise is to reshape America into a country that it was not intended to be—a law-abiding Democratic republic dedicated to our American Ideals and Ideas and for the Liberties and Freedoms of all its inhabitants. And if you have illegally immigrated to America, your action in doing so has demonstrated that you do not share our law-abiding values. I would also say to those Americans who support allowing illegal noncriminal immigrants to remain in America that you are not showing your law-abiding values. To these same Americans, I would also say that if you do not like our immigration laws, then you should work to have them changed and not try to ignore or circumvent our immigration laws.

Addendum – On 04/16/25 the DOJ & DHS release the Kilmer Abrego Garcia documents that proved he was an MS-13 gang member, and that Garcia's wife filed two restraining orders against him for violence against her.

04/14/25 Majority Rules

The majority rules in the American government as long as the majority acts in a Constitutional manner and respects the Liberties and Freedoms of the minority. Alas, this has been forgotten by Senate Democrats, in that they are blocking legislation by filibuster that requires a three-fifths (60) vote to end the filibuster. They are not doing this to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and minority rights but as an exercise to block legislation for which they disagree with the policy of the legislation and for future electoral purposes. Thus, they are thwarting the will of the electorate, as expressed in the recent election. Such actions by the Senate Democrats are injurious to our Democratic republic and increase the cynicism that most Americans have about our government.

Until the Democrat Party Leaders start paying attention to what the American people want and adjust their behavior accordingly, they will continue to thwart the will of the American people, and they will not achieve electoral success. Perhaps their lack of electoral success is what is best for America, given how much they have managed to screw up America and Americans in the last few decades. Unfortunately, by filibustering needful legislation to fix the screw-ups, they are making it difficult to fix their screw-ups.

04/14/25 Oligarchy in America

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists claim that the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are trying to establish an Oligarchy in America is another example of Projection. Projection is a defense mechanism by which an individual unconsciously attributes their behaviors, emotions, impulses, undesirable characteristics, and thoughts to others. It is a way of taking our internal dialogue and turning it into an external exchange as if our own beliefs or behaviors belong to someone else. In the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists case, they project and amplify their own oligarchy that they have established in the last several decades. It is also a case of unconsciousness to their own words and deeds, as they believe 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. Consequently, they cannot fathom that their party is an oligarchy and may be wrong for America's best interests.

If you examine the Democrat Party leadership, you can see how much of their leadership has remained in power in the last few decades. If you examine the voting record of the Democrats in Congress, it is one of en bloc voting for or against legislation as the Democrat Party leadership ordains. This static leadership and en masse voting are but an indication of an oligarchical nature of the Democrat Party, while the Republican Party has seen a significant shift in its leadership and independent voting in the last few decades. If you examine the finances and campaign contributions of the Democrat Party, you can see that most of the very wealthy and big businesses in America have been major contributors to the Democrat Party, and they have had significant input and sway on the Democrat Party's political goals and policy agendas. As such, these contributors have been incorporated into their oligarchy. Again, this is an indication of the oligarchical nature of the Democrat Party.

As I have Chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, their lofty words are concealing their dastardly deeds that are the antithesis of democracy. It is also an example of their hypocrisy, as they say one thing and do the other thing in accusing their opponents of trying to establish an oligarchy while they try to maintain their own oligarchy.

Their wails and cries of a Republican Oligarchy in America have come about with the realization that their oligarchy is beginning to crumble. The wealthy and big business contributors are scaling back or not contributing to the Democrat Party, and some are even defecting to the Republican Party. This is frightening to them as they see their power slipping away. Rather than reforming their party to become more democratic and responsive to the will of the American people, they are trying to utilize rhetorical sophistry to hold onto power. And their latest rhetorical sophistry is that the Republican Party is trying to establish an oligarchy in America.

04/13/25 Choose Life

In the Judeo-Christian Bible, Deuteronomy 30:15-20 ESV states:

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turnsLawfare away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

Thus, choosing life in the Bible refers to the decision to follow God's commandments and embrace a relationship with God, and to choose life so that you and your descendants may live.

Today, we have seen this dilemma in the Middle East and throughout the world of people and their leaders who choose death rather than life. Radical Islam, Communist China, Dictatorial Russia, and other peoples and leaders have chosen death over life. Such people and leaders who choose death are evil, and they, therefore, should perish.

In his travels through Israel and Gaza, #1 International Bestselling author Douglas Murray has seen the best and the worst humanity has to offer, and he has no trouble choosing a side. In his new book, “On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization”, he examines this issue in regard to the Israeli and Radical Islam conflicts. There is also a YouTube video, “Douglas Murray: Choose Life, Not the Death Cult”, in which he elaborates on this topic. As I have not yet had time to read this book, I cannot recommend this book at this time, but I have watched the video, and I would recommend that all watch this video to gain a fuller understanding of “Choosing Life”.

04/12/25 The Audacity of District Court Judges

The audacity of District Court Judges in issuing rulings on Presidential authorities can be highlighted in an absurd historical parody.

A District Court judge could rule that The Civil War was not a “war”, as only Congress can declare war, and war can only be declared against a foreign enemy. Thus, any action by the Federal government is but a Federally armed effort to put down a rebellion against the lawful authority of the Federal government in the States that illegally declared succession. Therefore, no presidential war powers, only presidential law enforcement powers, could be utilized against the States or rebels.

A District Court judge could also rule that the President must follow all appropriate laws regarding the criminal and civil rights of those in rebellion, including the destruction, damage, or forfeiture of their property (including slave property), and that Due Process of Law should be given to the rebels in all Federal actions against them. Such a ruling would require warrants for their arrest and/or for the seizure of their property to be issued, and a trial and judgment against them would be required before any Federal action is taken against them.

A District Court judge could also invalidate the Emancipation Proclamation as unconstitutional, as the President had no Constitutional authority to free the slave property of those in rebellion. They could also rule that the slaves freed by Union troops be returned to their owners, as the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision stated that it "deprives citizens of their [slave] property without due process of law".

It is expected that the lawyers for the states who declared secession and the lawyers for the individual rebels would file their lawsuits in district courts that were part of the rebellious states and had judges sympathetic to their cause. The appeals of the rulings of these lawsuits would eventually make their way to the same Supreme Court that issued the Dred Scott decision, where it was expected that an ambiguous and divided decision would be made by the Supreme Court Justices.

It was also expected that such Due Process would be as expeditiously accomplished as possible within the judicial system, but such Due Process could take several months or years to come to a final judicial decision. Until such time as a final decision of the Supreme Court was delivered, Federal actions against the rebellious States and individual rebels would be of a limited and constrained nature.

Such is the absurd situation is that we are now experiencing, where District and Appellate Court Judges make rulings against President Trump and his Administration on matters of Presidential authorities.

04/11/25 How Soon They Forget

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists seem to have no difficulty in contradicting themselves. They can say one thing, and sometime later, they say the other thing. They also have the tendency to forget what they previously said or to claim ‘that’s different’ when confronted with these video clips while not explaining why it is different, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “04/02/25 That’s Different, Projection, and Both Sides Do It”. This trait has only been exacerbated by their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). All it takes is for Trump to say something, and their TDS kicks in, and they say the opposite, even if it is different from what they previously said. It has become a cottage industry on blogs, social media sites, and political commentary websites to post the before and after video clips of them contradicting themselves. One of my (current) favorites is the comments about reciprocal tariffs, in which Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer made essentially the same point that Donald Trump makes, and which they now disagree with because of their TDS:

This is also easily seen in their previous support of Elon Musk and his Tesla electric cars. When he was a darling of the Progressives, they praised him and his cars, and when he supported Trump, he was condemned, and Tesla cars, their drivers, and dealerships were targets of domestic terrorism. The same can be said for Robert Kenndy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. When they supported Democrats and Progressives, they were considered fine people, and when they started supporting Trump, they became persona non grata and pariahs in their ranks.

This forgetfulness is not because of any mental lapse, but it is a hypocritical attempt of political gamesmanship for them to manipulate public opinion to advance their political goals and policy agendas, as well as to obtain or retain political power. While they may practice this hypocrisy, it is important for the American people to be aware of this hypocrisy and not be swayed by it. It is also important for the American people not to vote for hypocrites and to turn them out of office. Otherwise, the bitter hyper-partisanship that reigns in today’s America will continue, and there will be no bipartisanship to achieve what is best for America and Americans.

04/10/25 The Party of the People

Myth and sophistry combine to form what most people believe to be the history of the Democrat Party. The truth of the history of the Democrat Party is much more disquieting than most people realize. Since the days of Aaron Burr, the third sitting vice president of the United States, who shot and delivered what proved to be a fatal wound in a duel with one of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, the Democratic Party has been at odds with American Ideals and Ideas. With a history that includes murder, treason, slavery, segregation, sedition, bribery, and systemic vote theft, it can be argued that the Democrats are, at root, a party more interested in obtaining and retaining power than doing what is best for America. And their words and deeds in the 21st century are a continuation of their true disquieting history.

The “Party of the People” has always been the “Party for Themselves”, and anybody that opposes them has been harshly treated by them. They have a willingness to take on any political or social cause that advances their power, even when the causes have been antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. They have always divided Americans into interest groups and cobbled together these interest groups for electoral purposes (i.e., now known as Identity Politics) and to pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans. They also have been known to switch allegiances if a group of Americans no longer serves their electoral purposes.

At the founding of America, when America was mostly agrarian, they pitted the agrarians against business and trade interests. In the antebellum period, they supported the slave interests, and during the Civil War, most of the Confederates and their sympathizers were Democrats. In the reconstruction and post-reconstruction eras, they were the party of bigotry, discrimination, and Jim Crow laws against black people. In the Industrial Revolution era, they opposed manufacturers and financial interests and supported socialistic objectives for American businesses, governance, and society. During the 1930s depression period, they implemented many policies and government actions that now many economists believe prolonged the depression and which only had the appearance of helping those Americans impacted by the depression. The Democrats were the primary supporters of World War I and World War II but as my Book It selections of “10/01/24 War and Presidential Leadership” illuminate, they engaged in political tactics during these wars that were deleterious to our American Ideals and Ideas. During the Cold War period, they often were sympathetic to Communists’ socialistic ideals and non-critical of Communists' aggressions, oppressions, and economics (indeed, they often made excuses for the Communist's actions). In the Civil Rights era, they initially opposed Civil Rights legislation and only began to support civil rights when they determined that they could use it for electoral advantage. In the latter part of the 20th century, they became the party of taxing and spending, as well as big government and excessive regulations that intruded into the everyday life of Americans. In the 21st century, they have been taken over by the leftist elements of their party. This has led them down the path of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and lately, "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government". This modern trend has exposed their anti-American sentiments, and anti-American ideals and ideas have become open and prominent among their Progressives supporters and amongst Democratic Party leaders. Throughout its history, the Democrat Party has been known for gerrymandering, vote fraud, voter intimidation, iron-fisted machine politics, and the (tacit) support of violence to achieve its political goals and policy agendas.

Throughout their history, the Democrats have paid lip service to fidelity to the Constitution, but their words and deeds demonstrate that they do not share the American Ideals and Ideas of our Founding Fathers. They have consistently tried to reinterpret the Constitution (i.e., A Living Constitution) to fit their own ideals and ideas, as I have discussed in my Article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". They also resort to calls for “Our Democracy” when we actually live under a “Democratic republic”, as I have Chirped on "09/28/24 The Assaults on the Constitution". Their anti-America sentiments and lack of fidelity to the Constitution is a violation of their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which should disqualify them from holding any office of trust in America. Their words and deeds have also led most Americans to view the Democrat Party as a party of madness and domestic terrorism, as I have examined in my Chirp on “04/06/25 It’s Not the Message—It’s the Madness”.

This is not to say that they achieved no good for America and Americans. They were at the forefront of worker labor regulations, as well as workplace safety and health. They also supported Child Labor Laws and women’s Suffrage, along with other social changes for the betterment of American society. But all of their good has come at a cost—the rise of big government and the diminishment of the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans to their political goals and policy agendas.

Alas, the Democrat Party is not a party of the individual person but the party of mobs. Throughout history, mobs have been proven to be dangerous to an individuals’ "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" as well as to an individuals’ "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

04/09/25 Progressives Pseudoeconomics

All economics is Pseudoeconomics, as no economic theory or economic model, and no economist or group of economists, can fully understand economics. The economy is so complex and interdependent on numerous factors, as well as The Law of Unintended Consequences and the Butterfly Effect, that any economic theory or model can be assumed to be wrong. When you add into the mix the inability to predict significant changes in science, technology, governments, etc., it is not possible for economics to be a science (as science is based on predictability) but only a pseudoscience. Thus, all economics is Pseudoconomics.

As I stated in my Chirp on “04/08/25 Pseudohistorical and Pseudoscientific Progressivism”, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have a tendency to believe in Pseudohistorical and Pseudoscientific facts and truths. And they absolutely believe in their Pseudoconomic theories. Their Pseudoconomic theories are based on what they want something to be rather than what they are. Their biggest fault is not acknowledging human nature as it is but believing that human nature is malleable to their desires. As I have often said:

The biggest differences between Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists and Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives is that Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives recognize the Pseudoconomic nature of economics and accommodate their economic beliefs to the realities of human nature, as well as the known and unknown factors that go into economic theories and models. The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists beliefs are based on their feelings, as I have Chirped on “04/07/25 Progressives Feeling Good rather than Doing Good”, as well as ignoring or denying pertinent facts, as I have Chirped on “04/07/25 You Let Out a Bunch of Stuff”.

Consequently, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists base their political goals and policy agendas on Pseudoconomics, Pseudohistorical, and Pseudoscientific beliefs. This goes a long way in explaining how their leadership has led to the current problems in America. It is also a reason to believe that President Trump and the Republicans can correct this mess, as they have little or no Pseudoconomics, Pseudohistorical, or Pseudoscientific beliefs.

04/08/25 Pseudohistorical and Pseudoscientific Progressivism

One of the traits of many modern Progressives, and all Leftists, is their immaturity, irrationality, pseudohistorical, and pseudoscientific nature. Traits that have been adopted by modern Democrat leaders. Their immaturity is demonstrated by their unwillingness to listen to other viewpoints, their attempts to suppress the free speech rights of their opponents, and their willingness to resort to violence to achieve their objectives. And they always assume that they are correct and moral, while their adversaries are always wrong and mostly evil. This assumption does not allow them to consider the possibility that they may be wrong, and, therefore, they do not have to consider the consequences if they are wrong. Their irrationality is demonstrated by the form and structure of their arguments and their reliance on improper facts and improper statistics to bolster their arguments. Many of my Chirps (too numerous to mention in this Chirp) and many of my Articles in the Miscellaneous Items section of my website have pointed out their improper facts and improper statistics, as well as their improper Reasoning. Their Trump Derangement Syndrome (and now Elon Musk Derangement) is the most prominent sign of their immaturity and irrationality. Their inability to reformulate the Democrat Party after the devastating 2024 election results is another indicator of the depth of their immaturity and irrationality.

Much of their improper reasoning is a result of their pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific knowledge base, as well as a lack of comprehension of human nature and basic economics. Pseudohistorical is due to their lack of understanding of the proper historical facts and reasons for historical events, and pseudoscientific is due to their lack of understanding of science and how science functions. Human Nature and Basic Economics have been the topic of a number of my Chirps and Articles and will not be recapitulated in this Chirp.

Progressives’ interpretation of historical events is incomplete and clouded by their passions. Any historical facts that call into question their interpretation are rejected or ignored. The chain of historical events and, therefore, the reasons for the historical events are lacking in their historical interpretation. They also judge history by current moral standards, not taking into account the morals of the historical times (a viewpoint often referred to as Historical Presentism). In almost all circumstances, they do not consider the economics of the historical event or the lack of economic knowledge in the historical times or personages. These factors, along with a lack of comprehension of human nature shaped by sociological factors, lead them to pseudohistorical interpretations. The History section of my website examines the proper interpretation and historical reasons for some of the events in American history.

Progressives do not understand that settled or consensus in science does not mean that the science is resolved or correct, as I have examined in my article on Scientific Consensus and Settled Science. The history of settledness or consensus in science has often shown that the settled or consensus science has often been incorrect. In the history of science, Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravity was believed to have been settled for over two hundred years. One man, Albert Einstein, proved the settledness to be incorrect, and his better theory of gravity emerged as the consensus. This has happened many times in the history of science, as an old theory was proven to be incorrect and displaced by a newer theory, and many times, the newer theory is displaced by an even newer theory. They also do not understand that Computer Modeling and Statistical Analysis is not actual Science but only a tool of science, as I have written in my article Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. Therefore, all science has the inherent possibility of being incorrect as new scientific experiments and observations, better computer models and statistical analysis, along with new thinking, may lead to better and more correct science. More information on proper science and scientific issues may be obtained in the Science section of my website.

Consequently, the Progressive's interpretation of historical events is indicative of their pseudohistorical nature, while the Progressive's refusal to even consider the possibility that scientific settledness or consensuses, as well as Computer Modeling and Statistical Analysis, may be incorrect or wrong, is indicative of their pseudoscientific nature. A belief in Pseudohistorical and/or Pseudoscientific will lead you to the wrong conclusions about history and science. It will also lead you to make improper choices in the present. Improper choices that will probably have deleterious consequences and will have unintended consequences.

04/07/25 Progressives Feeling Good rather than Doing Good

In my Pearls of Wisdom webpage, I remark that you should always Do Good Before You Feel Good. In today’s society, this pearl is either forgotten or not known, especially by Progressives/Leftists. Their approach is emotional rather than intellectual, as they believe that their feelings are always good and that their intentions are what is best for America and Americans. Most Progressives have good intentions when they think about how to help their fellow Americans. Most Progressives often judge their results based on how they feel good about what they're doing, and they rarely look at the results of what they are doing.

However, good intentions are not enough, as good intentions do not automatically translate into good deeds. Most Progressives only judge their results based on the groups or person(s) that they are trying to help and very rarely determine the impact on those groups or person(s) not helped by their deeds. However, good deeds require that you carefully consider the consequences to all and to society and be aware of unintended consequences of your deeds. Any deed that is deleterious to the Liberties and Freedoms of an individual often results in a loss of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

A fine example of this is aid to dependent children of unwed mothers. Nobody doesn’t want to help dependent children that are in financial distress, especially dependent children of unwed mothers who do not have a father to help them out. However, the Progressive of that day (i.e., Liberals) passed various Federal programs to provide assistance to dependent children in financial distress, in which the more dependent children that an unwed mother had, the more aid she received. This set up a cycle of more unwed motherhood with more children, as well as more deadbeat fathers, as the government dispersed more and more aid. This has turned into a vicious cycle that has resulted in more unwed motherhood and deadbeat fathers in America.

The same unintended consequences could be said for food stamps. There are few restrictions on what food can be purchased with food stamps, and junk food and sodas are often purchased with food stamps. This junk food and soda have negative repercussions on children’s health, and thus, today, we have an epidemic of obese and unhealthy children (as well as the adults they have become). This problem puts a strain on our healthcare industry and drives up the cost of obtaining medical services, which often requires increased government aid for medical services.

Too often, Progressives appeal to Americans' charitable nature and feelings of wanting to do good for their fellow citizens. They often do this without considering the full impacts of what they propose. All too often, this is an emotional appeal without intellectual consideration of the impact of what they propose. Impacts that have negative repercussions on both the intended recipients as well as on all of America and Americans. As for the Democrat Party Leaders' support for these policies, it is but another ploy of Identity Politics and the expansion of government to obtain and retain political power to advance their political goals and policy agendas.

What Americans need to keep in mind is it is important to analyze the full impacts of any legislation before passing such legislation and to ensure that it does no harm and is for the good of all Americans. Consequently, as I have often said:

"It is much more important to do good than to feel good."
- Mark Dawson

04/07/25 You Let Out a Bunch of Stuff

In the hilarious 1986 movie, “Back to School”, Rodney Dangerfield plays a fun-loving and obnoxious rich businessman who decides to help his discouraged son get through college by entering the school as a student himself. In one scene (which can be seen by clicking the image below), he confronts a business professor about the realities of modern business versus the hypotheticals of the professor:

“First of all, you've got to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's kickbacks to the carpenters. If you plan on using cement, the Teamsters will want a chat, and that will cost you. And don't forget something for the building inspectors. Then there's the long-term costs, such as waste disposal. Are you familiar with who runs that business? It's not the boy scouts.”

So it is with many academics, scholars, and experts, along with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, when they discuss their expertise or policy goals. And most of what they leave out is anything that countervails what they believe. As I have Chirped on “04/06/25 Progressives Feeling Good rather than Doing Good”, this is done so that they can feel good about what they are saying or doing, rather than saying or doing good. Therefore, whenever you see, hear, or read from academics, scholars, experts, Progressives, or Democrat Party leaders, you should always think about the realities and the stuff that they are leaving out. If you don’t do so, then you will be living in Fantasyland rather than in the real world.

P.S.—This is one of the reasons that many college graduates believe in political and economic fantasies, as their professors leave out a bunch of stuff.

04/06/25 It’s Not the Message—It’s the Madness

The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

Alas, we have seen much domestic terrorism in the last decade. One side, the Progressives/Leftists side, has decided that their causes are so righteous and moral that they are free to engage in any rhetoric and/or activity in support of their cause. While they are free to engage in almost any rhetoric that they choose (except for threats of physical intimidation or violence), they are not free to engage in physical intimidation or violence. Therefore, by definition, those who engage in physical intimidation or violence for a cause are domestic terrorists.

In their domestic terrorism, they have often received verbal support (or silence) from Democrat Party Leaders and the Mainstream Media, who have labeled this domestic terrorism as “mostly peaceful” or an expression of the passion of the protestors. Excuses abound for their conduct, but terrorism is terrorism, no matter the cause of the terrorists.

These domestic terrorists believe that they have the freedom to engage in activities that support their cause, as their cause is so important that any action is justifiable. This is an attitude of the ends justifying the means. Such an attitude is disruptive and dangerous to America and Americans, as I have Chirped on “ 03/29/25 Endangering America and Americans”. But there is also an underlying attitude of these domestic terrorists, as expressed by Jonathan Turley in his column “Rep. Goldman: The FBI Investigation of Tesla Attacks is ‘Political Weaponization’”:

“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.”
- Jonathan Turley

Such domestic terrorism should never be condoned and should always be condemned. It should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To not prosecute domestic terrorists is to endanger our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Any politician who condones or excuses, and does not condemn, such domestic terrorism is unfit for leadership of a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms, and they should be turned out of power by the American people.

04/06/25 The Three D's and Now Potentially Deadly Actions

In my Article "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", I lament how the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have degenerated into base political rhetoric in the last decade. With the current election of President Trump and the activities of DOGE and Elon Musk, they have gone from rhetoric to violent actions, as I have Chirped on “03/31/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part I” and “04/01/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part II”.

While protestors have the right to peaceably assemble and voice their opposition to Trump and Musk, they have forgotten the meaning of peaceably, and some have resorted to the damage or destruction of others' property in their protests. Such violent actions have a distinct possibility of physical harm and potentially death to the targets of the violent actions. They may also lead to the harm or death of the perpetrators, as potential targets may arm themselves to protect their property and persons. Despite this possibility, Democrat Party Leaders and the Mainstream Media have still not condemned and called out for an end to these violent actions, and in their silence, they are giving tacit approval for these violent actions. Thus, in their silence, they are condoning these violent actions.

While such violent actions may reveal the depth of the passions of the protesters, it is more revealing of the breadth of their immaturity. Deep passion combined with self-control often leads a person to constructive actions for the betterment of themselves and society, while deep passion without self-control is often destructive to themselves and society. And deep passion without intellectual reasoning will always lead you down the wrong path. It should also be remembered that it is easy to destroy something and much more difficult to build something. Consequently, the destructive tendencies of the violent protestors leave a path of destruction without rebuilding something better in its place.

Such violent actions should never be condoned and should always be condemned. It should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not prosecuting these violent actions would endanger our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Any politician who condones or excuses, and does not condemn, such violent actions are unfit for leadership of a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms, and they should be turned out of power by the American people.

04/05/25 He is the President of the United States, Not of Wall Street

With the recent significant Wall Street downturn in response to the Trump reciprocal tariffs, investors have been wailing and crying about their losses. These same investors did not wail and cry when manufacturers offshored their plants to foreign nations and the workers and suppliers of these manufacturers were laid off or went out of business. The resulting economic harm from this offshoring was dispersed to the many workers, businesses, and communities, while the less numerous investors gained from the increased profitability of the companies that offshored. There were also no wails and cries about the dependence on critical materials and goods from foreign countries or supply chain resilience that impacted America and Americans' well-being. Thus, these wails and cries of investors are of a narcissistic nature that ignores the past harms that were inflicted on America and Americans.

In President Trump’s attempts to revive these manufacturers through reciprocal tariffs, he is acting in the best interest of America and all Americans, and not for the fewer investors who may be temporarily harmed by these reciprocal tariffs. It should also be remembered that Wall Street will recover, as it has always recovered, and the only concern is how long it will take for Wall Street to recover. If the reciprocal tariffs are successful in reviving American manufacturers, then the Wall Street recovery will occur, along with the recovery of workers, businesses, and communities.

The American people have always shown resilience in enduring some short-term pain to achieve long-term gains. This resilience is what is needed in America today to rebuild America for the benefit of all Americans. Therefore, the American people need to ignore the wails and cries of investors to achieve a better future for all Americans.

Consequently, President Trump is acting as the President of the United States and not of Wall Street. His actions are what he believes are in the best interests of America and all Americans, and they are what the American people elected him to accomplish.

04/05/25 Liberation Day

Josh Hammer has written in his column, “The Dismal Science and the Trumpian Tariff Hullabaloo”, that:

“Whenever the subject of trade comes up, many right-leaning free traders and left-leaning neoliberals alike trot out the same talking point: "The economists all agree tariffs are terrible!" And perhaps they do -- or at least most of them do. Barriers to free and unfettered trade may well appear "inefficient" as a matter of an economic model's "deadweight loss" -- and they may well conflict with David Ricardo's much-heralded 19th-century trade theory of "comparative advantage." It may well be the case that "consumer surplus" is indeed harmed by restrictions on the free flow of goods.”

He has also stated, “But this is classroom theory. And the "dismal science" that is the economics profession is not always known for its close relationship to, well, real life.” He also points out that there are more concerns in trade other than economics, “. . . it can be easy to lose sight of other concerns of economic statecraft. But there are other concerns: namely, production and supply chain resilience.” I would also point out the concern of productively employing Americans in jobs in which they can achieve the American dream of having the freedom and opportunity to succeed and attain a better life.

Fears of a trade war because of Liberation Day are not unjustified, but they are also not realistic. They are not realistic because, in the past, politicians and Presidents used trade for political purposes rather than economic purposes, and they were not businesspeople who understood real-life negotiations. The difference is that President Trump is a very successful businessperson who understands real-life negotiations on economic matters, and he will be constantly aware of the possibility of a trade war and not push other countries into a trade war. President Trump also has four years of experience from his previous term of office in dealing with the intricacies and realities of international relationships. President Trump is also aware of the other concerns, and he will put America first in these trade negotiations to achieve peace, security, and prosperity for America and Americans.

As U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson declared: “President Trump is sending a clear message with Liberation Day: America will not be exploited by unfair trade practices anymore. These tariffs restore fair and reciprocal trade and level the playing field for American workers and innovators. The President understands that FREE trade ONLY works when it’s FAIR!” It is this understanding that will rebalance our trade with the rest of the world and help revive our economy.

Mr. Hammer concludes his column by stating:

“Americans don't elect economists as our leaders to monolithically pursue the most "efficient" policies possible. And thank goodness for that. Instead, we elect leaders who will exercise prudence, discernment and sound judgment to pursue the common good. Tariffs absolutely do have a role to play. But while a thunderous jackhammer of a policy disruption may be appealing, sometimes a mere scalpel will suffice.”

I would point out that while a scalpel may be desirable, it is often time-consuming and often ineffective in achieving major shifts in policies. Thus, President Trump has taken a public thunderous jackhammer approach to achieve his goals and, hopefully, a more private scalpel approach in his negotiations to achieve his goals. I would not bet against Donald Trump, as he has an outstanding record in achieving his goals (although it is sometimes difficult to figure out exactly what are his goals, as is typical for politicians and wily businesspersons).

04/04/25 Law Enforcement and Judicial Virtue

In my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", I discuss the importance of virtue in governmental affairs. Sadly, such virtue seems to be lacking in the most important area of government, the judicial process. From law enforcement to judges, we have seen an appalling lack of virtue over the last few decades. From the "The Weaponization of Government" to "Judicial Restraint", virtue has not played any part in their words and deeds.

Their motivations seem to be for the advancement of their political goals and policy agendas rather than to ensure "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All of this has occurred with the encouragement, support, and guidance of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that they are acting virtuously and that whatever means they employ to obtain their virtuous goals is acceptable. But the ends never justify the means, as such a belief always leads to despotism then tyranny.

The efforts of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to root out this lack of virtue in the ranks of their personnel are commendable and should be supported by the American people. Other Secretaries and Directors within the Federal government also need to take action against their personnel who have been involved in these unvirtuous actions. Such actions are not retaliation nor revenge, but retribution against those government officials in the Biden Administration who willfully violated the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of any American. The excuse of these personnel that they were just following orders is unacceptable, as just following orders has led to some of the most horrendous violations of human rights in history, as I have examined in my Chirp on "02/19/25 Just Following Orders". Additionally, any Executive Officer or Advisor who has engaged in these unvirtuous actions need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violating the rights of Americans under “18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

We also need Congressional action to root out or restrain unvirtuous actions by judges, as they have the Constitutional authority to do so under Article III of the Constitution. The American people should support Congress in these efforts, for judges, who are supposed to be the last bulwark against the infringement of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights by the government, do more and more lasting damage to the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans and to America than any other branch of government when they act unvirtuously.

Such Executive Branch and Congressional actions against the unvirtuous are to be expected to be opposed by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as most of these unvirtuous actions were undertaken by Democrats in their attempts to obtain and retain power, and judicial overreach appears to be the only tactic they have to oppose President Trump. Alas, such a tactic is not only injurious to Americans but to the Constitution, as it upsets the Executive powers of the President and the Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. However, such Executive Branch and Congressional actions are what is best for America and Americans.

04/03/25 Reigning In the Judges

In my collected Chirps on Judicial Restraint, I lament how District and Appellate Court Judges have stepped outside the boundaries of their duties and responsibilities by encroaching upon the prerogatives of the Presidency. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine of the Constitution and needs to end. In these Chirps, I have suggested that the Supreme Court consider limiting the jurisdiction of judges or the President issuing an Executive Order declaring that such judicial rulings are unconstitutional and thus null and void. I also suggested that Congress take action to limit these judges from overstepping their boundaries.

Columnist Rachel Alexander has written an excellent article, “What Can be Done About the Corrupt Progressive Judges Destroying the Rule of Law?” in which she discusses the efforts within Congress to reign in these judges. As she states in this article:

“For the first time in many years, a real movement is emerging among Republican leaders to do something about the corrupt progressive judges trampling on the Constitution and the rule of law, ignoring existing laws and precedents. It’s all finally coming to a head with a handful of far left rogue judges issuing injunctions preventing President Donald Trump from doing his job, usurping the powers of the executive branch.”

And:

“The problem has become so bad that The Babylon Bee satire site published an article titled ‘Trump Leaves Presidency To Become Even More Powerful District Court Judge.’”

Let us hope that Congress passes legislation that reigns in these judges, but I expect that Democrat Party Leaders will do all they can to stall, neuter, or block such legislation, as Judicial Overreach seems to be their main tactic to oppose the Trump Administration.

04/02/25 That’s Different, Projection, and Both Sides Do It

The pot calling the kettle black is an excellent rephrasing of the Bible verses Matthew 7:3-5:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye', when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
- New International Version

Such it is of the numerous accusations of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. Their pot is so much blacker than the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives' kettle, and hence, their accusations are hypocritical and pathetic. The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists manufacture scandals out of the most meager Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives incidents while they ignore their own ample transgressions. Their caterwauling about these Republican Party Leaders and Conservative incidents is diametric to the crickets of their own transgressions.

They often claim ‘That’s Different’ about their own transgressions. In the details of the conduct being discussed, this is always true, but in the generalities of the conduct being discussed, it is often the same. There are also the impacts of the conduct, and often, the impacts of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are more severe than the impacts of the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives conduct. Consequently, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have a plank in their eye, while the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives have a speck in their eye.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists also have the troublesome problem of Projection. Projection is a defense mechanism by which an individual unconsciously attributes their behaviors, emotions, impulses, undesirable characteristics, and thoughts to others. It is a way of taking our internal dialogue and turning it into an external exchange as if our own beliefs or behaviors belong to someone else. In the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists case, they project and amplify their own base motives for their actions upon the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives. Their pugnacious and inappropriate projections about Republican Party Leaders' and Conservatives' motives betray the deprivation and depth of their own base motives.

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists also like to claim that ‘Both Sides Do It’, but that is a fallacious statement. Of course, both sides do it; in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention they pay to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism/Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is, “Are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side doing it?”. When you see one side or the other paying more heed or engaging in extreme deeds or words, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to determine not only the number of words and misdeeds but also the tone of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase “Both Sides Do It” is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme deeds or words by the one side engaged in these words or deeds. And the extreme deeds or words come mostly from the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

Thus, whenever Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists yap or howl about Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives, you can be sure that the intensity of their remarks is a reflection of their own transgressions. You can also be pretty sure that there is but little basis for their accusations and that most of it is for political posturing for political advantage rather than for the good of America.

04/01/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part II

Nazis and Fascists labeling of the opponents of Progressives/Leftists policies and political goals has become commonplace in today’s America. Whenever they so label anyone or any group, they are also demonstrating their ignorance of Nazism and Fascism.

German Nazis and Italian Fascists believed in and practiced the rhetorical tactics of "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" against their adversaries, along with the discrimination against groups and individuals in government policies and law and excluding them from the activities of society. They also engaged in the disruption of the free speech of others in all forums, the suppression of any speech that criticized them, and domestic terrorism to obtain their goals. These Nazis were known as the Sturmabteilung (colloquially called Brownshirts ). In this, the Nazis and Fascists targeted the Jews, Gypsies, Mentally and Physically Disabled, Russians, Poles, and other Slavic people, etc... They also believed that the government should control the economy of their nations. Their domestic terrorism was for the purpose of overthrowing the government to obtain and retain political power over the German and Italian people, with the ultimate goal of their dominion over Europe. In all this, they believed that their goals were for the betterment of Germany/Italy and the German/Italian people and that their ends justified their means.

Alas, these tactics are now being utilized by Progressives/Leftists to obtain their political goals and policy agendas in America, the only difference being in who the Progressives/Leftists target and that they don’t have uniforms as the Brownshirts had. The Progressives/Leftists audacity and hypocrisy in engaging in these Nazis and Fascists tactics is astounding. They have no shame, as they, too, believe that their goals are for the betterment of America and Americans and that their ends justified their means.

This Progressives/Leftists rhetoric needs to be exposed and condemned for what it is—Nazi and Fascist tactics on their part. Their domestic terrorism endangers our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, and they should be shunned by all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans. Any politician who condones or excuses, and does not condemn, such domestic terrorism is unfit for leadership of a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms, and they should be turned out of power by the American people.

03/31/25 Domestic Terrorism – Part I

03/30/25 Messaging In Movies

In my article, “Now That's Entertainment”, I explain that I prefer movies that have a very human element in them. Movies that deal with human passions or human conflicts. As such, the scripts for the movies I prefer are essential, for without a good script, it cannot be a good movie. In addition, the directing, acting, and cinematography must be in support of the script, and the music must enhance the emotions of the script. When all this comes together, you usually have a great movie that is also great entertainment. There are also certain movies that I must watch and rewatch every time I run across them while I am channel surfing. Movies in which the directing, acting, and storyline are so compelling that I cannot stop watching them if I begin to watch them.

Many of the movies I prefer also have a message, but a message that is not preached but elucidative by all the elements of the movie. Unfortunately, most modern message movies do not elucidate their message but preach to the audience. This was not always the case, as some great movies of the past have had great messages without preaching the message. Alas, most of the artistic people involved in these modern message movies also go out of their way to preach the message in their activities outside of the moviemaking process. Much of this preaching is about Progressive viewpoints on politics and social justice. If it is a great movie, no preaching is necessary, as the message will be received by the audience through the film.

My top 50 favorite message movies without preaching, along with my must-watch movies are:

A Man for all Seasons (1966)
Becket (1964)
Braveheart (1995)
Casablanca (1942)
Charade (1963)
Cheyenne Autumn (1964)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Citizen X (1995)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Hombre (1967)
In the Heat of Night (1967)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Lord of War (2005)
October Sky (1999)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Mister Roberts (1955)
Nobody's Fool (1994)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Patton (1970)
Remember the Titans (2000)
Rob Roy (1995)
Schindler's List (1993)
Serenity (2005)
Shane (1953)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)

Singing in the Rain (1952)
Sleuth (1972)
Stalag 17 (1953)
The African Queen (1951)
The Americanization of Emily (1964)
The Caine Mutiny (1954)
The Counterfeit Traitor (1962)
The Elephant Man (1980)
The Flight of the Phoenix (1965)
The Haunting (1963)
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
The Man Who Would Be King (1975)
The Music Man (1962)
The Name of the Rose (1986)
The Producers (1967)
The Quiet Man (1952)
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965)
The Third Man (1949)
The Train (1964)
Touch of Evil (1958)
Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
Will Penny (1967)
Witness (1985)
Zulu (1964)

I have deliberately omitted the three great David Lean films, Doctor Zhivago (1965), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), as well as the movies Judgement at Nuremberg (1961), The Lion In Winter (1968), and To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) as, in my opinion, they are in a class by themselves.

Every one of these movies is very entertaining and afterward gives you food for thought. Nowadays, the entertainment value of a movie is secondary to the sermonizing. Consequently, movies have become political or social propaganda with minimal entertainment enjoyment. This is reflected in the movie awards show, where the nominations and awards are heavily tilted toward the progressive message rather than the entertainment. In addition, the winner’s acceptance speeches are often about the message rather than the thankfulness, and these award shows ratings are tanking as a result.

Alas, much of this attitude comes from a sense of moral superiority and intellectual hubris of those involved in moviemaking. A superiority and hubris that is undeserving. This attitude is not only of movie makers but also of most of the entertainment industry. It should be remembered that great artists are not great thinkers outside of their art, which is often true for any great person outside of their field of greatness.

03/29/25 Endangering America and Americans

As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article, “From Profanity-Chic to Terrorist-Smut”, Democrat Party leaders are now making veiled threats against Republicans. Most telling is Democrat Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who once issued threats to Supreme Court justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name, now boasts, "We have people going to the Republican districts and going after these Republicans who are voting for this and forcing them to either change their vote or face the consequences." In this statement, Schumer talks of forcing them rather than convincing them. Facing the consequences appears to involve violence, given what we have seen against Tesla owners and dealerships, along with other tactics of intimidation and violence directed at Trump supporters, as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his article.

This betrays an attitude that the ends justify the means, and as they believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and that their goals are for the good. This is, unfortunately, the attitude and tactics of despots, dictators, and tyrants, most notedly the Nazi, Fascist, and Communist leadership of the 20th and 21st centuries.

This is a very sad state of affairs where the Democrat Party is so void of ideas, so incapable of garnering voter support, and so incompetent to legitimately oppose Trump that they need to resort to intimidation and violence to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. These tactics are also dangerous to America and Americans, as they involve disrupting A Civil Society, as well as endangering our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

The Democrats are, therefore, unfit for leadership of a people dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms, and they should be turned out of power by the American people.

03/28/25 Making Mistakes

People make mistakes. Sometimes, they are innocent mistakes, and sometimes, they are stupid mistakes. Other times, people claim to have made a mistake when it was a deliberately malicious lie with the intent of harming someone. And remember that a cover-up of a malicious lie is often worse than the original lie. What is important to remember when you encounter a mistake is Hanlon's Philosophical razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And you should also remember that there are three types of lies, ‘Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics’ and ‘Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true’’ as I have written in my article “Lies and Beliefs” What is most important is the harm of the mistake or the lie. Sometimes, the harm is only to themselves; sometimes, the harm is to others, and many times, they harm themselves and others.

This brings us to the current kerfuffle over the disclosure of a private and confidential chat between top government officials, who used the Signal chat phone app to discuss air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen as the Trump administration stepped up attacks on the rebels. This Signal chat was somehow shared in real-time with the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg claimed that they disclosed “War Plans” and “Classified Information” on this chat, and the Trump administration claimed that there were no actual war plans or classified information disclosed in the chat. What we do know is that real-time operational information was disclosed in this Signal chat, but the questions of whether this shared information was a war plan or if classified information was disclosed and the impacts of this disclosure remain. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has claimed that this Signal chat did not include names, targets, locations, units, routes, sources, methods or other classified information. This would mean that no criminal activity occurred.

Having dealt with highly classified information in my professional career, I can state that I did not detect any classified information in this Signal chat, and I doubt that any war plan information was disclosed in this Signal chat. The information that was disclosed was confidential and should not have been shared with anyone but the intended recipients. We also know that this operation against the Yemen Houthis was very successful, without loss of life or armaments to our forces, and it seems to have been a major blow to the Houthi’s ambitions.

What we also know is that it was a stupid mistake to include Jeffrey Goldberg in this chat. A stupid mistake that needs to be rectified so that it will not happen again, as well as some disciplinary action against the person or persons that allowed this mistake to occur. Such disciplinary action should be based on the incompetence or intentions of the person(s) who made the mistake, and such disciplinary action should be handled internally unless it was intentional, in which case legal action may be appropriate. In no case should a scapegoat be targeted, and no sacrificial lamb be slaughtered for this mistake. It should only be discovered who was responsible and to take appropriate disciplinary action against them.

The opposition to President Trump has tried to make this mistake a National Security breach, which it is not. They are searching for a scandal without much basis to score political points and tarnish the reputation of those high administration officials involved in this Signal Chat. Yet this same opposition had very little or nothing to say about the colossal mistakes of the Afghanistan withdrawal that cost many American and Afghan lives, left behind billions of dollars in military equipment, and tarnished the reputation of America. Indeed, some of the same people who were criticizing the Snapchat mistake defended President Biden and his Administration officials who were responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster, and nobody was held accountable for this disaster.

Thus, the American people should conclude that the Trump Administration has made a stupid mistake but that the impacts of this mistake are minimal. Therefore, they should ignore the rhetoric of the scandal-mongers and congratulate the success of the Houthi operation while the Trump Administration corrects this stupid mistake.

03/27/25 Team America or Team Left

Current polling shows that Americans support the various big-ticket issues facing America by an 70/30 margin, with 70% favoring the center-right side of the political spectrum on these issues. The question I have for the 30% is, are you for Americans, or are you for Leftists? The rhetoric and the protests (sometimes violent) of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders demonstrate they are for the leftists and, therefore, in opposition to most Americans. The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party leader's attempts to stymie the changes that Americans desire through judicial and legislative chicanery are contrary to the will of the people as expressed through democratic elections. It is appalling that the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders will not work with the opposition to achieve fair and just changes but only work to stymie the changes.

For the last several decades, the Democrat Party has been living under the myth that they are the party of and for the common person, while they have become the party of Leftists composed of the wealthy, big businesspersons and union leadership, academicians and scholars in Colleges, Universities and Research Institutions, out-of-touch celebrities, government bureaucrats, and those dependent on government largess. The working class and taxpayers have become less numerous and thus less important in the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has been protected in this myth by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". In reality, we have seen them become the party of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, Wokeness., and Virtue Signaling. Often this virtue signaling is without any actual virtue, as I have written in my article “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, and this virtue is to be imposed upon Americans through “Tyranny Disguised as Virtue and Compassion”.

The Democrat Party Leaders have shown that they are only interested in satiating the Progressives/Leftists base of their party so much that they have become a party of opposition to the American people’s desire to reform the government. Alas, they have become the party of Team Left rather than the party of Team America. A Team Left party that is dooming themselves to lose elections and to become a minority party for the foreseeable future.

Donald Trump has exploded this myth and revealed to the American public what they truly are: a party dedicated to the obtainment and retainment of political power, the expansion of government, and to impose their vision—a Leftist vision of and on America. Rather than doing what is best for the common person, they will always do what is best for the Democrat Party. This is why the Democrat Party hates Trump so much, for he is revealing what they truly are and that he is also an existential threat to their power. This existential threat is the reason why they have resorted to verbal abuse, fear-mongering, and violent intimidation against Trump and his supporters.

All elected and appointed officials of our federal government take an oath of office before undertaking their constitutional duties:

“Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?”

Today, the major foreign enemies are China and Islamic terrorism, while the major domestic enemies are Team Left. A Team Left that will ignore or distort the Constitution while engaging in words and deeds that are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and pose a threat to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Addendum - Jeff Davidson, a premier thought leader on work-life balance, integration, and harmony, has written an article, “Our Well-Entrenched Internal Enemies”, that explores how Team Left is an internal enemy.

03/26/25 The Agony of Indecisiveness

Kurt Schlichter has written an interesting article, “The Agony of John Roberts”, in which he examines the dilemma that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts finds himself in with regard to the current judicial overreach of District and Appellate Court judges. He begins this article by stating:

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in.”

As I have written in my recent Chirps on “03/21/25 Men (and Women) in Black Robes”, “03/21/25 Reign in the Rouge Judges”, “03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling”, “02/26/25 Federal Judicial Powers”, “02/14/25 An Unconstitutional Supreme Court”, and “02/12/25 Current Resistance and Obstructionism”, our current judiciary has devolved into partisan Lawfare initiated by Progressives/Leftists, who want to achieve their political goals and policy agendas through Judicial activism, as they have not been able to achieve their goals and agendas through the ballot box. Most egregious is their propensity to file unserious lawsuits with hopes of finding favorable judges that will issue Injunctions or Temporary Restraining Orders against President Trump’s lawful actions. This is being done in the hopes of impeding the agenda for which he was elected, and it is the judges who do so that are responsible for this indecisiveness of Chief Justice Roberts.

Mr. Schlichter concludes his article by stating:

“A decision point is coming. Decisive action by the Chief Justice could save the judicial branch by restoring the judicial modesty that preserves the respect of the other branches. If only we could be confident that John Roberts was wise enough to do it.”

Such indecisiveness must come to an end, and Chief Justice Roberts must be forced to take decisive action against overreaching judges. The best way to force this decisiveness may be for President Trump to take decisive actions, as I suggested in my Chirp on “03/nn/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers”. For when decisiveness confronts indecisiveness, indecisiveness often crumbles into nothingness. We need a decisive judiciary to preserve our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", but we also need a strong Presidency to protect our society from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and to effectively and efficiently manage the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency. Let us hope that wisdom prevails on all sides, but such wisdom seems to be lacking in our current hyper-partisanship politics and society.

03/25/25 Executive Order Restraining Judicial Powers

This is the Executive Order and speech to the American people that I would like for President Trump to sign and give:

I, President Donald J. Trump, the 47th President of the United States, have taken an oath of office: —"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Executive Officers and members of Congress, as well as Justices and Judges, take similar oaths to support the Constitution.

Our Constitution was structured to have three co-equal branches of government— Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, with neither branch superior to the other branches, and that each branch is responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. This was done to provide checks and balances within government so as to protect the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans from the passions for power of those who serve under the Constitution.

Through several Supreme Court decisions (starting from Marbury v. Madison in 1803), the Supreme Court have asserted that they have the power to strike down laws and statutes that violate the Constitution of the United States. They have also asserted that they can restrict Executive and Legislative powers and actions that they determine to be unconstitutional. Such assertions are an inferred interpretation of the Constitution, as there is no direct power in the Constitution that allocates this power to the Judicial Branch. Thus, they have accrued unto themselves a power not directly delegated to them in the Constitution. Such an accrued power is dangerous to the Balance of Powers in the Constitution if not applied cautiously and prudently.

The first sentence of Article II. Section 1. of the Constitution states that; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Since I was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, the American people have seen hundreds of lawsuits against my Administration. The resultant judicial orders from these lawsuits are, in my opinion, an encroachment upon the executive powers of the Presidency, and, thus, such judicial orders have exceeded the powers of the Judicial branch. Alas, such Lawsuits and Judicial orders are not meant to clarify executive powers but are designed to hobble my Administration in effecting the changes that the American people expressed through my election. I also hope that Congress will support this Executive Order and pass legislation that more clearly defines Judicial powers in their rulings about Executive and Legislative actions. Such legislation will hopefully restore the balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government.

I, therefore, am directing all Executive Departments and Agencies, as well as all Executive Officers and Advisors, to disregard these judicial orders as being extraconstitutional and thus null and void. It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court will reign in the extraconstitutional actions of these judges. It is also my sincere hope that Congress will support this Executive order, for if judges believe that they can usurp Executive powers, it is not a step too far to believe that they can usurp Legislative powers.

The following are the Judicial orders that I have declared null and void under this Executive Order:

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hopefully, this will force all parties to face and resolve the Constitutional issue of Judicial powers over the Executive and Legislative Branches.

03/24/25 Politics and Unhappiness

A recent NBC News poll, “Steve Kornacki: White men, white women and the gap within the gender gap”, has shown some remarkable differences in political opinion between white men and women, differentiated by education:

What can be inferred by this poll is that college-educated white women have a decidedly Progressive tilt in their political opinions, while college-educated men have a slight Progressive tilt, while both white men and women with no college tilt Conservative. The question that arises is why there is such a difference of opinion between college-educated and non-college-educated white people. Most college-educated people believe that as they are better educated, they are more knowledgeable and morally superior to a non-college-educated person. As such, they view non-college-educated people as often being wrong due to their lack of a college education. The real question is whether colleges are providing a broad-based education that examines all sides of an issue or whether they are engaged in the indoctrination of Progressive or leftist viewpoints of an issue, and I have written in my article on "Indoctrination versus Education". In their education, it is also important to remember:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism

And this deep drinking requires that you thoroughly examine all sides of an issue. It should also always be remembered that an indoctrinated person is rarely a knowledgeable person, as being knowledgeable is a complex endeavor, often beyond just being educated, as I have written in my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

Another poll by the American Family Survey also shows a remarkable difference in happiness amongst women by political affiliation:

What can be inferred from this poll is that Liberal Women today are the unhappiest women despite more equality, opportunity, and rights than ever before. This poll also concluded that Conservative, religious women are statistically the happiest women in America by every metric (including sexual fulfillment). In politics, it is not possible to get everything that you desire, and sometimes you get what you consider undesirable. When you are in the minority, you often cannot obtain what you want, and often you get what you consider disagreeable. Politics also teaches us that an individual cannot control circumstances nor can they control others; as I have said in one of my quotes, "Control over others is illusionary, as the only control that you have is over yourself." and elaborated in one of my Pearls of Wisdom to Be in Control of Yourself.

It has also become evident that many Liberals/Progressives have made politics their raison d’être, which often leads to much unhappiness, as they are not able to obtain all or most of what they want in politics. They also allow politics to intervene in their family and friendship relationships, which leads to their unhappiness. This unhappiness and their lack of depth of knowledge is evident in the demeanor of the protesters against President Trump’s policies. Just viewing and listening to these protesters reveals that most of the vile and ignorant comments come from the women protestors, from which we can conclude, given the previous poll, are mostly college-educated women.

The Republicans and Conservatives had to deal with President Obama for eight years and President Biden for four years. The Democrats and Progressives had to deal with President Trump for four years, and they now need to deal with President Trump for another four years. Que Sera, Sera. But if you react to President Trump with enragement (which is often a byproduct of Trump Derangement Syndrome), you will only increase your unhappiness and disrupt A Civil Society. Such disruption is harmful to America and Americans and is a threat to our Liberties and Freedoms. Consequently, all must be in control of themselves for their own happiness and pay heed to the words of wisdom by one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, to "Doubt a little of your own infallibility." as well as:

03/23/25 Profanity and Polite and Respectful Treatment

I am not a preacher man, nor a God-fearing person, but I do believe in the God of the Holy Bible and the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible, as well as a loving God who can forgive the moral and ethical transgressions of a person. I also believe that it is not proper to use profanity or treat any person impolitely or disrespectfully. Three stories from my youth led me to believe that profanity, impoliteness, and disrespectful treatment were not acceptable conduct based on my or any other person’s conduct.

My paternal grandfather was a bigot in that he believed that Blacks and Latinos did not have the moral character nor intellectual capacity of a white person. He did, however, believe that all people deserve polite and respectful treatment and that profanity, in all cases, was unacceptable. The one time that I swore in front of him, he dressed me down and informed me that only polite and respectful conduct was acceptable and that profanity was never acceptable. As he worked his way up to shop floor foreman in a national thread dying factory, he supervised many white people and a few black and Latino people. As the shop floor supervisor, he insisted that all who he supervised treated each other politely and respectfully and that no profanity would be tolerated on the shop floor. He would also not tolerate any impolite, disrespectful, or profanity in his personal and public life, and he would call out anyone who engaged in these words and deeds. While he was bigoted throughout his life, he kept to this credo throughout his life.

My father started out as a bigot due to his upbringing, but he kept to my grandfather’s credo, and he rapidly changed his opinion due to his efforts during World War II. While working with all races and creeds in WWII, he gained more respect for other people, but he remained prejudiced against some groups, as he believed that they were lazy by nature or were culturally unable to achieve their full potential. As my father aged and became a more religious person, he realized that even this prejudice was not acceptable, and he abandoned his prejudice and began to treat each person as an individual. He also kept my grandfather’s credo throughout his life.

I, on the other hand, grew up with no consideration of bigotry or prejudice. I had Jewish friends, Catholic friends, Italian friends, a black friend, and Polish friends, and I was friendly to anybody who was friendly to me. I enjoyed learning about their culture and history, not to mention the gastronome delights of their culture. I guess you could call me neutral (but mostly unaware) as regards to bigotry or prejudice. I was too young to be involved in the Civil Rights movement, but I supported it when I matured. As for my daughter, I have never seen any problems with your dealings with anybody in any way, shape, or form. Bigotry, or prejudice or discrimination, is abhorrent to my daughter, and she actively opposes it, for which I am quite proud of her.

While I was working as a part-time delivery boy at a print shop at the start of my adult life (while I was attending a computer programming school), I arrived at work and noticed that the printer had a cut and bruises on his forehead, but I made no mention of this to him or the others. Later that day, he abruptly quit and left the premises. In discussing this with the manager of the shop, I mentioned his cut and bruises, to which he commented that as he was very busy that day, he had not noticed these cuts and bruises. He telephoned the printer that evening to discuss the situation and try to lure him back to the job. The next day, I learned the truth about what had happened. Unbeknownst to me, the printer was a homosexual who had visited a nearby gay bar the evening before he sustained his cut and bruises. Upon leaving the gay bar, he was threatened and attacked because of his homosexuality, and he was traumatized to the point that he did not want to be anywhere in the environs of the gay bar, which included the print shop. Despite the support and pleadings of the Composer and the apologies for not noticing the cut and bruises during the workday, the printer was adamant that he would not come back to work.

The lesson that I learned was that it is important to notice any distress from your co-workers (and your friends), offer assistance or support to the co-worker, or inform the management of any potential problems a co-worker may have. It also reinforced my aversion to discrimination and violence against any group of people due to their associations, and most especially against homosexuals. I vowed to myself that I would never use slurs or epithets against any person or group of people, a vow that I have kept for my entire life.

When I was working at my first full-time job as a computer operator, I swore up a storm. One day, a mature computer programmer whom I admired pulled me aside to discuss my swearing. He explained to me that he had noticed that I was extensively swearing and that he believed that this was because of my youth. He also commented that he believed that as this was the first time I was on my own and without parental supervision, I swore much too often so that I would appear to be an adult. However, he explained, swearing did not make you look like an adult, but instead, extensive swearing made you appear childish. He further explained that swearing should only be done in a limited and appropriate manner to draw attention to what you were saying or to emphasize the passion of what you were saying. To do so otherwise was disrespectful and impolite to those around you. He suggested that I limit my swearing to those situations where it was appropriate. I took his words to heart, and I vowed to only swear to myself, and ever since, I only publicly swear on rare occasions where it is appropriate.

After these three incidents, I adopted my grandfather’s credo, which I have tried to keep for my entire life. I would like to say thank you to my deceased grandfather for providing me with a credo that has served me well throughout my life. I would also suggest that all people adopt my grandfather’s credo, which would result in a more civil and harmonious society.

03/22/25 Power Is All – Part II

In my Chirp on “03/22/25 Power Is All – Part I”, I addressed how a growing economy must simultaneously grow in many arenas, but a few arenas are crucial for growth, the most important being energy power. Our economy also needs to grow with a reduction in power—the reduction of the power of government. At all levels of government, the plethora of laws, rules, and regulations, along with the legions of bureaucrats administering them, act as a retardant to economic growth. While many of these laws, rules, and regulations were of good intent, the consequences of them were not often considered by the makers.

These consequences make it more expensive and time-consuming, as well as increase the possibility of denial for any activity that a person or business may wish to undertake. Even after approval, the laws, rules, and regulations while undertaking or engaging in the activity add additional costs and time to the activity. All of this is a retardant to economic growth and stifles initiatives from being undertaken or expanded. The unintended consequences are the impacts on the spirit of Americans as they grapple with the bureaucrats administrating these laws, rules, and regulations, as well as possible judicial involvement when disputes or challenges arise.

Fortunately, President Trump and his Administration are well aware of these facts and are aggressively trying to reduce the power and size of government so as to stimulate economic growth. Their actions will also unleash the innovative spirit of Americans and expand their Liberties and Freedoms. Unfortunately, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have become addicted to large government and the control over America and Americans that large government makes possible. Thus, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will often fear-monger Americans about the dire consequences of reduced government power.

However, as I Chirped on “03/14/25 Be Not Afraid”, you should not fear this reduction of government, but only be cautious about how the government is reduced. If done properly, a reduction in the power of government will liberate both the economy and spirit of America and Americans.

03/22/25 Power Is All – Part I

A growing economy must simultaneously grow in many arenas, but a few arenas are crucial for growth, as I have addressed in my article on “The Basis of Our Modern Technological World”. This growth must also address the Four E’s in this growth, as I have written in my article “The Four E’s - Energy, Economic, End-To-End, and Environmental”.

Increased energy production is crucial for a growing economy. I have posted a video clip from the movie Apollo 13, in which one of the lead engineers explains that power is all. Without power, nothing good will happen. So, it is with our economy. Without power (energy), nothing good will happen to our economy. Abundant and affordable energy is necessary to drive everything that happens in America. This is why President Trump’s mantra of ‘Drill Baby Drill’ is so important. This is why China’s and India’s economies have boomed in the last two decades—they have heavily invested in increased energy production in that time period.

The fastest and easiest way to increase energy supply is by oil drilling and coal mining, which are at a cost to our environment in terms of pollution, but such costs can be minimized by more efficient utilization of these resources. Natural gas production is also a cost-effective source of energy with less environmental impacts. Hydroelectric energy production can have significant environmental impacts in their construction and geographical limits, and this may make it impractical to generate energy in sufficient quantity for our needs. Nuclear power is a long-term solution to increased energy production, but safety and disposal concerns need to be addressed to calm the fears of radioactive accidents. The technology to address nuclear accidents has been and is being developed, but alas, fear amongst the populace is harder to mitigate. Solar and Wind power has been proven to be inadequate in meeting our energy needs, and the environmental impact of this technology is only beginning to be acknowledged. The main environmental problem is the disposal of spent wind turbines and propellor blades, along with the disposal of spent solar panels, while the operation of solar and wind technology has environmental problems. There is also the question of ‘What happens when the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow?’ The other questions and answers to Solar and Wind energy production are as I have Chirped on "10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels" "01/22/25 What Happens When the Sun Doesn’t Shine, The Winds Don’t Blow, and You Encounter the Sounds of Silence?"

The answer to our energy needs is to increase our energy production of all the above (except for solar, wind, and batteries) to meet our current and future energy needs. The development and usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies require a massive amount of electrical power that we must begin to produce, along with the increase of energy production for new technologies, and to fuel a growing economy.

The other issue we face is the attitude of many Americans that only environmentally neutral or friendly energy production is permissible, along with another attitude that energy production should not be in my backyard. Neither attitude is obtainable, and it is a hindrance to meeting the needs of a growing economy. Some sacrifice by the American people is necessary, along with efforts to mitigate both environmental and location issues, to sustain a growing economy. If we as a people are unwilling to make this sacrifice, then we have decided to stagnate or scale back our economy to the detriment of all Americans and America.

03/21/25 Reign in the Rouge Judges

The issue of Judicial overreach on Executive powers has dramatically increased since President Trump took office, with over 120 legal lawsuits currently in progress. This has been a long-standing issue, as in 2012, Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, wrote a paper, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution”, that examined the historical background of this issue, as well as the then current impacts of Judicial overreach. I have also examined this issue in my March 2020 article on "Judges, Not Lords". This current Judicial overreach is a form of "Lawfare" that is being utilized against President Trump to hinder or halt his actions in support of his agenda, for which the American people elected him. One of the most stunning decisions was the refusal of the Supreme Court to become involved in this lawfare, as I have written in my Chirp on “03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling”.

Through several Supreme Court decisions (starting from Marbury v. Madison in 1803), American courts have asserted that they have the power to strike down laws and statutes that violate the Constitution of the United States. They have also asserted that they can restrict Executive and Legislative powers and actions that they determine to be unconstitutional. Such assertions are an inferred interpretation of the Constitution, as there is no direct power in the Constitution that allocates this power to the Judicial Branch. Thus, they have accrued unto themselves a power not delegated to them in the Constitution. Such an accrued power is dangerous to the Balance of Powers in the Constitution if not applied cautiously and prudently.

There is no doubt that when a President overreaches his Executive powers, Judicial action is appropriate. However, such judicial action should be done with much trepidation by judges so as not to usurp legitimate Executive powers. Such trepidation has not been the normal course of action by judges regarding President Trump’s actions, as their judicial decisions have often seemed to have been motivated by political considerations rather than Constitutional considerations. When a judge usurps legitimate Executive powers, they are also usurping the Constitutional balance of powers, which was instituted by our Founding Fathers to maintain our Democratic republic and preserve our Liberties and Freedoms.

Perhaps it is time we consider limiting the jurisdiction of judges to reduce the impacts of judicial overreach. A first step may be for a law that restricts a District Court Judge from issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Injunction to the Executive or Congressional Branch outside the boundaries of their District Court jurisdiction. This law would also restrict an Appellate Court from issuing a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction to the Executive or Congressional Branch outside the boundaries of their Appellate Court jurisdiction. Consequently, only the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction against the Executive or Congressional Branches.

This law would also effectively reduce ‘Forum shopping’, a dubious legal tactic to have a legal case heard in the court that the filer believes is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. It would also force the Supreme Court to make decisions on issues of nationwide importance. This law would not, however, reign in the power of the Supreme Court in a dubious decision that would overstep its own powers and unconstitutionally intervene in the Executive or Legislative Branches. To reign in this Supreme Court overreach, we need a strong, united Legislative and Executive Branch to assert their constitutional duty and responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States whenever the Judicial Branch usurps its Constitutional powers.

In all corrective actions, we should remember that all three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are co-equal, and each branch has the constitutional duty and responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. No branch is the final authority on the Constitution, and no branch has the final say on constitutional issues. To do otherwise is to make one branch supreme over the other branches, which was not our Founding Fathers' intent in drafting the Constitution.

03/21/25 Men (and Women) in Black Robes

Americans have become used to the supremacy of courts in deciding issues of constitutionality and proper governance. From a lowly District Court Judge to the Supreme Court Justices, they consider themselves the final arbiter on all things Constitutional. However, this was not what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they drafted Article III of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were well aware of how destructive the courts could be to liberty and freedom. One of the main reasons for The Declaration of Independence was judicial overreach and the passions of judges that led them astray from Equal Justice For All and doing the bidding of the King or Parliament in their rulings.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, warned that if the Constitution means whatever judges want, it would be like “a mere thing of wax, that they could twist and shape it into any form they please.” George Mason did not support ratifying the Constitution as written, in part because it might still allow judges, by reinterpreting the Constitution, to “substitute [their] own pleasure for the law of the land.” Carson Holloway, a Professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha, wrote a paper in 2019 for The Heritage Foundation, “Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts”, that has been summarized as:

“Americans’ contemporary understanding of judicial power is inconsistent with the argument put forward by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist. Although The Federalist affirms the power of judicial review—and hence the role of the judiciary as a check on the other branches—it does not present this as the first or most important function of the courts. Moreover, The Federalist does not support the vast implications of judicial review as including a power to decide the great moral issues of the times and to adjust the Constitution to trends in public opinion. Finally, The Federalist lends no aid to the belief that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning, unanswerable for its interpretations to any authority but itself.”

My own article, "Supreme, But Not Always Right", examines how when the Supreme Court rules outside the boundaries of the Constitution or does not review constitutional issues (known as Activism or Abdication), it is not upholding the Constitution. And, sometimes, the Supreme Court simply gets it wrong. And when the Supreme Court gets it wrong, it impacts our Natural and Constitutional Rights and our society for decades, if not permanently.

We must all remember that judges and justices are but men (and women) in black robes. While they are skilled at law, they are not endowed with any special wisdom that supersedes the Executive or Legislative Branch's wisdom or prerogatives. Judges need to remain within the Four Corners of the Law and the Constitution and only rule on the words and meaning of the law and the Constitution. They (and we) should remember that they are "Judges, Not Lords" and that they need to leave policy differences or social changes to the prerogative of Congress or the President where it rightfully belongs. To do otherwise is for the Judge to become a legislator or executive, which would make them Lords over America and Americans.

03/20/25 Republicans are a Threat to Democrats Hypocrisy

With all the wails and cries of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that Trump and Republicans are a threat to “Our Democracy” and are provoking a Constitutional crisis, as well as other prerogatives, the real threat of Trump and Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives is that they expose the hypocrisy of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

For almost every statement that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists make about Trump and Republicans, you can discover their hypocrisy in their previous words and deeds. It has become a cottage industry on social media to transpose their former statements with their current statements, which are often diametrically opposite to each other. Almost every statement that they make about Constitutional interpretation is hypocritical to other statements they have made on Constitutional interpretation, not to mention being a wrong interpretation of the Constitution.

The biggest hypocrisy that was revealed was that the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists claimed that the border was under control, then claimed that new immigration laws were needed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America. As President Trump said in his State of The Union address, “The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. It turned out that all we really needed was a new president.”. A president who would enforce current immigration laws and secure the border within weeks. The next largest hypocrisy was that President Trump would legally target his opponents, all the while when the Biden Administration was targeting Trump, and as they were also heavily involved in "The Weaponization of Government" against their opponents. The hypocrisies involved in their lying about the COVID-19 virus, the pardons for his son and family members, his mental state and fitness to be President, along with a host of other hypocrisies too numerous to mention in this Chirp, know no bounds.

Alas, they believe that they are not hypocritical, for whatever words and deeds that are necessary to oppose Trump and Republicans, and/or necessary for them to obtain and/or retain power, are acceptable to them, as they believe that their ends justify their means. Such an attitude and hypocrisy are disruptive and dangerous to America and Americans. The good news is that the American people have become aware and are acknowledging this hypocrisy, and they are discounting anything that they may do or say. Until honesty and integrity overtake the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, the American people should discount their words and deeds and turn them out of power.

03/19/25 Congressional Budget Office Projections

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is notorious for its failures in accurately projecting the revenues and spending impacts of legislation. Many of these failures are a result of their being mandated to utilize Baseline (budgeting) in their projections. Baseline budgeting is an accounting method the United States Federal Government uses to develop a budget for future years. Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the "baseline" for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate.

However, Baseline Budgeting makes many assumptions and presumptions that do not hold true in the real world. There are also many unknowns (such as how the populace will react to the changes wrought by the legislation) that cannot be accounted for in Baseline Budgeting. Consequently, the CBO rarely is accurate for any major changes implemented by the legislation.

Congress is about to begin the process of making major changes to tax legislation, per President Trump’s predilections, which, upon completion, will have to be “scored” by the CBO. A score that will be hotly contested by both sides of the aisle in Congress. What the American people should be cognizant of during this debate is that both sides will be wrong, and occasionally right, in their charges and countercharges about the impacts of the tax legislation. As it is not possible to accurately determine the impact of the tax legislation, it is not possible to determine who is right or wrong in their statements.

During this debate, the American people should remember that President Trump ran for office on the promise of tax reform, and he was elected by a significant majority of Americans. Therefore, his predictions should be given weight as an expression of the democratic process. This is not to say that Congress has no say in the matter, but only that Congress should be deferential to his inclinations and promises. After all, elections have consequences, and one of those consequences of the last election is the American people's desire for change. The American people should also remember one of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is:

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

An approach that never works and is always unsatisfactory. The American people should also remember that taxing the wealthy rarely works, as they will find a way to minimize their taxes. Increased taxing on corporations and businesses results in higher prices for goods and services (also known as a hidden tax), which has economic and inflationary consequences that negatively affect most Americans and rarely impact corporations and businesses, as they pass on the impact of these taxes onto their customers.

Consequently, the American people should ignore the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle and decide for themselves what to think about the tax changes based on their knowledge and experience.

03/18/25 Parental Rights in Education

In a column in USA Today by Jonathan Turley, “The Red Scarf Girl: The Fight Over Parental Rights Just Got Primal”, he writes on the latest decision against parental rights by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Foote v. Feliciano. As he has stated, “The fight over parental rights could become the defining issue for many in the coming years. It is also a type of cultural war over what many of us view as a natural right over the raising of our children.”

Almost two years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives addressed this issue by passing the Parents Bill of Rights Act, which has been summarized as:

Parents Bill of Rights Act H.R.5 — 118th Congress (2023-2024) Passed House (03/24/2023)

This bill establishes various rights of parents and guardians regarding the public elementary or secondary school education (including secondary career and technical education) of their children. Local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools must comply with the requirements of the bill in order to receive federal education funds.

Specifically, the bill requires schools to notify parents and guardians of their rights regarding the education of their children. These rights include the right to

review (and make copies of at no cost) the curriculum of their child's school;
know if the state alters its challenging academic standards;
meet with each teacher of their child at least twice each school year;
review the budget, including all revenues and expenditures, of their child's school;
inspect the books and other reading materials in the library of their child's school;
address the school board of the LEA;
receive information about violent activity in their child's school; and
know if their child is not grade-level proficient in reading or language arts at the end of 3rd grade.

Additional rights include the right to

receive information about any plans to eliminate gifted and talented programs or college credit programs in their child's school;
know the total number of school counselors in their child's school;
know if their child's school operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities that permit an individual whose biological sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for individuals whose biological sex is female;
know if their child's school allows an individual whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or changing rooms designated for individuals whose biological sex is female; and
receive timely information about any major cyberattack against their child's school.

Each LEA must (1) post on a publicly accessible website (or otherwise widely disseminate to the public) the curriculum for each grade level, and (2) include detailed budget information in its annual report card.

The bill provides for additional family educational and privacy rights, including by (1) prohibiting schools from acting as an agent of a parent for purposes of providing verifiable parental consent for a vaccination, (2) prohibiting schools from selling student information for commercial or financial gain, and (3) requiring schools to engage meaningfully with parents in developing privacy policies or procedures.

An elementary school or a school consisting of only grades 5-8 must obtain parental consent before (1) changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on school forms; or (2) allowing a child to change the child's sex-based accommodations.

The bill requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate and analyze the impact of the bill on protecting parents' rights in the education of their children and the costs to educational agencies and schools.

There were concerns about this bill (Pros and Cons of the Parents Bill of Rights), and some liberal lawmakers have branded it the “Politics Over Parents Act.” The Biden administration had also voiced opposition to the bill. As such, this bill was never passed by the Senate. Given the concerns of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the Foote v. Feliciano ruling and the current disputes over parental rights in schools, this ruling must be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and Congress must revisit this issue and pass an act that protects Parental Rights in schools.

03/17/25 Despicable Tactics of Free Speech Suppression

Wokeness is an attitude of one’s awareness of and alert to social and political injustices. Practiced by overzealous Progressives who are often perceived as smug, virtue signaling, and intolerant of other viewpoints, it often results in an attempt to intimidate into silence those that do not agree with the woke. Some of the despicable tactics that they utilize to intimidate their opponents into silence are:

Deplatforming is denying the right of others to speak or to hear opposing views. The argument that stopping free speech is free speech is nothing more than a twisted rationalization. Protesting outside of an event is an act of free speech. Entering an event to shout down or “deplatform” speakers is the denial or disruption of free speech.

Doxing (sometimes written as Doxxing) is the act of revealing identifying information about someone online, such as their real name, home address, workplace, phone, financial, and other personal information. That information is then circulated to the public — without the victim's permission. Doxxing is an attempt to punish someone for expressing an opinion with which the doxxer disagrees by making them vulnerable to potential threats to their safety or well-being.

Swatting is a form of criminal harassment that involves deceiving an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing an emergency services dispatcher) into sending a police or emergency service response team to another person's address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious law enforcement emergency, such as a bomb threat, domestic violence, murder, hostage situation, or a false report of a mental health emergency, such as reporting that a person is suicidal or homicidal and may be armed, among other things.

Such is the state of Progressives today, as they are anti-free speech for speech with which they disagree. Much of these tactics come forth from a poisoned mind that is closed to any rational dialog or debate opposing their political goals and policy agendas. In their closed minds, they believe that they are virtuous and battling evil. They have surrounded themselves with an echo chamber of like-minded people, and they will not tolerate dissenting opinions even within their own bubble. Anyone outside of their woke bubble can be subject to deplatforming and doxing. As Erick Erickson has written in his article, “The Poisoning of the Democrat Mind”, they have poisoned themselves into believing that they are not a problem:

“To Democrats, led by their media voices, the problem is the people, not the Democrats. The people are stupid, duped, racists, bigots, Nazis, desirous of whiteness or otherwise bad. The only virtuous Americans are those who agree with the progressive left, which amounts to around 20% of the American public. Likewise, it is never their policies or proposals, just their messaging that is off. Guided by the voices of MSNBC, a network watched, on average, by just two-tenths of a single percent of the American public, and the neurotic women and gay men of The New York Times, the Democrats are not so much out of touch as they are outside reality.

Democrats have built an echo chamber that is poisoning them. Their preferred news network, newspapers, and voices, intoxicated by power and control, lack the humility to relate to people outside of their bubble. Their thought leader on MSNBC instead of wishing a young Black teen battling brain cancer well, hoped he would not grow up to commit suicide. That is what the Democrats are doing by listening to Wallace, Maddow, Colbert, etc.”
- Erick Erickson

They are a problem in that they are disrupting our society by intimidating free speech and, thus, endangering our Liberties and Freedoms.

03/17/25 Slavery and Information Suppression

In the Antebellum South (roughly 1815-1861), any abolitionist sentiment was harshly suppressed. Books, newspapers, pamphlets, and flyers were confiscated and destroyed before they could reach the populace. People who went to the South to speak against slavery or educate the slaves were roughly treated with some tarred and feathered or forcibly driven out from the south. Much of this was legally done by Southern legislations passing laws against promoting anti-slavery. As a result, the southern population was deprived of reading or hearing any opinion opposed to slavery. Thus, they had a united front that supported and maintained slavery, as they never had the opportunity to read or hear the arguments against slavery. Consequently, rather than a peaceful solution to end slavery, a bitter and destructive Civil War was needed to end slavery.

This is what happens when you deprive people of information from all sides of an issue. It is not possible to make a rational and reasonable decision without all the facts and information about an issue. And this withholding of information is happening in America today under the guise of Disinformation, Misinformation, and Malinformation. Fortunately, the utilization of Disinformation, Misinformation, and Malinformation to suppress information is becoming less common, but it needs to be eliminated. Anyone who attempts to suppress information by labeling it Disinformation, Misinformation, and Malinformation is of the same mindset as the Antebellum South political leadership suppression of anti-slavery information, as they believed that they were correct and moral, and no other viewpoint needs to be expressed.

The only allowable response to the dissemination of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation is to call it out and provide the proper facts and truths in response. Any other response is a violation of a person’s Natural Right to Free Speech, which fosters civil strife and is harmful to America and Americans.

03/16/25 Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Virtues

In the ‘This vs That’ website they have an interesting webpage contrasting the seven virtues and the seven deadly sins. We would all do well to remember and practice these virtues and avoid committing these sins.

Seven Virtues

The Seven Virtues are a set of positive qualities that are believed to lead individuals towards a life of moral excellence and spiritual fulfillment.

Humility is the virtue of modesty and selflessness, recognizing one's own limitations and the contributions of others.
Charity is the virtue of giving and generosity towards others, showing compassion and empathy for those in need.
Patience is the virtue of endurance and tolerance in the face of adversity or difficulties, maintaining a calm and composed demeanor.
Kindness is the virtue of compassion and benevolence towards others, showing empathy and understanding in all interactions.
Chastity is the virtue of purity and self-restraint in one's thoughts and actions, maintaining moral integrity and virtue.
Temperance is the virtue of moderation and self-control in all aspects of life, avoiding excess and indulgence.
Diligence is the virtue of hard work and perseverance in one's endeavors, showing dedication and commitment to achieving one's goals.

Seven Deadly Sins

The Seven Deadly Sins, on the other hand, also known as the capital vices, are a classification of vices in Christian teachings.

Pride is the sin of excessive belief in one's own abilities, leading to arrogance and a lack of humility.
Greed is the sin of excessive desire for material wealth or possessions, often at the expense of others.
Wrath is the sin of uncontrollable anger and hatred towards others, often resulting in violence or harm.
Envy is the sin of jealousy and resentment towards others for their possessions, qualities, or success.
Lust is the sin of excessive sexual desire or craving for physical pleasure, often leading to immoral behavior.
Gluttony is the sin of overindulgence in food or drink, leading to wastefulness and lack of self-control.
Sloth is the sin of laziness or apathy towards one's responsibilities or duties, resulting in neglect and inaction.

03/16/25 Wisdom from an Ancient Greek Comedian

Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC) was an Ancient Greek comic playwright from Athens. He wrote in total forty plays, of which eleven survive virtually complete today. The majority of his surviving plays belong to the genre of comic drama known as Old Comedy and are considered its most valuable examples. Aristophanes' plays were performed at the religious festivals of Athens, mostly the City Dionysia and the Lenaia, and several of them won the first prize in their respective competitions.

Aristophanes was known as "The Father of Comedy" and "the Prince of Ancient Comedy". Some of his famous quotes, still applicable today, are:

“A demagogue must be neither an educated nor an honest man; he has to be an ignoramus and a rogue.”

“Evil events from evil causes spring.”

“Open your mind before your mouth.”

“The wise learn many things from their enemies.

“Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life.”

“You cannot teach a crab to walk straight.”

“You should not decide until you have heard what both have to say.”

“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown. Ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”

03/15/25 Things Change

Calls for change often ring out from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they are unsatisfied with the current situation. They often forget that changes can have positive or negative results. They just as often forget that when things change, they often change other things. In this change, it is impossible to predict all the other changes that will occur and the impacts of these other changes. The impact of all the changes will have consequences, consequences both small and large, and consequences that are unpredictable. This unpredictability is due to human nature’s responses to change and the law of unintended consequences. Thus, be careful of what you change, as you may get changes that you do not want or desire. Those who claim they can predict the impacts of the changes are demonstrating their ignorance of change, or their hubris, or both, and they should not be believed.

03/15/25 Perspective, Not Jingoism

I am a proud American, but an American who is not afraid to face both our past and present shortcomings. Unlike some Americans who have a jingoistic view of our past, my view is based on a careful review of our past. Rather than only look at the results, which is a jingoistic approach, I consider the governmental, political, social, economic, cultural, scientific, and technological environment in which the events occurred, as well as the historical perspective of those involved in these events. I also do this for current events in America. This requires much effort in reading and/or researching these events, but the time spent is well worth the effort. Before I reach a conclusion, I also spend much time thinking using A Philosophical Approach in considering the events.

When I listen to commentators and politicians, I am often stunned as to the lack of their knowledge of American history. While I expect this in ordinary Americans, due to the appalling lack of proper history and civics teaching in public schools, this is not acceptable for commentators and politicians. If you are going to commentate about American history, then your comments should be based on facts and truths rather than jingoistic viewpoints. Otherwise, you are doing a disservice to the viewers and leading them into believing things about American history that are just not so. Such a leading is a disservice to the American people, as it leads them to make poor decisions based on poor commentary.

Consequently, whenever you hear a jingoistic comment about American history, you can safely assume that the person uttering the jingoistic comment has not spent much time learning the history of the event, and they are probably more interested in swaying your opinion rather than informing you.

p.s.- As an example, my article on “Slavery in the United States Constitution” examines the facts and truths of this topic, as opposed to the jingoistic comments on this topic.

03/14/25 I Don’t Really Care

‘I don’t really care’ has become the default response to these entitled Mainstream Media journalists and commentators who think we must listen to them as gatekeepers of facts and a free society when they have consistently lied about Trump, COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, and Russian collusion. Everyone has flocked elsewhere for factual and truthful information unbiased by their Progressive predilections.

And this is good for America. The Mainstream Media's biased coverage of all things Conservative and Republican has confused and misled the American public. As a result, the American public has not been able to separate the wheat from the chaff and make a proper decision on whom to elect. Thanks to President Trump’s astounding triumph against the Mainstream Media's biased coverage, the American people have had the opportunity to have their vision cleared and, thus, can now clearly see the wheat and disregard the chaff.

The chaff is the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who have been trying to bamboozle the American public with the help of the Mainstream Media. In addition, the efforts of DOGE have exposed the waste, fraud, and abuse corruption in the Federal government that was utilized to support Progressive values and causes, as well as Democrat Party agendas.

Consequently, the American public is no longer listening to the Mainstream Media, and they are ignoring the wails and cries of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. This is what is best for America, as the American public can make a more rational decision on the future course of America. The American people are finally saying, ‘I don’t really care’ about what the Mainstream Media, Progressives/Leftists, and the Democrat Party Leaders have to say. Accordingly, I would say to the American people, ‘Keep it up’, as this is what is best for you and America.

03/14/25 Be Not Afraid

In June 1979, shortly after his papacy began, Pope John Paul II traveled to Poland, where ecstatic crowds constantly surrounded him. This first papal trip to Poland uplifted the nation's spirit and sparked the formation of the Solidarity movement in 1980, which later brought freedom and human rights to his troubled homeland. He brought with him one simple message— “Be Not Afraid”- and the fear that the Communist overlords had spent several decades installing in them began to subside and be replaced by defiance.

This “Be Not Afraid” attitude has begun to arise in America after several decades of Progressive "Activists and Activism", "Adjective Justice", "Cancel Culture", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Modern Feminism", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", and the suppression of supposed disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, had installed fear in many Americans of speaking their minds.

Thanks to President Trump’s astounding triumph against the disparagements, denigrations, demonization, and lawfare arrayed against him in his bid to be reelected, the American people have relearned to not be afraid of speaking their minds and to not be intimated into silence. This may be President Trump's greatest accomplishment, as people who believe that they can speak their minds can believe that they can be their own rulers and determine their own governance.

Therefore, I would say to all Americans, “Be Not Afraid” of speaking your mind and trying to change the future course of America, for it is possible to do so if you will not allow yourself to be intimidated into silence.

03/13/25 A New Form of Money Laundering

Money laundering is the process of illegally concealing the origin of money obtained from illicit activities (often known as dirty money) such as drug trafficking, underground sex work, terrorism, corruption, embezzlement, and treason, and converting the funds into a seemingly legitimate source, usually through a front organization. Money laundering is ipso facto illegal; the acts generating the money almost always are themselves criminal in some way (for if not, the money would not need to be laundered). As financial crime has become more complex and financial intelligence is more important in combating international crime and terrorism, money laundering has become a prominent political, economic, and legal debate. Most countries implement some anti-money-laundering measures.

In our current federal government, there appears to be a new form of money laundering. This form of money laundering is when the government makes a grant or lets a contract to a non-government organization, which then disburses the money to other non-government organization(s), who may then disburse the money to still another non-government organization(s). At each level of disbursement, the non-government organization(s) allocate significant monies for salaries and overhead expenses. The result is that a significant portion of the original grant or contract money is not spent on the intended purposes but on salaries and overhead expenses.

This government money laundering is very difficult to trace, as the financial reporting to the government by all levels of the non-government organization(s) is lax and often non-existent at all the levels of the non-government organization(s). Consequently, the government does not know (and sometimes does not wish to know) how much of the original money is being spent for its intended purpose(s). This non-government organization(s) funding is, in effect, a rewards system for the people and organizations involved. A reward system that appears to be heavily tilted to Progressive non-government organization(s) and causes.

Alas, this means that the government is spending money on causes that many American people may object to and that there is little or no accounting for how the money is spent. This is the very definition of waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is also a contributing factor to the bloat in government spending, employees, and payroll. It may also constitute election interference, as this government money laundering is mostly directed in support of progressive political goals and policy agendas. The use of taxpayers’ monies for government money laundering directed at Progressive causes is also immoral as well as unethical, as it has been said:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

It has also become ‘The Tyranny of the Minority’, as Progressive's political goals and policy agendas are less supported by the American public, and they have become a minority of the American people.

03/13/25 The Damages

The damage of the Biden Administration's actions may never be fully known or calculable. DOGE has revealed and calculated some of the damage, but this is only the current damage. What has occurred in the previous years of the Biden Administration may never be uncovered, along with the previous administration’s damages, as the bureaucracy has been covering up these damages for decades. There has also been damage to our government, as they turned almost all government actions into those of a partisan political nature.

There is also unknown damage as a result of the impacts of what was done. Not only the impact of the money spent but also the sociological impacts of how the money was spent. We know that much money was spent to advance Progressive political goals and policy agendas, to sway the American public and the world with nonsense, and sometimes to support America’s opponents and enemies. We know that a large percentage of Americans have lost faith in our government to be fair and equitable, and they expect that the government largely lies to them. Such cynicism corrodes the fabric of society and loosens the bonds that hold us together.

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are desperately trying to stop the DOGE efforts that are uncovering this damage. They are making ridiculous excuses or undertaking cover-ups for what DOGE has exposed, and they have also initiated many lawsuits to limit what DOGE may investigate or what corrective actions may be undertaken. These are the words and deeds of accomplices or accessories to what has occurred.

Fortunately, a revitalization seems to be occurring with the uncovering of what had occurred in the Biden Administration. Those who are guilty of corruption, fraud, or abuse of power need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to correct this damage. Doing otherwise is to ignore criminal actions and make such actions more possible in the future, as government officials and bureaucrats will know that there will be no consequences for their wrongdoings.

Thus, it is vitally necessary for all the facts and truths to be revealed to the American public to regain faith in our government and tighten the bonds that hold us together. After all, as it has been said, ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant’, especially in government.

03/12/25 Diaspora for Palestinians

The Jewish diaspora, which was the dispersion of the Jews outside Israel from the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 587-86 BC when they were exiled to Babylonia up to the present time, has ended, and it is time for the Palestinian people to recognize this fact. The terroristic events of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel have shown that the Palestinian people do not accept this fact and that they will perpetuate pure evil to change this fact.

As Ben Shapiro has written in his article “Sometimes, Moral Clarity Isn't Difficult”:

“This week, the world was reminded of the deep and abiding evil that has wormed its way to the center of Palestinian nationalistic culture by the news that the Bibas family -- a mother, Shiri; a 4-year-old boy, Ariel; and his 9-month-old brother, Kfir -- who had been kidnapped back to Gaza on Oct. 7 had in fact been murdered. Their bodies are to be returned to Israel this week; Hamas held the corpses hostage, and in return received the release of imprisoned Palestinian terrorists.

It is instructive to recall the circumstances of the Bibas family's kidnapping. They were not, in fact, kidnapped by identified members of Hamas. They were kidnapped by Palestinians in civilian dress, who joined Hamas for their murderous spree. For over a year, zero Palestinians apparently revealed the whereabouts of the Bibas family to the Israelis; zero worked to keep them safe or to restore them to liberty.

This fits with a pattern of civilian involvement in Palestinian terror activity: the reality is that the Palestinian terror apparatus is incestuously intertwined with the Palestinian civilian population. That is why released hostages tell of being held by civilian families in Gaza; why terrorists merge so easily into the surrounding civilian population; why the popularity of Palestinian terrorist groups remains sky-high among Palestinians generally. The hard division between terrorist and civilian so cherished by the West simply doesn't exist in practice in places like the Gaza Strip.”

This is pure evil not only by Hamas but also pure evil by the Palestinian people. Thus, it is time for a Palestinian diaspora to occur, and a diaspora of at least a thousand miles away from Israel. The Demographics of the Palestine people are a population of about 2 million in the Gaza Strip (2022 est.) and 3 million in the West Bank (2022 est.), for a total of 5 million Palestinians. Thus, the question is where the Palestinian people can be dispersed. South Somalia (population ~ 18 million) and East Yemen (population ~ 24.5 million) are the two best locations to settle the Palestinians, as they are sufficiently far away from Israel and have Arabic and Islamic populations. The difficulty is, of course, how to peaceably resettle the Palestinian people in these countries. As Somalia and Yemen are hostile to the United States and Israel, a peaceable resettlement seems unlikely; we may be forced into an unpeaceable resettlement. If this be the case, then so be it, as the evil of the Palestinian people is much greater than the harm of an unpeaceable resettlement.

The only other solution to end the pure evil of the Palestinian people is a holocaust of the Palestinian people (as it appears to be their desire for the Jews in Israel), for they have shown no inclination to change their minds as there is evil in their hearts. Evil should not be allowed to persist in today’s world of possible Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Electronic Infrastructure attacks, and allowing Palestinian pure evil to persist puts the entire world in danger.

03/11/25 The Conflicts of Eastern, Islamic, and Western Values and Culture

Today, the biggest conflicts in the world are the differences between Eastern, Islamic, and Western civilization values and culture. Eastern, Islamic, and Western Civilizations have distinct values and cultures that often lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. My new article “The Conflicts of Eastern, Islamic, and Western Values and Culture” examines the distinct values and cultures of these civilizations that lead to these conflicts.

03/11/25 Modern Western Civilization

Modern Western Civilization had its origins in the Judeo-Christian values of the Dark and Middle Ages and began to flourish into a distinct Western culture starting in Italy during the Renaissance, moved to France, then Holland, and finally to Great Britain, where it migrated to the United States, and spread out to the rest of the world on this axis. It was during this Western cultural development that the Scientific Revolution and Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe and America. On the website Modern Gentleman Life, they have posted an article, “A Beginner's Guide to Western Culture: What You Need to Know” by Dingo Lin Chan, that opens with:

“Western culture is the umbrella term for the cultural norms, traditions, values, and practices that have emerged in Western Europe and North America. Art, literature, music, philosophy, science, and politics are just a few of the many disciplines it includes. In the modern era, Western culture has had a significant influence on the rest of the world. The advancement of democracy, human rights, capitalism, and contemporary science are just a few of the things it has helped with. It is crucial for anyone, especially the modern gentleman, who wants to navigate and participate in today's globalized society, to understand and interact with Western culture. It is a vital part of one's general education to have knowledge about the cultural norms, traditions, values, and practices.”

No culture in the history of humankind has been more responsible for the advancement of humankind than Western culture. These Western cultural advancements far exceed that of any other culture, and they have brought Liberties and Freedoms, along with health and prosperity, to all of humanity. Yet Western culture has been in decline for several decades, and it is important to examine the reasons for this decline. If we wish to properly address why Western culture has been declining, we should look back in history to determine why Western culture moved from one country to another. The answer to this question contains the seed of the answer to why Western culture is currently in decline.

The movement of Western culture occurred when the countries that I have mentioned started to suppress free speech and, with it, free thought. When this occurred, the intelligentsia in the country where this suppression occurred moved to a neighboring country that fostered free speech, and eventually, free speech settled in America.

In the last several decades in America, we have seen a decline in free speech with the rise of Progressive "Activists and Activism", "Adjective Justice", "Cancel Culture", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Modern Feminism", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", and the suppression of supposed disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Much of this free speech suppression has been written about in the book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, by Professor Jonathan Turley. We have also seen a totalitarian impulse of European governments to control free speech in Europe under the umbrella of "Hate Speech" and the suppression of supposed disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.

All of these free speech suppressions have greatly contributed to the decline of Western cultural values. But all hope is not lost. With the recent election of President Trump, these free speech shackles have been greatly reduced, and the American people feel more freedom to speak their minds and are less fearful of retaliation for speaking their minds. We are also seeing a rise in Europe of dissident political movements that are speaking out against their government's suppressions and policies that shackle their opponent's free speech. Both Americans and Europeans should remember the words of wisdom of one of the great 20th-century dissenters of Communist tyranny:

In America and Europe, the spirit that Solzhenitsyn spoke of is the spirit of Western culture. It is time for us to reeducate and rekindle ourselves in the spirit of Western culture. If we do not do so, then Western cultural values will be extinguished, and humanity will slide into another Dark Age in which the rule of humankind will be of despotism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

Four foreign thinkers, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Kemi Badenoch, and Konstantin Kisin, reflect on this decline of Western culture in their speeches at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship 2025 conference:

And finally, “JD Vance's Historic Full Speech At Munich: Slams European Leaders On Free Speech” confronts European leaders about what they stand for.

My readers would do well to watch these videos, as these speakers have much more knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom than I have to speak on this topic.

03/10/25 The Real China

In an article by David P. Goldman, “China as It Is”, he expounds on China Nationalism versus Western States' nationalism:

“Westerners think of a nation in organic terms: Nations begin with a common language, culture, and religion. They coalesce from tribes and clans, and then decide what sort of state they will have and what those states will do. The reverse has been true in China since its earliest beginnings, shrouded in legend and unearthed by archaeologists: The Chinese state created China, not vice versa. The core of the country is the enormous flood plain defined by the 8,000 miles of the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers. Taming the floods and irrigating the fields made it possible for successive Chinese dynasties to assimilate peoples who still speak 200 dialects today out of six major language groups. This is not a new or original assertion: Karl Wittvogel’s 1957 book Oriental Despotism, among others, presented a similar thesis.”

He also notes that:

“. . . China’s hierarchical system never developed a dialectical philosophy comparable to that of Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. Orders flowed from the Emperor to the provincial governor, from the governor to the local Mandarin, and from the Mandarin to the head of an extended family working a farm; its political system resembled nested Chinese boxes. The notion of an individual opinion had no practical value: There was no popular assembly, no Senate, no forum in which conflicting views might be debated. Chinese philosophy focuses on acceptance, hierarchical loyalty, or adherence to authority, in its respective guises of Taoism, Confucianism, and Legalism. It instantiates Hegel’s contention that Vernunft (loosely, critical reason) depends on freedom. America’s founders spent generations governing their affairs through church assemblies, town meetings, and provincial legislators before they ventured to create a republic. The Chinese in their 5,000-year history never had such an opportunity.”

He concludes this article by stating:

“I do not like this system, and I do not believe that it fosters the kind of disruptive creativity that challenges established modes of thought. Western culture has inherent advantages, or at least used to have such advantages when we still paid homage to the high culture of the West. But Chinese civilization has roots that have endured for thousands of years, and will not change to suit our sensibilities.”

Because of this, China has not led the world in new scientific or technological advances, along with advances in the arts and culture. Such advances require independent and non-group thinking that is not encouraged, and indeed is suppressed, in Chinese culture. It should also be noted that China’s entire 20th-century ascendance was based on purloining U.S. technology, exporting its products on the U.S. market below the cost of production to capture market share, and impelling American corporations to relocate, offshore, and outsource—thus leaving our industrial hinterland a "rustbelt."

Indeed, China is contributing almost nothing to the advancement of humankind, as such advancement requires respect for individual human beings and the allowance of individuals to be independent thinkers. Instead, China views the individual as consumers and/or producers who conform to what Chinese leaders believe they should be. Woe be to humankind if China is allowed to dominate the world, as such domination would reduce humankind to a state of modern serfdom.

03/10/25 Ukrainian Fables

There is a multitude of misinformation about President Trump and the war in Ukraine. As usual, Victor Davis Hanson cuts through this nonsense to expose Five Ukrainian Fables that are currently circulating. These fables are:

Fable one: Trump is appeasing Russia?
Fable two: A trade war?
Fable three: America is bullying Europe?
Fable four: Negotiating with Putin is selling out?
Fable five: Europe is going to save Ukraine?

This article is well worth the read to clear away any misconceptions about what President Trump is trying to accomplish with his Ukraine policy. He ends his article by stating:

“Aside from all the present posturing and mock-heroics, the only way to save Ukraine is for the U.S. president, Donald Trump, to reflect joint Ukrainian, American, and European interests in stopping the war, forcing Putin as far back eastward as possible where he started in 2022, and creating a credible deterrent along with a DMZ/industrial corridor tripwire to stop another 2008, 2014, and 2022 invasion.

Anything else is empty carnival barking.”

03/09/25 Conducting Foreign Policy

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution empowers the President to conduct Foreign policy with:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

This clause has always been interpreted to mean that the President has the sole power to conduct foreign policy, limited to the approval of treaties by the Senate.

The Logan Act is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1799 that prohibits unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was created to prevent private individuals from undermining official U.S. foreign policy. It has been one of the least utilized laws in American history, has never been successfully prosecuted, and, in the opinion of many legal scholars, may be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it expresses the point of view that the President or presidential delegates are to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

When several Congressional Democrats intervened with the President of Ukraine to help scuttle the Mineral Rights agreement that President Trump had worked out with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, they were interfering with the foreign policy powers of the President. If they did not like the agreement, the place to oppose it was in Congress, not in the Oval Office. The several Republican Senators who met with President Zelenskyy prior to the Oval Office meeting were doing so to facilitate the agreement and were not interfering with Presidential powers to conduct foreign policy.

Thus, it may be time to invoke the Logan Act against these Congressional Democrats to determine if they interfered with Presidential Foreign policy powers and to also help resolve the constitutionality or the boundaries of the Logan Act. Such a prosecution against these Congressional Democrats would give all an awareness of Presidential Foreign policy powers and give pause to those who would infringe on Presidential Foreign policy powers.

03/09/25 Nobody Elected Executive Officers

The only persons elected to office in the Executive Branch are the President and Vice-President. All others are appointed by the President, some are confirmed by the Senate, and all have their authorities, duties, and responsibilities delegated to them by the President. Thus, the phrase “Nobody Elected Them” when applied to Executive Officers is inane and shows a lack of knowledge of how our Constitutional government works.

In addition, there are many independent agencies within the federal government, and none of their leadership has been elected to their positions. These Independent Agencies' leadership positions are filled by appointments by the President and/or Congress, many with a fixed term of office. Thus, these leaders are unaccountable to anyone, least of all to the democratic will of the people, as I have written in my Chirp on "02/27/25 Federal Independent Agencies".

Consequently, when someone cries out that nobody elected them when referring to Executive Officers, they are railing against our Constitutional order, and they should be corrected and ignored. When someone has taken an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and utters this phrase about Executive Officers, they are violating their oath of office to defend the Constitution, and they should be admonished and/or removed from office.

03/08/25 A Stunning Supreme Court Ruling

On Wednesday morning, March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold a lower court ruling forcing the Trump administration to reinstate billions of dollars in foreign aid, which was placed under a 90-day moratorium by the president (Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment). In Justice Alito’s dissent, joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, he noted:

“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

Alito continued.:

“Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.”

While the issue of paying for work already done is important, the issue of Judicial interference in Executive powers looms larger. Alito’s dissent acknowledged a “frustration with the Government” and that the aid groups had broached “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.”

If a new President cannot pause federal funding to audit it for waste, fraud, and abuse, then the former President can load up on spending for their policy goals and agendas and reward their supporters before they leave office. This is exactly what occurred as the Biden Administration left office. The Biden Administration also hid this funding through a series of cash flow transactions through several organizations before it reached its final destination. There is also the possibility that very little of this money was used for its intended purpose, and instead, it was being utilized for administrative costs and salaries, which, if this were done by a private person or company, could be considered money laundering.

This judge’s decision also makes a judicial ruling superior to Executive powers and, thus, makes judges lords, as I have examined in my article "Judges, Not Lords". This judicial encroachment on the Executive Branch has become far too common in today’s governance, as lawsuits, rather than presidential discretion and political debates, are being utilized to achieve policy agendas and political goals. It is also true that these lawsuits are initiated in district courts by the process of ‘Forum shopping’ to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. This forum shopping needs to end, as it calls into question the neutrality and equal protection of the law in a judicial ruling.

Consequently, if the Supreme Court cannot see the importance of the issue of the balance of powers between the Executive and Judicial branches of government, then it may be time for the President to assert his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and defy the rulings of a Court as Unconstitutional. While this may provoke a Constitutional crisis, the encroachment of courts on Executive powers is also a Constitutional crisis. Thus, the Supreme Court must consider the issue of judicial encroachment on executive powers and make a clear and unambiguous decision as to the extent to which judges may intervene in executive powers while respecting executive powers.

addendum – Since I had written this Chirp, George Landrith, the president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, has written a column that addresses this topic—“Judicial Overreach and the Separation of Powers: Why Judges Cannot Run the Executive Branch” that supplements my thoughts.

03/08/25 The Tyranny of the Minority

The Senate Democrats are in the minority (by a small margin), and they are acting en bloc to thwart any Republican initiatives that do not accommodate their agenda. Rather than working with Republicans to achieve an accommodation, they are invoking the Senate rules process of cloture (as opposed to a filibuster), which is not in the Constitution but only in the Senate rules. These actions are known as Minoritarianism, or more commonly, “The Tyranny of the Minority”. Senate and House rules were formulated to ensure an orderly process while allowing all Senators and Representatives to voice their opinions with comity.

The Constitution was designed for a majority to prevail while protecting the rights of the minority. It was not designed for the minority to block the actions of the majority, as such blockage is undemocratic and often results in a lack of comity. Thus, the en bloc cloture actions of the Senate Democrats are not in the spirit of the Constitution, and they are destructive to the will of the people as expressed in elections.

To allow this to prevail is to allow the Congress to be ineffectual, as I have Chirped on "02/17/25 An Ineffectual Congress". An ineffectual Congress is not what our Founding Fathers devised, and such a Congress allows for Executive and Judicial Branch supremacy in the affairs of our government. This is apparent in the current Executive Orders of President Trump and the litigious lawfare waged by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in the courts against these Executive Orders.

Our Founding Fathers meant for the Congress to be the place where the conflicts between the majority and minority were to be resolved. To utilize cloture to stalemate these conflicts is not in the best interest of America and, indeed, can be destructive to American society. Thus, I would say to the Democrat Senators and Representatives to accept that they are currently in the minority and that the American people voted for a change of course in the last election. In this acceptance, they should work for the betterment of America and Americans within the Constitution and not try to thwart the will of the majority of Americans, as expressed in the last election.

*********************************************** Fast and Furious *************************************************
With the pace of events in the Trump Administration and the numerous inanities and absurdities
of his opposition, I will begin as necessary to post more than one Chirp per day.
**********************************************************************************************************************

03/07/25 State of the Union Highlights

In his State of the Union address, President Trump noted his accomplishment in a few short weeks:

Americans joining the military in record numbers.
Bringing foreign investments into America.
Bringing manufacturing home to America.
Cutting regulations to unleash American prosperity.
Declaring America’s youth are perfect as God made them.
Declaring the brutal Tren de Aragua gang as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Ending censorship and bringing back free speech.
Ending discriminatory “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”.
Ending political prosecutions (i.e., lawfare and the weaponization of government).
Ending the harmful electric vehicle mandate.
Ending the sexual mutilation of America’s youth.
Ending waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
Ending wokeness in the U.S. military.
Implementing tariffs to combat illegal drug smuggling and illegal immigration.
Imposing reciprocal tariffs to reduce trade deficits and unfair, discriminatory, or extraterritorial taxes imposed by our trading partners.
Promoting health and wellness among Americans.
Protecting our kids from radical gender ideology.
Protecting women’s sports from the incursion of biological males.
Pursuing peace in Ukraine.
Recognizing only two sexes.
Removing illegal alien killers, rapists, and drug dealers from our streets.
Renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
Securing historic investments in American chip manufacturing.
Securing our border.
Taking down illegal revenge porn.
The capturing of an ISIS terrorist that masterminded the Kabul airport Abbey Gate attack.
Unleashing American energy production.
Waging war on the deadly cartels trafficking deadly drugs into our country.

He also mentioned his attempts for the peaceful acquisition of Greenland and the 'reclaiming' of control over the Panama Canal. With these accomplishments and actions, President Trump has united most Americans in support of his actions. He also highlighted several Americans during this address:

A border patrol agent who shielded his partner from gunfire.
A student getting accepted to West Point.
A young boy fighting brain cancer becomes an honorary Secret Service agent.
A young girl who was severely injured by a boy in a sports competition.
Several family members of the victims of illegal immigrant criminal murders.
The return of American Marc Fogel from Russian prison.
The widow and daughters of the firefighter who was shot and killed during the attempted assassination of Trump.

It should be noted that the Democrats and Progressives did not applaud these persons, which demonstrates their lack of compassion, appreciation, and gratefulness of ordinary Americans, as well as their blind hatred of all things Trump.

In addition, he called on Congress to pass legislation for:

Defeating inflation.
Ending taxes on tips, overtime, and seniors’ Social Security.
Improving America's defenses.
Lower taxes for all Americans.
Punishing cop killers with the death penalty.
Restoring the American shipbuilding industry.

President Trump also mentioned his success with restricting illegal immigration and said, “The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. It turned out that all we really needed was a new president.” And we have a new President who is committed to making America great again. Referring to the attempted assassination in Pennsylvania last year, he said, “I believe that my life was saved that day in Butler for a very good reason. I was saved by God to Make America Great Again — I believe that. I do.” Let us hope that God continues to save and guide him in making America great again.

With these accomplishments and calls for Congressional action, President Trump has shown that he is indeed a political colossus in modern America, as I have Chirped on “03/05/25 A Political Colossus”. Americans need to support his actions and remember that there may be some short-term pains to achieve his goals, but long-term gains will be achieved for all Americans and America.

03/06/25 A Religious Fervor

Much has been said of the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that inflicts many Americans. Very little of this TDS is based on "Rationality" or "Reasoning", but it does resemble a religious fervor that has enveloped America in the past, most notoriously in the Salem Witch Hunts. This religious fervor is being led by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".

Everything that they believe is true and correct is being challenged by Trump, and they are reacting as if he were committing blasphemy against their beliefs. They are ginning up their followers with religious fervor against Trump and his supporters, and they are provoking actions of their followers that are inimical to our American values of A Civil Society. In this, they are tearing down American society to be replaced by their religious beliefs, much like the Salem Witch Hunts tore apart colonial Massachusetts.

The difference between the religious fervor of Progressives and the exuberant Trump supporters is that the Progressives are primarily motivated by blind obedience and conformity, while Trump supporters are motivated by commitment to Freedoms and Liberties with individualism. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints. Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders believe that your Liberties and Freedoms are God-given rights that no person, organization, or government may suppress and that individualistic thought and speech are to be encouraged and promoted.

Consequently, this religious fervor needs to stop forthwith, as it can only harm America and Americans. It is perfectly fine to believe in Progressive values, but such beliefs should be based on rationality and reasoning and not religious fervor. To do otherwise runs the risk of the destruction of our Liberties and Freedoms and a slide into despotism in America.

03/05/25 A Political Colossus

The noted former news anchor Brit Hume, who has covered State of the Union speeches for decades, commented after President Trump’s latest speech, “If anyone doubted Trump is the ‘political colossus’ of our time, his joint address 'put that to rest.'”

A social media post by Doctor of Phrenology commented:

“I wanted a Chief Executive who is a super-competent manager. I wanted a Head of State that is a true statesman. I wanted a Leader who inspires greatness. Tonight I got what I wanted!”

Such are the superlatives that were made after President Trump’s latest State of the Union speech, and snap polls show that between 69% and 76% of the American people approved of President Trump’s speech.

The attitude and antics of the Democrats were disrespectful, and they did not even applaud the uplifting stories of some Americans that President Trump related. The admonishment of the Speaker of the House to maintain decorum was necessary, their use of paddles to show their opposition was childish, and the ejection from the floor of a Democrat Congressperson for lack of decorum was fully warranted.

President Trump was not kind nor reconciliatory to the Democrats, but his demeanor pales in comparison to how the Democrats treated President Trump in the past. The reminders of the failures of President Biden and his Administration, along with their turbulent political goals and policy agendas, were necessary to set the plate for President Trump’s reforms and agenda.

All in all, this was a speech that most Americans could get behind and follow to ‘Make America Great Again’.

03/04/25 Proper Argumentation

Much of what passes for argumentation in today’s political discourse is not proper "Dialog and Debate". I do not expect this to change, as proper dialogue and debate expose the weakness of much of the argumentation. Indeed, the purpose of their argumentation is not to uncover the facts and truths that proper dialog and debate would accomplish but to score points and gain support. Thus, it is up to the listener or reader to apply proper dialog and debate to their arguments.

Some rules of thumb to help you do this are:

Occam's Philosophical razors:

"Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions."
"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
"The simplest explanation, that fits all the known facts, is most often the correct explanation."

Hitchens's Philosophical Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." It is quite common for a person to make an assertion by referencing unnamed studies, statistics, or polls to back up their claims. Consequently, those making an assertion need to cite the study or reference the statistical model or poll in any claim they make to verify the validity of the assertion.

Hanlon's Philosophical razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And remember Aristophanes wisdom, “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown. Ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.” Therefore, the truly stupid person can never be reasoned with, nor can you change their mind. Consequently, determine if a person is truly stupid and then ignore their stupidity. Sagan’s Philosophical standard: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

In addition, some of my own quotes (in alphabetical order), when applied to any argument, may be helpful:

"A picture is worth a thousand words, but it is also subject to a multitude of interpretations and misinterpretations."

"An understanding of the economics of a situation leads to a better and fuller understanding of the situation, or, as it has been said, 'follow the money' in any situation."

"Change can be good, bad, or indifferent. New governments, new ideas, new laws, and new regulations may help, but they may make things worse, and often they are neutral."

"Empirical data, properly analyzed, will lead you to the truth of any situation."

"If an argument is not intellectually rational and reasonable then it cannot reach a sound conclusion, except by accident."

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false."

"Obtaining advice from a person who is neither knowledgeable nor experienced in that particular subject is obtaining worthless advice (i.e. don't ask an opinion of someone who does not know what they're talking about)."

"One of the hubris of many intelligent people is that they believe that if they are smart about one thing they are smart about many things, including politics, economics, and sociology. What they do not realize is that nobody is really smart about politics, economics, and sociology, especially politicians, economists, and sociologists, as there is nothing definitive about politics, economics, and sociology."

"Reasons are often not Reasoning, as reasons are generally emotionally based while reasoning is intellectually based."

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish."

"The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion."

"There are three sides to every story: one side, the other side, and the truth. And it is always best to determine the truth before voicing an opinion."

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."

"Those that do not know history or science should not speak of history or science."

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

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils."

“If your reasoning is torturous and convoluted, then there is a high probability that it is improper reasoning, and you will reach a wrong conclusion.”

“Studies can show anything that the author(s) wish to find, and statistics can be misleading as they are dependent on the data inputs and the data manipulations of the author(s).”

“There are things that we know, things that we know we don't know, and things that we don't know that we don't know. It is the things that we don't know that we don't know that often cause the most problems.”

Finally, there is also confusion about “Experts” and “Evidence”. An expert opinion is not evidence; it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not proof of the evidence, as consensus often changes as new or changed evidence comes to light or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty. Therefore, "Experts Agree" is not a valid argumentation point, and it should be ignored.

03/03/25 Philosophical Razors

In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon or avoid unnecessary actions. My new article, “Philosophical Razors”, lists the most common razors that can be used to deconstruct an argument, have been extracted from the Sloww website. A Philosophical Razors cheat sheet graphic from this website may prove useful to my readers:

These Philosophical Razors should be utilized in your "Reasoning", along with "Formal and Informal Logic", Cognitive Biases", and "Logical Fallacies" to determine the correctness of an argument. It should also be remembered that the Burden of Proof is upon those making an argument and that the Rules of Reasoning be applied to both your and others' arguments, as I have written in my Article Burden of Proof and Rules of Reasoning.

03/02/25 The Relaxing Power of Classical Music

With all my commentary on the inane happenings in today’s America, it is easy to become stressed and anxious about events. Whenever this happens to me, I resort to playing relaxing Classical music to calm my nerves. Herewithin are my favorite short, relaxing, soulful, and lyrical Classical Music pieces:

For my thoughts on and my passion for Classical Music I would direct you to my webpages on Classical Music:

Classical Music Appreciation An Introduction for those that know little or nothing about Classical Music.
Classical Music Chirps - Paragraph sized, succinct comments, and recommendations for listening to some of the most understandable and enjoyable Classical Music by all who listen to it, even those who are not all that interested in Classical Music.
Classical Music Lists - Various lists relating to Classical Music.
Classical Music Recommendations - Recommended compositions of Classical Composers, with associated YouTube videos.

03/01/25 The Counter-Revolution

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson has provided knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom to what is now happening in America. What is happening under the Trump Administration is a Counter-Revolution to the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders political goals and policy agendas of the last several decades. In his new article, “Who Caused the Counter-Revolution?” he delineates the cause and effect of what is happening in today’s America.

02/28/25 Nullification

Nullification is when a State or Local government attempts to negate Federal Law or Regulations in their Legislative Jurisdiction. However, Article VI of the Constitution has a paragraph that states that:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Thus, when any State or Local government attempts to negate Federal Law, it is in violation of the Constitution. There were various Nullification attempts in the 19th century, none of which succeeded, and Federal authority remained supreme. We fought a Civil War as a result of several State's attempts to nullify their adoption of the Constitution as a result of fears that the new Federal Government, under the control of President Lincoln and a Republican Congress, would restrict or outlaw slavery. The Civil War established that no State could withdraw from the Union and that no State could defy Constitutional Federal authority. Any disputes between state or local governments and the federal government are to be resolved constitutionally through the federal judicial process or by changing the law in Congress.

Alas, we are currently in a Nullification crisis. I speak of the current States and local governments that have Illegal Immigrant Sanctuary laws. The Constitution assigns all authority over immigration to the Federal government, which the Supreme Court has affirmed on multiple occasions. Consequently, when State and local governments have sanctuary laws that defy or negate Federal powers over immigration, they are Nullifying the Constitution. Such Nullification should not be allowed to exist and should be stopped forthwith. Any elected official who attempts to carry out these sanctuary laws is in violation of the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Any judge who upholds these sanctuary laws is also in violation of their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They should be removed from office and barred from any position of trust or honor in the United States. Any person who attempts to interfere with the implementation of immigration laws should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law for obstruction. No reasoning nor excuses are valid for nullifying the Constitution or obstructing immigration law enforcement, and no quarter should be given to those who do so.

I am very much opposed to Nullification except in a very specific instance. If the Federal Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch act in unison outside of their Constitutional powers, then the States need to exercise their powers under the Tenth Amendment and negate their unconstitutional actions. So far, in our history, this has not occurred, as most often the Supreme Court has ruled against such Legislative and Executive actions. However, it should be mentioned that the Supreme Court has not always been Constitutionally correct in its rulings, as I have written in my article "Supreme, But Not Always Right". It is only when all three branches of government act in unison that Nullification should occur, and hopefully, negotiations and compromise will resolve the issue before Nullification is considered. Let us hope that Nullification never occurs, as it would be a true Constitutional crisis and most likely rip apart our society.

The article on The Tenth Amendment website, “Nullification”, presents a different viewpoint, and this article should be considered when forming your own viewpoint on Nullification.

02/27/25 Federal Independent Agencies

Over the past almost hundred years, Congress has created Federal Agencies that are independent or semi-autonomous from both Congress and the President. Independent agencies of the United States federal government exist outside the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary) and the Executive Office of the President. These agencies have executive regulatory, rulemaking, and enforcement authority for the duties and responsibilities delegated to them by Congress.

Yet, Congress has no constitutional authority to create agencies outside of the President’s control, as the first words of Article II of the Constitution state: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Through some circuitous legal reasoning, the Supreme Court has allowed these agencies to exist. In an article on The Tenth Amendment website, “Are (Most) Independent Agencies Unconstitutional after Seila Law v. CFPB?” by Michael D. Ramsey, he examines the Constitutional history and issues of Presidential power over all Executive and Independent agencies of government.

The original idea for these Independent Agencies was that certain functions of government needed independence from both Congress and the Presidency so that they could make non-partisan or bi-partisan decisions not influenced by the politics of either Congress or the President. In their being Independent agencies, they, in effect, have become a fourth branch of government not elected or beholden to the people of the United States. Such Independent Agencies can also work at cross purposes from both the Congress and the Presidency, and not always in the best interest of the people of the United States.

If Congress is concerned about the abuse of power by the President over these Independent Agencies, then they should remember that Congress has oversight responsibility, the power of the purse, and, if needed, the impeachment authority to reign in any abuse by the President. In the current structure of Independent Agencies, it is the Independent Agencies that can abuse their powers without any recourse from both Congress and the President. Such a situation should not be allowed to occur under our Constitutional Republic, as all Federal power is subservient and responsive to the American people through elected representatives in both Congress and the President.

02/26/25 Federal Judicial Powers

In an article on The Tenth Amendment website, “Who Decides? The Founders’ Forgotten System of Checks and Balances” by Michael Boldin, he states:

“There is not a syllable in the constitution, that makes a decision of the judiciary – of its own force, and without regard to its correctness – binding upon any body, either upon the executive, or the people.”

That’s from Lysander Spooner, an American abolitionist, entrepreneur, lawyer, essayist, natural rights legal theorist, pamphletist, political philosopher, and writer often associated with the Boston anarchist tradition, reminding us of an essential but long-forgotten fundamental principle repeatedly affirmed by the Framers: The Constitution is supreme, not acts of Congress, not the views of the president, and not opinions of the courts.

That brings us to a crucial question: Who decides when the Constitution is violated?

According to the Founders, the answer was simple – everyone. And that’s the key to understanding what real “checks and balances” under the Constitution are all about.

“Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’* and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party its members would become despots.” - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson understood that concentrated power, especially in an unelected judiciary, would inevitably lead to despotism. Judges could claim more and more authority, slowly eroding constitutional limits under the guise of interpretation.

Given the lawsuits against President Trump’s Executive orders and DOGE efforts, as well as District Judges issuing nationwide injunctions against these actions, the question of Judicial powers is more germane than ever. It should be noted that one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War was that the British Crown was appointing judges who were beholden to the King, and these judges were making arbitrary decisions based on the King’s predilections rather than law. Many judges are now issuing injunctions that are based on their Progressive predilections with little fidelity to the Constitution. Much of their rulings have been clothed through legal gobbledygook that will not pass Constitutional muster in the Appellate or Supreme Court. Which makes them lords rather than judges, as I have written in my Article “Judges, Not Lords”.

Judicial review of the Constitutionality of Congress’s or the President's actions is not enshrined in the Constitution but comes from an 1803 Supreme Court ruling, “Marbury v. Madison”, that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. The question has always been, what can be done when the courts rule outside of the Constitution? It has happened before in our history, and it is happening more frequently in our modern history.

The aforementioned article on The Tenth Amendment website examines this issue of who decides when the Constitution is violated in the following sections of the article:

The Judiciary’s Limited, Constrained Role
Constitutional Supremacy
Corruption
Spooner: No Intrinsic Authority
Coequal and Independent Branches
No FORCE or WILL
The Duty of Each Branch
The Real Final Arbiter: The States

Mr. Boldin concludes that “Under the Constitution, no single branch holds absolute authority over its meaning. Each branch, and ultimately the people of the states themselves, must judge constitutional violations and act accordingly. This is the true system of checks and balances created and implemented by the Founders.”

Thomas Jefferson also warned about judicial supremacy to decide questions of the Constitutionality of actions by the President and Congress:

“the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” - Thomas Jefferson

It is, therefore, past time that we take action to reign in judges who rule outside the Constitution based on their Progressive predilections. To not do so is to give up our Constitutional order and submit ourselves to the reign of lords in the judiciary.

*"Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Jurisdictionem" is a legal maxim, meaning it is part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction. This principle emphasizes that a good judge should broaden the remedies available under the law to ensure substantial justice is served. However, a good judge cannot rule outside the bounds of the law, as such a ruling would then be arbitrary and capricious, which is anathema to the rule of law.

02/25/25 The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”, is often the forgotten Amendment by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the U.S. government. However, this is an extremely important amendment, as it limits Federal power to what is in the Constitution, and it delegates all other powers to the States or the people.

Through the usage of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language", these branches have usurped and expanded their powers beyond what the Constitution delegates to them, usually through the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 – the “necessary and proper” clause – is often called the “elastic clause” or the “sweeping clause” because many people believe it gives the federal government the power to do just about anything:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

However, the necessary and proper clause doesn’t actually delegate any power at all. It’s what is known as a “recital. As constitutional scholar Rob Natelson put it, “A recital is a passage in a legal document that has no substantive legal effect, but serves to inform the reader of assumptions or facts behind the document”. In an article on The Tenth Amendment website, “Necessary and Proper Clause”, George Nicholas states that this clause only enables them to carry into execution the powers given them, but gives them no additional power.

The Tenth Amendment website has a number of short, readable articles on how the Federal government has usurped and expanded its powers by ignoring this Amendment. For those concerned about the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms to the government, this website is an excellent reference to how the U.S. government has violated this Amendment, which has led to the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms.

02/24/25 DOGE Savings

With DOGE uncovering tens of billions of waste, fraud, and abuse, with a goal of at least a trillion dollars in savings, the question is being raised as to what to do with the money saved. Some have suggested rebates to the taxpayers of the United States, and others have suggested that we use this money to pay down the national debt. It has also been suggested that we roll over this money to the next budget cycle. There has also been the suggestion that we should do a combination of these suggestions. Each idea has its own benefits and disadvantages, and it is difficult to make a decision on what we should do with these savings. It is much too early, and each suggestion has not been thought through before making a decision as to what we should do with the DOGE savings.

Alas, some Progressives have also suggested that we do not reduce the spending from the DOGE savings but only spend these savings on other priorities. In their calls for spending, they often make the claim to paraphrase Russell B. Long’s quote on taxing*, “Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!” Unfortunately, there is rarely anyone behind the tree. As typical for Progressives, they would rather spend than save, and I am sure that their ideas on how to spend this monies would be unacceptable to most Americans. I am unalterably opposed to their suggestion that we spend the DOGE savings. We need to reduce Federal spending to spur the economy and not increase the federal debt. We should also set a goal of no more deficit spending, as this puts a burden on future generations of Americans to pay for what we spend.

The DOGE savings are a challenge to Republican Congresspersons, as they are the party that claims they are fiscally responsible; they will have to be fiscally responsible with these savings. Otherwise, they will be held accountable by their voters, which will not be pretty if they act fiscally irresponsible.

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

02/23/25 Saving Democracy

With all the wails and tears of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists about saving our democracy, the biggest wails and tears have been about DOGE. How dare Elon Musk and DOGE audit Federal government Departments and Agencies to expose waste, fraud, and abuse. According to them, it is a Constitutional crisis and an abuse of power to do so. Their cries that ‘Nobody elected Musk’ do not recognize that nobody elected the heads and their deputies of Executive Departments and Agencies, as I have written in my Chirp on “02/11/25 Executive Powers”. Are these heads and their deputies not allowed to perform an audit of their respective Executive Departments and Agencies because they were not elected? Do unelected bureaucrats get to decide how to expend monies allocated by Congress to their Departments and Agencies without Presidential oversight?

We can only conclude that they were more concerned about what DOGE would uncover rather than saving democracy. As it has been said by a noted national columnist in her article “What Democrats Really Meant About 'Saving Democracy'”:

“But it turns out that Democrats and the left weren’t warning about an end to democracy. They were panicking over an end to bureaucracy, which is a federal system that allows them to launder taxpayer funding for leftist pet projects in the United States and abroad.” - Katie Pavlich

Their cries about the need for process and Congressional oversight are but an attempt to reign in DOGE and sublimate them into the black hole of Congress where their efforts will die or come out ineffective, as I have Chirped on “02/15/25 Process vs. Obstructionism” and “02/17/25 An Ineffectual Congress”. As such, their wails and tears need to be scoffed at by the American people and ignored by President Trump and Elon Musk.

02/22/25 The Burden of Proof and Rules of Reasoning

Throughout my Chirps and Articles, I have often mentioned the “Burden of Proof” on various topics. I have, therefore, decided that as I have often discussed this topic, it would be wise to coalesce my thoughts in a new Article, “Burden of Proof”.

We should always remember that when listening to a dialog, debate, or commentary where assertions are being made that:

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish." - Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion." - Mark Dawson

We would also do well to remember what Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I would argue that assertions without evidence must be dismissed without evidence. To do otherwise is to allow for an uncivil society, as I have discussed in my Article "A Civil Society".

The assertor often believes that their assertions are truths, as they rarely encounter resistance to these assertions, and thus, they continue to make their assertions. Alas, it is an unfortunate fact that in today’s society, many Progressives claim that they interpret the facts as they see them to be proper, but interpreting the facts by not applying proper facts and proper reasoning leads to improper conclusions. To reason properly requires that you take "A Philosophical Approach" to your "Reasoning" and apply the Rules of Reasoning, as elucidated in the book Rules of Reason: Making and Evaluating Claims by Bo Bennett, Ph.D. The authors’ rules are succinctly summarized in my new article, which should help you apply reason to assertions made by yourself and others.

02/21/25 Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)

A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is an independent, typically nonprofit organization that operates outside government control, though it may get a significant percentage of its funding from government or corporate sources. NGOs often focus on humanitarian or social issues but can also include clubs and associations offering services to members. Some NGOs, like the World Economic Forum, may also act as lobby groups for corporations. Unlike international organizations (IOs), which directly interact with sovereign states and governments, NGOs are independent from them.

Untold and unaccounted for, billions are spent by the U.S. Government on NGO’s. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of Congressional funding for non-governmental activities. The regulation and oversight of these NGOs is rather loose, and who, what, when, where, why, and how they operate and spend their monies is largely up to themselves. It is also an unfortunate fact that many of these NGOs have a political orientation to support Progressive causes.

The first words of Article II of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." requires that all operations and expenditures be under the purview of the President. Thus, funding for NGOs is extra-constitutional and, indeed, may be unconstitutional. Also, the morality of these NGO expenditures is a moral affront to many Americans and, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Thus, these NGO expenditures are acting in a sinful and tyrannical manner, which is never acceptable in America. Consequently, these NGO’s must be brought under the umbrella of Presidential powers and incorporated into the United States government.

02/20/25 An Appalling Lack of Civics Education

In listening to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists comments and assertions about our Constitution and government, it is apparent that they have an appalling lack of civics knowledge. There is also the issue of the proper interpretation of the Constitution, as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". In this lack of knowledge and their Democratic Constitution interpretation, the Democrats and Progressives are joined by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" due to their Progressive predilections. They often interpret the Constitution and government actions as what they want them to be rather than what they are. In doing so, they often use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their comments.

Alas, they will often make assertions without any proof and just as often will require their opponents to prove them wrong. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." When pressed for proof, they often retort that “Studies Show” or “Statistics Say”, not acknowledging that studies can show anything the author(s) may want them to say and statistics can prove anything based on the data inputs and data manipulations, as I have examined in my Article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Given the appalling lack of civics education in American public education it has also led to uneducated people’s misunderstanding of our Constitution and the functioning of our government. What little civics education they receive in schools is often based on the Democratic Constitution interpretation and governance, due to the Progressive predilections of most public education teachers. Thus, civics education has become indoctrination, as I have written in my Article "Indoctrination versus Education". As indoctrinated people cannot make a rational decision; they will often make a poor decision with negative consequences for themselves and society.

Such a lack of civics knowledge is why the Democrats and Progressives can make inane assertions of a Constitutional crisis or a threat to democracy against their opponents. Anyone with proper Constitutional knowledge can see right through these assertions. If you do not know why these assertions are nonsense, then you should begin to question your civics knowledge and educate yourself as to what our Constitution actually says and how our government functions.

Until this situation is corrected, we will continue to see the American public confused about our Constitution and government. And this situation cannot be corrected without proper civics education and intellectual reasoned discourse. Alas, proper civics education and intellectual reasoning seem to have become passée in today’s America, and Democrats and Progressives prefer this situation as it allows them to manipulate the American public to support their political goals and policy agendas.

02/19/25 Just Following Orders

The Nuremberg Trials after World War II saw many of the defendants trying to employ the defense that “they were just taking orders” to absolve them of their guilt of crimes against humanity. While such a defense may be appropriate for lower-level officials who were unaware of the consequences of their actions, it was not an acceptable defense for those officials who knew, or should have known, the consequences of their actions.

Today, we see the same defense of those government officials who were involved in the Lawfare against President Trump and his supporters. As I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government", such lawfare is an assault on the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all Americans. As I have Chirp on "11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials", such a defense should not be allowed for those government officials who knew, or should have known, that they were violating the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of those Americans who opposed the Biden Administration.

The current Trump Administration is looking into government officials who participated in this lawfare, and taking appropriate actions (dismissal or reassignment), along with possible legal actions against them. Such actions against those government officials who knew, or should have known, are not retaliation nor revenge, but retribution against those government officials in the Biden Administration who willfully violated the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of any American. Without this retribution, we run the risk of continued violations of the rights of Americans by any administration in the future, as government officials will be aware that they can violate our rights without retribution. To do otherwise, we will see the continued violations of our rights by government officials in the future.

As such, do not accept the excuse from these officials that we were just taking orders, as knowingly taking unlawful orders is to be an active participant in illegal actions. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for the purpose of affirming and reestablishing our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

02/18/25 Defamation and Pejoratives Tactics

As I have mentioned in my Chirp on “02/17/25 An Ineffectual Congress”, a significant reason for close elections and narrow divides in Congress is because of the Democrat's campaign tactics of fear and loathing of their Republican opposition. Such fear and loathing tactics only bitterly divide America, as it creates a dichotomy of the good people versus the really bad people. The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have resorted to defamations and pejoratives as their main fear and loathing tactic, as I have written in my Article "Divisiveness in America", which further exacerbates bitter divisions in America.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are now using these defamations and pejorative tactics against Elon Musk and his staff in their DOGE efforts. The outing of his staff members’ identities is an attempt to instill personal fear of retaliation in his staff members. Such outings are loathsome and a danger to the functioning of government employees and must cease forthwith. Lawsuits against the people who have been involved in these outings should be undertaken, and the U.S. Attorney General should look into the possibility that crimes may have been committed by those so involved in these outings.

Such defamations and pejoratives against most Trump appointees have become part of the opposition tactics against President Trump, as they have become a common tactic of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in the last several decades. Such defamation is often slander and libel that goes unpunished, as the Supreme Court has made it difficult for public figures to sue for slander and libel. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a ruling on the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which restricted the ability of a public official to sue for defamation. The bar for lodging such lawsuits has become so high that most public figures will not even lodge a lawsuit against those who have defamed them. This situation needs to be corrected, as it has led to the politics of personal destruction against any public figure that someone disagrees with.

Fortunately, the American people have begun to tune them out big time, and they are now only preaching to the choir. However, the Supreme Court must revisit the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision and lower the bar for instituting defamation lawsuits by public figures. Otherwise, we will permanently become a society of the politics of slander and libel to the detriment of America.

02/17/25 An Ineffectual Congress

The Real Clear Politics (RCP) Congressional approval poll from 12/5 through 2/11 shows that 22.8% approve and 65.8 disapprove of Congress, which is a spread of -43.0%. This disapproval percentage is well earned, as Congress has shown that it is ineffectual in addressing the concerns of regular Americans. It should be noted that this disapproval comes from both sides of the political spectrum, as Progressives do not believe Congress is doing enough to advance their agenda or stop the actions of Conservatives, while Conservatives believe that Congress is stymieing their agenda. In this assessment, both sides are correct that Congress is ineffectual.

However, the American people also deserve a large part of the blame for this situation, as they have consistently elected a Congress that is narrowly divided along Progressive Democrats and Conservative Republican political alignments, and with little Democrat or Republican Moderates in between. This narrow divide has allowed both parties to stymie each other’s political agenda. Whenever a hot-button issue is brought up in Congress, they often become deadlocked, and they often do nothing or water down legislation so much that it is ineffectual. Even the last election, which was a clear majority in favor of President Trump, was a narrow margin for Republicans in Congress. Until this narrow margin changes, it can be expected that Congress will be ineffectual.

A significant reason for these close elections and narrow divides in Congress is because of the Democrat's campaign tactics of fear and loathing of their Republican opposition. When you disparage, to the point of demonization, your opponents to gain electoral support, it is difficult to justify to your supporters any cooperation with the Republicans after the election. If you passionately believe, as many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do, that the Republicans, Conservatives, and MAGA supporters are demonic, then no cooperation is possible with such wicked persons. Thus, the Democrats in Congress are forced by their campaign tactics to be in opposition to and to stymie any Republican initiatives.

The "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" also deserve some blame for this situation, as they have not challenged the facts and assertions of the Democrat's fear and loathing campaign. Indeed, they have been supportive of the Democrat's campaign due to their Progressive predilections. This has led to the ignorance of the American public as to the truth of the Democrat’s assertions. Given the appalling lack of civics education in American public education, it has also led to the uneducated person’s misunderstanding of our Constitution and the functioning of our government, which would lay bare the falsehoods of many of the assertions of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

The Supreme Court also bears some responsibility for an ineffectual Congress. As I have Chirped on “02/14/25 An Unconstitutional Supreme Court”, many decisions on Constitutional questions regarding Congress and the Presidency have been ambiguous, as the Supreme Court has attempted to be more accommodating and vacillating to both sides of a constitutional issue rather than make a definitive decision on Congress and Presidential actions. Such vacillations have only intensified the divide within Congress and between Congress and the Presidency, which has led to a more ineffectual Congress.

Alas, until these circumstances change and the American people elect large majorities of one party in Congress and the Presidency, we will continue to have an ineffectual Congress. And God help America if this large majority is of the current Democrats, as their campaign tactics have been destructive of American society.

02/16/25 Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant

With all the vociferations of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists as to the DOGE efforts, the question is, “What are they hiding?” The answer is in what DOGE has uncovered. The administrative state that they have established over more than the last half a century has become the Progressive funding and slick Progressive effectuation state. They are, therefore, being vociferous because their machinations are being exposed, and their funding is being cut off.

In all their wailings, they are not defending the individual expenditures and intrigues; they are only decrying the process being used to cut their machinations off at the knees. But process can often be turned into obstructionism, as I have Chirped on “02/15/25 Process vs. Obstructionism”. Thus, they hope to divert the American people's attention onto the process and gloss over how the money is being spent.

The supporters and beneficiaries of this misspent money, especially in the Mainstream Media, are promoting the process argument while downplaying how the monies are being spent. Their argument that the money being spent is largely for humanitarian reasons or not a significant percentage of the Federal budget is without merit. Just because they are small wrongs, it does not make them any less wrong, and a mass of small wrongs makes it a large wrong. Any monies being spent improperly are a misuse of taxpayer’s monies, and the percentage of monies being misspent is significant when they are aggregated together. Given the massive Federal debt, it is critically important that Federal spending be reduced at all levels of government and in all amounts. Otherwise, we burden future Americans with our spending and the possibility of dire economic impacts on America. Accordingly, it is important that we allow DOGE to continue in its efforts to expose these expenditures and machinations.

Also, the morality of these expenditures is a moral affront to a majority of Americans and, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Thus, the bureaucrats that have approved these expenditures are acting in a sinful and tyrannical manner, which is never acceptable in America. Consequently, transparency to the American people is of the utmost importance, and anyone who opposes this transparency is not operating in the best interests of America or Americans.

02/15/25 Process vs. Obstructionism

Process in government affairs matters to ensure an orderly, non-capricious, and just outcome occurs in government affairs. This is especially true of anything that occurs within the judicial system, as a process is needed to ensure our rights are protected. Process is also important in the Legislative and Executive branches of government to ensure that discrimination, favoritism, or bribery does not occur. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1964 was designed to rein in the administrative state and protect against overreach and actions by federal agencies that might be deemed “arbitrary and capricious”. However, agencies have figured out numerous ways to get around the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, as arbitrary and capricious are often in the eyes of the beholder and/or judges.

When agencies have done this, the process can be utilized to obstruct, convolute, and warp the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of Americans. The current bureaucratic rules and regulations in government seem to be more about protecting the bureaucrats than assuring a just outcome. Much of this process is justified for the protection of America or Americans, but much of this is actually for the protection of the bureaucrats and the institute of the rule of government. There also seems to be an objective of these rules and regulations to facilitate a progressive agenda for Americans (i.e., if it is progressive, it is approved; if it is not progressive, it is obstructed).

The excessive hurdles and time-consuming processes make it much more difficult to achieve a just outcome and opens the window to legal challenges to all bureaucratic decisions. Thus, Americans who are trying to achieve an approval or objective of the bureaucratic process are often stymied by the process.

The reform of these processes should be one of the goals of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to ensure that government is not an obstructor but a facilitator of the approval or objectives of common Americans. If we do not reform these processes, then we will become a government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats.

02/14/25 An Unconstitutional Supreme Court

The primary responsibility of the Federal and State Supreme Courts is to uphold the Constitution. Yet, we have seen in the past that the Supreme Court has not always done so, as I have examined in my Article "Supreme, But Not Always Right". We have also seen in the 21st century that they have attempted to be more accommodating and vacillating to both sides of a constitutional issue rather than make a definitive decision on the Constitutionality of government actions. We have also seen moderate and weak decisions based upon an attempt to placate public opinion to uphold their esteem in the public eye. In their attempts to be conciliatory, they have not been faithful to the Constitution and have made rulings that are dubious as to the Constitutionality of government actions. Thus, confusion and misunderstandings as to Constitutional limits on government have occurred. They have also been very slow to make a decision, as is typical for legal proceedings, but such slowness has led to discordance and divisiveness in American politics. There is also the issue of the proper interpretation of the Constitution, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

However, all of these issues are coming to a head as a result of President Trump’s actions in the first few weeks of his administration, as I have Chirped on “02/10/25 Fast and Furious” and “02/11/25 Executive Powers”. The Supreme Court not only needs to examine the actions of President Trump as to their Constitutionality but also the actions of Congress to ensure that they do not intrude upon Presidential powers, duties, and responsibilities.

When Congress allocates monies in general to various Departments and Agencies and does not specifically allocate monies to various line items of expenditure, then they have given the President authority to determine how to expend the monies so generally allocated. When Congress attempts to interfere with Executive Advisors to the President, they are intruding upon the President's ability to obtain independent advice, so long as the Executive Advisors do not attempt to institute such advice as that is the duty and responsibility of Executive Officers who are subject to Congressional oversight. When Congress creates an independent or semi-autonomous agency of government, they are violating the first words of Article II of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." therefore, such independent or semi-autonomous agencies of government are unconstitutional.

It is time for the Supreme Court to get a backbone and stand up for the Constitution and the limitations of government, as well as for Constitutional order. The Supreme Court needs to be faithful to the Constitution, as it is the right thing to do, and it is also the best way to right the course of America. If they do not do so, then the question is of the best means to reign in the Supreme Court, as without such faithfulness to the Constitution, they are intruding upon the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. Not doing so would also make the Supreme Court an Unconstitutional Supreme Court.

02/13/25 Pejoratives and Baseless Allegations

As I have written in my article, “Divisiveness in America”:

“The use of pejoratives should only be utilized against people who have committed crimes, are immoral, or behaved in an unethical manner, not to people with whom you may disagree. And pejoratives should only be utilized in limited circumstances. They should never be utilized in political or social policy debates and discussions as this only leads to divisiveness. To do so otherwise demonstrates a lack of character or intelligence on the part of the people that utilize pejoratives.”

Yet, pejoratives seem to be the main arguments that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have to offer in response to the actions of President Trump and his Executive Officers and Advisors. They have also tried to utilize baseless allegations of undemocratic or unconstitutional actions by President Trump and his Executive Officers and Advisors, as I have Chirped on “02/11/25 Executive Powers”. In doing so, they have utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their baseless allegations and confuse the American public as to the merits of their baseless allegations. Such confusion is injurious to our Democratic republic, as it leads to misunderstandings about our Constitutional order.

This is the political tactic of fear and loathing, which they unsuccessfully tried during the 2024 Presidential campaign. It is a tactic that bitterly divides Americans into “Us” versus “Them” camps. It is also a tactic that depends upon the dumbing down of Americans to keep them ignorant as to the proper functioning of our Constitutional Democratic republic. Rather than trying to convince Americans that their ideas are better, they have engaged in pejoratives and baseless allegations to counter the actions of President Trump and his Executive Officers and Advisors. This makes them a party that is not fit to lead a people dedicated to Freedoms and Liberties and to Constitutional order.

02/12/25 Current Resistance and Obstructionism

The resistance to President Trump has taken a new and nastier form than the previous resistance to President Trump. Rather than fabricate charges directly against President Trump, they fabricate charges against the people who are nominated as Executive Officers or employed as Presidential Advisors to President Trump. They have taken the approach of loud verbal and nasty revilements and vilifications against these Executive Officers and Presidential Advisors, as well as anyone who disagrees with them, many of which are thinly disguised threats against those so targeted. They then use them as piñatas to be beaten upon in an attempt to smear and destroy their reputations. This is not hardball politics but nasty politics. It is also the politics of personal destruction. In this, we should remember the Bard of Avon’s wisdom:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” - William Shakespeare in Othello

They also claim that President Trump and his officers are acting unconstitutionally, with little or tortuous constitutional basis for such claims. They are also claiming that the Trump Administration is assaulting “Democracy” while they ignore that President Trump was democratically elected to reform the government. They have also begun to institute lawsuits based on dubious merits, and they are organizing and funding Blue State's resistance to Federal authority. Such Blue State's resistance is in violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Thus, utilizing State laws to contradict Federal laws is Unconstitutional, and State authorities, Judges, and Justices must accede to Federal laws, rules, and regulations. In these lawsuits they are Judge shopping to find sympathetic judges that Trump’s actions are Unconstitutional. This is being done in the hopes of tying up President Trump’s hands in protracted legal litigation. It should be noted that some of these lawsuits do raise legitimate Constitutional concerns, but most of these lawsuits are simply an attempt to obstruct President Trump’s executive powers, as I have noted in my Chirp on “02/11/25 Executive Powers”. Such judicial interference in the normal operation of executive power is a usurpation of the Executive Branch’s Constitutional authorities and makes them lords rather than judges, as I have written in my Article “Judges, Not Lords”.

Alas, such is the current form of “Obstructionism” and “Resistance” to the new Trump Administration. However, it is but resistance and obstructionism based upon the personal destruction of their opponents and frivolous lawsuits. Rather than trying to convince Americans that their ideas are better, they have engaged in the politics of personal destruction and Unconstitutional judicial obstructionism.

02/11/25 Executive Powers

The first words of Article II of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." which gives the President quite a leeway in exercising executive powers. The President has the authority to delegate their duties and responsibilities to others in the Executive Branch of government, subject to oversight by the Legislative Branch and review by the Judicial Branch as to the Constitutionality and legality of their actions.

The Legislative Branch can only craft laws that deal with the process of Executive Branch operations, but such laws may not infringe on the authority or the duties and responsibilities of the President. No government department or agency can Constitutionally operate independently of the Executive Branch, and the President has the power to examine and direct government departments and agencies. When the Legislative Branch creates autonomous or semi-autonomous agencies, these agencies operate outside of the Constitution, as they violate the first words of Article II of the Constitution, which states that only the President has executive powers. Consequently, all such agencies must be brought under the authority of the President's executive powers for them to be Constitutional.

The Judicial Branch of government may not substitute their direction or discretion of executive actions, except when a clear violation of the Constitution or the legal process has occurred. As such, the Judicial Branch must defer to the Executive Branch unless a clear violation has occurred. When a judge issues a stay on an Executive Branch action that is of an ambiguous nature, they are substituting their opinion for the President’s opinion, and they also tie up the President in months, if not years, of legal actions. When judges do so, they anoint themselves with executive powers. For judges to do otherwise is, therefore, a violation of the first words of Article II of the Constitution.

Thus, when President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and hired Elon Musk to lead the DOGE efforts, he was well within his executive power authorities to delegate Presidential duties and responsibilities to Elon Musk. As long as Elon Musk reports to the President or the White House Chief of Staff, works for and at the direction of the President, and gets the President's approval for his actions, there is no Constitutional issue. The only question is whether his actions as an advisor to the President are subject to legislative oversight, as his position is that of presidential advice rather than that of a Senate-approved executive officer of the United States. As for the judicial review of his actions, this, too, is rather limited, as he does not have the authority to make changes, only to make suggestions to the president and executive officers who implement the changes.

Consequently, if the President has the executive power to request information and/or investigate an executive department and/or agency, then DOGE has the delegated Presidential authority to investigate any department and/or agency that the President directs them to investigate, as they are operating under the auspices of Presidential Executive Powers.

Addendum – In an article published on Feb 25, 2025, by Seton Motley, founder and president of Less Government, “DOGE Is Constitutional. What It’s Exposing Is Unconstitutional”, he examines the Constitutionality of DOGE and the Unconstitutionality of Independent Agencies and the restrictions on the President in managing the Executive Branch of government.

02/10/25 Fast and Furious

In the three weeks since the inauguration of the 47th President Donald Trump we have seen a slew of nominations, Executive Orders, and Presidential and Executive Officers directions that are meant to reform the Federal Government and undo the damages of former President Biden. Most of these were to implement promises that President Trump made on the campaign trail (imagine that—a President implementing his campaign promises). Many of these have elicited (or aroused, as Senate Minority Leader Schumer put it) furious anger amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they are antithetical and anathema to the policies and political goals of President Trump’s opponents, but most of these actions are supported by a majority of Americans.

I have, to date, not Chirped on these nominations, Executive Orders, and Presidential and Executive Officers directions as I have been laid up with a virulent strain of influenza that put me in the hospital for two days and two nights and weaken and wearied me for the last three weeks. Given my medical and mental state, I thought it unwise to comment until I recovered. Now that I am sufficiently recovered, I will be Chirping once again.

My biggest take is that these actions were necessary to right the course of America and to institute Common Sense in the actions of government. My biggest concern is that these actions be Constitutional and that they should eventually be enacted in legislation to avoid being overturned by a future President who may not agree with them. It is also the right Democratic Republic thing to do to have Congress codify these changes in legislation.

01/31/25 AI and the End of Humankind

As I have written in my Article “Is Artificial Intelligence Possible?” and my collected Chirps on "Artificial Intelligence", a world dominated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) may not be desirable and could possibly be a sterile world. It also raises the specter of the end of humankind, as the noted Science Fiction author Arthur C. Clarke spoke of in a 1964 interview “ARTHUR C. CLARKE - Predicts the end of Mankind and the rise of Artificial Intelligence”. As in Frank Herbert’s Dune novels, the Butlerian Jihad (the bible of Dune) states: “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” as this led to a devastating war between man and machine. The great science fiction author Isaac Asimov also explored this conflict in his robot stories and novels, which led him to postulate four laws of Robotics and the conflicts of these laws in human interactions:

Zeroth Law - A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
First Law - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

While this may only be science fiction, much science fiction has been illuminating of the possible impacts that scientific advances may have on humankind.

The recent advances in AI should give all to pause and consider the impacts of AI on humankind. We should not be solely led into a world of AI by the proponents, supporters, and investors of AI, but we should also consider the philosophers, moralists, and theologians' concerns about an AI world. If we are to live in a world of AI, it should be a deliberate choice balanced by the concerns for humankind and the proper usage of AI alongside Human Intelligence (HI). Not doing so is to lead us down a perilous path that could lead us into conflicts with AI and/or portend a dangerous struggle with AI or the end of humankind in the future.

01/30/25 Neo-Darwinism Issues and Concerns

According to Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, he and many other evolutionary biologists believe that the modern Neo-Darwinism theory of evolution falls short on several fronts and fails to prove the overall theory (which he explains in a Joe Rogan Experience interview). Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd B. Müller has written a scientific paper, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary”, explaining why we need to rethink the Neo-Darwinism Theory of Evolution. Dr. Meyer’s five Explanatory Deficits of Neo-Darwinism are:

Origin of Life: Darwinism does not explain the origin of life itself. It describes the process of evolution once life exists but does not address how the first living organisms came into being from non-living matter.
Complex Structures: The theory struggles to fully explain some biological structures’ sudden appearance and complexity. Critics argue that specific organs, such as the eye, exhibit “irreducible complexity,” meaning they need all their parts to function and could not have evolved incrementally.
Fossil Record Gaps: The fossil record shows abrupt appearances of fully formed species without clear transitional forms. This lack of “missing links” challenges the gradualist evolution model.
Genetic Information: Darwinism is often criticized for not explaining the origin of the vast amounts of genetic information in DNA. Some consider the random mutations and natural selection described by Darwinism insufficient to account for the complexity and specificity of genetic codes.
Macroevolution vs. Microevolution: While Darwinism explains small-scale changes (microevolution), such as variations within species, it is criticized for not adequately explaining large-scale changes (macroevolution) that result in the emergence of entirely new species and higher taxonomic groups.

“Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers, and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects that have those same types of informational properties that we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.”

We would all do well to consider Intelligent Design and its implications and to keep an open mind as to its possibility.

Dr. Stephen Meyer’s free mini-book, "Scientific Evidence For A Creator", is a very interesting read for those interested in the fundamental origins of life. In addition, Dr. Casey Luskin has written a web article, “What Is Intelligent Design?” that can be viewed here, and Dr. Jay Richards has written a web article, “What Intelligent Design Is — and Isn’t”, that can be viewed here.

01/29/25 Mysteries of the Modern Universe

Almost 120 years ago, in 1905, a Patent Clerk 2nd class from 1902–1909 at the Swiss patent office in Bern, Switzerland, the PhD Physicist Albert Einstein published a series of papers that ultimately shook the foundation of Physics so much so that Physics prior to 1905 is now known as Classical Physics, and from 1905 onwards would be known a Modern Physics. These papers proved the existence of atoms, the quantum nature of subatomic processes, and the relativity nature of the Universe (his famous papers on Brownian motion, the Photoelectric effect, and his Special Theory of Relativity and the equivalence of Mass and Energy). While it took several years for these papers to be recognized as revolutionary, they soon became the foundation of Modern Physics. In 1915, he published another paper on the curvature of spacetime (General Relativity), which, when proven in 1919, displaced Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, which had stood unchallenged for over 230 years.

Since that time, all scientific observations and experiments have shown these theories to be correct and have provided a solid foundation for the advancement of Modern Physics. However, in the last several decades, Modern Physics has several conundrums that need resolution for physics to be coherent and unified. Much of these conundrums have arisen from observations by Space Telescopes and significant technological improvements to Particle Accelerators that have occurred in the last several decades. Most of these conundrums are small-scale, but a few of them are large and strike at the heart of physics.

My new Science Article, “Mysteries of the Modern Universe”, which replaces my old article on the Mysteries of Modern Physics, examines the large-scale conundrums that need resolution, and such resolutions will significantly impact modern physics and our understanding of the workings of the Universe. These large-scale conundrums are:

The Irreconcilableness of Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity
The Mutual Exclusiveness of Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity
The Problems with the Big Bang Theory
The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter
What is the Physical Nature of the Arrow of Time

01/28/25 Modern Science Issues and Concerns

Modern science has walked hand-in-hand with the progress of humankind, and it has often led to this progression of humankind. Advances in modern science have advanced all other endeavors of human progress, from medicine, psychology and psychiatry, technology, the arts, as well as religion, morality, and ethics, and to other arenas of human progress, including economic, political, and social advancements.

Science does not have all the answers to the workings of nature, but it is the best means to obtain the answers to the workings of nature, as I have examined in my article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”. Science must continue to probe the workings of nature, and science must always question its current answers to determine the facts and truths of the workings of nature. To not do so is to wallow in ignorance and to stymie the progress of humankind.

However, it is unfortunate that much of modern science is trivial science. Although this trivial science may be interesting and may lead to non-trivial science, it can lead to excessive spending that may not be necessary. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to differentiate between trivial science and non-trivial science. If scientists were spending their own money or the money of university/research institutions, this would not be a problem. However, much of science is funded by governmental means. Even if it is money that the University/Research Institutions are spending, when you follow the money back to its source, you will often find governmental funding. Sometimes, there is even a shell game where the governmental funding sources are hidden for unworthy reasons.

These problems, along with the other problems of modern science, as I discussed in the subsection “The Troubles with Science” in the aforementioned article, need to be addressed for modern Science to thrive and continue to assist in the advancement of humankind.

For more of my observations and opinions on scientific issues and concerns, I would direct you to my web page on Science Articles.

01/27/25 Scientific Speculation

There is an area of scientific inquiry that is known as Scientific Speculation. This area of scientific inquiry is not based upon observations or experiments; it is simply scientists speculating "what if". As it is not based on observation or experimentation, it cannot be actual science, but it is an important area of scientific inquiry as it can lead to actual science. This raises the scientific question of the purpose of science, in which the answer is for science to explain the Real World Out There (RWOT), as one of the greatest scientists of all time has said:

"Reality is the real business of physics." - Albert Einstein

Science needs to be in the business of explaining the RWOT; otherwise, what is the purpose of science? Without the goal of explaining the RWOT, science would simply be an intellectual enterprise with no goal other than science (as much as mathematics is). Any science without the goal of explaining the RWOT is not actual science but speculative science. A danger of speculative science is that non-scientists may misinterpret speculative science as actual science and assume the speculations to be the facts and truths of the RWOT. This can lead them to poor judgments about scientific issues, which can lead to negative repercussions in society as a whole.

A scientist, or a group of scientists, will speculate to determine the possibilities of a scientific inquiry, but if they do not have the ability to observe or experiment on their speculations at that moment in time, then it is not actual science. Scientific Speculation is very important as it gets the creative juices of the scientist started. Often, the results of this Scientific Speculation are that they discover ways in which they can turn the speculation into science. Many of the scientific theories of the 20th century (especially in astrophysics, atomic physics, and quantum theory) have started out as scientific speculation. Often, mathematics is utilized as a point of discussion for speculation. If the mathematics is good, they then start to determine if they can create experiments or make observations that would confirm their speculations. Many times, scientific Speculation strays into other areas of scientific inquiry, and new science in these other areas is a result.

Scientific Speculation should be encouraged, as it often leads to scientific breakthroughs, but it should be labeled as speculation and not taken as actual scientific fact and truth until proven by observation or experimentation. A good example of this is the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson was first postulated in the mid-1960s, and it was not actually proven until 2013 after the Large Hadron Collider was developed and an experiment was performed that revealed the Higgs boson. Another good example of this is the modern scientific Speculation of the creation of the universe known as the Multi-verse. It may never be possible to prove or disprove the Multi-verse, but it has led to much useful discourse among scientists. These Scientific Speculation issues and concerns, along with other scientific issues, also apply to The Anthropic Principle and String (or M Theory) Theory.

You must always keep in mind that just because science says something may be possible does not mean that it is possible. Just because science says that something may happen does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen. Thus, Scientific Speculation should always be kept in its proper place in science. A place in which scientists can freely speculate, but a place that is not in the RWOT.

01/23/25 What Happens If They Don’t Want It?

McKinsey & Co.’s Mobility Consumer Pulse recently released a survey that found that 46 percent of electric vehicle owners in the United States said that they were “very” likely to revert to owning a gas-powered vehicle next time they buy a car. The reasons for this change of mind are:

“The biggest reason EV owners cited for wanting to return to owning a gas-powered vehicle was the lack of available charging infrastructure (35%); the second-highest reason cited was that the total cost of owning an EV was too high (34%). Nearly 1 in 3, 32%, said their driving patterns on long-distance trips were affected too much due to having an EV. The biggest reason EV owners cited for wanting to return to owning a gas-powered vehicle was the lack of available charging infrastructure (35%); the second-highest reason cited was that the total cost of owning an EV was too high (34%). Nearly 1 in 3, 32%, said their driving patterns on long-distance trips were affected too much due to having an EV.”

This trend is likely to continue because the problems of owning an electric vehicle cannot be negated in the near term of the next decade. The American people are stating loudly and clearly, with their money, that they have little faith in the viability of electric vehicles in the near term. Yet the government continues to spend taxpayers’ monies on subsidies to manufacturers and consumers, as well as funding other aspects of electric vehicles. The government is also setting goals for the production of electric vehicles, as well as making it more difficult to purchase and operate gas-powered vehicles.

Thus, the government is restricting a person’s Liberty and Freedom to choose what they think is best for themselves and coercing suppliers into producing unwanted products. When a government tries to force someone into doing what the government wants rather than what the person wants or coerce businesses, it is called totalitarianism. In a country dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, such actions by the government should not be tolerated. Consequently, it is past time for the government to get out of the electric vehicle business and allow the free market to determine the supply and demand for electric vehicles.

Note – President Trump’s Executive Action on the Green New Deal has for now put an end to this question and leaves the decision of what car to purchase up to the consumer—where it belongs.

01/22/25 What Happens When the Sun Doesn’t Shine, The Winds Don’t Blow, and You Encounter the Sounds of Silence?

It was recently reported that the quantity and velocity of the winds in North America declined in the year 2023. We also know that it is impossible to predict cloud cover and inclement weather, and their extent and duration, when the sun will not be shining. We have also become aware that as electric vehicles run more silently than gas-fueled vehicles, pedestrians and drivers are less aware of the approach of electric vehicles, and the number of car collisions and automobile accidents involving pedestrians has increased when an electric vehicle is involved.

Thus, the question of what happens with renewable energy is when the sun doesn’t shine, the winds don’t blow, and when humans encounter the sounds of the silence of electric vehicles. Anybody who would respond that battery backup for solar and wind technology is displaying their ignorance of battery technology and/or the quantity of battery electrical storage needed to power our economy. For anyone who would respond that humans need to become more aware of their surroundings, they are not acknowledging human nature, and to deny human nature will lead to calamitous consequences.

It is not practicable to turn on fossil fuel power generation plants that are dormant (or running at very low power generating capacity) when solar and wind are supplying power, as the efforts in doing so can be time-consuming along with other technological problems. Most of the academics and activists who propose this solution have neither the engineering knowledge nor practicable experience to make this claim reliable. The only power-generating capability that can accomplish this is Nuclear Power, and the same people who desire solar and wind power are often opposed to Nuclear Power, along with others who are distrustful of Nuclear Power.

To not address these questions is foolish, and as we all know, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”. Consequently, unless we answer these questions, we are being directed by fools. We should ignore these fools and insist that these questions be answered before we rush in and down the path to calamity. Otherwise, we are all fools deserving of the consequences of being foolish.

Note – President Trump’s Executive Actions on Energy Independence has for now put an end to this question and has put America on a path to self-sufficiency and future growth to power our economy.

01/21/25 The Harm of Preemptive Presidential Pardons

President Joe Biden on Friday, January 17, 2025, announced that he had commuted the sentences of almost 2,500 individuals who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses, especially those impacted by sentencing disparities. These commutations are an affront to the American people, as they speak of someone (i.e., President Biden) overriding the Law as passed by Congress and affirmed by court rulings. He, as President, may have the right to do this, but he has no moral justification for doing so. If he felt that an injustice was being perpetrated by these sentences, then he should have proposed to Congress that they modify the law. Upon the passage of the modified law by Congress and his signing of the modified law, it would then have been morally justified to issue these commutations. Joe Biden doing it all on his own speaks of his authoritarian nature and disregard for the principles of our Democratic-Republic form of governance, as I have Chirped on "12/08/19 A Democratic-Republic".

Just hours before Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Monday, January 20, 2025, President Joe Biden issued pre-emptive pardons for a number of high-profile figures, shielding them from potentially being held accountable by the incoming administration. The pre-emptive pardons were announced Monday morning for Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lawmakers and staff that served on the Jan. 6 Committee, including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. now Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), as well as U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee. Then, just minutes before President Trump was sworn in, Biden preemptively pardoned his family members who had been involved in questionable activities with foreign governments and entities.

With these preemptive pardons that President Biden has issued, we have become a society without the rule of law. If Executive Officers and others believe that they can violate the law and not be held accountable via a preemptive Presidential Pardon, then they will have no restraint on any actions they may take. There will be no rule of law to constrain their actions, and we will become a nation that abides by the rule of men rather than the rule of law.

As I have written in my Chirp on "12/10/24 Pronounced In Law", the utilization of Presidential Pardons should be constrained to after a person has been Pronounced in Law that they have committed “Offences against the United States”. As such, preemptive Presidential Pardons would be Unconstitutional, and the Rule of Law would reign supreme in America.

01/20/25 Our Modern-Day Lobotomies

The question of transgendered children raises many issues, one of which is medical treatments for such children. Putting aside the other issues which I have addressed in my collected Chirps on "Transgenderism - Sex and Gender", and only addressing one aspect of the issue of transgendered treatments raises profound moral and ethical concerns.

In the past, we medically treated many people for perceived mental problems in an inappropriate manner. The great mathematician Alan Turing, who helped speed up the end of World War II by breaking the German Enigma cryptography machine, was sentenced to chemical castrations for his homosexual acts along with many other homosexuals. Lobotomies, a discredited form of neurosurgical treatment for psychiatric disorders or neurological disorders (e.g., epilepsy, depression) that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex, were often performed. False memory syndrome (FMS) was a proposed "pattern of beliefs and behaviors" in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by false memories of psychological trauma. Recollections that are strongly believed by the individual but contested by the accused, which often traumatize both the accuser and the accused.

History has not been kind to these treatments, as they are now considered barbaric and inhumane. Today, we have the issue of medical treatments for child transgender transitioning. I believe that history will not be kind to child transgender transitioning, for, as it has been said:

“There are no trans kids. No child is 'born in the wrong body'. There are only adults like you, prepared to sacrifice the health of minors to bolster your belief in an ideology that will end up wreaking more harm than lobotomies and false memory syndrome combined.” - J.K. Rowling

Consequently, transgender transitioning medical treatments of children are of a dubious moral and ethical foundation, and they need to end. Sacrificing a child’s future for an ideology is never acceptable and betrays a lack of morals and ethics amongst its supporters.

01/19/25 New Meanings for Old Words

If you are currently listening to the Mainstream Media and Democrat politicians, you may have discerned that there are some new meanings for old words. Apparently, disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation have a new meaning, as they now mean anything that does not support Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists narratives. Divisiveness has also taken on a new meaning—anything that is politically inconvenient for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists is divisive, while any criticism of President Trump and his Administration is for the purpose of unifying Americans against Trump.

While this shift in meaning started prior to the reelection of President Trump, it has reached gale force after his reelection. The American people, however, are not buying it. Those who are adopting these new meanings are Progressives speaking to other Progressives and Democrat politicians speaking amongst themselves, and they both live in a bubble of Progressiveness to which non-Progressives pay little heed.

The only good that will come of these new meanings is that it will further isolate Progressives from the rest of America and that these changes of meanings do not change any minds nor garner more support for Progressives and Democrat politicians. Therefore, I would say to those that adopt these new meanings, “Keep it Up!” as it will further alienate the voting public and lead to the defeat of Democrat Party candidates and their Progressives/Leftists policies.

01/18/25 Recognition of the 28th Amendment

President Biden, on Friday, January 17, 2025, announced his “recognition” of the Equal Rights Amendment. He tweeted, “Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”

The facts and truths are that it was not ratified, as the window Congress gave to be having expired decades ago. President Biden (or at least his staff) should know this, and he and his staff know the President has no role in amending the Constitution, as do all the Democrats pretending it is now the law of the land. They’re only lending their names and positions to it as a political stunt to raise money and spur lawsuits by various left-wing groups across the country. As usual, Jonathan Turley had the most cogent remarks about this in his article, “I See Dead Amendments: President Biden Issues Otherworldly ERA Declaration”.

Those elected officials who swore an Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, who now claim the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, are in violation of their oath of office, and they should be censured by their governing body for violating their oath. Blatantly lying about the Constitutionality of something known to be Unconstitutional is not preserving and protecting the Constitution but subverting the Constitution, and such people should not be in positions of political power.

01/15/25 You Get the Leadership of That Which You Elect

The devastating Los Angeles wildfires are a result of the lack of Democrat leadership, which the people of Los Angeles and California elected. Rather than ensure that the basic services (i.e., Criminal Justice, Firefighting, Highways and Roads, Water Supply, Waste and Sewer Management, Resources Management, Elementary and Secondary Education, Emergency Public Health Services, and Safe, Reliable, Abundant, and Affordable Energy), the people of Los Angeles and California elected leadership that was more concerned with social welfare and social justice (i.e., Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Identity Politics, Political Correctness, and Virtue Signaling, along with a host of other non-basic services). While the Los Angeles wildfire raged, the California Legislature met in special session to try to “Trump Proof “ California rather than address the many basic services problems of California and its cities, as Michael Shellenberger has written in his perceptive and penetrating book “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities”.

The people of Los Angeles and California do not deserve what has occurred in these wildfires, but they have earned it. They earned it by whom they elected as their leaders, and as the Bible has said, “A man reaps what he sows.” they have reaped the wildfires from their election and reelection of Democrat politicians more concerned about social welfare and social justice than ensuring basic services are of preeminent importance. In their attempts to create a social Elysium they have created a basic services Dystopia.

For their actions, the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who have led Los Angeles and California for the last several decades must be held accountable. An inquiry as to the causes and responses to wildfires must go beyond just the physical reasons for the wildfires and the technical responses but also into the leadership failures that led to the catastrophe. Alas, given the propensity for Democrat leaders to avoid accountability through excuses, I suspect that there will be little accountability and many excuses in this inquiry, while the inquiry itself will be heavily politically influenced. This inquiry must also examine the current state of preparedness of other California cities for wildfires and other natural disasters.

They fowled their own nest, and they, therefore, must accept responsibility to clean up their own mess. There will be a hue and cries for Federal funding to help clean up their mess, but such hue and cries are an avoidance to accept accountability and responsibility for their mess. The people of the other States had no say in the government of Los Angeles and California, which gave rise to this mess, and, therefore, they should have no obligation nor responsibility to pay for the cleanup and rebuilding of Los Angeles and California. No amount of Virtue Signaling by those demanding Federal assistance should be heeded, for there is no virtue in helping someone avoid the responsibility for their own actions. Pleas of charity for assistance should only be directed to individual Americans and should not be required from other States taxpayers.

These wildfires and responses should also be a warning to other Americans as to the dangers of ignoring or reducing government resources for basic services. It should be remembered that without basic services, it is not possible to achieve social welfare and social justice. It should also be remembered that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are the forces for social welfare and social justice at the expense of basic services for all localities and States in America in which they have political power.

Consequently, it is time for the American people to turn out of office to those politicians who don’t prioritize basic services, as they pose a real danger to the well-being, health, and safety of all Americans.

01/14/25 Free Thought and Free Speech

Recently, the American biologist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D., wrote an article, “Biology is not bigotry”, that was originally published in the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Freethought Today publication. It has since been removed by Freethought Today because “it does not reflect our values or principles.” So much for free though and free speech, and so it has become for many Higher Education and Academic Institutions.

It is not free thought, but group thinking has become the modus operandi in higher education and academic institutions. Bending your knee to the prevailing wisdom or suffering the consequences has replaced free thought and free speech. As such, many of the thinkers in these institutions live in fear that if they express any thought or opinion contrary to the prevailing wisdom, they will be repudiated and punished.

Such a bending of the knee is contrary to one of the main purposes of Higher Education and Academic Institutions. Free thought is required to uncover facts and truths that advance knowledge and human progress, and free speech is needed to propagate this knowledge.

It should be remembered that facts and truths are not bigotry but only observations that need to be accepted and accounted for. Anyone who claims facts and truths are bigotry is trying to lead you astray and warp your worldview. If you allow them to succeed, you will live in an unreal world in which you will suffer terrible consequences. It should also be remembered that, as in one of my own quotes, “Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to violate my freedom of speech.”, and that no one has any right to censor anyone’s free speech.

Such censorship of free speech in Higher Education and Academic Institutions needs to be examined by Congress to determine if these Higher Education and Academic Institutions are worthy of receiving Federal funding. Any Higher Education or Academic Institution that engages in censorship or the suppression of free speech is unworthy of receiving Federal funding, as these actions are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “A New Year’s Resolution: Let’s Get the United States Out of the Censorship Business”, “. . . we need to get the United States out of the censorship business by passing a law barring any federal funds for the use of censorship, including grants to academic and NGO groups.”

01/13/25 Free Speech in All Forums

The political scandal of the cover-up of President Biden’s mental health, along with the cover-up of the COVID-19 origins and proper responses, has been exacerbated by the suppression of free speech under the label of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Not only was the government suppressing free speech, but the forces of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" were involved in this suppression.

Many of those involved in this suppression justified their actions by claiming that free speech was only protected against government actions, but as private concerns, they were free to suppress any speech that they thought was improper. This raises the question; “Does the right of free speech only apply to government actions, or does it apply to all aspects of society?” Jonathan Turley, the noted Constitutional scholar and Free Speech advocate, has answered this question in his book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and has additionally commented that:

“As the ACLU has long maintained, censorship occurs in both private and governmental forums. The same figures insist that, if there is no violation of the First Amendment (which only applies to the government), there is no free speech violation. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies.” - Jonathan Turley

Consequently, the next Congress needs to examine this issue, not only in the suppression of free speech by the government but also in the suppression of free speech in non-governmental arenas. In doing so, it would be wise to heed the words of our first President:

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

01/12/25 Virtue and Vanity

Both virtue and vanity are rarely present in a single individual. A virtuous person often recognizes their own limitations and is often subdued about their merits. A vain person does not acknowledge their inadequacies, nor are they humble. A virtuous person should be admired for these qualities, and a vain person should be ignored for their conceit.

Alas, in modern America, virtue has become a rare attribute, and vanity is often rewarded, especially among celebrities and politicians. As I have written in my article “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, “Virtue was the most important for elected and appointed officials, as well as public servants, in the practice in their public duties. Virtue was also important for the people to practice, as it is necessary for the retention of our Liberties and Freedoms.” We all should remember the words of wisdom of our Founding Fathers about virtue:

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.” - James Madison

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

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

“I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” - James Madison

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." - Benjamin Franklin

"Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." - George Washington

“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

Thus, the Founders saw a direct link between virtue and sustaining their revolutionary experiment. They recognized that for their new democratic republic to endure, society had to cultivate virtues at personal and public levels.

We should also take heed of the words of Oliver Cromwell, an English statesman, politician, and soldier widely regarded as one of the most important figures in British history. He came to prominence during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (fought between 1639 and 1653), initially as a senior commander in the Parliamentarian army and latterly as a politician. A leading advocate of the execution of Charles I in January 1649, which led to the establishment of the Commonwealth of England, he ruled as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658. His words are also a warning for our new Congress and Presidential Administration if they do not commit to the change that the American electorate expressed in the last election:

Those in government without virtue or an excess of vanity should “In the name of God, go!” and not be permitted to sow the seeds of destruction of our society.

01/11/25 Using Courts to Discredit, Tarnish, and Smear

On Thursday night, 01/09/2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing that took place on Friday, 01/10/2025, but stated that he could still challenge his conviction “in the ordinary course on appeal”. It is well known that the ordinary course of appeal may take several years to accomplish, during which time President Trump’s opponents will be able to tarnish him as a convicted felon.

Also, on Thursday, 01/09/2025, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a bid from President-elect Trump’s two co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to block the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report. A report that is totally one-sided, as the defendants had no right to legally challenge and cross-examine the witness against them. A report that is also dubious as Jack Smith’s appointment may have been unconstitutional and pursued in violation of Presidential Immunity, as I have Chirp on, "08/18/24 Supreme Court ‘Reforms’ on Presidential Immunity".

While these opinions may be legally proper, they are harmful to the presidency and are not in the best interests of the American people. As I discussed in my Chirps on “01/10/25 Discrediting and Tarnishing President-elect Trump” and "01/11/23 Biden’s Classified Information SNAFU", these efforts were nothing but an attempt at Lawfare as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government".

Many legal scholars and judicial commentators have pointed out the injustices of the indictment and trial that are an affront to the American legal system (for more information please review Jonathan Turley’s article “Merchan’s Monster: Judge’s Attempt to Calm Townspeople Fails In Trump Trial”). Previously allowing these judicial actions to proceed raised concerns about judicial interference in an election, and it now raises concerns of possible judicial interference in the President's official duties and responsibilities, which is a concern about the encroachment of the Judicial Branch upon the Executive Branch. As such, the judicial system has become part and parcel of the weaponization of government. While Judges and Justices must be very concerned about the Rule of Law and the integrity of judicial proceedings, to allow these concerns to override “Justice” is to pervert the judicial system against “Justice”.

The American people have passed their judgment on these lawfare proceedings by electing Donald Trump as the next President, and to allow this lawfare to continue is an affront to the American people. It also makes many Americans wary of the judicial system in that such lawfare has not only been waged against Donald Trump but also against his supporters and ordinary Americans who have opposed government actions. One of the most important things that the next Trump Administration could do to restore trust in the judicial system is to pursue legal action under “18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law” against those who have allegedly violated this law.

Woe to be for all Americans if this is allowed to continue, for a society of Liberty and Freedom loving people that believes that “justice” has been perverted is a society that is ripe for an insurrection against “Injustice”.

01/10/25 Discrediting and Tarnishing President-elect Trump

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan is a Colombian-born American judge and former prosecutor. He is an acting justice of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County (Manhattan). He presided over the 2024 criminal trial of former U.S. president Donald Trump, in which Trump was found guilty. Merchan is the first judge in history to preside over a criminal indictment and a guilty verdict of a U.S. President and the first judge to hold a President in criminal contempt of court.

However, his outrageous actions and distemper, along with his rulings and interpretations of the law, have shown him unfit to be a judge or a lawyer. Now he has become a threat to Justice and The Rule of Law in America and to the office of the President. In his Trump Derangement Syndrome and efforts to get Trump, he has disgraced himself and the judicial system of New York. The Appellate and Supreme Court of New York have also disgraced themselves by not reigning in Judge Merchan.

Many legal scholars and judicial commentators have pointed out the injustices of the indictment and trial that are an affront to the American legal system. This indictment and trial is nothing but an attempt to wage Lawfare against former and now President-elect Trump, as I have discussed in my Chirp on "09/19/23 Lawfare". They were wholly done for the purpose of discrediting Trump in an attempt to influence the Presidential election and are now continuing in order to tarnish Trump in his future presidency.

Such tactics are a form of smear politics, and they have no place in the judicial system. They tarnish and discredit the judicial system, and they sow distrust in the judicial system. Until this injustice is corrected, the American people should be wary of not only New York's judicial system but also all judicial systems in which lawfare has been instituted.

It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end this charade for the good of the country and to reestablish the integrity of all judicial systems in America. This should be done under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court should declare that the indictment, trial, and conviction of Donald Trump are null and void with prejudice (cannot be reinstituted). They should also declare that Judge Merchan be removed from his judgeship and his law license be revoked as a warning to all judges in America that such actions are not permissible in the judicial system. Until this happens, the integrity of all judicial systems in America will be in doubt.

Update: On Thursday night, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing to take place on Friday, but that he could still challenge his conviction “in the ordinary course on appeal”. While this opinion may be legally proper, it is harmful to the presidency, and it is not in the best interests of the American people. A future Chirp of mine shall examine this action of the Supreme Court and its impacts.

01/09/25 Oh, Canada

There has been much talk about Canada becoming the 51st state in the Union ever since President-elect Trump chided Prime Minister Trudeau about Canadian policies that are harmful to America. While the Canadian policies need to be reformed to make them more equitable and fair, as well as to assure the safety of America, the issue of statehood for Canada is continuous (and maybe facetious and not serious), yet it may not be a bad idea but fraught with difficulties to achieve. My new article, “Oh, Canada”, is an examination of the issues and concerns regarding the admittance of Canada into the United States.

01/08/25 Take Care that the Laws be Faithfully Executed

The U.S. Constitution twice imposes a duty of faithful execution on the President, who must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” as stated in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, and in Article II, Section I of the Constitution to take an oath before they enter on the Execution of his Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the President is taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, then no Federal, State, or local officers or officials may take any action that obstructs their Constitutional duties and responsibilities. Thus, any Federal, State, or Local officers or officials who obstruct the President’s enforcement of Immigration and other laws are unconstitutional acts. In addition, the efforts of Federal, State, or Local officers and bureaucratic officials to “Trump Proof” their governance could possibly be considered unconstitutional if done prior to the inauguration if such acts impede the future President’s efforts to faithfully execute the laws after they enter office.

In either case, before or after his inauguration, they are un-American and undemocratic acts, as they obstruct the peaceful transition of power and supersede the will of the people as expressed in their votes. Such people who engage in these activities should be removed from office and barred from any future position of trust or responsibility in any branch or level of government in America. To not do so is to harm the body politic, as it places such persons in a position of unrestrained authority above the people’s will as they hinder the faithful execution of the President's duties and responsibilities.

01/07/25 Lame Duck Sessions

The actions of President Biden and his Administration since the election of President-elect Trump have been appalling and counterproductive to the interests and will of the American electorate. His Executive Orders, his release of Gitmo detainees, his pardons and commutations, his allocating monies, his “Trump-proofing” the government, and even his Presidential Medals of Freedom have been outrageous and offensive to the American people.

Thus, we need to have a serious discussion about limiting what any President can do in the ultra-lame-duck three months after an election timeframe. If our political leaders were angels, we wouldn’t need to worry about it. But the Democrat Party Leaders have shown that they are no angles and, indeed, have shown themselves to be devils when handing over power to the Republicans.

Consequently, President-elect Trump must not only plan a transition but also plan how to undo the actions of President Biden in his lame-duck session. This is not how our Founding Fathers envisioned a peaceful transition of power when they created the Constitution, and the modern Democrat Party has once again shown that they have little fidelity to our American Ideals and Ideas.

01/06/25 Regaining Trust

The Biden Administration has been a reign of pervasive lying and liars. Starting with his own denials of corruption in his and his family members' pay-to-play schemes, to his physical and mental health incapacities to serve, and now ending with his despicable pardons, he and the people who served under him have lied profusely. Whether it be before Congress in testimony by Administration officials, from his Press Secretaries' briefings at the White House and to all other Departments' Press Secretaries, to all of their public statements and journalist interviews, it has been a cesspool of lies. All these lies have been made without any accountability when they are uncovered. The situation has become so bad that nobody but the most partisan of his supporters believes anything that they say. This has resulted in a complete lack of trust in government officials and the American public.

Once this trust is lost, it is extremely hard to regain. For us to remain a cohesive society, we must regain this trust. While President-elect Trump has been known to exaggerate, he has not outright lied, and he speaks his mind and tells you what he believes to be the truth. You may not like what he says, but you know he means what he says and that he will not outright lie to the American public. It is hoped that he will instruct his officers to be truthful in all their dealings with the Courts and Congress.

When Trump becomes the next President, it is time for accountability to be implemented. The negative consequences of these lies are immeasurable and were very harmful to America and the American people. The breadth and depth of their lies are too enormous to ignore in the name of comity or bipartisanship. Those who testified falsely before a Court or Congress need to be prosecuted by a Special Counsel appointed by the new Attorney General for their criminal actions of perjury. Those who lied without perjury need to be publicly excoriated and condemned for bearing false witness to the American people. This is not revenge but retribution in an attempt to restore trust by making those who lied to the American people accountable for their words and deeds.

Until such accountability occurs, it may not be possible for the American people to trust the government. Such accountability will also deter future government officials from perjuring themselves and hopefully lead to a more honest government that the American people can trust.

01/05/25 How to Make America Great Again

Stephen Moore, an American conservative writer and television commentator on economic issues, has written an article, “10 New Ideas to Make America's Economy Great Again in 2025”. In this article, he outlines the steps required to make America healthy, prosperous, and great again in 2025:

Slash Job-Killing Regulations
Make the Trump Tax Cuts Permanent
Replace Welfare With Work
Use America's Abundant Natural Resources
Cut Medical Costs by Demanding Health Care Price Transparency
Allow School Choice for All Families
Implement a Pro-America Immigration Policy
Revive America's Great Cities
Pull the U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Change Treaty and Other Anti-America Agreements
Finally, Drain the Swamp

He concludes his article by stating:

“These are admittedly bold aspirations for an economic transformation toward freedom and free enterprise. But the one person who can get it done is Trump.”

Let us hope that President Trump takes his advice and succeeds in implementing these suggestions. If so, we will indeed become healthy, prosperous, and great again in 2025.

Note— For more of Moore’s thoughts, please visit his webpage on Townhall.

01/04/25 The Failure of the 25th Amendment

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution deals with Presidential succession in the event of the death or disability of the President. It has become apparent, due to President Biden’s failing mental and physical health since before his ascension to the Presidency, that he was unfit to be President. The recent report on Biden’s health in The Wall Street Journal reveals his sharp mental decline and his Administration’s efforts to cover up his decline since the beginning of his Presidency. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “He has Good Days and Bad Days”: The Journal Exposes the Concerted Effort to Conceal Biden’s Mental Decline:

“In an explosive exposé, the Wall Street Journal has revealed how the mental decline of President Joe Biden was pronounced from the start of his term. However, cabinet members and other Democrats lied to the public about his declining levels of acuity and engagement. That effort succeeded largely with the help of an alliance with the media, which showed little interest in whether the President was actually running the government.”

And:

“The belated interest in the story reflects not only the limits of modern journalism but the limits of the 25th Amendment. From the outset, there was concern over Biden’s acuity and stamina within the White House. It was hidden from the public. His cabinet members like DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and others quashed claims of any diminishment with first-hand testimonials about how sharp and impressive the President was in meetings. Vice President Kamala Harris echoed those claims.”

He concludes his article by stating, “The problem was never “age shaming,” it was a shameless effort to shield this president from tough questions and public exposure.”

Anyone in the Biden Administration, from the Vice-President on down, and anyone in Congress who knew of his mental condition and said nothing or helped with the cover-up is guilty of perpetrating a fraud upon the American public, and they were derelict in their duty to take appropriate action. The appropriate action would be to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and determine President Biden’s fitness to hold the office of the Presidency. Anything else is nothing but an attempt to hold onto the reins of power regardless of the consequences. Such people behaved despicably and were unworthy of having any power; thus, they needed to be denied any future access to power. Lady Macbeth (i.e., Jill Biden) also bears responsibility for allowing her husband to continue in office despite his obvious physical and mental decline.

This report is also an indictment on the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" for their failure to investigate and report on Biden’s mental decline. Those who knew and said nothing or assisted in the cover-up are unworthy of any trust in the future, and they should be ignored by the American public in any of their future statements or reporting. This entire spectacle also makes it hypocritical of those journalists who are now concerned and worried that Donald Trump's lawsuits against the press will cause them to "self-censor" as if they haven't been vigorously self-censoring for the last four years.

The reason for a free press in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is so that they can investigate and report on what is occurring in government so that the American people can make a judgment on government actions. Without a free press, the government can take many actions that are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and become an oppressive government. For journalists to not report the facts and truths makes them propagandists for the administration and, indeed, makes them a Fifth column for those that they support.

Consequently, the 25th Amendment must be replaced to avoid this situation in the future. The ability to remove a President who is no longer physically or mentally fit to hold office must be taken out of the hands of persons who benefit from the President remaining in power and placed in the hands of those who will act in a virtuous and bipartisan manner for the good of the country. In today’s hyper-partisan environment, this may be difficult to achieve and may not even be possible, but the American people deserve better and to not be led by a President who is physically or mentally incapable of holding the office of the Presidency.

01/03/25 The Worst Presidency

In Rob Natelson’s article, “The Biden Presidency: The Worst in History?”, he makes the case that using Constitutional duties and responsibilities criteria as a guide for evaluating a President, Biden eventually will be remembered as one of America’s worst Presidents. As his article states, the Constitution’s Criteria are:

“The Constitution charges the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” In other passages, some less overt, it charges him with administering the executive branch, recommending policies to Congress, vetoing bad bills, appointing good federal officers, and conducting foreign policy.”

In the section of his article on “How Does Biden Rank?”, he examines the following record of the Biden Administration using Constitutional criteria and commonsensible standards:

Foreign policy
Military policy
Law enforcement
Scandal
Moral Authority/Demagogy/Polarization
Equal justice for all vs. abuse of power
Intelligence
Vision

In his conclusion, he states:

“It is sobering that we have lived through one of the worst administrations in U.S. history and that, despite this record, Biden’s chosen successor lost the popular vote by less than two percentage points.

Yet it is a tribute to our Constitution that America survived even this administration, and it is reassuring that the electorate finally decided to end it.”

This article is not only an indictment of President Biden and his Administration but of all the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who supported and excused his and his administration's conduct. It is also time to end these supporters as holders of political power in America. To do otherwise is to run the risk of future Presidents and Administrations' failure to uphold their Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

01/02/25 Truths and Lies

This month’s Book It selections are about some of the biggest truths and lies that evade and pervade America and Americans. Until the truths are accepted and the lies rejected, it is not possible to have a rational and reasonable discussion on the issues that they invoke; confusion will prevail, and solutions will fail. These Truths and Lies books are:

Vivek Ramaswamy, an American entrepreneur and billionaire, Presidential candidate, and now, along with Elon Musk, the co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E. or DOGE), has written a book about basic truths and the true meaning of America First. Truths: The Future of America First by Vivek Ramaswamy explores ten truths that drive America First. These truths, and their impact on America First, are:

God is Real
The Climate Change Agenda is a Hoax
“An Open Border is Not a Border”
There Are Two Genders
There Are Three Branches of U.S. Government, not Four
The Nuclear Family Is the Greatest form of Governance Known to Mankind
Reverse Racism Is Racism
Nationalism Isn’t a Bad Word
Facts Are Not Conspiracies
The U.S. Constitution Is the Strongest Guarantor of Freedom in History

Alan Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. Dershowitz is a regular media contributor, political commentator, and legal analyst. He is a person that I highly respect and someone who I regularly read and then think about his articles and books, and I will sometimes modify my opinion based upon his thoughts. While Alan is a Liberal Democrat, with whom I often disagree with his governmental and social policies, I am in solid agreement with his views on Anti-Semitism in America and the world.

He has written a small book, The Ten Big Anti-Israel Lies: And How to Refute Them with Truth, in which the title is self-explanatory to the contents. These lies, and their impacts, are:

The Accusation: “Israel Is a Colonial, Imperialist State”
The Accusation: “Israel Denied Statehood to the Palestinian People”
The Accusation: “Israel Caused the Refugee Problem of the Palestinians”
The Accusation: “Israel Is an Apartheid State”
The Accusation: “Israel Is Guilty of Genocide and War Crimes”
The Accusation: “Israel Is Engaging in Forced Starvation”
The Accusation: “Israel Engages in Illegal Occupation of Palestinian Territory”
The Accusation: “Israel’s Illegal Settlements in the West Bank Are a Barrier to Peace”
The Accusation: “Israel Is Preventing a Two-State Solution”
Claim: “Iran Is Not a Barrier to Peace”

Many of these truths and lies I have written about in my Chirps and Articles. These books are a succinct summary of these truths and lies and the impacts on America by the deniers of these truths and the supporters of the lies (i.e., most Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders). Those who deny these truths and support the lies are adrift in a cloud of uncertainty that obscures their moral and ethical values and which leads them and us down a path of ruin for our society. Such a ruination of our society will not only have a devastating impact on America and Americans but also on the future progress of humanity in the attainment of an enlightened future for all people.

01/01/25 Always Remember

As we enter into the new year, rather than resolutions, I would suggest that you always keep in mind the following:

12/31/24 Societal Unhappiness

In my previous Chirp on “12/30/24 Personal Unhappiness”, I examine how personal unhappiness seems to abound in modern America. What also seems to abound in modern America is a sense of unhappiness in our society. This unhappiness is often the result of high expectations for a society dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Our failure to achieve the optimal of these noble goals leads many to unhappiness with our society. What many people fail to recognize is where we started and where we are in achieving these noble goals, as they utilize Presentism to adjudge American history, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism”. There is also a failure to understand the meaning of or confusion about these noble goals. Much of this is due to the failures of Public Education and a belief in The Biggest Falsehoods in America, as well as a misunderstanding of our American Ideals and Ideas.

This unhappiness is most predominant amongst Progressives/Leftists, as they have an almost utopian vision of what America should be. But they have forgotten, or did not know, the words of the great French philosopher, author, and journalist Albert Camus, “Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality.” They also have no conception of the Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems in America, and they will not acknowledge the failures of Progressivism as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

Progressives and Leftists seem to be determined to spread this unhappiness in their desire to fundamentally transform America. In this, you should not allow them to make you unhappy about America. Despite the issues and concerns about the problems in modern American society, we can take comfort in the fact that, in America, we have always tried to improve our society. It is in this effort to improve our society that we should be happy about, and we should continually strive to improve America to achieve our noble goals.

12/30/24 Personal Unhappiness

Happiness, the state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy, is the emotions experienced when a person is in a state of well-being, a goal that every person desires. Indeed, it is a fundamental Natural Right as expressed in the Declaration of Independence as one of:

As such, happiness is part of our nature, and the pursuit of happiness is inherent to our nature. However, the consequence of violating our nature—physical, moral, intellectual— and its moral and ethical limits is unhappiness, whose myriad symptoms include malaise, guilt, shame, despair, arrogance, cynicism, self-pity, victimization, and delusion.

Yet, in modern America, unhappiness seems to abound. Unhappiness has a range of meanings, including misery, destitution, grief, distress, squalor, sorrow, and misfortune. All these reveal different dimensions or shades of unhappiness. The question then is, why is there so much unhappiness in America? The answer may lie within our personal goals to achieve a state of happiness—in both the spiritual and material goals we set for ourselves to obtain happiness. Not enough, or too many, spiritual or material achievements in our life can lead to unhappiness, and a lack of focus on long-term satisfaction for short-term gratifications can lead to unhappiness.

Consequently, our expectations for our lives also play a role in our unhappiness. Too high expectations and too low achievements in our lives will lead to unhappiness. But our expectations of ourselves often exceed our talents, abilities, skills, knowledge, and intelligence, as most people have a higher opinion of themselves than the reality of themselves. In many cases, the opportunities for achievement in life can be limited by the external circumstances surrounding our lives. Having more realistic goals for our lives and achieving many of these goals will lead to more satisfaction and happiness in our lives. However, it is possible to improve our talents, abilities, skills, knowledge, and intelligence through hard work and education (both formal and autodidact), which will increase our chances of obtaining satisfaction and happiness in our lives.

12/29/24 Happiness is Owning a Dog and/or Cat

In reading a book about Albert Camus, the author, Robert Emmet Meagher, recounts a story of meeting James Watson, one of the team that discovered the double helix structure of DNA, in which Watson remarked that almost everything anybody needs to know about life can be learned from dogs: courage, companionship, cleverness, loyalty, honesty, and love. He spoke with such enthusiasm and affection for man’s best friend that Meagher wondered if, at this point in his life, shortly before a death that he knew was coming, he might have preferred canine to human companionship. Dogs are everything that Watson said of them, and Camus might have had similar regard for his dog Kirk. Like the character Meursault in one of Camus’s books, dogs make the most of every moment. The moment is what they have, where they live. Dogs would be confused if offered a promotion, asked about marriage, or expected to behave at a funeral. They understand loyalty but not morality. Once they become your pal, your enemies are theirs. It’s not a matter of racism or misogyny.

Having owned four dogs (and two cats) in my adult life, I can attest to the above. I can also attest that dogs and cats bring happiness into your life and soothe you in times of unhappiness. Therefore, own a dog or cat if you are either happy or unhappy, as they will increase your happiness in all circumstances in your life and teach you something about life.

12/28/24 Thoughts on My Life Worth Living

The opening lyrics of the Simon & Garfunkel song "A Hazy Shade Of Winter" have haunted and been appropriate to my life:

“Time, time, time, see what's become of me. While I looked around for my possibilities, I was so hard to please.”

As I am now firmly ensconced in my hazy shade of winter senior years, I have the luxury of reminiscing on my life and taking stock of it. Despite life’s ups and downs, I can say I have had a life worth living. I have a marriage and daughter, a successful career, a few good friends, and many associations that have been fulfilling. I have, through my skill and abilities as well as hard work, lived an American middle-class suburban life in a few single-family houses. I have traveled by way of personal vacations or business trips throughout America, as well as southern England and northern Germany.

Most of my time has been spent in the pursuit of my professional career goals, followed by my family life. Throughout my life, I have attempted to increase my Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom, as I have written in my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". As to the wisdom I have gained, I have attempted to impart this wisdom and live my life based on this wisdom, as I have written in my article on Pearls of Wisdom.

Unfortunately, as the time left in life is shortening, I have had limitations on my time to pursue my current goals of increasing my knowledge and wisdom. Limitations on my time that have increased through illness and osteoarthritis in my knees. Nevertheless, I will continue to pursue my current goal of increasing my knowledge and wisdom until my mental acuity falters. However, there is insufficient time left in my life to achieve all my current goals.

When it comes time to meet my maker, I can stand tall and claim to have lived a moral and ethical life, and a life of virtue and character as I have Chirped on "11/22/23 Virtue and Character". As such, I shall leave my life in peace, knowing that while I have had failures, I have had little regrets in the life that I have lived. What regrets that I have had are between me, my maker, and my wife, but I can also claim that I have had a life worth living.

12/27/24 Ode to the Person that Fades from Memory, and then Into Obscurity and Oblivion

The only certainty in life is that it will come to an end, and all that remains of the deceased are memories of them by their family and friends who have survived them. Memories within the survivors of the deceased person will eventually fade and then sink into obscurity as the survivors age and pass away. Memories of the deceased by the survivors of their grandparents, parents, in-laws, siblings, children, grandchildren, aunts and uncles, as well as cousins, and their friends and even co-workers who have passed away are to be treasured and not discarded.

Only a great person can expect to escape the ravages of history and be remembered for centuries or millennia. Such great people are few and far between, and the least that should be said of them is they were great and worthy of remembrance. We erect statues, monuments, tombs, and shrines to these great people and record their words and deeds for posterity so that their memory does not fade and sink into oblivion. But it should be remembered that the great ones can be either good or evil, or both, and they should be remembered as such with all their human imperfections.

But what of the memories of those that are not great? The memories of the not-great deceased should be treasured by those family and friends who knew and survived them, but eventually, the survivors will also pass away, and their memories of the deceased will sink into oblivion with their death. Therefore, we must all accept that the memories of us after we pass away will fade and sink into oblivion. This is not to be regretted but accepted as the way of life.

For those who have been harmed by the deceased’s words and deeds, I would suggest that you put aside any bitterness or anger that you have toward the deceased. Nothing can come of your bitterness or anger except to make your own life more unpleasant. Remember the deceased one’s folly in harming you, and use their bad example to make good decisions in your own words and deeds toward others. This will make you a better person, and the memories of you after you pass away will be enhanced.

It is rather for us, the living, to live our lives so that the memories of us after we pass away will enrich the lives of those who survive us. This will also provide peace and tranquility to those who mourn us after our death. Therefore, we should live life to its fullest and create good memories of ourselves for those who survived us. This is the greatest legacy that we can bequeath to those who survive us.

12/26/24 Sikhism

I have thoroughly enjoyed the book “12 Major World Religions” by Jason Boyett, and it has proved to be an excellent introduction to the major religions of the world. I was especially impressed by his chapter on Sikhism. In his chapter, he points out that:

“The Sikh offers many positive teachings to the world: a deep sense of community, a focus on selfless service, and an individual code of conduct based on simplicity, honesty, and humility. Moreover, Sikhs are committed to social justice and defense of the of the innocent. Sikhism is one of the world’s most inclusive and egalitarian religions, with very little discrimination based on gender, class, or race. People of any faith are welcome in the Sikh gurdwara, and Sikhs do not seek to convert others—anyone who worships one god is respected as a believer of the same spiritual journey as a Sikh. With few rituals and no priests, it is a religion led by the community.”

Mr. Boyett also points out that two of the tenets of the Sikh religion are The Five Thieves and The Five Virtues.

The Five Thieves:

“Sikhs believe that the major weakness of the human personality mut be subdued or erased to live in full devotion to God. These are kaam (lust or addiction), hrodh (rage), lobh (greed or materialism), moh (worldly attachment), and ahnkar (ego or conceitedness). These are sometimes often called the Five Evils of the Five Vices.”

The Five Virtues:

“To reach mukti, or salvation, Sikhs must develop certain qualities to guide them closer to the divine. These are sat (speaking the truth and acting justly), santokh (contentment or acceptance of life’s circumstances), daya (compassion or mercy), nimtata (humility), and pyare (love of God and others). The devout Sikh must always be pursuing and practicing these qualities.”

While I am not a believer in Sikhism, I have much respect for their religion. In the Five Thieves and the Five Virtues, I find a basis for living a moral and ethical life, and we would all do well in avoiding the five thieves and practicing these five virtues. As such, they are an excellent supplement to the Ten Commandments of Judeo-Christian religions for living a godly and moral life.

The Sikhs also have an interesting symbol, the Khanda, for their religion:

As Mr. Boyle points out:

“The symbol of Sikhism is the Khanda, an artistic representation of three swords and a circular throwing weapon known as a chakkar. The middle, vertical sword is double-edged and represents the power of God. Its two edges symbolize divine justice (the punishment of evil) and freedom (which should be guided by virtue).

The two outer weapons, which cross each other at the bottom, are kirpans, the ceremonial daggers carried by all Sikhs. They represent the concept of Miri Piri, two balanced forms of authority—temporal/political (miri) and spiritual (piri)—as taught by Guru Har Gobind, the sixth guru who first armed the Sikhs to protect against persecution.

The circular ckakkar behind and between the swords signifies eternity, the timelessness of divinity, and the necessary balance between miri and piri. This combination of weapons is viewed by Sikhs as a visual depiction of their duty to serve one another (seva) and protect the defenseless.”

It should be noted that the Sikhs experienced two episodes of genocide in their history and survived both attempts. These genocides were instituted in 1746 and 1762 by the Afghani Durrani Muslim empire forces, which resulted in the Sikhs arming themselves (for the first time in their history) to protect themselves from persecution. The Sikhs are a non-violent religion except in defense of themselves and for the defense of the innocent.

Thus, Sikhism has much to teach us about proper personal behavior, humankind, and its relationship to God. It would do all of us well to listen and ponder what their religion teaches.

12/24/24 Americans Not of Judeo-Christian Birth

During this holiday season, in which Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and the Jewish people celebrate Hanukkah, we should also remember and respect the other Americans of non-Judeo-Christian faith. There are many Americans of non-Judeo-Christian faith who have led happy, successful, and productive lives in America, unfettered by society or law in the practice of their non-Judeo-Christian faith. This is one of the great successes of America—Religious Freedom as enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is one of the many reasons to be proud of America.

We, as Americans, have also elected and appointed many persons of non-Judeo-Christian faith in our government. Most recently, Tulsi Gabbard’s Hindu faith is a core part of her story. She embraced the Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition, a branch of Hinduism devoted to Lord Krishna, as part of her family’s spiritual path. Vivek Ramaswamy's faith is of the Vedanta tradition of the Hindu religion, and both Nikki Haley (raised Sikh and converted to Methodist Christian) and former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (raised in the Vedas scriptures of Hinduism but converted to Catholicism) are but some other American politicians that are not of Judeo-Christian birth.

Consequently, this holiday season is not only a celebration of Christmas and Hanukkah but a reminder of our religious freedoms for all religions and religious persons in America. Thus, I would say Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all Christians and Jewish people around the world.

12/23/24 Unethical Actions of the House Ethics Committee

As I have written in my Article, "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings", I lamented how many non-judicial actions by the government violate the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of individual Americans.

In the case of former congressperson Matt Gaetz, we have seen such non-judicial violations and watched it become a political witch/warlock hunt of an unliked colleague by the House Ethics Committee. The release of their findings reveals the extent of their violations of his rights and their attempts to smear his name with unsubstantiated allegations. As he responded to this House Ethics Committee release:

“The Biden/Garland DOJ spent years reviewing allegations that I committed various crimes. I was charged with nothing: FULLY EXONERATED. Not even a campaign finance violation. And the people investigating me hated me. Then, the very “witnesses” DOJ deemed not-credible were assembled by House Ethics to repeat their claims absent any cross-examination or challenge from me or my attorneys. I’ve had no chance to ever confront any accusers. I’ve never been charged. I’ve never been sued. Instead, House Ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body. In my single days, I often sent funds to women I dated - even some I never dated but who asked. I dated several of these women for years. I NEVER had sexual contact with someone under 18. Any claim that I have would be destroyed in court - which is why no such claim was ever made in court. My 30’s were an era of working very hard - and playing hard too. It’s embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now. But at least I didn’t vote for CR’s that fuck over the country!”

The release of the House Ethics Committee report and the leaks of the report prior to the release expose the unethical conduct of the committee. Such political posturing by the committee is an affront to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated. If it is tolerated, we open the doors to more political witch/warlock hunts in the future. Such a future for America is a dark and gloomy place for Americans to reside.

12/22/24 The Lottery Courts

It has been said that in America, anybody can sue anyone for any reason. Unfortunately, this is very true. As a result, too many Americans view the court system as a lottery, where you file a lawsuit for frivolous reasons to recover superfluous damages and hope for a win from a sympathetic jury or an out-of-court settlement. This is especially true against the wealthy or large companies, as they are viewed by many Americans as moneybags to be plundered at will. In modern America, we have seen such lawsuits against many people and organizations for purposes other than righting a wrong.

Two new types of lawsuits have been gaining prominence in the last decade—one to defame a person or organization based on dubious allegations, the other to profit on tragic circumstances in which the plaintiff has only a modest connection. Both are not for the purpose of righting a wrong but for the purposes of political posturing or avarice. These frivolous lawsuits are also a form of legal harassment by those who institute such lawsuits and a financial drain and time consumer on the defendants in defending themselves against such lawsuits.

However, in these frivolous lawsuits against people and organizations, we harm society by loosening the ties that bind us. We pit one party against another and tie up the judicial system with inconsequential matters. We also forget that people and organizations are not perfect, that accidents happen, and not everything can be blamed on someone's negligence. There are no guarantees in life, and sometimes bad things happen to good people, which is an insufficient reason to institute a lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for damages, when something bad happens to you, you should first determine if it was accidental or because of someone’s negligence, then remember that if it was accidental, “To err is human and to forgive is divine.” Of course, the difficult question to answer is if it was an accident or negligence that was responsible for the harm. Often, a lawsuit is necessary to determine the cause of the harm, in which case a lawsuit is justifiable.

As for lawsuits that are for the purpose of political posturing, these are insidious for the purpose of destroying a person’s reputation. As the Bard of Avon has said:

In such lawsuits of political posturing, there must be recourse for those who have been sued without merit. Counter-lawsuits have proven to be ineffective, costly, time-consuming, and unsatisfactory for the reputational loss of the defendant. Alas, in today’s America, the plaintiffs of such lawsuits are lauded by their supporters for partisan reasons despite the merits of their lawsuits. This must change, and at a minimum, there must be public reprobation for those who instituted such lawsuits instead of public acclaim from partisan supporters of the lawsuit.

Until we resolve this issue, both constitutionally and legally, we shall continue to be at each other’s throats, to the detriment of America and all Americans who become involved in these types of lawsuits.

12/21/24 Supreme Court Defiance

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

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

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

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

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

12/20/24 A Continuing Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

12/18/24 The Moral Confusion of Western Civilization

I recently ran across a quote that succinctly and perfectly encapsulates the moral confusion of Western Civilization:

“One day, the barbarians will be at the gate, and we’ll be debating what gender pronouns to call them.” - Douglas Murray

Such moral confusion allows for the collapse of Western Civilization and the rise of barbaric forces in the world. Make no mistake: Western Civilization, despite its faults, has been the greatest force for good against evil, the well-being of its people, and the prosperous advancement of humanity. Thus, it is incumbent upon those who understand this truth to defend Western Civilization against the barbaric forces that are allied against Western Civilization, both from within and outside Western Civilization.

12/17/24 Psychological Disorder of Compliance to Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/15/24 A Wall of Separation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As well as:

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

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

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

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

12/14/24 The Core Moral Question of Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/13/24 Not Reparations but Extortions

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

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

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

12/12/24 Double Standards and High Expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/11/24 Democrat’s Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/10/24 Pronounced In Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/09/24 Trump Proofing

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

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

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

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

12/08/24 A Veneer to the Smear

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

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

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

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

12/07/24 No Virtue in Preemptive Pardons

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

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

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

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

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

We should all remember the words of another Founding Father:

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

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

12/06/24 The Transitive Property of Greatness

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/05/24 A Special Kind of Stupid

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

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

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

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

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

12/04/24 The Success of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/03/24 Rules To Live By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/01/24 A Christmas Carol

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/30/24 The Golden Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/28/24 A Thanksgiving for America and Americans

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

11/27/24 Questions and Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/26/24 Deprivation of Rights by Government Officials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/24/24 Senate Confirmations

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

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

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

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

11/23/24 Meritocracy in Government Employment

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/22/24 The Smears

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

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

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

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

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

11/21/24 The Spell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/19/24 The Shrinking of Our Psyche

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/18/24 Institutional Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/17/24 The Manipulations of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/16/24 Arrogance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/15/24 Ash Heap

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

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

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

06/11/25

11/13/24 Dismantling the Deep State

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

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

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

11/12/24 Self-Awareness

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

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

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

11/11/24 A Red Wave

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

Shift of Voters since 2020

Shift of Voters by Demographic since 2020

Shift of Voters by States since 2020

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

11/10/24 We Did It

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

We, the “basket of deplorables.”

We, the “irredeemable rubes.”

We, the farmers who “lack gray matter.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re tired of their arrogance.

We’re tired of their insults.

We’re tired of their condescension.

We’re tired of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

11/08/24 Political Polling and Mainstream Media Bias

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

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

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

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

11/07/24 Political Parties Change

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

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

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

11/06/24 Not Rocket Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/04/24 American Patriotism

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

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

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

11/03/24 Uselessness and a Bad Example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/01/24 Leave the Democrat Party Behind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/29/24 A Campaign of Vileness

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

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

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

10/28/24 Reality and Unreality Beliefs

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

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

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

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

10/27/24 Women Voters in America

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

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

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

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

10/26/24 Just and Unjust Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/25/24 Inherent Good and Instrumental Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/24/24 Inanity and Foolishness of Celebrity Endorsements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So screw you, Taylor Swift.”

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

10/23/24 Religion In Politics

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

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

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

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

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

10/22/24 Bipolar Scenarios

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

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

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

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

10/21/24 Ignorance and Stupidity

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

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

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

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

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

10/20/24 Truths and Feelings

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

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

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

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

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

10/19/24 Foresight

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

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

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

10/18/24 Advocacy, Not Journalism

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

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

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

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

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

10/17/24 The Moral Failures of the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/15/24 Leave the Democrat Party Behind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/14/24 Accomplishments and Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/12/24 A Stupid Incompetent Person

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

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

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

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

10/12/24 The Reconstruction of Kamala Harris

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

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

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

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

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

10/11/24 Civil Discourse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/10/24 A Vacation From History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In three other paragraphs, he states:

“And yet history does not stop.

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

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

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

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

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

10/09/24 Tribalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/08/24 A Good Person

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

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

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

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

10/07/24 True Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/06/24 Non-Judgmentalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/05/24 Reasons to Reject Leftism and Progressivism

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

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

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

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

Mark Lewis concludes his article by stating:

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

A conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree.

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

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

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

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

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

10/03/24 Mainstream Media Debates

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

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

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

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

10/02/24 Tooters and Their Fools

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

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

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

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

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

10/01/24 War and Presidential Leadership

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

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

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

09/30/24 An Old Book

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

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

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

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

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

09/29/24 New Ideas and Old Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The implication is three-fold:

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

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

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

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

But why read old books in the first place?”

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

09/28/24 The Assaults on the Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/27/24 Facts About Fact-checkers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/26/24 Abortion and Religion

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

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

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

To which Tony Dungy @TonyDungy responded:

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

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

09/25/24 Vapid and Vacuous

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

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

Elon Musk - Kamala Harris PARODY Ad

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

Billy Madison - Everyone is now dumber

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

09/24/24 The Importance of an Independent Judiciary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/23/24 Selective Justice

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

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

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

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

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

09/22/24 Democrat Extreme Rhetoric

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/21/24 Kamala’s Repeated Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, what follows this on spending is often:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/17/24 Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/16/24 Successful Lies and Liars

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

There are three main types of liars per MedicineNet:

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

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

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

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

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

09/15/24 Print the Legend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ABC moderators proved they were predictably and shamelessly biased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/13/24 Less Government and More Free Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He concludes this article by stating:

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

To which I say, “Here, here”.

09/12/24 The Sounds of Silence

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/11/24 Socialism in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As well as:

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

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

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

09/10/24 Failed Policy Positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In two lines by the playwright:

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

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

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

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

09/08/24 Enlightened America

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

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

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

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

09/07/24 Stupid Is As Stupid Does

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/06/24 The Battle Hymn of the Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09/05/24 The Straw Man Fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

09/04/24 Journalistic Malpractice and Malfeasance

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

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

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

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

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

09/03/24 An Inveterate Liar

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

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

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

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

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

09/03/24 Strength Through Joy

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

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

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

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

09/02/24 Destroying the Village

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the conclusion?

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

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

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

09/01/24 Baring the Soul of Abraham Lincoln

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

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

In this book, Professor Guelzo points out that:

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

Professor Guelzo also points out that:

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

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

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

09/01/24 Values and Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/31/24 A Farce of a Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/29/24 Changing Our Minds

As one of our Founding Fathers has said:

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

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

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

08/28/24 Political Projectionism

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

Projection often proves a quite successful ploy.

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

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

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

08/27/24 America’s Greatest Need

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

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

And:

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

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

08/26/24 The American People Aspirational Platform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/25/24 Party Platform Comparisons

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

Democrat Party Platform points:

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

Republican Party Platform points:

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

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

The Democrat Party Platform:

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican Party Platform:

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/24/24 Ignorance is Bliss

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/23/24 Joseph Goebbels Would be Proud

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

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

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

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

“If you tell a lie, tell a big one.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08/22/24 Serious Repercussion On America

In my Chirp on "10/14/22 Balancing the Ticket", I discuss the importance of choosing a Vice-President, as it could possibly have serious repercussions on America. Since the time of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (passed by Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804), when the election of the President and Vice President was combined into one ticket, Vice Presidents have been chosen to balance the ticket for geographical or political purposes to win an election. This has not led to many repercussions for our Nation, mostly because the Vice President has inconsequential duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, and most Presidents have ignored their Vice Presidents. However, on several occasions, this has led to negative repercussions, and on two occasions, it has had positive repercussions. What I didn’t discuss was the repercussion of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential lopsided ticket, as this has rarely happened in American history. By lopsided, I mean that both candidates on the ticket are at the extremes of "The Political Spectrum".

This may arguably be said of the current Republican Trump-Vance ticket, but it is unarguably true of the Democrat Harris-Walz ticket. If you compare the Republican and Democrat Party platforms, as I shall do in a future Chirp, you will see a Republican platform that is right of center of the political spectrum, while the Democrat platform is far left of center of the political spectrum. The label of “extreme right” or “far right” is only appropriate if you have a base point of moderate Progressivism as the medium point, which is not a proper basepoint to adjudge the political spectrum. This is supported by the polls about the Republican Party platform, in which a large majority of Americans agree with most of the points on the Republican Party platform. In contrast, the Democrat Party platform is not supported by a large majority and, indeed, polls less than half of Americans in agreement with their platform. Thus, the Democrat Harris-Walz ticket can be said to be extreme or far left in both of their candidates.

Extremes of the top-level leadership of any organization do not bode well for the long-term health of the organization and often lead to negative consequences for the persons or society that the extreme organization influences. Extremes in a political party, if they should obtain power, pose a danger to all, as after they obtain power, they often try to stifle their opposition. A stifling that infringes on the "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" of all and is implemented first through despotism and then becomes tyranny.

08/21/24 Democrat Party Platform

The Democrat National Committee has offered a 2024 Presidential Election Platform that has nine points of what they wish to accomplish for the American people if Kamala Harris is elected President. These points are:

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

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details will be hotly debated and demonized by the Republican Party.

08/20/24 Bread and Circuses

With the opening of the Democrat Party Presidential Convention, it can be said that the Bread and Circuses have begun. Bread and Circuses is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement. It is attributed to the Ancient Roman Juvenal (Satires, Satire X), a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century AD, and is commonly used in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction, or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace, by offering a palliative: for example, food (bread) or entertainment (circuses). Juvenal originally used it to decry the "selfishness" of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase implies a population's erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.

Bread and Circuses have often been utilized by politicians as a means to obtain and retain political power and control. Just as often, Bread and Circuses have led to the destruction of a society as attention is diverted from the serious issues and concerns that plague a society. A plague that ultimately decimates a society and makes it vulnerable to outside forces that desire its destruction.

Today, in modern America, Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing Bread and Circuses to appease their special interest groups (i.e., Identity Politics) and against their political opponents. The continual expansion of Entitlements in modern America, along with the hyper-partisan and often outrageous political rhetoric, have been the staple Bread and Circuses of the Democrat Party in modern America. Student loan forgiveness and the show trials of President Trump are just the latest Bread and Circuses that the Democrat Party Leaders have offered to the American public. This Bread and Circuses is to the detriment of the American people and has contributed to the decline of America, which may possibly lead to the destruction of American society.

08/19/24 A “New” Solution to Inflation

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris has proposed a “new” solution to inflation: government-mandated price controls. Yet, this is not a “new” solution, as it has been tried throughout history, and every time it has been tried, it has failed and brought forth misery and suffering for the people who had to live under price controls.

Thomas Sowell has said: “Price controls must invariably produce black markets, where prices are not only higher than the legally permitted prices, but also higher than they would be in a free market.” In his 2011 book, ‘Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls, How Not to Fight Inflation’, the late Robert Lindsay Schuettinger of both St. Andrews University and Yale University offered that “Indeed, there is not a single episode where price controls have worked to stop inflation or cure shortages.”

A new public Artificial Intelligence (AI) capability, Grok, has been released by X, and according to xAI's website, Grok is an "AI modeled after the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy." The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is, of course, an old sci-fi novel (slash radio drama slash TV show slash movie), but the name "Grok" appears to be drawn from a different old sci-fi novel, Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. In that book, "grok" is a Martian word with a definition roughly along the lines of “to know something (or someone) on a truly intimate level.”

The most recent history of price controls is in Venezuela. A Grok user asked what price controls did to Venezuela, and here is how it answered:

After the implementation of price controls in Venezuela, primarily under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and continued by Nicolás Maduro, several economic and social consequences emerged:

- Inflation and Hyperinflation: Price controls were intended to make goods affordable for the population, but they led to one of the highest inflation rates in the world. This was partly because setting prices below market value encouraged hoarding, smuggling, and black market activities, where goods could be sold at higher prices. The government's response often involved further controls or nationalizations, which didn't address the root causes like currency devaluation and over-reliance on oil revenues.

- Shortages: The price controls made it unprofitable for businesses to import or produce goods at the controlled prices, leading to widespread shortages of basic goods. This was exacerbated by the government's policies on currency and import controls, which made it difficult for businesses to obtain foreign currency needed for imports.

- Economic Collapse: The combination of price controls, currency controls, and the drop in oil prices led to an economic collapse. Venezuela, once one of the richest countries in Latin America, saw its GDP shrink dramatically. The economic downturn was characterized by high unemployment, poverty, and a significant brain drain as professionals left the country.

- Black Market and Smuggling: With official prices set too low, goods were often smuggled into neighboring countries where they could fetch higher prices. This not only led to shortages within Venezuela but also created a parallel economy where the U.S. dollar became the de facto currency for many transactions.

- Social Unrest and Migration: The economic policies, including price controls, contributed to social unrest. The economic crisis led to one of the largest migrations in recent history, with millions of Venezuelans leaving the country due to economic hardship, seeking better living conditions elsewhere.

- Political Implications: The economic policies, including price controls, were part of a broader socialist agenda which, while initially popular due to social programs funded by oil revenues, eventually led to widespread dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction was a significant factor in the political polarization and the international recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the interim president by several countries, although Maduro retained control with military support.

The aftermath of price controls in Venezuela serves as a case study in how economic policies can backfire, leading to unintended consequences like hyperinflation, shortages, and a significant humanitarian crisis. The situation has been complicated by political factors, international sanctions, and the country's heavy reliance on oil, which when prices fell, left the government with fewer resources to manage or mitigate the economic fallout.

Price gouging is a pejorative term used to refer to the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some. The claims that Kamala Harris and other Democrat candidates that they will curb price gouging require price controls of one form or another. Nobody, or any group of people or government, has the intelligence or wisdom to decide what prices should be. They are especially unable to determine how people and the marketplace will react to price controls, especially the impacts of "The Law of Unintended Consequences" on price controls. Therefore, Kamala Harris’s price controls need to be discarded into the ash heap of history before they bring forth misery and suffering to the American people.

The biggest danger to America in price controls and the inflation it produces is, as the distinguished political commentator David S. Broder (writing then the Boston Globe on October 25, 1978), put into eloquent and compelling language of the dangers that price controls and the inflation it produces:

“What inflation has done fundamentally is to deepen the insecurities in this country, and thus warp the opportunities for positive leadership on other issues . . . inflation damages the conservative social values which are essential to the country’s future. Stability, savings and investment are all undermined by inflation. Severe inflation makes a mockery of most families’ financial plans. Most working people feel there is no way they can protect their budgets against this kind of assault on the dollar.

It erodes the sense of trust on which an economy and a society rest, and it makes people cynical about the chances of obtaining any social goal more ambitious than mere survival.

While it persists, there will hardly be room in our politics for any other major issue.”

Kamala Harris and other Democrat candidates' price control solutions also demonstrate her and the Democrat Party Leaders' lack of knowledge of basic economics. In this time of economic distress in America, we need leadership that understands economics to guide us through this economic distress. Wishful thinking will not solve the economic problems; it will only worsen these economic problems. Consequently, a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote to continue or worsen the economic distress in America.

08/18/24 Supreme Court ‘Reforms’ on Presidential Immunity

President Biden has recently proposed “reforms” to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) of a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the historic ruling from the court that gave presidents immunity for some actions they take while in office.

The recent majority decision of the Supreme Court on Presidential immunity has some very penetrating and thought-provoking quotes about Presidential powers and immunities:

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office."

"At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."

“The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is ‘a court of final review and not first view’”.

“Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct.”

“Most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.”

“It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party."

As Chief Justice John Roberts stated about the minority dissent to this ruling, “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized”, and he downplayed the dissenters’ doomsday rhetoric over the immunity ruling. He continues, “As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”

For those wishing to curb Presidential actions that they believe are outside the duties and responsibilities of Presidential authority, it should be remembered that the Constitution provides for “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” and “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Any attempts to impose additional limitations on presidential powers or to make a President liable to civil or criminal prosecutions by partisan prosecutors must examine the impacts on the Constitutional separation of powers not only within the Federal government but the separation of powers between the Federal, State, and local governments. Such changes will have impacts on the Executive Branch’s duties and responsibilities and on the ability of a President to make unencumbered decisions unfettered by concerns of future prosecution driven by partisan motivations rather than actual criminality. This also raises the possibility that we could enter an era of a banana republic in America, as I have Chirped on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. There must also be an awareness of The Law of Unintended Consequences when making these changes. If done improperly (and there may be no way to do this properly), it could result in a hobbled rather than restrained presidency.

Given the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, an amendment to the Constitution may be required to achieve this goal. Such an effort is fraught with danger and could be a fool’s errand as well as an example of ‘For Fools rush in where Angel’s fear to tread.’ Thank God that many in the leadership in Congress have said that this proposal is dead on arrival.

08/17/24 Supreme Court ‘Reforms’ on Term Limits and Ethics

President Biden has recently proposed “reforms” to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which is composed of term limits and an enforceable ethics code. While these reforms have a noble connotation in their titles it should always be remembered that the details are what provides the nobility, as I have examined in my Article on The Devil is in the Details.

The Supreme Court was established in the Constitution of the United States under Article III, and within Section 1 (of three sections) it is defined as:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

As a separate branch of government, its main purpose was to serve as a check and balance on the abuses of power of the Legislative and Executive branches of government and to ensure that the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All as enshrined in the Constitution were enforced.

The duties and responsibilities of the Supreme Court were further delineated in the 1803 Supreme Court decision on ‘Marbury v. Madison’. Marbury v. Madison was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

As for President Biden’s proposed term limits and an enforceable ethics code, it is readily apparent in Section 1 that justices and judges have a lifetime appointment, and they can only be removed from office for bad behavior. Bad behavior, however, has never been clearly defined; it has always been assumed that they have not engaged in any criminal acts. Ethics codes for justices and judges imposed by the other branches of government have always been resisted, as they can be utilized as a club against a justice or judge to intimidate them on their rulings. Such intimidation flies in the face of equality before the law as justices and judges would be more attuned to the fallout of their decisions rather than ensuring that the law was equally enforced.

Therefore, imposing term limits would require a Constitutional amendment to replace Section 1. To impose an enforceable ethics code would require that you comprehensively and definitely establish what is bad behavior, and it could possibly need another section of Article III to be Constitutional. Such an effort is fraught with danger to the balance of powers within the Constitution and could be a fool’s errand as well as an example of ‘For Fools rush in where Angel’s fear to tread.’

There is a legitimate case to be made for term limits on the judiciary, as Rob Natelson's article, “Biden’s Supreme Court Term Limits Proposal”, has pointed out. He has also pointed out that “For an octogenarian who has held federal office for more than 50 years to propose limiting others’ service seems absurd. And there is no statesmanship in Biden’s proposal.” Thus, President Biden’s proposal does not properly address the issues of term limits and is entirely motivated by political interests rather than the interests of the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court. Thank God that many in the leadership in Congress have said that this proposal is dead on arrival.

08/16/24 Congressional Authority Over the Judiciary

Our Constitution has established three co-equal branches of government, each with its own duties and responsibilities, and with a balance of power between them in order to keep a check on government powers to preserve the Liberties and Freedom of all Americans. Recently, however, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have become very upset by some Supreme Court decisions with which they vehemently disagree. In their anger, they have been proposing “reforms” to the Supreme Court to bring them closer to compliance with what they believe. The question is if Congress and/or the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to “reform’ the Judiciary.

The answer is that Congress does have limited authority to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This authority was recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Ex parte McCardle (1869). Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that it did have the authority “to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court.” In this ruling, they stated that in Article III of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows:

'§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'

'§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,' &c.

And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that,

'The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.'

However, Chase also emphasized that the law did “not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised” so that prior decisions would remain fully enforceable.

Moreover, shortly after McCardle, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Klein (1871) that Congress may not use its authority of court jurisdiction to lay out a “rule of decision” for the Supreme Court or effectively dictate results in court cases.

As Jonathan Turley has pointed out in his article “Jurisdiction Stripping or Court Killing? The “No Kings Act” is a Decapitation of the Constitution”:

“Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has introduced the “No Kings Act” with great fanfare and the support of most of his Democratic colleagues. Liberal groups have heralded the measure to legislatively reverse the ruling in Trump v. United States. It is obviously popular with the press and pundits. It is also entirely unconstitutional in my view. The “No Kings Act” is not just a cynical abdication of responsibility by Democrats, but would constitute the virtual decapitation of the Constitution.”

As such, these “reforms” should be treated with the scorn that they deserve, and their sponsors should be shamed for having proposed them.

At the end of his article, Professor Turley listed the senators who were willing to adopt this Constitution-destroying measure. We should all remember them as antithetical to the Constitution and be wary of any of their statements regarding the Constitution:

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Peter Welch (D-VT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angus King (I-ME), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

08/15/24 Judicial Activism and Legal Realists

Judicial Activism has abounded in America since the middle of the 20th century, founded on the theory of Legal Realism. This has resulted in many court decisions based on Liberal and Progressive interpretations of the Laws and the Constitution. Now that the courts are starting to render more conservative decisions, we have seen a rise in disdain of the courts by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. We have also seen them trying to “reform” the courts (especially the Supreme Court) to stem and even reverse this tide.

These attempts are dangerous to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", as they would make the Judicial Branch subservient to the Legislative Branch and upset the balance of powers between the branches, which our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in the construction of the Constitution.

“Legal realists” believe that judges make law—not just apply or find it, as traditionally understood. As such, the “realists” believe judges should legislate consciously and deliberately to promote “social policy” goals. In a series of articles over the last few years, Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson has written about Judicial Activism and Legal Realists:

In my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", I examine some of these issues. I also quote one of our Founding Fathers about Liberty and Judges:

"Liberty can have nothing to fear from judges who apply the law, but liberty has everything to fear if judges try to legislate." - Alexander Hamilton

Much of the current disdain, anger, and sometimes fury against the Supreme Court by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists is because the Supreme Court is applying the law rather than legislating via Judicial Activism and Legal Realism, as they have been doing for more than the last half-century. In this application of the law, they have often ruled against the predilections of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Thus, this disdain, anger, and fury are being direct toward them for not supporting the social policies and political goals of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. However, this disdain, anger, and fury by members of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government are deleterious to the proper functioning of our Constitution and an assault on the Balance of Powers within our Constitution.

My next three Chips on Congressional Authority Over the Judiciary, Term Limits and Ethics, and Presidential Immunity will examine these Supreme Court “reforms” in more detail.

08/14/24 Judicial Independence

Judicial Independence is a foundational aspect of the Constitution. As Rob Natelson has commented upon the Founding Fathers' viewpoint on the judiciary, “Although the Founders did not think much of the British king or parliament, they deeply admired the English legal system. Over the previous two centuries, the English legal system had evolved from a mere tool of the king into a cluster of institutions with a reputation for independence tempered by incorruptible respect for the law.”

And, as Alexander Hamilton has said in The Federalist Papers No. 78—The Judiciary Department—about the importance of an independent judiciary:

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter: I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and executive. For I agree that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its Constitution, and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

Thus, Judicial Independence is very important in our "American Ideals and Ideas" and for our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Those who wish to “reform” the judiciary for any other reason than to assure their independence and integrity are posing a danger to our republic. A danger that should be opposed by all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans.

08/13/24 Media Rating Systems and Fact Checkers

The House Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), have been investigating media rating systems being used to target advertisers and revenue sources of certain websites, mostly websites of conservative or dissenting voices. These media rating systems are an effort to strangle the financial life out of sites by targeting their donors and advertisers to induce them to stop their donations or advertising on these websites. As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “The GARMs Race”, the media rating organizations NewsGuard and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) have been criticized as the most sophisticated components of a modern blacklisting system. Elon Musk’s X has even filed a bombshell antitrust lawsuit against a left-leaning advertising cartel and several member companies, alleging the group targeted the social media site with an illegal ad boycott.

These media rating systems are a newer development of the adjunct fact-checking organizations that have been around for many years, which also have mostly targeted conservative or dissenting voices as untrue. It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, we too often rely on fact-checkers to help determine the truth. However, fact-checking is subjective rather than objective and is susceptible to the cognitive biases of fact-checkers and the predilections of fact-checking organizations. This results in improper labeling of asserted “facts” as being true or false. Thus, determining the truths or falsehoods of facts is vulnerable to human interpretation of the facts, as I have Chirped on "10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts". The four biggest problems in the process of fact-checking are Narratives, Statistics, Science, and Economics, which I examine in my article “When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts”.

As Professor Turley has said in his ‘The GARMs Race’ article, “Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies.” and “The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss.”

The Natural Right to Free Speech goes beyond restricting the governmental control of speech. Free Speech in all areas of life is important to the health of a society, as it spurs the growth of a society in all aspects of a society. Free speech also spurs individual growth by expanding the horizons of an individual’s thoughts, as I have examined in my Article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". As history has taught us, the constrictions of Free Speech is an oppression that ultimately results in civil strife or civil war and the collapse of a society.

Any constriction of free speech will strangle a society and cause it to atrophy and eventually die. No person, no organization, and no government are intelligent nor wise enough to predetermine which Free Speech constrictions will or will not harm a society. Thus, no Free Speech constrictions should be allowed in society. To do otherwise is to doom a society.

08/12/24 Advocacy Journalism

As I have written in my Article "Modern Journalism":

“Most journalism students today go into journalism to "change the world". However, it is not the job or responsibility of a journalist to change the world. Their job is to uncover the facts, consult with experts on all sides to determine the veracity of the facts, and then report the facts to the public. If you wish to change the world you should become a politician, or become a commentator, or devote yourself to charitable efforts, or go into the Arts or Sciences, or - God Forbid - start a business that has a positive impact on society.”

This new form of journalism is known as Advocacy Journalism, which is a genre of journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Advocacy journalism has as much to do with true journalism as social justice has to do with justice; they are both but perversions of the meaning of the word by adding an adjective in front of them.

When you place an adjective in front of the word “journalism”, you no longer have true journalism - you have favoritism and propaganda. This is the corruption of true journalism for political or social purposes, and it leads to misleading, if not outright lies to the American public. A misleading and lying that is done to promote journalists' political and social predilections to elect Democrats and to support Progressives with whom they agree.

This advocacy journalism allowed them to accept the basement strategy of the 2020 and 2024 Democrat presidential campaigns, as I have written in my Chirp on 08/10/24 The New Basement Strategy and Tactics. This advocacy journalism allows for them to not challenge the previous words and deeds of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Tim Walz, which are not being reported upon or being rewritten to make them more palatable and electable to the American people. This is often done by journalists in their Self-Righteousness and a lack of Self-Awareness, as I have Chirped on “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness” and “08/09/24 Self-Awareness”. It is also indicative of their lack of ethics and virtue in their character.

As Matt Vespa has written in his column, “NBC News Pretty Much Confirms Tim Walz Lied About His Military Service”, in which he stated:

“It's the Democrat media complex at work, though they’ve become more shameless since the Obama era. After Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, there was a conscious effort to disregard the truth to protect Democrats and help them no matter what. It’s the only explanation for the flurry of ethical and overall journalistic malpractice that we’ve seen, from the Russian collusion hoax to Hunter Biden’s laptop; we do not hate the media enough for their overt corruption.”

In this Advocacy Journalism, they are bamboozling the American public as to their intentions, as well as hoodwinking the American public into electing Democrat candidates that suit their predilections.

08/11/24 Rules for Thee, but Not For Me

The Joe Biden presidential nominee replacement debacle has, once again, demonstrated that the Democrat Party operates on a ‘Rules for Thee, but Not For Me’ basis. Some states have laws regarding the duty and responsibility of the elected delegates to party conventions to vote on the first ballot for the person that they had committed to in the primary. There are also State laws regarding the replacement of a nominee in those States in which Joe Biden’s name has already been submitted to the State. There are also Federal Election Commission (FEC) laws, rules, and regulations regarding the disclosure of campaign finance information and the management of campaign funds, for which the FEC is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the law. Such provisions as to the limits and prohibitions on contributions, the proper expenditure of campaign funds, and ensure that the proper legal filings of campaigns to the FEC are followed. The Democrat Party itself has rules of conduct for its primaries and procedures for its convention process.

It appears that not much consideration was given to these issues and concerns in the replacement of Joe Biden as the Presidential nominee of the Democrat Party. Indeed, we are starting to see the legal issues and concerns of possible FEC violations in their actions. As such, the situation of replacing a duly elected person after a primary has never occurred before, and the legal issues and concerns have never been addressed by the FEC. It is this uncertainty and ambiguity that the Democrat Party is relying upon to do what they please. Given the snail pace of the FEC in enforcing their regulations, the Democrat Party is hoping to do as they please through the election cycle and not face any consequences for their actions until after the election.

This is but another example of the Democrat Party leaders operating as a politburo, as I have Chirped on “07/30/24 The Democratic Politburo Committee”. A politburo in which they, and they alone, decide what is to be done, and everyone else is to fall into line and support their decisions. In this, the Democrat Party has operated as if they could do as they please, regardless of the laws, regulations, or rules. This is also another example of the Democrat Party operating for their benefit alone to obtain and retain power and control, as I have Chirped on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

08/10/24 The New Basement Strategy and Tactics

In 2020, Joe Biden ran for president from his basement, with fears of the COVID-19 pandemic as the rationale for this decision. No rallies, no press conferences or give-and-take with the press, no unscripted interviews, and only scripted statements from his basement were the modus operandi of his campaign. A tightly crafted and controlled messaging was the order of the day, along with the image of Joe Biden being a conciliatory moderate Democrat. The ‘Unifier’ and the ‘Adults in Charge’ mantra, along with pejorative comments about President Trump and his MAGA supporters, were the yang to his yin campaign strategy. The "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate were all on board with this strategy due to their Progressive predilections and extreme dislike of President Trump. Such a strategy was designed to cover up the deficiencies of Joe Biden and disguise his policies, as well as to hoodwink the American electorate into believing the crafted image of Joe Biden rather than the reality of Joe Biden.

Today, this basement strategy has been adopted and adapted by the presidential campaign of Vice-President Harris, with the main adaptation being the basement constituting all of America. Since her ascendancy to the Democrat Party nominee for president, there have been few rallies of an unscripted nature, no free-form press conferences or give-and-take with the press, and no unscripted interviews, with only scripted statements and appearances as the modus operandi of her campaign. She is also balking at more than one debate in hopes of limiting her unscripted exposure to the American electorate. In this, the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Social Media, and Mainstream Information Conglomerates are on board with this strategy due to their Progressive predilections and extreme dislike of President Trump.

She and her Vice-Presidential pick Tim Walz’s previous words and deeds are being rewritten to make both of them more palatable to the American electorate. This is knowingly being done by her campaign, along with the assistance of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Social Media, and the Mainstream Information Conglomerate, as they are well aware that her and his viewpoints are disfavored by a majority of the electorate. Thus, the 2024 Democrat Party campaign is another hoodwinking of the American electorate into believing the crafted image of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz rather than the reality of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. A reality that I have outlined in my Chirp on “08/07/24 Ideological Partners in Extreme Progressivism”.

This hoodwinking was successful in the 2020 presidential campaign, and it is hoped to be successful in the 2024 presidential campaign. However, this previous successful hoodwinking brought forth the problems that America and Americans now face. If this current hoodwinking is successful, we can expect a continuation of these problems. When considering this hoodwinking you should remember the aphorism, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

08/09/24 Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness is the experience of one's own personality or individuality, and part of what makes us human, along with Intelligence and Consciousness. This definition, however, is not the subject of this Chirp. For the purposes of this Chirp, I mean the self-awareness of the interrelations of your words and deeds, i.e., saying one thing and doing another or holding conflicting ideas.

The capacity of the human mind to hold conflicting ideas seems to be unlimited. This is often the case when emotional responses take priority over intellectual considerations. People wish to feel good about themselves and their words and deeds, and they often do not fully consider the consequences of their words and deeds. They often do not comprehend the conflicts on seemingly disparate ideas. The effort required to make these connections is often time-consuming and intellectually rigorous, and many people do not have the time and/or ability to do so, as I have examined in my Article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

It is easier to believe that if it feels good and you are a good person, then you are doing good. However, this is often not the case. Not fully thinking about the impacts and consequences of the implementation of your ideas, along with the considerations of The Law of Unintended Consequences, will often result in harmful consequences. Accordingly, whenever you consider any idea, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Alas, this is rarely done, especially regarding social policies and political rhetoric. In the quest for a better society and governmental actions to achieve this betterment, we often are guided by our feelings rather than our intellect. The Democrat Party, in particular, appeals to our feelings without much intellectual regard for the consequences of their policies. This may be good election politics, but it is poor social policy as often their social policies engender negative consequences.

The Democrat Party's election strategy and tactics, as well as their governing approach, often rely on good feelings and, unfortunately, through their utilization of Identity Politics, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Lawfare, pits one group of Americans against other groups of Americans. Much of this is because of their self-righteous attitude, as I have examined in my Chirp on “08/08/24 Self-Righteousness”.

America is at a fork in the road in the direction of our future society and governance. One fork leads to a progressive future and all the attendant problems of Progressivism, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". The other fork is a return to the founding principles of America, as I have examined in my Article on "American Ideals and Ideas". Americans need to become much more self-aware and intellectually oriented to make a proper decision on the future of America. Fortunately, we can examine the different forks by examining the records of President Trump and President Biden to determine which fork we wish to take. Therefore, this election cycle is more than the individual issues and concerns; it is about who we want to be as a people and society.

08/08/24 Self-Righteousness

Self-Righteousness is a mental illness that blinds you to the facts and truths. A Self-Righteous person will not, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Doubt a little of your own infallibility." A Self-Righteous person is often sanctimonious and makes little or no attempts to examine and consider their opponent's Reasoning and Rationality. A Self-Righteous person will never brook any dissension to what they believe are the facts and truths. A Self-Righteous person will always believe that someone who disagrees with them is motivated or guided by selfishness or moral depravity. A Self-Righteous person often believes that any words or deeds that promote their beliefs are justifiable. A Self-Righteous person will reject, without intelligent thought or rational consideration, the opinions or arguments of their opponents, and they will often utilize "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against their opponents. Thus, a Self-Righteous person is a danger to "A Civil Society" and the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The most Self-Righteous people in America are Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media", as their words and deeds far eclipse any Self-Righteousness of their opponents. Their Self-Righteousness is demonstrated by their pitting groups of Americans against each other through their utilization of Identity Politics, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Lawfare. Their Self-Righteous Weaponization of Government is destroying our American Ideals and Ideas and leading us into despotism or worse.

Just as I am a huge supporter of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, so am I an opponent of Self-Righteousness. In the opinions that I have written in my Chirps and Article, I believe that I am right, but I am not self-righteous in these opinions, as I am willing to dispassionately examine and consider my opponents' Reasoning and Rationality. So, it should be for all Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans.

08/07/24 Ideological Partners in Extreme Progressivism

Democrat Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s Vice-Presidential pick, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, has a very Progressive viewpoint that matches Kamala Harris’s viewpoints. Their top ten shared domestic affairs viewpoints are, in alphabetical order:

Abortion on Demand
Climate Change Alarmism
Criminal Leniency
Gun Control
Illegal Immigration
Pandemic Mandates and Restrictions
Pediatric Transgendered Medications and Surgery
Permissible Violent Civil Disobedience
Public Education Progressive Ideology Indoctrination
Socialistic Governmental Policies

In the Foreign Policy arena, they share viewpoints on:

Communist China Inclusion on the World Stage
Global Trade Economies
Internationalism Politics
Iranian Government Leniency
Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel Policies (along with more than a touch of Anti-Semitism)

These viewpoints are in addition to the normal Democrat Party policies of increased taxes and spending, expanded and additional government entitlements, along with a large and intrusive government and governmental regulations.

There is nothing wrong with a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate sharing viewpoints unless the viewpoints in themselves are wrong. And Kamala Harris and Tim Walz's viewpoints are wrong for America and Americans. Electing the wrong people with the wrong viewpoints is a recipe for disaster for America and Americans. Wake up, America, and smell the coffee. If the coffee smells bad, do not drink it.

08/06/24 A Sense of Decency

In 1954, in a dramatic confrontation, Joseph Welch, special counsel for the U.S. Army, lashes out at Senator Joseph McCarthy during hearings on whether communism had infiltrated the U.S. armed forces. Welch’s verbal assault—including the enduring question, "Have you no sense of decency?"—marked the end of McCarthy’s power during the anticommunist hysteria of the Red Scare in America.

The same question can be put to Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media" for their role in the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections. Their role is not only as I have Chirped on “08/05/24 Then and Now, and Perhaps the Future” but also on other shenanigans that have and are currently occurring. Indeed, their entire campaign and election strategy and tactics are shameful. Replacing a duly nominated presidential candidate with an appointed nominee, giving countenance to the flagrant policy positions changes and the distortions of the historical record of their new candidate, their use of pejoratives against their opponents, distortions of their opponents’ words and sometimes outright lies about them, instituting dubious balloting shenanigans that call into question the validity of an election, and various other deceptions and deceits are all shameful acts.

They, therefore, have no sense of decency, as they are only interested in obtaining and retaining power to advance their policies and political goals. Such people should never be placed in positions of power, as they can only tear down and not build up a society.

08/05/24 Then and Now, and Perhaps the Future

Changing your mind based on better information or fuller consideration is a human trait that is important for the betterment of a person and should be cultivated by all. Changing your mind for any other reason is suspect, as it is often done to obtain a personal advantage that may be harmful to others. When a public figure or politician changes their mind, it is incumbent upon them to explain the reasons for their change of mind; otherwise, all should be wary of both their old and new opinions as deceptive or deceitful.

Rewriting your history to obscure or remove your previous opinion is insidious and pernicious, as it is a deliberate misleading of others for nefarious purposes. This is indicative of a person without character and virtue who is deceptive and deceiving. Those who would aid and abet such a rewriting are also without character and virtue, as they, too, are misleading for nefarious purposes. Such a person or people should never be believed nor placed in any position of trust or authority, as they are unworthy of any trust or power over others.

Which brings us to the current situation regarding Kamala Harris. Four short years ago, her politics were very progressive. Today, with her ascension to the 2024 Democrat Party nominee for President, her progressive policy positions have changed without explanation, and her history is being obscured, rewritten, or expunged to make her appear more moderate. It is not difficult to ascertain the reasons for this, as four years ago, her progressive policy positions were helpful to her political ambitions, while today’s moderate policy positions are helpful to her political ambitions. Such a person will have no difficulty in changing their policy positions in the future if it suits their political ambitions.

She is also being aided and abetted in this changing of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, with the assistance of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media". Such actions by them are also insidious and pernicious, as it is an attempt to trick the American electorate into voting for her. It is also indicative that they and she do not believe her previous policy positions would garner the votes needed for her to be elected today.

Alas, this changing of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history may work, as the American electorate is not being properly informed about these changes of her policy positions and the rewriting of her history. Indeed, the American electorate is being deliberately misinformed to assist her in winning the election (and perhaps lessen the negative impacts on electing downstream Democrat candidates). Such a deception is equivalent to the deception of Biden’s policy positions and his mental acuity and physical fitness, which occurred during the 2020 presidential campaign. A deception then that brought forth many of the problems we have faced in the last four years, and a deception now that, if it is successful, will continue and possibly worsen these problems for the next four years.

08/04/24 Until Now

In Jonathan Turley’s new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, he describes America as being in an age of rage, for which I must agree with him. The question is, what is the root cause of this greater rage today?

Many have pointed out that the deep divisions of governing approaches of the Democrat and Republican Parties have led to hyper-partisanship in today’s politics, as I have examined in my Articles on A Republic versus a Democracy and A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document. We have had these divisions in America’s past, but in modern America, it has been a deeper and more visceral rage.

Much of this can be attributed to the dominance of Progressive ideology and ideas in the 20th century, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". With this rise, we have also seen a rise in the assumptions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives in describing their opponents.

Contributing to this rise of rage are the forces of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", which have been in almost uniform support for Progressivism and they have ignored or been dismissive of any other viewpoints. The Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media have also profited from this rage by increasing clicks and viewership of their media. It is also true that they have morphed into the Ministry of Truth for Democrats and Progressives, as I have Chirped on “07/30/24 The Ministry of Truth”.

Nobody likes being told that they are stupid, bad, or evil and that their thoughts and opinions may be ignored or dismissed, which leads to a rise of rage in those so labeled. In addition, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have unrelentingly utilized aggressive rage-provoking tactics of "Identity Politics" and "Divisiveness in America", as well as "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" on all that oppose them, which contributes to the rise of rage in their opponents. These tactics have also led them to engage in negative connotations and worst-case interpretations of what their political opponents say or do, which leads them to stoke fear and loathing of their opponents, which leads to a rise in rage from all sides.

Since the presidential election of 1988, the Republican presidential standard bearers have been George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump. In that same timeframe, the Democrat presidential standard bearers were Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and now Kamala Harris. It can be said that the Republican presidential standard bears that only Donald Trump has used aggressive rage-provoking tactics, and of the Democrat presidential standard bearers, only Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton did not use aggressive rage-provoking tactics.

The claims by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists that both sides do it rings hollow when you weigh the balance, as I have Chirp on, "04/01/19 Both Sides Do It". That is, until now. With the rise of Donald Trump, who has been utilizing these same tactics against his political opponents, they have been given a dose of their own medicine, and they do not like it. Consequently, their rage against Donald Trump and his supporters has exponentially increased. Alas, this has resulted in an increase of rage on both sides.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' calls for "A Civil Society" also ring hollow, as they are only interested in their opponents being more civil while they continue their incivility. Hence, we can only expect this rage to continue until both sides behave in a more civil manner. I do not expect this to happen, especially if Donald Trump is elected, as the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have built their entire election and governing strategy and tactics on fear and loathing of their opponents.

08/03/24 Weirdness

The Democrat Party and Progressives have started to utilize a new word to describe their opponents— “Weird”. This from a party that has utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to advance their political goals and policy agendas. If you observe any rally of the Democrats, you can see many examples of the weirdness of their supporters, as so humorously illustrated by the following cartoon:

There is also much weirdness in the people who they have appointed into positions of power and responsibility in the Biden Administration.

Their utilization of weird to describe their opponents is sheer hypocrisy when you examine their own weirdness, and it does not make their opponents weird because they have labeled them weird. In this examination, you should remember one of my own quotes:

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false." - Mark Dawson

Their own weirdness extends into their Perversion of the English Language in their willingness to change the meaning of words and terms, which knows no bounds. Their willingness to suppress words and terms is also unlimited, often under the umbrella of Political Correctness and Wokeness. This is exemplified by Kamala Harris’s recent statement that “. . . we have to have the courage to object when they use the term ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’.” However, when they do this, we should always remember the quote of a very wise man in history:

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

Thus, by uttering this statement, as well as many other utterances of hers that are a pervasion of the English language, she has demonstrated her lack of wisdom.

08/02/24 Free Will vs. Oppressed Victimhood

At the beginning of Chapter 11 of the book, “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities” by Michael Shellenberger, he writes the following:

“After World War II, a long-standing philosophical debate over whether we have free will or are just the products of our environments gained real-world significance. Former Nazi officers on trial defended themselves by saying that they were not responsible for their actions, including the operation of gas chambers, because they were following orders. Courts ruled that this was not a valid defense, and philosophers including French existentialist Jen-Paul Sarte gained worldwide fame in his emphasis on individual responsibility. “Man is condemned to be free,” he writes, “From the moment he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”

Michael Foucault disagreed. Following the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Foucault felt that individual responsibility was a myth used by powerful people to punish and discipline others for things they could not control. None of us choose our brains and bodies, our families and communities, or our places in time and space. How could we be said to have “free will” at all?

The problem with this line of thinking is that people appear to behave far better when they take responsibility for their actions than when they don’t. Subjects primed to disbelieve in free will are, for example, more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors. Disbelief in free will even seems to impair some cognitive processes.

One way to think about free will is that it exists only as a belief. The more we believe in free will, the more it exists. The less we believe in it, the less it exists. “If you do call free will an illusion, it’s a useful illusion, right?” said Cory Clark, a professor of social philosophy who is doing innovative research into how we think about freedom and responsibility. “Thinking through, ‘If I do X, Y will happen’ is an important part of the process that leads to making better choices. If people thought they didn’t have to do that, they may not make good choices anymore.”

It is all too easy in modern America to claim that you are an oppressed victim of others and society. Such a claim frees you from the responsibilities of your words and deeds. It negates the possibility that your free will bad choices are responsible for your current condition and smothers the possibility that you can make future free will decisions to improve your condition. It also makes you dependent on others, society, and government to improve your condition.

In this dependency, you must concede some of your liberties and freedoms to those whom you depend upon. This gives rise to big government that takes from those who have made good decisions and gives to those who made bad decisions, which introduces a cycle of dependency on government. Thus, the “Welfare State” arises and grows ever larger. A Welfare State that must impinge upon the Liberties and Freedoms of all to satisfy the needs of the dependent members of society. Such a Welfare State slips from democracy into totalitarianism to meet the needs of the dependent members of society.

Such has been the course of America in the 20th and 21st centuries with the rise of Progressivism. No balance between giving a hand-up to the unfortunate and a hand-out to the dependent has been attempted nor achieved, and the Welfare State grows ever larger. Such a Welfare State is economically unsustainable without totalitarianism, and such totalitarian states are rarely long-lasting nor provide for a thriving economic or robust society that meets the needs of all the people.

08/01/24 Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness in the Progressive Worldview

How the absurdity, nonsense, and craziness of the modern Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media agenda is the topic of this month’s Book It selections. In a new book Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History by Nellie Bowles, who is a Progressive journalist, as well as someone who was born, raised, and lived this life, she started asking questions and then began doubting what was being said and done by Progressives in modern America.

In a series of personal stories about her search for the facts and truths about what has occurred in America during the last decade, she illuminates the unpleasant facts and truths that the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media have ignored or covered up. And it is not a pretty picture. As she stated near the end of this book, these people are “. . . in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality.”

Another recently published book by a former progressive, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities by Michael Shellenberger, looks at this problem by focusing on one topic— Homelessness in San Fransisco. Homelessness and the attendant issues of mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, criminal activities, and unsanitary living conditions of the homeless, along with the fears of the neighbors living nearby the homeless.

One paragraph in particular struck me in this book:

“Words are powerful. The word “homeless” not only make us think of housing, it also makes us not think of mental illness, drugs, and disaffiliation. The word directs our attention to things perceived as outside of a person’s control, such as the high cost of housing, and away from things perceived as in their control, such as working, parenting, and staying sober.”

This statement reminded me of the quote of a very wise man in history:

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

Ergo, until we identify the true causes of “homelessness” by speaking their right names and addressing their real problems, we cannot be wise and solve the problem of homelessness.

This misuse of words is true for the other problems facing America. The Perversion of the English Language by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to sow doubt and confusion to achieve their political goals and policy agendas is a despicable tactic that needs to end, as it is a hindrance to the solutions to the problems facing America.

Chapter 11 of this book, “The Heroism of Recovery”, is especially important, as it examines the importance of ‘victimhood’ in the homeless problem. This victimhood attitude is also important to society as a whole, as the victimhood viewpoint is responsible for many of the other problems in America. In Chapter 15 of this book, “It’s Not About the Money”, he further states about victimhood:

“The dark side of victimology is how it moralizes power. Victimology takes the truth that it is wrong for people to be victimized and distorts it by going a step further. Victimology asserts that victims are inherently good because they have been victimized. It robs victims of their moral agency and creates double standards that frustrate any attempt to criticize their behavior, even if they are behaving in a self-destructive, antisocial ways like smoking fentanyl and living in a tent on the sidewalk. Such reasoning is obviously faulty. It purifies victims of all badness. But by appealing to emotion, victimology overrides reason and logic.”

In Chapter 17 of this book, “It’s a Leadership Problem”, he sums up why the problems of homelessness continue to exist:

“How and why do progressives ruin cities? So far, we have explored six reasons. They divert funding from homeless shelters to permanent supportive housing, resulting in insufficient shelter space. They defend the right of people they characterize as victims to camp on sidewalks, in parks, and along highways, as well as to break other laws, including against public drug use and defecation. They intimidate experts, policy makers, and journalists by attacking them as being motivated by a hatred of the poor, people of color, and the sick, as causing violence against them. They reduce penalties for shoplifting, drug dealing, and public drug use. They prefer homelessness and incarnation to involuntary hospitalization for the mentally ill and addicted. And their ideology binds them to the harms of harm reduction. Housing First, and camp-anywhere policies, leading them to misattribute the addiction, untreated mental illness, and homeless crisis to poverty and to policies and politicians dating back to the 1980’s.”

Essentially, we are allowing Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness to permeate modern America, and this permeation is not restricted to the problems of homelessness. In trying to resolve the problems of Absurdity, Nonsense, and Craziness in modern America, brought forth mainly by Democrat Party leaders and Progressives, a succinct reason is that they have forgotten the adage and wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers. An adage and wisdom that should not be forgotten by all Americans before they cast their ballots:

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

However, doing something requires making hard decisions that may be unpopular with the electorate, social change advocates, or special interest groups. It thus risks the possibility of losing elections, which the Democrat Party is loath to do for the reasons that I have written in my Chirp on “ 07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

These two books, along with another book I reviewed on “06/01/21 The Liberal Mind”, go a long way in explaining how absurdity, nonsense, and craziness have arisen in modern America.

07/31/24 Of What Race, Religion, and Heritage is She?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a biologist whose work on the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast cancer research. Shyamala had moved to the United States from India as a 19-year-old graduate student in 1958. After studying nutrition and endocrinology at the University of California, Berkeley, she received her PhD in 1964. Kamala Harris's father, Donald J. Harris, is a Stanford University professor of economics (emeritus) who arrived in the United States from Jamaica in 1961 for graduate study at UC Berkeley and received a PhD in economics in 1966. Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan met in 1962 and were married in 1963.

Kamal Harris claims to be the first African American and first South Asian American vice president. Harris’s father is of Afro-Jamaican descent and an Anglican, while her mother is from India and a Hindu. Afro-Jamaicans are Jamaicans of predominantly African descent, but through intermarriage, they are of mixed Afro and Hispanic descent. They also represent the largest ethnic group in Jamaica. Thus, Kamal Harris is of mixed race, religion, and heritage.

Kamal Harris was born in Oakland, California, and very early in her life, she moved to Illinois as well as other parts of the Midwest and thus spent her childhood in America. When she was twelve years old, her mother and sister (her parents were divorced when she was seven) moved to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. After high school in Canada, Harris attended Vanier College in Montreal in 1981–1982. She then attended Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., and she eventually moved back to California to begin her career.

Many in America are of mixed race, religion, and heritage, and none of this should matter in America or; as Martin Luther King Jr. has stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Ergo, all should be judged on their character, and none should be judged on their race, religion, or heritage. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your race, religion, and heritage, but it is wrong to utilize this to gain an advantage over other people. The content of your character should be what you utilize to advance yourself.

Any person who utilizes race, religion, and heritage as a metric of a person is a bigoted person, and any politician who appeals to race, religion, and heritage is engaging in Identity Politics. Both are despicable, and both should not be tolerated in America. Alas, the appeals to Identity Politics in modern America are all too common and all to destructive to the fabric of our society. Thus, appeals to Identity Politics should be rejected and condemned by all Americans, and politicians who make these appeals should not be elected nor put into positions of leadership or power in America.

In modern America, the wails of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQIA+, White Privilege, Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities, and Racist and Wokeness are all appeals to Identity Politics. And all these wails should be rejected by those who believe that all Americans should be judged by the content of their character. To not do so is to invite further Divisiveness in America and the degradation of A Civil Society in America.

07/31/24 Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities

Systemic—affecting an entire system—is common to all civilizations throughout history. It is how civilizations are constructed to provide order from chaos and to provide for the needs of the people of a civilization. Systemic is accompanied by a hierarchical structure in the government and society of a civilization. Systemic is not inherently good or bad, but it can be used to achieve good or bad results. Systemic, when utilized to oppress a people and/or to deprive them of their Natural Rights, is evil. One defining characteristic of oppression is the constriction of a person’s capability to rise or fall in the hierarchy based on their individual merits or to not reward an individual for their contribution to society. Such a constriction is usually enforced by a caste society and an aristocratic form of government. When such a constriction occurs, it can be said that there are Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities within a society or government.

The history of America has been one of opposition to caste societies and aristocratic governments. We started out imperfectly with the stain of slavery and various forms of bigotry and discrimination, along with capitalistic excesses in our economy, but it is also a history of correcting these faults to obtain less Systemic Discriminations and/or Disparities in our society and government. We have not fully achieved this goal, but given human nature, it may not be possible to fully achieve this goal. However, we have made significant progress toward this goal with the start of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-twentieth century onward. Today, in modern America, we can claim to be the most diverse and least systemic Discrimination and/or Disparity society and government in the world.

07/30/24 The Ministry of Truth

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by English writer George Orwell, he describes ‘The Ministry of Truth’ (Newspeak: Minitrue) that is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania. As well as administering "truth", the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events. At the time that this book was written, the concern was that the government would become corrupt, coercive, and oppressive to the people. Today, the concern is that the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media" act as The Ministry of Truth.

This can be seen today in their rewriting of Kamala Harris’s history and record, as well as the distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods of nominees Donald Trump and J.D. Vance’s record and statements. These rewritings, falsehoods, and distortions are so egregious as to be a perfect example of ‘The Ministry of Truth’. It is also an example of the suppression of truths, as I have written in my article "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression".

Alas, there seems to be little way to correct this situation, as most of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media seem united in their opposition to Donald Trump and J.D. Vance and in their support of Kamala Harris. We can only hope that the American people can see past the rewriting, distortions, and falsehoods being spread about Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance’s history and record. Nineteen Eighty-Four was meant to be a warning about the future and not a guidebook for the present, as Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media have undertaken in modern America.

07/30/24 The Democratic Politburo Committee

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has for some time operated as the Democratic Politburo Committee (DPC) in that the ranking members of the DNC make a decision on candidates or policy, then expect the other members of the DNC, and the Democrat voters, to approve their decisions. This operation is utilized to enforce party discipline and conformity, as was done in most Communist states. This has been quite evident in the efforts to oust President Biden from the 2024 presidential campaign and now the efforts to anoint Vice-President Harris as the new candidate in the 2024 presidential campaign. As David Harsanyi has said, “With some hard work, pluck, the right boyfriend, and a bit of genetic luck, Kamala Harris has found her way onto the presidential ballot without having to secure a single primary vote. Don't tell me the American Dream is dead.”

While this is the most obvious reflection of a Politburo, this approach has gone on for quite some time at the DNC. This DPC approach is authoritarian rather than democratic and an affront to our American Ideals and Ideas. Even the manner in which President Biden withdrew from the presidential race was authoritative. A letter to Congressional Democrats from President Biden, followed three days later by an address to the American public, was authoritarian and haughty, and it reflected that his withdrawal was done for electability purposes rather than for the good of America, as I have examined in my Chirp on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”. Since his withdrawal, we have seen the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists engage in rank hypocrisy to justify his decision to withdraw, as I have Chirped on “07/23/24 Let the Games and Hypocrisy Begin”, and all at the direction of the DPC.

While the Republican Party has some authoritative propensities, this authoritarianism has often been thwarted by the Republican Party electorate, and their candidates and policies have mostly been directed from the bottom up (as seen by the rise of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates against the wishes of the Republican leadership).

Such an approach by the DPC is worthy of a banana republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”, rather than the leadership of a people dedicated to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Until the Democrat Party suffers calamitous election defeats, we cannot expect their modus operandi to change. Thus, it is incumbent on the American electorate to oust from power the Democrat Party so that they can reflect and right their course to the American way of conducting a democratic party (i.e., from the bottom up).

07/29/24 It Feels Good, but Does It Do Good?

It is all too common to hear Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists spouting off on the nobleness and morality of their political goals and policy agendas. All these proclamations are based on an emotional appeal, but few of them have an intellectual foundation, nor are they grounded in reality. When you examine the results of their political goals and policy agendas, you will see that there is much lacking in positive results.

As Nellie Bowles has written in her book, “Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History“, these people are “. . . in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality.” These people have also forgotten the adage and wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, "Well done is better than well said."

They wish to be do-gooders, but they are primarily interested in feeling good. A true do-gooder only feels good when they have achieved a positive result. The positive results from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists' political goals and policy agendas are few and far between, and usually, the good that they achieve is often for a select few (i.e., Identity Politics) at the expense of others.

Alas, it is difficult to overcome an emotional appeal with intellectual reasoning, and many Americans rely on an emotional appeal to sway their decisions on social policy. Consequently, there is much that is harmful rather than helpful in Progressive's social policy decisions. Whenever you make a decision on social policy, it should be reality-based with an intellectual foundation. Otherwise, you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the problems that beset America.

07/29/24 What Is Evil?

In today’s modern world, it is easy to discount evil as a psychiatric condition and/or relativistic or subjective to one’s personal knowledge, opinion, or experience. It is also easy for many to rank evil from pure evil to individual evil acts, although there is much disagreement amongst the different rankings. Whatever the root cause of evil or your ranking of evil, evil does exist, and some people are evil. The difficulty is defining what evil is and who the evil perpetrators are. This Chirp is not about evil persons; as much research and scholarly articles and books have been written about personal evil, I could not hope to contribute anything to this discussion. This Chirp is about the evil of governments and societies.

Governments and Societies can also be evil. Indeed, throughout history, most governments and societies have been evil to various degrees. For governments and societies, it is easy and proper to define a society or government as evil if they purposely violate the Natural Rights of individuals within their confines. While there are many Natural Rights that an individual person has, some of these Natural Rights are more pertinent to the discussion of evil. As I have written in my Chirp, “07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right”, there are ten prominent Natural Rights that, if violated by a government or society, allow us to define the society or government as evil and to rank their evilness based on the severity, number, and quantity of their evil acts. It is also possible to rank a government or society on its evilness by the structure of its government or the societal structure that supports its evil acts.

If you examine governments or societies throughout history through the lens of evilness, I believe that you gain an understanding that America has been one of the least evil governments and societies in history. Although America has had some evilness in its history (Slavery, Native Americans, Bigotry and Discriminations being the big three evilness), Americans have also recognized this evilness and taken actions to correct their evils. Our government or society was structured to preserve the natural rights of individuals and to take corrective actions to correct any wrongs that may occur in our government or society.

Many who decry America for its supposed inequities and evils do so through a standard of a Utopian society and government. A Utopian standard that can never be achieved due to the frailties of Human Nature and the invisible hand of Economics. Instead, we should be proud of our American Ideals and Ideas, and of our efforts to enshrine and preserve Natural Rights in our government and society, as well as to correct any evils that we may uncover in America. In our attempts to correct any perceived evils in our government or society, we should always remember to preserve our Natural Rights and the following:

07/28/24 I Have the Natural Right

In my article on "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights", I espoused upon the foundation and hierarchy of these rights. As sentient, conscious, and intelligent beings, we all have Natural Rights. If we did not have Natural Rights, then any rights that we may have would be endowed by society or by governments. It should always be remembered that anything that society or government can give can be taken away by a society or government. This would make Natural Rights subservient to society and governments and not allow for any freedoms or liberties for the individual except those that a society or government would endow.

All Natural Rights reside within the individual. No government or society constituted that violates Natural Rights is a legitimate government or society. The individual members of society can cede some of their Natural Rights to ensure a just society, but they still retain their Natural Rights. The government or society has a duty to ensure that those rights ceded to it are upheld. A government that does not uphold these ceded rights is not a legitimate government. Failure of a government to uphold these rights is a legitimate reason for the members of society to change or replace such a government.

Natural Rights are difficult to define, implement, and enforce. However, some Natural Rights are preeminently important and cannot be violated by a society or government. These include, but are not limited to:

I have the natural right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to live, have liberty, and pursue happiness under all circumstances. You have no Natural Right to take my life, constrict my liberties, or prevent me from achieving my goals, except if I am violating the Natural Rights of another person.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to protect myself from harm, injury, or death. You have no Natural Right to harm, injure, or kill me except in the protection of your own, your family, or your neighbors’ lives, injury, or harm.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to think and express my thoughts, regardless of any other considerations. You have no Natural Right to tell me what to think and what I can express, nor to suppress what I think and express.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to obtain, retain, and dispense my own personal property. You have no Natural Right to steal, damage, or destroy my personal property.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to associate, or not associate, with whomever I please. You have no Natural Right to restrict my associations unless my associations violate the Natural Rights of other persons.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to be treated equally by other persons, society, and governments. You have no Natural Right to treat any person, or groups of persons, differently from myself.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to privacy. You have no Natural Right to violate my privacy, except if I am violating the Natural Right of another person in my private actions.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to believe or disbelieve in God and to practice my beliefs as I see fit. You have no Natural Right to suppress my beliefs or constrict my practices, except if my practices violate another person’s Natural Rights.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to own my body and to choose what may be done to my body. You have no Natural Right to force me to undergo any bodily procedure that I do not wish to undergo unless, by not undergoing the procedure, I present an imminent danger to other persons.
I have the Natural Right as a sentient, conscious, and intelligent being to raise my children as I see fit. You have no Natural Right to supersede my Natural parental rights unless I pose a danger to my children.

When adjudging your own and another person’s words and deeds, it is imperative to keep these Natural Rights in mind for yourself and others. To not do so leads to a convoluted application of Natural Rights, which infringes on everyone’s Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

For more of the concepts and importance of Natural Rights, I would direct you to the articles of Professor Randy E. Barnett, “A Law Professor’s Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights” and “The Imperative of Natural Rights in Today's World”. While these articles were written by a scholar, they were written for the general public to read and understand.

07/28/24 The Eradication of Evil

President Reagan once famously said about how he would deal with the Soviet Union, “We Win; They Lose”, for which he was mocked. However, by focusing on the goal and adopting and adapting tactics to achieve the goal, America won, and the Soviet Union lost. Such is the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding Hamas. It is the focus on the ultimate goal that distinguishes Reagan and Netanyahu, a focus on the goals while instituting and changing tactics as necessary to achieve the ultimate goal.

Many evil acts were done during the American Civil War, but such evil acts were necessary to eradicate the greater evil of slavery. The carpet-bombing of Japan and Europe during World War II could be considered evil, but it was done for the purpose of eradicating the greater evil of Imperial Japan, Nazis, and Fascists. Evils that needed to be eradicated for human suffering to end and human dignity to be restored.

Regarding Israel, there have been many attempts to institute peace among the parties to the conflict. However, the events of October 07, 2023, have demonstrated that one party is not interested in peace—Hamas. Consequently, peace will only come when Hamas loses and is eradicated. How Hamas loses and is eradicated is not as important as their losing and being eradicated, for when confronting evil, the end of evil is more important than the tactics used to defeat evil. Nothing short of the eradication of evil is important, for if evil is allowed to fester, it will grow and rear its ugly head in the future. And make no mistake about it: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are evil. Thus, I would say to Netanyahu, go for it and eradicate evil! I would also say to the critics of Netanyahu’s goal and tactics that to not eradicate evil is to support evil, which makes you one with evil.

07/27/24 Anti-Semitic Actions and Inactions

In an article by David Harsanyi, “American Liberals Silent as Outbursts of Antisemitism on Par With Charlottesville Proliferate”, he writes that President Biden is scared to offend the pro-Hamas faction in his party. Mr. Harsanyi begins his article by stating:

“Not long ago, a left-wing “fact-checking” site, Snopes, finally admitted that President Trump had never called the neo-Nazis who marched at the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville in 2017 “very fine people.”

For years, Democrats, including President Biden, have repeated this false claim. Indeed, Mr. Biden, who’s been running for the presidency since 1987, ludicrously told the press in 2019 that the events at Charlottesville, and Trump’s alleged reaction, inspired him to run in 2020.

Well, there’s a new Charlottesville every week in America nowadays. They aren’t led by a few hundred Nazi cosplayers, but thousands of Islamists and leftist fellow travelers whose goals are supported by numerous administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms.”

He then goes on to list many of the offensive words and deeds, the criminal actions of the pro-Hamas agitators in America, and how the Biden Administration has reacted or not reacted to those offenses and criminal actions. The lack of the Biden Administration actions and inactions against the pro-Hamas agitators, and their very tepid statements about them, is war worse than the allegation that Trump called Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People', as the Snopes article explains, is untrue.

These very actions and inactions of the Biden Administration and the pro-Hamas administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms demonstrate the Anti-Semitism of the left. Mr. Harsanyi concludes his article by stating:

“And every time there is a new Charlottesville, it not only affirms why Israel needs to exist — or that “anti-Zionism” and antisemitism are now indistinguishable — it tells us that Jews can’t rely on the contemporary left to be on their side.”

Thus, if you are Jewish or concerned about the evil of Anti-Semitism in modern America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Anti-Semitism in Modern America", then you must be opposed to the Biden Administration and the administration officials, congressmen, and newsrooms who support the pro-Hamas agitators in America.

07/27/24 Those that Can

It has often been said, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”. This phrase implies that individuals who are unable to succeed in their chosen field resort to teaching almost as if it were a consolation prize. This is a simplistic stereotype, failing to understand what it truly means to be a teacher. The complexity and significance of being a teacher is not to be underestimated. Therefore, those who say the phrase, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”, are not contributing anything useful to the discussion and, indeed, are degrading the discussion.

Many of those who can do have often taught as well, while some of those who can do have not taught for personal reasons (including their realization that they would be poor teachers). While there are many teachers who can’t do, there is no discredit or shame that should be attached to this, as most people in other professions vary in their skill sets from excellent to poor, with only a small number being at the top of their profession.

To be a teacher is a respectable, honorable, and important vocation, but only if you are a good teacher. A good teacher is one who imparts knowledge and critical thinking skills, as well as motivating the students to learn as much as they are capable of learning, while a bad teacher is one who does not accomplish these teaching goals. A bad teacher is also one who de-emphasizes the intellectual development of the student in favor of emphasizing the emotional well-being of the student. A bad teacher does not only debase teaching, but they are harmful to their student's intellectual as well as emotional growth.

Emotional growth requires that a student learn how to deal with being incorrect and disappointed, proper personal behavior and social interactions, and a host of other emotional responses that are necessary once the student enters the non-student world. Emotional growth does not require that we coddle and protect the students’ feelings and inappropriately bolster their self-confidence or from unpleasant facts and discordant information. Intellectual growth is not only the accumulation of knowledge but also requires that a student learn how to think and not what to think.

Unfortunately, in Modern Education, we have seen a significant shift from the intellectual growth to the emotional growth of the student and from how to think to what to think, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education". This must be stopped and reversed to do justice to a student’s intellect, skills, and abilities. To accomplish this, we must identify those who are bad teachers and dismiss them from the teaching profession. In these dismissals, I expect the teacher unions to be in opposition. In the teacher’s union opposition, they are relegating the teaching profession to that of a tradesman occupation to be protected despite the quality of their trade services. They are also placing the best interests of the teachers over the best interests of the students, parents, and society.

We also need a change to the academic training of teachers, a change to which we can expect Colleges and Universities to be resistant, as teacher education has become financially lucrative and politically and/or sociologically motivated and thus resistant to change. We also need a change in the pedagogical training of would-be teachers to emphasize how to educate a student on how to think. This may be difficult, as I believe that many teachers and would-be teachers do not themselves know how to think.

The proper education of students is critically important to the future of our society. For the last several decades, we have not done a good job of educating students. Poorly educated students make for poorly informed citizens who cannot make good decisions in their lives, as well as good decisions as to the future course of our society. Indeed, the bad decisions that they may make will be detrimental to their lives and detrimental to society. Consequently, we should adopt an approach of rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad teachers.

07/26/24 College Student Behavioral Problems

College and University students love to protest, as it is a means of Virtue Signaling that signals their supposedly higher morals. Many of these protests are disruptive to normal student instruction and activities, and many times, they turn violent. All too often, their professors join them in these protests, which they believe lends credence to their protests. And just as often, the students, and sometimes the professors, have little knowledge or comprehension of what they are protesting.

The recent Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitism protests are a perfect example of this behavior. Students have little understanding of the complicated issues of the Hamas terrorists’ actions on October 7, 2023, and are not interested in understanding the Israeli government's response to this terrorism. They are being swayed by incoherent and irrational rhetoric from the Palestinian viewpoint and ignoring the Israeli viewpoint. There is also no consideration of the consequences, or unintended consequences, of their proposed solutions.

They are also not concerned about the impact of their protests on the non-protesting students. A non-protesting student has the right to an education and campus life unfettered by the protesting students. Any disruption to the non-protesting students’ rights should not be countenanced nor permitted by the College or University administrators. Alas, college or university administrators have shown little interest in protecting the rights of non-protesting students. This is an abrogation of their duties and responsibilities to provide a safe and educational environment for all their students.

The question is, what should be done to protect all students’ rights? The University of Florida’s Allowable Activities and Prohibitive Items and Activities flyer may be a good first step:

Other States should adopt this code for all publicly funded Colleges and Universities and deny taxpayer funding for private Colleges and Universities that do not adopt this code. There should also be a concerted effort to remove College and university presidents, administrators, and trustees who do not support this code as a dereliction of their duties and responsibilities to their students, parents, funders, and taxpayers. We should also consider firing professors who support these disruptive or violent protestors, as their actions demonstrate their inability to provide quality, intellectually thoughtful, rational, and reasonable education to their students.

07/26/24 K12 Student Behavioral Problems

In the bygone days of Catholic K12 education, Sister Marie would whack your knuckles, Father John would slap your head, and who knows what the teacher would do if you misbehaved in school. This was all done as part and parcel of student behavioral problem correction. Today, it is considered child abuse, and it is forbidden, but student behavioral problems abound. In Public K12 education, this was less frequently done and sometimes humorously referred to as Tactile Response Education (TRE). However, the results were the same, as there were fewer student behavioral problems when TRE was utilized.

Corporal punishment is the more common term utilized for this discipline, and it often became excessive and resulted in physical injury and mental anguish to the student. Thus, student corporal punishment was banished and disappeared from K12 education. With this banishment, K12 student behavioral problems increased, and they have become a major problem in K12 education. Today’s student behavioral problems have also resulted in physical injury and the mental anguish of other students, not to mention the disruption of the education of the other students. These K12 Student Behavioral Problems follow them outside of school and into their adult life and often result in civil disturbances or criminal activities by the students who have behavioral problems. Consequently, we must address student behavioral problems in schools to help alleviate the problem of student troublemakers outside of school.

Effective discipline must be established for K12 Student Behavioral Problems, but this is very difficult in an environment where teachers and administrators are not allowed to even touch a student. We must, therefore, rethink what is allowable and effective discipline for K12 Student Behavioral Problems. Perhaps it may be time to consider some form of very limited corporal punishment (such as low power, short duration, hand-held tasers) to ameliorate these K12 Student Behavioral Problems. There are no easy answers to this problem, but the problems caused by these misbehaving students are pernicious in the learning environment and in society as a whole.

07/25/24 From Traditional Liberalism to Modern Progressivism

I am old enough to remember when there was little Progressivism and much Liberalism in America. However, due to the real and perceived failures of Liberalism by the American public, Liberalism started to become tarnished, and in the late 20th century, many Liberals started disclaiming Liberalism, declaring that “I am not a Liberal, I am a Progressive.” However, the Liberal and Progressive policy positions did not materially differ. In the 21st century, however, Progressivism began to veer leftward, and today, the policy positions of modern Progressives differ significantly from traditional Liberalism.

Liberals were huge defenders of our First Amendment Rights, somewhat neutral defenders of our Second Amendment rights, and large supporters of "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also shared many of the beliefs of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". However, as Progressives veer leftward, they transformed these beliefs to achieve a greater good rather than the common good for America, as I have written in my article "Greater Good versus the Common Good". In doing so, they developed an anti-Americanism attitude, as I have discussed in my Chirp on “05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism”. They also began to constrict our First and Second Amendment rights for the greater good, limiting Freedom and Liberty to be constrained by what Progressivism deemed to be acceptable speech and conduct, substituted Equality with Equity, and instituted a two-tiered justice system as I have Chirped on, "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System". Much of this was done to combat what they believed to be an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", under the banner of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", the end of our purportedly "Racist" society, and the revocation of supposedly "White Privilege".

Progressives also began to equivocate about their beliefs through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to make them more palatable to the American public. They also utilized the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against their opponents, as well as "Cancel Culture", "Doxing", “Hate Speech”, "Identity Politics", "Lawfare", "Virtue Signaling", and "Wokeness". They have also propagated "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" to justify their actions.

In doing so, Progressives have become despotic against their opponents, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America", and have significantly hastened the "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". They have also accelerated civil unrest through "Hyper-Partisanship" and have not engaged in "A Civil Society" discourse. In this, they have become a threat to Democracy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy". They are also attempting to institute an Oligarchy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

Thus, the ideals and ideas of Liberalism have disappeared from America, but many of these ideals and ideas, especially regarding the worth and dignity of every individual person and individual rights, have been incorporated into Conservatism. Accordingly, if you believe in the worth and dignity of every individual person and individual rights, you must reject modern Progressivism as antithetical to these ideals and ideas.

07/25/24 From Traditional Feminism to Modern Feminism

The Feminist movement of the latter half of the 20th century was a very important movement to achieve equal rights for women, as for far too long, women in America had been deprived of their rights and hindered in their ability to achieve self-fulfillment. However, equal pay for equal work, the opportunity for advancement based on your skills and abilities, and the personal choice in the balance of your personal and professional life are not feminist values; they are human values. Human values that everybody should support for all people regardless of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status, or disability.

Unfortunately, Modern Feminism has taken a turn from these values in that they wish to create special privileges based on the female gender, or as one wag has said, “Modern Feminism wants all the power of men, all the privileges of women, and all the accountability of children.” They have also devalued maleness, as I have written in my article “Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male”, and turned away from the importance of heterosexual love, marriage, and children. Modern feminists have little interest in men or the needs of men, and they seem to be only concerned with the professional, emotional, and physical needs of women, and seem to be only interested in motherhood if it is single motherhood. Men play little part in their worldview, and the small part they play is considered unimportant. Modern Feminists have also stood idle while Transgenderism is destroying the equality gains that they have achieved over the last several decades.

Modern Feminists have also exhibited selective outrage over claims of sexual harassment and sexual assaults. Their outrage is only directed against allegations against male Republicans and Conservatives, while allegations against male Democrats and Progressives have been overlooked or defended. They have also not come to the defense of Republican and Conservative women for the words and deeds against them that they would consider outrageous if directed against Democrat and Progressive women. They have also been notably muted about the Israeli women brutalized by Hamas, as well as circumspect about sexual harassment and sexual assaults in Islamic countries and by Muslims throughout the world.

Alas, Traditional Feminism has morphed into Modern Feminism, contrary to the values of Traditional Feminism. Accordingly, if you believe in the values of traditional Feminism, you must reject modern Feminism as antithetical to these ideals and ideas.

07/24/24 Hubris, Not Humility

I have often written that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. One wonders where they came to this smug attitude. In pondering how this has come to be, I believe that it has much to do with Modern Education. In focusing on the students' emotional wants and needs, protecting their feelings, and boosting their self-confidence, educators have forgotten to challenge the students' intellectual development. An intellectual development that challenges them to explore beyond their knowledge base and thinking by exposing them to new knowledge and expansive thinking and to contrary ideas and beliefs.

They are, therefore, in fact, teaching them what to think rather than how to think, as I have examined in my article on "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, they enter the adult world believing they have all the answers and are full of hubris rather than the humility of knowing there are limits to their knowledge and experience. The humility of knowing what you know, knowing what you don’t know, and realizing that there is much that you don’t know that you do not know about is not present within them.

Consequently, this hubris settles into a smug attitude in which no humility is present. Thus, they believe that they are always correct and that others who disagree with them must be wrong, stupid, or perhaps evil.

07/24/24 Politics for Profit

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez was found guilty Tuesday, July 16th, of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for using his powerful post to enrich himself and his wife. “This wasn’t politics as usual,” US Attorney for the Southern District Damian Williams told reporters outside court Tuesday. “This was politics for profit.”

Politicians enriching themselves is all too common throughout history. In American history, this is also common, but Americans have an aversion to enrichment by bribery. Most often, the enrichment is by more subtle means, which are borderline illegal and sometimes over the line illegal, but usually do not involve cash payments, precious metals, or expensive gifts as was the case for Sen. Menendez. It is often difficult to prove in a court of law that the enrichment was over the legal line, and prosecutors are loath to bring charges against politicians as they can be seen as political witch hunts.

This brings us to the First Family, whose enrichments were done by familial surrogates rather than directly to Joe and Jill Biden. For most of Joe Biden’s political career (and he has had no career other than politics), there have been whispers of influence peddling on a small scale. With his becoming Vice-President, this influence peddling became big time, mostly through his son Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden established dozens of shell companies and a multitude of bank accounts, which he utilized to disguise his activities, and he obtained lucrative contracts and positions with foreign companies in which he had no knowledge, experience, or capabilities. Hunter accumulated millions of dollars and distributed them to his family members. This was done through monetary shell games with his shell companies and multiple bank accounts, and he was able to disguise his actions and disguise his father’s connection to the money he obtained.

Recently, the dam finally broke, and much of Hunter’s activities became public knowledge, along with his activities’ connections to his father. Despite Joe Biden’s denial that he had any knowledge of his son’s business activities, it is now apparent that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s business activities. Thus, we can say that Joe Biden was profiting from his son’s influence peddling. It's not exactly bribery, but it's almost as bad. Bribery is often a direct payment to achieve a goal, while influence peddling is often an indirect payment to achieve a goal. However, both are the Politics for Profit and should have no place in American politics.

As such, it is time for Joe Biden to leave the public arena. If he does not go willingly, then the American people need to vote him out. It may also not be possible (or wise) to bring him to justice considering his current mental incapacity and his status as President or ex-President, but the stain of his influence-peddling should always be attached to his name and, thus, be remembered as a warning to all politicians that the Politics for Profit should never occur in American government.

07/23/24 Pardon Me

With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 Presidential election, there are many questions and issues that need to be answered and resolved. The State laws regarding the conventioneers from voting for anyone but Joe Biden on the first ballot, the legality and means of replacing his name on State Ballots that have already been legally set, the use of the campaign funds he has already raised, and various other Federal Election Commission laws, rules, and regulations are all unresolved questions and issues. I would expect the Democrat Party to engage in all sorts of legal chicanery to have these laws negated or declared unconstitutional and/or for them to circumvent or ignore these laws. If the past is a prologue to the future, then we can expect that the Democrat Party will exhibit an attitude of ‘Election Laws for Thee, but Not For Me’.

The one thing that is not an issue is the Presidential Pardon clause in the Constitution. The President may pardon or commute any person for Federal violations of the law at the President’s discretion, prior to a prosecution or after a conviction of the law. Given the Biden family history of influence peddling, corrupt dealings, tax evasion, and sometimes outright violations of Federal Law, this is an important consideration for the Biden family members.

Thus, I expect that President Biden will issue preemptive absolute pardons for himself, Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Francis Biden before he leaves office. To do otherwise is to leave his family exposed to legal action for their past misdeeds, a situation that would be intolerable for the corrupt Biden Family members. These pardons should also be intolerable for the American public, as it institutes, as US Attorney for the Southern District Damian Williams stated after the conviction of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez for bribery, “This wasn’t politics as usual; this was politics for profit.”

07/23/24 Let the Games and Hypocrisy Begin

With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 Presidential election, the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media have engaged in singing the praises of Joe Biden. Praises for his years of public service, his doing what is right for America, his patriotism, his selflessness, the greatness and successes of his Presidency, and other exaggerated rhetoric flow from their mouths, and none of these praises are true. Joe Biden did not withdraw from the 2024 Presidential campaign for any of these reasons. Joe Biden's character has been, and is now, motivated by calculations, first and foremost, of personal political interests. Joe Biden was forced to withdraw due to intense political pressure from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists fear of losing the election not only for the Presidency but also for the Democrat Party House and Senate down-ballot candidates, as well as by rich Democrat Party contributors withdrawal of financial contributions until he withdrew his candidacy.

In all these praises, they can be categorized as:

equivocations - A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
evasivenesses - Intentionally vague or ambiguous
fabrications - A deliberately false or improbable account
falsehoods - A false statement
prevarications - A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
untruths - A false statement

And all these praises are for the purpose of misleading the American public by:

bamboozlement - Concealment of one's true motives by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end
blather & blathering - Idle or foolish and irrelevant talk
crickets - an idiom that means no reply or reaction at all
gaslighting - Manipulate someone psychologically so that they start to question their own sanity
gibberish - Unintelligible talking
gobbledygook - Incomprehensible or pompous jargon
hoodwinking - Influence by slyness
slyness - Shrewdness as demonstrated by being skilled in deception

As usual for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists they are employing the tactics of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to justify their praises for Joe Biden.

Their comments on Joe Biden’s physical and mental capabilities for the last four years are, as more than one wag has pointed out, like the 1989 movie “Weekend at Bernie's”, and prevarications and hypocritical on their part. With the withdrawal of President Biden from the 2024 presidential election, their hypocrisies have been demonstrated to have no bounds. Their statements on Joe Biden's greatness are but a continuation of their hypocrisy. His incapability to run for President while being able to be President is a shining and sheer example of their hypocrisy. Their efforts and statements to get him to withdraw his candidacy and then praise his efforts while in office are hypocritical. Their knowing of his physical and mental deficiencies from the start of his candidacy (both in the 2020 and 2024 campaigns) was a hypocritical effort to obtain and retain power and control over the American people.

Do not be fooled by their praises or hypocrisy, as it is only a means to ease Joe Biden out of the campaign and make his replacement more palatable to the American public. All this praise is in the hope that they can turn around the gloomy election prospects for Democrat Party candidates so that they can obtain and retain power and control over the American people, as I have written in my chirp on “07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control”.

07/22/24 Changing Your Mind

Such is the case of former critics of Donald Trump who have changed their minds about him. Derek Hunter, a former critic and now supporter of Donald Trump, has written an article about changing your mind, “The Idea of Changing Your Mind Confuses Democrats”, that examines this change of mind:

“Ever change your mind on anything or anyone? I bet you have. Do you know why I’d bet that way? Because you’re a human being, which makes you capable of all sorts of amazing things, especially the ability to learn new things and adapt to that knowledge. OK, maybe not ALL human beings have that skill – I’d tell Democrats to change their minds, but they shouldn’t work without tools – but those with an IQ larger than their hat size certainly can. This is why so many in the media seem to be confused by the idea that some people have changed their minds about Donald Trump.”

This article points out that:

“Human beings, intelligent ones, admit when they’re wrong and learn from it. How stupid would you be if you held fast to everything you thought when you were 20? I’d be a dope-smoking moron, likely with a rotten liver, and would not have one of my best friends. If I stood fast to what I thought starting in mid-June 2015, I’d be my underpants cheering on Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, and the rest of their Reich Cabinet of National Salvation in front of an LED screen pretending to be at the Republican convention on MSNBC. But I’m not. And you are not. Fewer and fewer people are, which only reinforces what I’ve been saying here.”

Therefore, when Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media point out that some current supporters of Donald Trump were former critics of him, I would point out the aforementioned quote of Benjamin Franklin as the reason for their change of mind. I would also point out that changing your mind based on better information or fuller consideration is a positive trait of a person.

07/22/24 The Connoisseur

In the book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley, the author points out In Chapter 25, “Rockwellian Free Speech”, that the Norman Rockwell painting “The Connoisseur” is of a man staring at an abstract piece of art and is waiting patiently for meaning to emerge from the paint drips:

Professor Turley then states that:

“I happen to like modern art. However, when it comes to constitutional law, I am unapologetically Rockwellian. The Constitution resonates with first principles that are profound and defining values of a free people. Once again, there has long been a rejection of classic free speech views as unsophisticated and lacking proper nuance. Once free speech becomes more of an abstraction, it can be balanced against other interests and confined to achieve other goals. It is more Rothko than Rockwell, leaving greater room for interpretation by the beholder. In constitutional law, the criticisms of figures such as Greenberg are strikingly familiar. Many law professors brush off natural or autonomy-based interpretations of the First Amendment as not “serious” and lacking a certain discernment. Free speech is one of the paint drops in an abstract constitutional work in which the meaning comes a functionalist whole. As we have seen, this untethering of interpretation from the text proved to be little more than a constitutional conceit. It can render meaning so fluid as to become entirely situational or subjective. Pollock once advised observers that, if they wanted to truly enjoy his work, they should stop looking for objective meaning. This is a dangerous practice when applied to the interpretation of a constitutional right.”

For me, this painting also represents how most mainstream Americans view the policies of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They stand and stare at these policies to try and make sense of them, and they are bewildered as to what they mean and how they are interrelated and sensible. The abstract piece of art in this painting is how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders view the Constitution as a living, breathing document (i.e., Living Constitutionalists). This viewpoint is a very dangerous practice when applied to the interpretation of the Constitution, as it allows the Constitution to be construed in any manner that the beholder wishes. A construing that, if applied, would endanger our "American Ideals and Ideas" and allow for an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/21/24 Who Would You Rather Have as V.P.?

Many opponents of President Trump have criticized and derided his Vice-President pick, J.D. Vance, for Vance’s youth and inexperience, not to mention that he is a true Conservative (oh my goodness gracious). The question I have for these critics is: Is it better to have a Vice-President who has succeeded in life at everything that he has done by his own efforts, or a Vice-President who has failed at many of the things that she has done and succeeded only through her connections and/or her physical attributes?

J.D. Vance was born and raised in Middletown, Ohio, a once flourishing American manufacturing town where Ohioans could live content, middle-class lives on single incomes. Over time, many of those good jobs disappeared, and JD’s family suffered the effects along with many others. His parents divorced when he was a toddler, and Vance's childhood was marked by poverty and abuse, and his mother struggled with drug addiction. Vance and his sister Lindsey were raised primarily by his maternal grandparents, James (1929–1997) and Bonnie Vance (née Blanton; 1933–2005), whom they called "Mamaw and Papaw”. His grandparents on both sides had moved to Ohio from the Appalachian Mountains area in Kentucky.

After graduating from Middletown High School in 2003, Vance enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was deployed to Iraq as a combat correspondent for six months in late 2005. He then attended The Ohio State University with the support of the G.I. Bill and graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and philosophy in 2009. He then went to Yale Law School, where he was an editor of The Yale Law Journal. He graduated in 2013 with a Juris Doctor degree. He then entered private practice at the law firm Sidley Austin. Having practiced law for slightly under two years, Vance moved to San Francisco to work in the technology industry as a venture capitalist. Between 2016 and 2017, he served as a principal at Peter Thiel's firm, Mithril Capital. He then moved back to Ohio and started a business dedicated to growing jobs and opportunities in the American heartland. He also wrote the #1 bestselling book Hillbilly Elegy, which was turned into a Netflix movie.

In early 2018, Vance considered running for the U.S. Senate against Sherrod Brown but did not do so. In April 2021, Vance expressed interest in running for the Senate seat, which was vacated by Rob Portman. He ran and won a competitive Republican primary, and on November 8, in the general election, Vance defeated Democratic nominee Tim Ryan with 53% of the vote to Ryan's 47%, becoming the Junior Senator from Ohio. Thus, it can be said that J.D. Vance's success was based on his own efforts and achievements.

Kamala Harris was born into a life of privilege as both her parents were academics working at multiple universities. Her K12 education was at some of the best private schools available to her. Harris attended Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., and graduated from Howard in 1986 with a degree in political science and economics. She then attended law school at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, through its Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP), and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1989.

In 1990, Harris was hired as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California, where she was described as "an able prosecutor on the way up". In 1994, Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, who was then dating Harris, appointed her to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the California Medical Assistance Commission. Harris took a six-month leave of absence in 1994 to join the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, then afterward resumed as prosecutor during the years she sat on the boards. While serving on the boards, she received a hefty salary from each board. Harris's connection to Brown was noted in media reportage as part of a pattern of Californian political leaders appointing "friends and loyal political soldiers" to lucrative positions on the commissions.

She became a Democrat political riser and star in California, where it is almost automatic that you will succeed if you are a Democrat. From 2004–2011, she ran and served as District Attorney of San Francisco. Nearly two years before the 2010 California Attorney General election, Harris announced she planned to run. She also stated she would run only if then-Attorney General Jerry Brown did not seek reelection for that position. Brown instead chose to run for governor, and Harris consolidated support from prominent California Democrats. She won a close election in 2010 against a Republican and easily won reelection in 2014, thus serving as California Attorney General from 2011–2017. In January 2015, Senator Barbara Boxer announced that she would not run for reelection in 2016, and Harris announced her candidacy for the Senate seat the following week. The 2016 California Senate election used California's new top-two primary format, where the top two candidates in the primary would advance to the general election regardless of party. Harris won by 60% over fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez in the general election, becoming the junior Senator from California.

Her biggest challenge was in 2020 when she ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination but dropped out when it was apparent that she had little traction and was unlikely to even win the primary in her home state. Prior to her run for the Democrat Presidential nomination, she published a book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, which achieved modest success during her candidacy for President and Vice-President. She was chosen to be Biden’s Vice-Presidential running mate when Biden committed himself to choosing a woman of color as his running mate. Thus, it can be said that Kamala Harris's success was based on her connections and physical attributes rather than her achievements.

Since becoming vice president, her record of achievement is dismal, as can be seen by her appointment with President Biden to lead the administration’s efforts to stem migration across the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as other efforts assigned to her. Her foreign policy trips have been uniformly panned, and her public appearances and speeches have become babble fests and muddled much of the time. What she has demonstrated is that she is not capable of being President if the need arises. Given President Biden’s mental and physical health deterioration, the need may arise if he gets worse and/or is reelected.

Accordingly, I again ask the question to the critics of J.D. Vance: Is it better to have a Vice-President who has succeeded in life at everything that he has done by his own efforts, or a Vice-President who has failed at many of the things that she has done and succeed only through her connections and/or her physical attributes? The answer is obvious to all but the most partisan: J.D. Vance is better qualified than Kamala Harris to become President if the need arises.

07/21/24 Special Counsels

In the United States, a Special Counsel (formerly called Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate and potentially prosecute a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems. For example, the investigation of an allegation against a sitting President or Attorney General might be handled by a special prosecutor rather than by an ordinary prosecutor who would otherwise be in the position of investigating his or her own superior. Special Counsels also have handled investigations into those connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the Justice Department's prosecutors, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns.

Since the expiration of the Independent Counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal statutory law governing the appointment of a special counsel. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of Special Counsels.

However, current regulations exist for a Special Counsel that has been utilized seven times since the law's expiration in 1999, but such regulations have not been legally adjudicated nor ruled upon by the Supreme Court. As such, the issue of the Constitutionality of a Special Counsel is an unresolved issue. The main issues are: Is it constitutional for a president or attorney general to create and fund a special counsel office without congressional approval, and can they appoint a person to head the special counsel office without Senate approval? In the current Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity, Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which he noted that he believed that a Special Counsel’s office was Unconstitutional. In the recent trial in Florida, in which former President Trump is accused of mishandling classified information, the judge ruled that the Special Counsel’s office was Unconstitutional as to its creation, funding, and appointment of Special Counsel, then dismissed all charges against President Trump based on that finding. The judge in the Washington D.C. trial of former President Trump, in which he is accused of election conspiracy, is also examining this issue, but she has yet to rule on this issue.

Thus, until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the current regulations, the constitutional issue of a Special Counsel is unresolved. Of course, Congress could enact legislation that formalizes a Special Counsel office and appointment, but given the bitter hyper-partisanship in modern America, I do not expect that this will happen.

07/20/24 It’s All About Power and Control

I have often said that as Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them as they believe that any actions that they undertake to obtain and retain power are the proper and needful actions for the benefit of all Americans.

This is demonstrated in their current discussions and actions regarding President Biden. It has become obvious to all that Joe Biden is no longer physically and mentally fit to be President now or in the future. Yet, they are only attempting to have him withdraw his presidential candidacy and not resign from the Presidency. They are also scheming about how and who should replace him as a candidate while ignoring the democratic will of the primary voters who voted for his and Kamala Harris’s candidacy. These are not the actions of a party that is running on the promise to preserve “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy". A party truly dedicated to “Our Democracy” would require that President Biden resign or for them to invoke the 25th Amendment to have him removed from office to be replaced by Kamala Harris as President (as she was democratically elected to do). They should also not be discussing any replacement for Kamal Harris as the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party, as she was democratically elected by the primary voters. As such, they are only interested in obtaining and retaining power for themselves regardless of the will of the Democrat Party primary voters.

In these words and deeds, they seem more concerned about the ignoble purposes of obtaining and retaining power and control over the American people than they are about preserving “Our Democracy”. Any party so interested in obtaining and retaining power for themselves is not a party dedicated to “Our Democracy”, but a party dedicated to themselves and a party that is only interested in establishing an autocracy over the people. Such a party does not deserve to be the leaders of a Freedom and Liberty loving people, nor of a people dedicated to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/20/24 Is the 25th Amendment Useless?

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution deals with the removal of a sitting President when they have become incapacitated. At the time prior to the adoption of the Amendment, it was hotly debated, with supporters and opponents offering various pros and cons for its adoption. Its supporters defended the Amendment as necessary in a world of modern medicine that can sustain life even when serious mental and physical disabilities addle a person, and the Amendment was the best that could be achieved. Its critics decried Section 4 of the Amendment as overly complicated and would require virtuous actions by politicians to be invoked and followed through, which was unlikely to occur, and the Amendment was confusing and complicated in its application.

Since the adoption of the 25th Amendment, there has been no serious need to invoke the 25th Amendment. Now that there is a need for this Amendment, it has been shown that the opponents of the 25th Amendment were correct in the application of this Amendment. We have a seriously addled President who refuses to resign even when members of his own party recognize his mental and physical disabilities, and we have seen no serious attempts to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. What we have seen is cover-ups and lies about his condition, aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media. The fact is that in a dangerous world, it is dangerous to have an addled President. As President Biden is obviously addled, he poses a danger to the American people and needs to be removed forthwith. Political considerations about his removal do not alleviate the danger he poses and are inconsequential to the possible dangers that we may face. Yet, political considerations have predominated in the discussions of his removal, and virtuous actions by politicians are nowhere to be seen.

The lesson to be learned is that while individual virtue by politicians may occur, collected virtue by many politicians is rare, and in both cases, political considerations often intervene in virtuous actions. Consequently, a law that requires virtuous actions by politicians is usually doomed to failure and should not be depended upon. Thus, the 25th Amendment has failed, and it needs to be replaced by an Amendment that does not require virtuous actions by politicians to be invoked and followed through.

07/19/24 Excoriating Lawfare

In an article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Mr. President, If You Want to Mend Our Political Divide, End Lawfare”, he excoriates the practice of "Lawfare":

“Lawfare is the criminalization of policy differences and partisan rivalries. As such, it is another iteration of the same pathology Biden condemned in his Oval Office remarks: the abuse of power that catalyzes political violence.

A stable republic settles its differences in its democratic processes — debates by its elected representatives and fair elections. In an unstable nation, the ruling regime uses its control of prosecutorial power to imprison and harass opponents and dissenters. The objective is not just to suppress but to vilify political opponents — to portray them as treasonous, if not inhuman, and as an existential threat to the society. This is the same abomination that inspires political violence.

Included is lawfare’s inevitable regimen of two-tiered justice. In lawfare, the regime’s enemies are pursued obsessively, even for trivial or manufactured offenses — Bragg’s prosecution of Trump being a perfect example. In a contrast too stark to be missed, lawfare shields the regime’s apparatchiks and allies from serious prosecution even for violent crimes — witness the blind eye turned to rioting and other lawlessness by self-styled racial-justice and pro-Hamas agitators, the blatantly unlawful harassment of Supreme Court justices, and the Biden DOJ’s yearslong effort to shield the Biden family from accountability for influence-peddling.

The practice of two-tiered justice inculcates in the society the lesson that violence — whether against political enemies or in furtherance of regime-favored causes — is rewarded. It breeds ever more violence and instability.”

Lawfare only brings about despotism then tyranny, as I have examine in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". As is normal for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, they often espouse lofty goals before committing disreputable words and deeds. Such is the case for President Biden as he often talks the talk, but rarely does he walk the walk, as he did in his Oval Office address to the Nation after the assignation attempt on President Trump. At the end of Mr. McCarthy’s article, he illuminates the deeds that are necessary to back up the talk:

“Sunday evening, the president said that Americans are not “enemies” of each other — that “we are friends and co-workers, citizens and most importantly fellow Americans,” who are bonded together despite our political differences. It is one thing for Joe Biden to say that. It’s another to prove that he means it. He can do that, cost-free but to great political benefit, by ending lawfare.”

07/19/24 Are They Enemies or Opponents?

It is all too common in modern America to view an opponent as an enemy. However, there are significant differences between an enemy and an opponent. Enemies are any hostile group of people who wish to defeat and destroy you, while opponents are those who offer adversarial disagreement with you. Enemies must be defeated, while opponents should be accommodated without sacrificing your principles.

Unfortunately, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as enemies that must be defeated by any means necessary rather than opponents who should not be elected through the normal political process of elections. Thus, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists engage in the tactics of Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and the possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. In engaging in any means necessary, they are being antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and are assaulting our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

They do this because Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America".

This is nothing new for Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they have been treating Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as enemies for several decades. Alas, they have forgotten the words from The Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In their forgetfulness and in a long train of abuses and usurpations, they have angered those that they treat as enemies rather than opponents. An anger that is now at a boiling point that may tip us into a civil conflict or civil war, which is justifiable under the above principles of The Declaration of Independence.

07/18/24 Mainstream Media Cover-ups and Lies

Victor Davis Hanson's new article, “Our Brezhnev, our Pravda, our Soviet Union...” recounts how the Mainstream Media has become the Pravda (“Truth”) of America. Their cover-ups and lies about President Biden’s deteriorating mental and physical health do justice to the Pravda cover-ups and lies about the stasis of the Soviet Union’s General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev of the Communist Party. Cover-ups and lies that lasted for many years until they were able to announce that he had died. As Mr. Hanson stated in his article:

“Biden, too, is at that point of stasis. He cannot do press conferences, town halls, debates, or real interviews. To do so would confirm to the public the truth: that Biden is too cognitively challenged to continue his presidency.”

Thus, the cover-ups and lies about Biden’s health can no longer withstand the truths about his condition, and the Mainstream Media now professes shock that they were lied to about his health. However, they were lies that the mainstream media were all too willing to accept in their support for the politics of the Democrat Party and the Biden Administration, as I have written in my article on "Modern Journalism". An acceptance of lies that is contrary to their journalist ethics of uncovering the facts and reporting the truths of the facts to the American public. Such old-fashioned journalist ethics have become passé in modern America, and they have been replaced by advocacy journalism that adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. As such, in advocacy journalism, facts and truths do not matter if they contravene the accepted political narrative. Alas, the Free Press has become the Self-Censored Press to achieve the journalists’ political proclivities.

In such an advocacy journalistic era, democracy cannot survive, as democracy requires that the public have the unvarnished facts and truths to make an informed decision. However, in such an advocacy journalistic era, despotism can thrive, as those who have contrary facts and truths from the journalists’ political proclivities become fearful of recriminations for speaking their minds. In such an advocacy journalistic era, journalists become petty despots and, consequently, the enemies of Liberty and Freedom.

07/18/24 The Online Censorship Racket

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “Elon Musk is Right: End the Online Censorship Racket”, he discusses the recent report of the House Judiciary Committee and the disclosure of yet another effort to silence opposing viewpoints by squeezing the revenue of individuals or groups, including Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

“Few Americans have ever heard of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, let alone understand how it shapes what they read and hear in news and commentary. That may soon change.

An alarming new report of the House Judiciary Committee details this organization’s work to censor conservative and opposing viewpoints in the media by targeting figures such as Joe Rogan and entire social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter).

It is part of a massive censorship system that a federal court recently described as “Orwellian.” The sophistication of this system makes authoritarian regimes like China’s and Iran’s look like mere amateurs in censorship and blacklisting.”

Mr. Turley also points out:

“Through the years, I have testified repeatedly in Congress on this system supported enthusiastically by President Biden and his administration. It has proven to be a frustrating game of whack-a-mole for civil libertarians. The Democrats in Congress have uniformly opposed any investigation or action on censorship while denying for years that there was a coordinated effort between government and corporations. When we were successful in uncovering components of this system, they were often quickly shut down as the work shifted to other components and assets.”

Such duplicitous action reveals the true commitment of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to stifle any speech that opposes their political goals and policy agendas. The fear of being targeted by such groups is also a form of despotism. A stifling and despotism that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

The question is, of course, what can be Constitutionally done to end this Online Censorship Racket? We had better find a solution to this problem before our Constitution becomes but a hollowed-out shell in protecting our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights".

07/17/24 That Didn’t Take Long

In a Washington Times article By Stephen Dinan, “Biden rejects responsibility for overheated rhetoric: ‘I’m not engaged in that’”, he discusses an interview that President Biden had with Lester Holt of NBC News on Monday, July 15, 2024:

“President Biden laid blame for the country’s overheated rhetoric at the feet of former President Donald Trump in an interview Monday and said he sees no need to change his own behavior.

A day after asking all sides to “cool” their words and two days after a gunman narrowly failed to assassinate Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden told NBC that it’s Republicans who have crossed the lines — and particularly Mr. Trump’s “inflammatory” words.

“I’m not engaged in that rhetoric. Now my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric. He talks about ‘bloodbath’ if he loses,” Mr. Biden said.

He specifically rejected the idea that he needs to do any soul-searching about his own words.”

Since that interview, other Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media have disclaimed that they are engaging in overheated rhetoric and that Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives are primarily responsible for the overheated rhetoric. Such claims rely on "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" to buttress the claim, which makes their claims ludicrous. If you are utilizing pejoratives, as I have written in my article Divisiveness in America, then you are engaged in overheated rhetoric.

This is but another example of how Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media engage in navel-gazing when it comes to their own words and deeds. A navel-gazing that allows them to ignore the consequences of their own words and deeds and shift blame to their opponents for any negative consequences that their words and deeds engender. It is a self-delusion that absolves them from any responsibility for the havoc they may wreak. It is also a delusion that the mainstream media does not question and, indeed, supports, as it is also a delusion that the mainstream media also has.

These delusions are dangerous to America and Americans, as it allows for havoc to reign without assigning responsibility for the havoc. It also allows the perpetrators of the delusion to divert the American public from assigning responsibility to the persons who created the havoc, thereby stymieing the American people to take corrective actions to put an end to the havoc.

07/17/24 Zombie Lies

What is a Zombie Lie? Bill Maher coined this term to mean something that never was true, but certain people refuse to stop saying it, or something that used to be true but no longer is, but certain people pretend it's still true.

In a Real Time with Bill Maher interview with the notable black radio host Charlamagne Tha God, aka Lenard Larry McKelvey, Maher makes some interesting points. One issue that Maher has criticized progressives on is the lack of recognition of progress in America. Bill Maher was visibly disappointed by Charlamagne's statement that you need to be 5x better as a black person in America in 2024:

BM: "I think that's a zombie lie." CTG: "Why?" BM: "Because that's not America anymore."

Maher continued:

“Is there more work to be done? Sure, but it’s not 1619. It’s not even 1960. Non-whites can and do have the right to access any public facility without being seated in a racially segregated zone, can attend any educational institution, vote, drive cars, and do pretty much anything a Muslim woman cannot in Iran or Gaza. That’s the point. Jim Crow is dead—stop acting like we haven’t moved past it.”

He also stated:

“Every nation has a dark period in its history. Slavery was our original sin, and we fought the deadliest war in American history to resolve it. It doesn’t exist, though I’m sure many progressive students wish it did to feed their victimhood addiction. Things are exponentially better now than they were in 1960, or 1860, or 1760.”

I often disagree with Bill Maher, especially on what Zombie Lies are or are not. However, I believe that on this topic, he is absolutely correct, as I believe that on issues regarding human interactions:

“In regard to human interactions, time passes, things change, and what was true yesterday may not be true today, and what will be true tomorrow is unknown. Therefore, remember yesterday, live for today, and think about tomorrow.” - Mark Dawson

Many statements are claimed to be Zombie Lies, but if the statement has some factual basis, it cannot be a lie, but it can be a mistaken and/or misleading statement. This is often true during a political dispute as both Zombie Lies and mistaken and/or misleading statements are all too common, as I have written in my article “Lies and Beliefs”. We should all keep in mind when evaluating the truth or falsehood of political statements that:

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false." - Mark Dawson

Additionally, tis the Presidential election season when former Zombie Lies arise from the dead and become once again in vogue and all too common. Zombie Lies are told by partisans on both sides, but they appear to be a political tactic of the Democrat Party. This is especially true about President Trump's statements, as he is often too colorful and unclear in his statements, makes comical and facetious statements, and makes statements that border on or are Zombie Lies. The Democrat Party also takes many of Trump’s statements out of context to make them appear to be what they are not. It is also an unfortunate fact that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are bereft of humor and will twist and turn Trump’s comical and facetious statements to make them appear to be serious statements. This is especially pernicious when the Zombie Lie said about Trump have been proven to be false, yet they are propagated to smear Trump.

Thus, beware of Zombie Lies from both sides during this political season, as they will become fast and furious for the next several months.

07/16/24 A Larger Voice in a Large Crowd

In a column by Noah Rothman, “Deeper into the Abyss”, he expresses the sentiments that are complementary to those that I expressed in my Chirp on “07/08/24 A Small Voice in a Large Crowd”:

“In moments like these, writing anything at all feels like an imprudent exercise. It’s hard to think of anything that will make a positive contribution to the discourse. The most prudent course would be to say nothing at all, gather information, and produce something of value when passions have cooled. But taking that path means ceding the environment to firebrands and political vandals whose enterprise depends on thoughtless fervor. If writing injudiciously risks exacerbating tensions in a political landscape rife with them, it’s just as irresponsible to allow the miscreants and demagogues to control the mic. So here goes.”

I have often delayed Chirping about a current event until more information becomes available or my anger subsides to a more dispassionate state. Given our current extremely contentious presidential election season, I expect that contentious events will occur fast and furiously, and there may be little time to reflect or calm down before the next contentious event occurs. Thus, I may be forced to Chirp more quickly than would be normal for myself. In such an environment, it can be expected that mistakes may occur or intemperate reactions may be exposed. If this should happen in my Chirps and Articles, I would ask your forgiveness beforehand, and I shall correct myself by addendum.

In the past, I have self-restricted my Chirps to one a day, but given the numerous, fast, and furious current events in this Presidential election cycle, I find that once a day is too limiting to give justice to the nonsense that is occurring. I, therefore, will begin to Chirp more than once a day to keep up with the nonsense. Any errors that may occur in my original Chirp will be corrected by an addendum in the original Chirp, while expansions to my original Chirp thoughts will engender a new Chirp.

07/15/24 Violence in the Political Arena

There have been many immediate comments by prominent people about the assassination attempt on President Trump, most of them about how individual violence is unacceptable in the political arena. However, there has been no such condemnation when mob violence is utilized for political purposes.

The most glaring example of this was the many incidents during the 2020 Summer of Riots throughout the last Presidential campaign. As reporters opined that the mobs were “mostly peaceful”, in the background of their reports were scenes of arson, looting, and vandalism in which approximately $2 billion in personal property destruction occurred and in which hundreds of people were injured, and approximately 45 persons were killed. Thousands of demonstrators turned out nightly, with some of them hurling fireworks, rocks, ball bearings, and bottles at law enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers responded with huge plumes of tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and shielded charges that created chaotic, war zone-like scenes.

During these protests, many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists voiced support for the protesters as justifiable actions by the events that preceded and triggered the protests. Some supporters and Democrat Party politicians even helped with fundraising in support of the rioters, and almost no prosecutions ensued against the rioters. When the January 6th, 2021, “Insurrection” occurred, there was immediate and universal condemnation and prosecutions for these rioters, as they were in opposition to the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists stances. Thus, it seems that mob violence is acceptable in the political arena if it is in support of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists convictions, but it is condemned when it opposes their convictions. Meanwhile, Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives have condemned all mob violence from all sides of the political spectrum.

Consequently, we have a dichotomy of what is acceptable and unacceptable violence in individual and mob violence where none should exist. All political violence should be condemned by all under all circumstances. Otherwise, we live in a chaotic society where A Civil Society cannot exist.

07/14/24 Blind, Deaf, and Clueless

One look at the video of the shooting of President Trump in Butler, PA., is enough for any semi-intelligent person to conclude it was an assassination attempt. Yet many in the Mainstream Media ran this story with the following headlines:

“Secret Service Rushes Trump Off Stage after He Falls At Rally” - CNN
“Secret Service Rushes Trump Offstage After Popping Noises Heard At His Pennsylvania Rally” - NBC News
“Trump Apparently Injured at Rally” - MSNBC
“Trump Rally Halted by Security Incident” - Fox News
“Trump Rally Incident” - NBC News
“Trump Speech Interrupted by Secret Service” - CNN
“Trump Taken Away After Loud Noises at Rally” - Washington Post

If ever there was an excellent example of the bias of the Mainstream Media, these headlines take the cake. The Mainstream Media’s inability to accurately portray this assassination attempt demonstrates just how Blind, Deaf, and Clueless they are (and perhaps deliberately so) when it comes to reporting on Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives.

There have been many immediate comments by prominent people about this assassination attempt, mostly about how violence is unacceptable in the political arena. However, the most intelligent quote about the reason for this assassination attempt is by Former Attorney General Bill Barr, “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not.” When you demonize an opponent by personal pejoratives, as I have written in my article on “Divisiveness in America”, you set the stage for an irrational or mentally unbalanced person to take deplorable and deadly actions to eliminate the demonized person. Such has been the case of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their fear and loathing of Trump (i.e., TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome). Thus, we have the following situation:

Alas, I do not expect Democrat Party Leaders or those who are infected by TDS to mute their rhetoric about Trump (except in the next few days), as it appears that this is the only effective strategy and tactic that they have to defeat Trump.

07/13/24 Republican Party Platform

The Republican National Committee has offered a 2024 Presidential Election Platform that has twenty points of what they wish to accomplish for the American people if Donald Trump is elected President. These points are:

SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION
CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY
END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN
MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!
STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER
LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY -- ALL MADE IN AMERICA
END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS
REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON DC, MAKING THEM SAFE, CLEAN, AND BEAUTIFUL AGAIN.
STRENGTHEN AND MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY, MAKING IT, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE STRONGEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD
KEEP THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY
FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE
CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS
CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN
KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
DEPORT PRO-HAMAS RADICALS AND MAKE OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFE AND PATRIOTIC AGAIN
SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING SAME DAY VOTING, VOTER IDENTIFICATION, PAPER BALLOTS, AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP
UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS

As always, the devil is in the details, and the details will be hotly debated and demonized by the Democrat Party. I eagerly await the Democrat Party 2024 Presidential Election Platform so that I can compare and contrast the different platforms. Until then, I can only expect the platforms to sharply disagree with their visions and the future course of America.

07/12/24 If Trump Wins

A new campaign ad by the Biden Reelection campaign has started to run that makes the following points:

This begs the questions of:

Why not Mass deportations and migrant detention camps for those persons who have entered America illegally?
Why not Reinstate the Muslim Travel ban for those Muslim countries that have extensive ties to Islamic terrorists?
Why not Deploy federal troops to Democratic-run cities when Law and Order is not being preserved in those cities?
Why not Direct the DOJ to prosecute political opponents who have utilized Unconstitutional and illegal means to impose their will upon America?
Why not Replace career civil servants with hard-line loyalists, as the current civil servants are hard-line Progressive loyalists?

There is also the problem of their utilizing fearmongering to invoke mob passion to vote against Trump rather than the usual political rhetoric to incentivize their supporters. The answer is that they are so deficient in their usual political rhetoric that they fear losing the election if they do not utilize fearmongering. This fearmongering further increases Divisiveness in America and harms A Civil Society.

Ronald Regan's question about Jimmy Carter’s record, “Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?” hangs over the reelection of President Biden. In an attempt to avoid answering this question, the Biden 2024 election campaign has resorted to fearmongering against Trump and Republicans to hide the factual answer to this question. America, the American people, and the world are not better off today than at the start of the Biden Administration. This answer is a sufficient reason to not vote for Biden and the Democrat candidates, and the utilization of fearmongering is a sufficient reason to vote for Trump and Republican candidates.

This, along with my chirp on “07/11/24 It’s On the Ballot”, is why the 2024 election is crucial to America's future. It is a choice of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" versus a despotic government intent on establishing their "Oligarchy in America". God forbid the American electorate makes the wrong choice, as all hope may be lost for a bright and prosperous America dedicated to our American values.

07/11/24 It’s On the Ballot

As Jonathan Turley has written, “Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.” I agree that democracy is on the ballot, as well as the American values of Freedom of Speech and the preservation of The Rule of Law in America. As I have written in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and "The Weaponization of Government", we have seen a continual assault on these American values by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. President Biden and his Administration have been at the forefront of this assault, and all three American values of Democracy, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law will perish if Joe Biden is reelected.

This assault is currently directed against former President Trump, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump", but it has also ensnared his associates, as well as ordinary Americans who have dared to express their virulent disagreement with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders political goals and policy agendas. Thus, we have seen a form of despotism descend upon America. This despotism is on the ballot in the form of Democrat Party candidates who all seem to support these despotic actions.

Consequently, our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are on the ballot in the 2024 election. Think wisely and choose carefully for whom you would vote in the 2024 elections, as the future course of American values is on the ballot.

07/10/24 Rational, Reasonable, and Virtuous

In my articles on "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and in my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", I discuss the importance of these attributes, especially in political life. A rational and reasonable person understands the mental and physical unfitness of President Biden to remain in office and run for reelection. A virtuous person would try to get him to resign and not run for reelection. However, rationality, reasonableness, and virtuousness seem to be lacking in Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in regard to President Biden. Their fear and loathing of Trump (i.e., TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome) runs so strong that they would sacrifice all to defeat Trump.

The discussions that they have been having on replacing Biden as their presidential candidate since the presidential debate have been about his electability rather than his mental and physical fitness, with fitness only being the excuse for dropping him. Prior to his awful Presidential Debate performance with Trump, they all were supportive of Biden and made excuses for his physical and mental difficulties. When it appeared that he was electable, there was no talk of replacing him; it was only excuses for his physical and mental deterioration so as to not harm his electability. Additionally, if he is indeed unfit to run for President, then he is unfit to be President, and they should be trying to get him to resign from the Presidency as well as not run for reelection. Thus, their words and deeds are not of a rational, reasonable, and virtuous person but of people who only wish to obtain and retain political office and power.

Their lust for power and control over the American government and society knows no restraints nor bounds, and they will not allow any obstacles to their lust. In their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good, and, as such, they believe that they can do no wrong. The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Civil Discourse are all to be jettisoned in their lust for political office and power and in their Trump Derangement Syndrome. What they are sacrificing in this belief is the future of America as a land of Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as the security and safety of America and the world. Thus, they and President Biden are a danger to our American Ideals and Ideas, as well as to the security and safety of the American people and of the world.

07/09/24 The Best-Laid Plans

An article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Bidengate and the Doom Loop”, begins with him stating:

“The entire 2019-20 Biden candidacy and subsequent presidency were predicated on a rotten Faustian bargain. A hale Joe Biden would feign his aw-shucks, Joe from Scranton schtick. And an ossified working-class Joe’s camouflage would get the hard left elected—especially thanks to the changes in balloting laws that often saw only 30 percent of the electorate voting on Election Day in key states.

In exchange, the two narcissistic Bidens would bask in the power and attention of the presidency. From the start, Jill and the media would orchestrate deep cover for Joe’s escalating dementia as well as the true intentions of the now-in-power radical Democratic Party with its neo-socialist agenda. The former Obama acolytes would get their long-dreamed-of third presidential term. And this time they would enact a truly radical agenda while their string puppet mumbled to everyone that he was just old, familiar Joe working for the middle class.

The problem, inter alia, with the ruse was that it was based on a complete lie to the American people. Joe Biden was nowhere near cognitively competent. He could not campaign “normally” in 2020. And it would be impossible for his dementia to go undetected even in the ceremonial duties of the presidency for four, perhaps even eight, more years.”

Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, as the poet Robert Burns has said, “The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” The hubris of the Democrat Party Leaders that they could predict the progress of dementia in an individual and control the events surrounding a dementia-laden person is astonishing, and, as a result, their chickens have come home to roost. They are now laden with a presidential candidate whom most of the American people now recognize is in the throughs of dementia and is therefore unelectable.

As Victor Davis Hanson concludes in his article:

“Biden and the apparat that presses on with the current farce might well lose more than the presidency—by losing both houses of Congress and ensuring Trump an unobstructed legislative trajectory to implement a complete reversal of the Obama-Biden years.

Yet, if Biden should step down voluntarily, pundits have run through the endless ensuing problematics. They are considerable: will his successor be on the ballot in all 50 states? What will the Party’s leftist base do if the identity-politics-selected Harris is pushed aside (and what will it do if she is not and steps up to the presidency?). And how would a successor to Biden emerge in a free-delegate luche libre at a Chicago carnival convention, with chaos both inside the convention hall and a more violent “Death to America!’ bedlam on the streets outside?

So given all these nihilist alternatives, the two Bidens’ choice for now is to bark at the public. They will insult their own toadish media and deny the obvious. They will put the country’s interest dead last and connive that Joe can scowl, scold, lie, and yell at his critics—with not a care that our enemies abroad will conclude this is a golden Biden moment to do something stupid that may not come again.”

This entire article is well worth the read, as it documents the hubris of the Democrat Party Leaders in perpetuating this fraud on the American people and the problems this fraud has engendered upon America and the Democrat Party.

07/08/24 A Small Voice in a Large Crowd

I am but a small voice in a large crowd of free speech in opposition to modern American Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' political goals and policy agendas. But it has become very dangerous to be in this crowd in modern America, as the Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and a possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”, have become predominant in modern America.

This is why I am very careful in presenting a reasonable and rational argument for my opinions. I am also very careful in choosing my words, terms, and phrases in my writings so that I will not be misunderstood by my readers or mischaracterized by those who disagree with me. I am also concerned that if I become a louder and more important voice, then I would face "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and possible Lawfare of those that disagree with my opinions. Such carefulness should be utilized by all in their opinions, as it makes for A Civil Society. However, civil society does not condone the Three D’s nor Lawfare, which has become all too common in modern America.

Consequently, I must also be wary of expressing my opinions as I may suffer reputational, financial, or legal harm for doing so. This wariness is antithetical to the meaning of Free Speech and constricts free speech to those who have the courage or legal and financial resources to express what they think. I have the courage but lack the legal and financial resources to defend myself if Lawfare by my opponents is brought against me.

It is a shame that we have come to this point in American society. Without true freedom of speech, we become a mute and acquiescent people, subservient to those who have the governmental or legal and financial resources to engage in The Weaponization of Government or wage Lawfare. This must end, or we run the very real possibility of slip-sliding down the slippery slope into despotism and tyranny. A despotism that is already occurring in modern America, and a despotism that is being instituted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders against their opponents.

07/07/24 Limitations on Free Speech

I have often mentioned that Free Speech is under assault in modern America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". In the book by Jonathan Turley, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”, in Part IV of the book “Restoring the Indispensable Right”, the author examines the many ways that Free Speech is under assault in modern America. Those that engage in this assault claim that words are hurtful and provocative, or they are disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation and, thus, need to be censured for preventing the harm to persons and society that these words engender. Professor Turley also states that “The use of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation is a modern conceit used to protect the sensibilities and self-image of those denying free speech. As with ‘content moderation’ these terms allow advocates to avoid terms like censorship that still come with a stigma in polite circles.” Those who assault Free Speech often justify these assaults on free speech under the mantra that nobody should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or spread falsehoods that bring about negative repercussions. They also claim that the Constitution is not a suicide pack and, therefore, the First Amendment right to Free Speech can be limited to exclude words that harm a person or society. Such claims are in themselves falsehoods, as they are deeds rather than words that cause harm, and the suppression of free speech in any form or for any reason is harmful to a person and society.

It has become painfully obvious in modern America that what was considered “truths” in the past have become falsehoods in the present. During the Coronavirus Pandemic, the natural origin of the COVID-19 virus, the importance of masks and social distancing to prevent infections, the need to slow the spread and prevent infections by closure of schools and limiting public gatherings, and the efficacy of vaccinations were all deemed to be truths in the past but are now known to be falsehoods. Anyone who exercised their Free Speech rights to challenge these “truths” in the past was condemned and censured as spreading falsehoods that harmed individuals and society. As a result of these past “truths” being unchallengeable and dissent being suppressed, much harm was done to individuals, the economy, and society. Hence, the limitation of free speech was a real harm to Americans, America, and the world.

The other problem with limiting Free Speech is who shall determine what is hurtful, provocative, or disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is harmful, but who shall decide what is harmful?” as there is much disagreement on what is harmful. As I have often said, I will agree with limitations on Free Speech and other policy decisions that impact Americans if I am to be the person who makes such decisions. I am sure that this would not be acceptable to those who disagree with me, as it is unacceptable to me that those that I disagree with make decisions on what is harmful. To allow any one person, or a group of people, to make decisions on what Free Speech is harmful can only result in despotism and eventual tyranny in America.

Thus, any limitations on Free Speech harm all and is a form of despotism. A form of despotism that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/06/24 The Moment for Choosing

In an article in The New York Sun, they report that Trump Is endorsed for President by three leading columnists who say the campaign has reached ‘the Moment for Choosing’. Conrad Black, Victor Davis Hanson, and William Bennett, in a detailed statement, declare Trump the better candidate in ‘every important policy area.’

“We believe,” the three say, “that America and the world would be best served by the reelection of President Trump. We believe this because we find him superior in every important policy area, a much more capable executive, a much stronger and more energetic and intellectually agile occupant of such an enervating office, and a person who, despite terrible bouts of hucksterism in his commercial career, is substantially less compromised ethically than President Biden.”

In the conclusion of this report, Messrs. Black, Hanson, and Bennett state that “the indomitable resistance” by President Trump to the campaign against his candidacy has “enabled him to show admirable strength of character under daunting conditions” — making the 45th president the candidate who would “best serve the interests of the United States and of the Western world.”

To which I would comment, “Amen!”

07/05/24 Propogandists Rather Than Journalists

The recent debacle of President Joe Biden in the first presidential debate also demonstrates how the Mainstream Media and Social Media are a debacle. For the last several years, the Mainstream Media and Social Media have been covering up the decline of President Biden’s mental and physical health deterioration, or they have been making or propagating excuses for his decline. His decline has now become painfully apparent to the American people, and this decline can no longer be covered up by the Mainstream Media and Social Media.

The Mainstream Media and Social Media have retorted that they were misled by the Biden Administration, and they were only reporting on what they had been told by Biden insiders. However, a reporter is not a scribe, and, as such, they have the duty and responsibility to uncover the facts and truth and then report their discoveries to the American public. Otherwise, they are but lemmings running off the cliff with the other lemmings rather than being objective and uncovering the facts and truths and reporting them. A journalist has this duty and responsibility to the American public to report the facts and truths, as the facts and truths are necessary for the American people to make informed judgments.

In Chapter 27, “‘False News’ and Censorship by Surrogate”, in the book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley, the author points out that in the Biden Administration and by Democrat Party leaders:

“The coordination of censorship and blacklisting of dissenting voices in recent years raises the concern over the establishment of a de facto state media. While the First Amendment was designed to prevent the control of media through prior restraint and direct regulation, it is possible to have a state media by consent rather than coercion. The government found willing allies in media and social media companies for a system of censorship and blacklisting.”

Much of this lack of reporting the facts and truths is that the Mainstream Media and Social Media have a predilection for Progressive policies and Democrat Party politicians and do not wish to report anything that may go against their predilections or be helpful to Conservative policies or Republican Party politicians. Thus, Mainstream Media and Social Media have become propagandists rather than journalists.

07/04/24 Celebrate the Meaning of Independence Day

As I have written in my previous July 4th Chirps on Independence Day Celebrations, our celebrations of July 4th must be more than a celebration of independence from England but also a celebration of our American Ideals and Ideas. Our American ideals that are expressed in the Declaration of Independence are what we should be celebrating on Independence Day. Without celebrating these American ideals and ideas, we are only celebrating a historical event, not the meaning of this historical event. This is especially true for today's celebration, as we have entered into a period of Threats to Democracy, The Weaponization of Government, Lawfare, and a possible American Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”. Accordingly, we must celebrate the principles of the Declaration of Independence to fully give meaning to our Independence Day celebrations. As such, we should all read and ponder the opening words of the Declaration of Independence:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We should also think of the abuses of government as listed in the Declaration of Independence and ponder if these abuses are present in our current governance. If so, we should rededicate ourselves to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and end these abuses. If these abuses are not ended, then the Declaration of Independence is a warning: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

07/03/24 Independence and Seditious or Treasonous Rebellion

Were the protests at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, equivalent to the Boston Tea Party? The Boston Tea Party was an American political and mercantile protest on December 16, 1773, by the Sons of Liberty in Boston in colonial Massachusetts. The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. The Sons of Liberty strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. In response, the Sons of Liberty, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was the first act of rebellion by the American Colonists, which eventually led to the greatest act of rebellion in the American Revolution, in which the British government labeled the Declaration of Independence as seditious and the Revolution as treasonous.

America has a history of rebellion when perceived injustices by the government occur. Indeed, at the founding of America, we had the Shay’ Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), and the Fries's Rebellion (1799-1800), which required forceful government intervention to quell. In each case, the Government (British for the Boston Tea Party and the American governments for the other rebellions) labeled the perpetrators as seditious or treasonous and tried the perpetrators for such. Throughout American history, there were other " rebellions” in which the government labeled the perpetrators as seditious or treasonous and took legal action against the perpetrators. In modern America, we have seen the Civil Rights movement (1954–1968) and Vietnam War opposition (1965-1973) “rebellions” change the course of American history. All these rebellions were initially labeled as seditious or treasonous, and all of them were instituted by a minority of Americans who perceived injustices in America.

Thus, America is a society of irascible and irresistible impulses to challenge authority and rebellious actions when perceived injustices by the government occur. Many of these “rebellions” were for the good of American society, as these “rebellions” changed the course of America for the better. In many cases, the governmental actions against the perpetrators were for their words rather than their deeds. Deeds that cause death, injury to others, and property damage or destruction are legitimate causes for legal actions. However, words are not a legitimate cause for legal actions, as they are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The punishment for improper actions needs to be proportionate to the deeds under the 8th Amendment and other amendments and clauses of the Constitution. Otherwise, you are, in effect, punishing the words of the perpetrators.

The January 6th, 2021, United States Capitol Building attack in Washington, D.C., was the actions of a mob of supporters of then-U.S. president Donald Trump two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. The perpetrators perceived that the election was unjust and corrupt, and they sought to occupy the Capitol and prevent a joint session of Congress from counting the Electoral College votes to formalize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. The attack was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the certification of the election results, and Joe Biden became President of the United States.

Since that time, there has been a House of Representatives investigation of this attack and prosecutions against the perpetrators. An investigation that has now been discredited as unbalanced and prejudiced against the perpetrators and concealment of improper government actions before, during, and after the attack. The charges, prosecutions, and sentences of the perpetrators are well out of proportion to the deeds of the perpetrators, and the proper due process of law for the perpetrators has been questioned. In all these investigations and prosecutions, the perpetrators were characterized by the government as seditious and rebellious (and even by some as terrorists in lieu of treasonous), much like all the previous “rebellions” in American history.

Thus, the question is, should the January 6, 2021, protests at the United States Capitol Building be perceived as equivalent to the other “rebellions” in American history? It is a question that we must all ponder in deciding what to make of this “rebellion” and how history will perceive this “rebellion”.

07/02/24 Independence and Bearing Arms

As we celebrate Independence Day, we should remember that there would be no Independence Day celebrations if the American Colonists did not bear arms. The right to bear arms is not only for the purposes of being able to hunt for food but also for protection against violence by others against yourself, your family, and your property, and for the ability to defend against oppressive government actions, as I have Chirped on "10/24/20 The Natural Right of Self-Protection". Our Founding Fathers knew this by not only protecting themselves against marauding Indians but also protecting themselves against British and French troops that would infringe on their Natural Rights.

American colonists declared their intention to protect themselves through armed conflict, if necessary, against British threats against them and their natural rights. When the British attempted to seize their weapons, they utilized armed resistance to protect themselves. The Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, ensued, and along with the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, the American Revolution began.

Your Natural Right to keep and bear arms has been under assault for several decades. An assault led by regulations on the purchase of firearms and ammunition and also by calls for “commonsense” gun control, limitations on the purchase of types of firearms and ammunition, as well as limitations on firearm accessories. An assault, as I have written in the subsection “The Right to Bear Arms” of my History Article, “The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights”. The book In Defense of the Second Amendment by Larry Correia, which I have reviewed in my Book It on “04/01/23 What Part of the Second Amendment Don’t You Understand?”, is one of the best references of the meaning and importance of our Natural Right to keep and bear arms.

As we do not regulate or restrict our First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Peaceful assembly, Free Press, Religious Freedom, and Petitioning the Government, why should we be able to restrict or regulate our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The restrictions and regulations on these rights are antithetical to the purpose and intent of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and are thus un-American.

We have seen a concerted effort by some parties in modern America to restrict or strip our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is antithetical to the intent of the Founding Fathers in ensuring that our Natural Rights are sacrosanct in our society and protected against governmental interference with these Natural Rights. Accordingly, anyone who would deny you the right to bear arms is denying you the right to protect yourself from tyranny.

Thus, as we celebrate Independence Day, we should all remember that without the right to keep and bear arms, there would be no Independence Day, and without protecting our right to keep and bear arms, we run the risk of our Natural Rights being infringed and our slip-sliding down the slippery slope into tyranny.

07/01/24 Independence and Free Speech

In celebration of Independence Day, this month’s Book It selection is but one book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” by Jonathan Turley. This book examines the history and legal issues of Free Speech in America. However, it is neither a legal nor historical tome, but a readable, understandable, and enjoyable book suitable for the general public.A book that is a timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others. Without freedom of speech, America would not have had Independence Day, as it was free speech that set into motion all the events that led to our independence from England.

Alas, Free Speech is under assault in modern America in our current age of rage. This book reminds us of the importance of Free Speech in preserving our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". At the very least, you should read and ponder the Introduction and Conclusion of this book to comprehend the importance of Free Speech and the current assaults on Free Speech in modern America.

06/30/24 So Be It!

In an article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Why Joe Biden?”, he answers this question, “Because Democrats wanted to stay in power and propping him up, as impossible as that has now become, seemed to be the best plan.” He also makes the point that Biden’s closest aides and the top Democrats are responsible for propping up Joe Biden, but many Democrats are not part of this effort:

“As catastrophic as Biden is in his senescence, he remains useful cover for the fact that the youth, energy, and money in the Democratic Party is woke-leftist, Islamist, counter-constitutionalist, post-American, and unelectable.

This doesn’t mean the whole Democratic Party is that way. But it does mean that sensible Democrats have to mind their tongues and genuflect in the crazies’ direction if they want to remain viable. They may personally believe, like the majority of Americans believe, that the border needs to be secure; that we can’t allow millions of illegal aliens a year to enter the country; that we don’t want boys and men invading the formerly safe spaces of girls and women; that mere statistical racial disparities in outcomes do not establish racism; that crime — especially recidivist crime — is a serious problem; that we need to back Israel’s wars against Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian patrons; that a radical “green energy” transition the country is not ready for weighs too heavily on the budgets of everyday Americans even as it drives the national economy deeper into the ditch; and that America, warts and all, is fundamentally good — rightly, the envy of the world. But woe betide the Democrat who gives voice to such commonsense views.

Democrats have thus rolled the dice with Biden, and with the nation’s security, because the alternative is dealing with that rift.”

Being a mature adult requires that you accept the responsibility for your words and deeds and bear the burdens of the negative consequences of your words and deeds. As the Bible says in Galatians VI, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” and in Hosea 8:7, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” the Democrat Party has sown and is now reaping. It now appears that Biden may be unelectable and may drag down other Democrat Party candidates with him, to which I say, “So Be It!”. The Democrat Party must now bear the burdens of their words and deeds, and they deserve their reaping from their sowing, and America and the American people will be better off as a result.

06/29/24 Beyond the Pale

A typical modus operandi of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is to utilize political tactics and rhetoric that are considered beyond the pale of acceptable political means, and when Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders use these tactics, they call for an end to these tactics and rhetoric as beyond the pale of acceptable political means. They also do not offer any apology for their using these tactics and rhetoric, nor do they offer any recompense for those harmed by their tactics and rhetoric. This is, of course, a double standard of conduct and the height of hypocrisy. Alas, double standards of conduct and hypocrisy for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is the norm in modern America.

Inflaming mob passions with disingenuousness and lying to the American people is a tactic that is beyond the pale and often used by Democrat Party Leaders. Persecuting and prosecuting their opponents’ words and deeds while excusing their supporters’ words and deeds is hypocritical and beyond the pale. Filing frivolous legal lawsuits to tie up in legal proceedings and delay actions with which they disagree is beyond the pale. Their use of unconstitutional means to achieve their policy goals and political agendas is beyond the pale.

When the Supreme Court issued rulings with which they agreed, they supported the independence of the Supreme Court. However, when the Supreme Court issued rulings with which they did not agree, they wanted to make the Supreme Court more compliant to their viewpoints through threats as well as by denigrating some Supreme Court Justices and by utilizing various unconstitutional means to change the composition of the Supreme Court, all of which is beyond the pale. Their "The Weaponization of Government" and their rhetoric on "Threats to Democracy" is only applied to their opponents, and not their supporters, and is beyond the pale. Even laws have been crafted that exempt themselves and their supporters from the law, which is hypocritical and beyond the pale.

Their deliberate sowing of confusion in the American public mind through "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Putting Words into Another's Mouth", "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and their utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" is beyond the pale.

The reason for this is that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Consequently, Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party leaders are motivated to do what is best for them, as they believe that what is best for them is best for all Americans. In addition, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are only interested in obtaining and retaining power to implement their policy goals and political agendas, and, therefore, they believe that any tactic and rhetoric to achieve political power for them is acceptable political means. As I have Chirp on "05/26/24 There Be Witches and Warlocks", they also believe that Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are evil and that any tactic and rhetoric necessary to defeat them is acceptable. All of this is beyond the pale.

These political tactics and rhetoric by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are contrary to A Civil Society and invoke Divisiveness in America, and are therefore beyond the pale. Consequently, they are despicable political tactics and rhetoric that should end. However, we can only expect that they will end when they become ineffective and lead to election losses for Democrat Party candidates. Accordingly, it is up to the American public to end these beyond the pale tactics and rhetoric by not voting for Democrat Party candidates. Only then will the Democrat Party reform itself and stop going beyond the pale.

06/28/24 Stuttering and Cluttering

Stuttering is a disruption in the fluency of verbal expression characterized by involuntary, audible or silent repetitions or prolongations of sounds or syllables. These are not readily controllable and may be accompanied by other movements and by emotions of a negative nature, such as fear, embarrassment, or irritation (Wingate 1964).

Cluttering is a disorder of both speech and language processing that frequently results in rapid, dysrhythmic, sporadic, unorganized, and often unintelligible speech (Daly, 1993).

Stuttering and Cluttering are treatable, but sometimes not. Treating them earlier in life is more likely to be successful than treating them later in life (as it is with most psychological treatments). Stuttering and Cluttering in old age can be very difficult to correct due to the mental effects of old age, and stuttering and cluttering often become more pronounced in old age and are often symptoms of mental decline.

The history of Joe Biden has been one of stuttering, but it has now become one of cluttering. The appearance of President Biden in the 2024 State of the Union address, and now the first Presidential debate of 2024, in which his stuttering and cluttering were not as readily apparent as in his other public appearances, leads one to wonder if there is a pharmaceutical reason for his minimal stuttering and cluttering in these venues. If so, he and his team are attempting to hoodwink the American public into believing that he is mentally fit to be President. We know as a historical fact that the spouses and close associates of Democrat Presidents Woodrow E. Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt lied and hid the deteriorating physical and mental health of these presidents to retain power, and it appears that the spouse and close associates of Democrat Joe Biden are doing the same as regards to his deteriorating physical and mental health. Such lies and hides are a sufficient reason not to vote for Biden in the upcoming presidential election.

The question is, is President Biden’s cluttering one of the mental effects of old age? Given that he is exhibiting other physical and mental declines (difficulties in climbing stairs, awkward gaits, being physically led around by others, wandering inappropriately, blank stares, and other awkward displays), it is safe to assume his cluttering is one of mental decline.

Just as you would not give an older person who has severe cluttering the responsibility of conducting your business or handling your finances, so the American should not give responsibilities of the Presidency and the conducting of the Executive Branch administration to Joe Biden. It is well past time for Joe Biden to retire from the public stage and enjoy what time he has left in life with his family.

06/27/24 The Unethical and Immoral in Political Debates

With the first 2024 Presidential debate occurring tonight, the American people should be very wary of what both candidates espouse in this debate. President Trump has a well-deserved reputation for exaggerating his record and exorbitant statements about his opponents. President Biden has a well-deserved reputation for outright lying about himself and his record and claiming that his opponents are lying about himself and his record.

Politicians exaggerating their records and exorbitant statements about their opponents is to be expected in their politicking and political disputes. However, while I consider this conduct to be unethical, I also realize that it is normative for politicians throughout history and that there is nothing that can be done about it. However, outright lying and claiming that opponents are lying when the truth is demonstrable is immoral and should not be tolerated.

It should also be remembered by the American public that facts and truths can be interpreted differently by persons of goodwill. Such interpretations are not unethical or immoral; they are disputes. Disputes which should be adjudged in a different manner than unethical or immoral statements.

Thus, in tonight’s presidential debate, the American public needs to be cognizant of the unethical, immoral, and disputed aspects of the debate and make their judgments on the debate with this in mind.

06/26/24 Reality Check

Ray Didinger is an American sportswriter, radio personality, sports commentator, author, playwriter, and an honoree of the writers’ honor roll in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. He has spent his entire career covering the NFL Philadelphia Eagles as well as other Philadelphia sports teams. During his time as a sports commentator, when the other commentators or fans became over-exuberant about the Eagles, he would often interject with the phrase “Reality Check” and proceed to bring back some sanity to the discussion.

In that spirit, I believe it is time to have a “Reality Check” on the assertions of what President Trump may do if he is elected. A reality check is based on what he did (or did not) do when he was President and what his opponents claim he will do if he is elected.

You may recall that during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton was embroiled in a scandal regarding her private e-mail server and the mishandling of classified information. The chant of “Lock Her Up” rang out loud amongst Trump supporters, while Clinton supporters claimed that it was not a serious violation of the handling of classified information. Given my experience in the handling of classified information, as I have written in my article Classified Information, I can attest that this was a serious violation and that if other people with security clearances had done what Hillary Clinton did, they would have been prosecuted and if convicted would have served time in prison. Upon entering office, President Trump took no action against Hillary Clinton, despite his supporters' pressure to do so, as he decided that for the good of the country, no action was the best action. Thus, we can conclude that Trump places the good of the country as his highest priority regarding his actions against opponents.

During the Trump Administration, we did not see any threats to democracy or the weaponization of government that occurred during the Obama and Biden administrations, as I examined in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "The Weaponization of Government". The only threat that the Trump Administration presented was the threat to block Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders political goals and policy agendas and his disruption of their desire to establish their oligarchy in America, which I have written about in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America". It was because of these blockages and disruptions that President Trump was relentlessly attacked by his opponents, and, despite these attacks, he did not take any personal actions against his opponents that his opponents claimed he would take against them if he was once again elected. Trump has stated that if he is once again elected, he will be too busy fixing the problems of America to engage in any retaliation or revenge against his opponents. Given that he has shown that he places the good of the country as his highest priority, there is no reason to disbelieve this statement.

During the Trump Administration, the stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying to Congress and the American people were minimal, as to be expected of contentious political disputes. During the Biden Administration and somewhat the Obama Administration, stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying were taken to a new level and became standard operating procedure. Consequently, we can expect that if Trump is once again elected, stonewalling, disingenuousness, and lying will return to normal levels.

In the Biden Administration, we have also seen defiance to Supreme Court rulings with which they disagree (i.e., student loan forgiveness, the overturning of Federal abortion rights, and other rulings) to an extent never seen in the Trump Administration. Thus, Trump worked within the Supreme Court rulings while Biden worked against Supreme Court rulings. Consequently, we can expect that if Trump is once again elected, Supreme Court rulings will not be defied, and he will work within Supreme Court rulings.

In the Biden and Obama administrations, we saw a distortion of the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion to avoid law enforcement for those laws with which they disagreed. Insidiously, what the Obama–Biden administration dubbed “prosecutorial discretion” was, in reality, a dereliction of the president’s Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In the Trump Administration, while there was some abuse of prosecutorial discretion, it was nowhere near the extent and for the purposes of invalidating the law as in the Biden and Obama Administrations.

Therefore, assertions of what he would do if he was elected bear little relationship to the reality of what he did or did not do as President. Consequently, these assertions are nothing but irrational fearmongering by his opponents. A fearmongering that is meant to sway the election based on emotional responses rather than intelligent thought. Fearmongering that is amongst the lowest form of electioneering. Such it is with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they are aware that fearmongering and mob passions help Democrat candidates, while intelligent thought leads voters away from Democrat candidates.

Alas, what we can expect if Trump is elected is that the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists will ratchet up their rhetoric and use whatever means necessary to oppose Trump and his political goals and policy agendas. Whatever means necessary to include inflaming mob passions with disingenuousness and lying to the American people, stonewalling in Congress, as well as frivolous legal lawsuits and sometimes unconstitutional actions to oppose Trump. Means that are contrary to A Civil Society and invoke Divisiveness in America.

06/25/24 Some Other Democrat for President

There has been talk of replacing President Joe Biden as the Democrat candidate for President with another Democrat leader. The most prominent name mentioned is California Governor Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom has political appeal as a younger, attractive, charming, and articulate person. The question, however, is if his intelligence, skills, and abilities are sufficiently abundant to right the course of America and provide leadership to correct the ills of America. In a column by Victor Davis Hanson, “How California's Paradise Become Our Purgatory”, he examines the current state of affairs in California under Gavin Newsom and begins his column by stating:

“California has become a test case of the suicide of the West. Never before has such a state, so rich in natural resources and endowed with such a bountiful human inheritance, self-destructed so rapidly.

How and why did California so utterly consume its unmatched natural and ancestral inheritance and end up as a warning to Western civilization of what might be in store for anyone who followed its nihilism?

The symptoms of the state’s suicide are indisputable.”

He then examines the many problems in California and their impacts on California and the people of California under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom. It is not a pretty record and serves as a warning to the American people if Gavin Newsom should become President. He concludes this column by stating:

“In sum, a privileged Bay Area elite inherited a California paradise and turned it into purgatory.”

Consequently, a President Gavin Newsom can be expected to turn America into a purgatory. Unfortunately, for the Democrat Party (and America), the other names being mentioned do not have the political appeal as attractive, charming, and articulate persons, nor sufficient capability to right the course of America and provide leadership to correct the ills of America. Thus, the Democrat Party may be stuck with Joe Biden. Let us hope that America is not stuck with Joe Biden for another four years, nor stuck with the other names being mentioned to replace Joe Biden.

06/24/24 A Reminder on Economics in Politics

As I have stated in my Chirp on "12/15/22 The Ultimate End of Tax and Spend":

“Regarding government taxing and spending, it can be said:

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

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

However, what follows this on spending is often:

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

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

These maxims should be remembered as we enter the 2024 Presidential election cycle. Beware the bloated political rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans on taxing and spending, as there is not much economic truth in bloated political rhetoric, especially from Democrat candidates’ fearmongering emotional appeals and Republican candidates’ passionate scare tactics. You need to be very concerned and consider the economics of spending before you cast your vote for a candidate. After considering economics, it is possible to cast a rational vote for the candidate that you believe is the most economically responsible. Not considering economics is a plunge into further economic distress and potentially economic ruin.

06/23/24 The Piggy Bank of the Biden Administration

Politicians have often treated the public treasury as a piggy bank to reward their supporters. Such has it always been, and such it will always be. The issue is to not allow this piggy banking to corrupt the duties and responsibilities of the politicians. It is also unethical and illegal to channel government monies to groups or organizations that will utilize these monies for electioneering purposes.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the modus operandi of the Biden Administration. Government funding (i.e., taxpayer monies) is being channeled to groups and organizations that support the Biden agenda and being restricted from groups and organizations that differ from the Biden agenda. Recent revelations have shown an increase in government funding to groups and organizations who are actively involved in election activities to get out the vote or propagandize for President Biden’s reelection.

Such funding and grant monies are supposed to be spent for the goals of the groups and organizations and for no other purposes. However, it is easy to fudge such money with accounting gimmicks and other nefarious methods to disguise how the money is spent. The use of taxpayer’s monies for election purposes is immoral as well as unethical, as it has been said:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

It is also corruption in elections when such monies are spent for election purposes, as it gives the incumbent an advantage of money over their opponent.

Thus, the Biden Administration is involved in corrupt, illegal, immoral, and unethical actions to give themselves an unfair and illegal advantage in the 2024 presidential election. But this should be of no surprise to anyone who examines the workings of the Biden Administration, as the Biden Administration is rife with corruption, illegalities, immoralities, and unethical actions.

06/22/24 Are They the Same?

The attempts of Biden supporters to claim that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice, on the superficial reason that both a Republican and Democrat person were convicted of crimes, is ludicrous.

The difference is that the Donald Trump convictions were obtained by nebulous and improper charges and corruption of the due process of law, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump". Hunter Biden’s conviction was obtained by Hunter Biden’s clear violations of the law and by the application of the proper due process of law, but this only occurred after the Biden administration attempted to corrupt the legal system to Hunter Biden’s advantage. This attempted plea deal and the allowing of the statutes of limitations to expire for other Hunter Biden crimes is another example of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America.

The attempts of the Biden administration of a plea deal for Hunter Biden before the trial that would have given Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal that would allow him to get off the charges with a slap on the hand and a get-out-of-jail free pass for all previous illegal activities are an example of a two-tiered system of justice.

Thus, the claims of Biden supporters that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice is yet another attempt by them to confuse the American public by the utilization of Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors. Therefore, I would say to all Americans, do not be confused, as we do have a two-tiered system of justice in America, accelerated by The Weaponization of Government that has occurred in the Obama and Biden Administrations. A two-tiered system of justice that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/21/24 Ignorant Bliss and Ignorant Anger

Ignorance is bliss, and it is not a truism, as ignorance only appears to be bliss, but it is harmful to a person and to society. Ignorance allows you to make bad choices that will have negative repercussions on yourself, others, and society. Thus, ignorance should be avoided. Alas, in modern America, ignorance is all too common, especially in the chattering class of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". Their ignorance is propagated to the public, which increases ignorance in America. Much of their ignorance is a reinforcement of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", and much of the public acceptance of their ignorance is due to the problems of "Public Education", “College and University Education”, and "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, much of ignorance is due to a lack of a proper education. Proper education in the sense of not obtaining the foundational knowledge and the skills and abilities which allows one to think properly, as I have examined in my article on "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

If ignorance leads to bliss, then I would have to say that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists live in a state of bliss, but their rhetoric demonstrates they often live in a state of anger. Their ignorance of Human Nature and Natural Rights, the Principles of American government, economics, science and technology, international relationships, and a host of other subjects know no bounds and leads them to believe that America is a flawed and defective nation. Much of their ignorance is of what I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

For someone who is knowledgeable on these subjects, it can be agonizing to listen to their commentary. When I listen to them, I try to categorize what they are saying under the following definitions:

Bamboozlement – Concealment of one's true motives by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end.
Blather - Idle or foolish and irrelevant talk.
Crickets - an idiom that means no reply or reaction at all.
Gaslighting - Manipulate someone psychologically so that they start to question their own sanity
gibberish - Unintelligible talking.
Gobbledygook - Incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists.
Hoodwinking - Influence by slyness.

When you categorize what they are saying, you begin to realize that they are not saying much, and much of what they say is disingenuous. The question is whether they are truly ignorant or deliberately trying to obtain political goals and policy agendas through deception. Alas, I believe that many of them are just ignorant, but some of them are being deceptive. In either case, they are inflicting harm upon America. A harm that is encouraging civil strife and becoming irreparable.

Much of this can be attributed to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believing that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior. Thus, they believe that they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they live in a state of ignorant anger by not acknowledging that they may be wrong or not knowing that they do not have sufficient knowledge needed to make an informed judgment.

Consequently, you should be very wary of taking what they say at face value, as it is often driven by ignorant anger. You should be even more judicious in supporting their political goals and policy agendas, as often these goals and agendas are contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and harmful to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/20/24 A Democracy or a Republic

Recently, some Progressive commentators have expressed anger at Conservatives for insisting that America is a republic and not a democracy, as many Progressives believe. In this Progressives belief, they are demonstrating their ignorance of the Principles of American Government and the history of the founding of America.

Our Founding Fathers knew the difference between a democracy and a republic. They knew the history of democracy in ancient Athens, the history of republicanism in ancient Rome, and the terrible consequences of both forms of governance. They, therefore, established a Constitutional Republic in which representatives in the republic were democratically elected or appointed to avoid these terrible consequences. In this Constitutional Republic, the representatives in Congress are responsible for law-giving, the Executive is responsible for administrating the law, and the Judiciary is responsible for the judging of law (known as the three branches of government). The branches of government are emblematic of a Republic, while the election or appointment of the persons to serve in the branches of government is emblematic of a Democracy. This is why our government is often referred to as a Democrat-Republic.

This can be attested to by a single comment by one of our Founding Fathers. As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?' Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

A Republic that needs to be kept to preserve our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Any other form of governance usually leads to despotism and a form of government that is neither a republic nor a democracy. Anyone who espouses our government as a democracy is therefore demonstrating their ignorance of our history and our Principles of American government, and they should not be heeded. Indeed, they should be scorned as they are dangerous to America.

06/19/24 A Brief History of Palestinian Evil

In a new column by Dennis Prager, “Germans -- Even During the Hitler Era -- Were a Better People Than the Palestinians”, he recounts the history of the Palestinians since the 1940s. It is a history of violent anti-Semitism and violence to their Arab neighbors with whom they disagree. A history in which their Arab neighbors wish to have no interactions with them and actively bar them from entering their lands. It is also a history that they are now bringing to American soil.

Given this history, it is important for America to not support, in any manner, Palestinians until they reform themselves to become a peaceful people. This includes humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, as humanitarian aid to them allows them to continue in their unacceptable violent actions and activities. It is also important to restrict their access to American soil to only those who are peaceful and to deport those who are not peaceful. Americans need not allow for the immigration of violent people of all stripes and, indeed, should not do so. There should also be censured of all those who support the Palestinians and a firm affirmation that such support is abhorrent.

Mr. Prager ends his article by stating:

“To be "pro-Palestinian" today means being pro-Hamas just as to be "pro-German" during World War II was the same as being pro-Nazi. The only difference is that the Germans as a whole were a better people than the Palestinians. If you support the Palestinians, you should know whom you support.”

Consequently, from the river to the sea is the only place that Palestinians should be permitted to inhabit until they reform themselves into a peaceful people, and they should be constricted in their activities and actions to peaceful protests between the river to the sea. To support any other course of action is equivalent to supporting Nazis, which makes you one with evil.

06/18/24 A Very Crucial Op-Ed

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has been variously described as homespun, folksy, down to earth, hilarious, snarky, irascible, and a host of other complimentary or disparaging adjectives, but rarely as an Oxford-educated lawyer, which he is. His examination of witnesses in front of the Senate committees of which he is a member and his interviews on television make for some of the most amusing and withering television in America. Some of his quotes and saying can be reviewed on my webpage here.

When Sen Kennedy opines on a topic, his words should be carefully and thoughtfully considered. He recently wrote an op-ed that first appeared in the Shreveport Times on May 11, 2024. This piece also appeared in the Daily Advertiser, Houma Today, The Daily Comet, The Town Talk, The News-Star, The Weekly Citizen, and Daily World. The words of intelligence and wisdom that he wrote are so crucial to American society that I have decided to post the entire op-ed in this Chirp:

Is transgender inclusion more important than women’s sports?

Many players on the New Orleans Pelicans probably feel like a kid inside when they’re on the basketball court. They might even miss their days of dominating middle school basketball tournaments, instead of squaring up against the giants in the NBA.

No one, however, would think it was fair if Zion Williamson joined a youth basketball league simply because he identified as a 12-year-old. No middle school boys could stop Williamson from getting to the basket, and they’d probably end up injured if they tried.

Men and women don’t compete for the same reasons. Yet transgender activists want athletic institutions to ignore these obvious physical differences so transgender athletes can feel included, even if it hurts biological girls in the process.

From middle school gyms to NCAA swimming pools, activists seek to force women and girls to compete against biological men and boys. These activists claim it is a “myth” that transgender athletes have an advantage, but most Americans know this is untrue and unfair.

Starting in the womb and continuing through puberty, men develop physical advantages that help them outperform women in competitive sports. On average, men are taller and have higher bone density than women. When controlled for height, women also have 15% smaller hearts and 12% smaller lungs than men.

These physical differences give men a significant advantage in athletics, especially at the elite levels. In several track and swimming events, the female world record holder wouldn’t qualify to compete in the men’s race. In weightlifting, men outperform women in the same weight class by as much as 30%.

Some activists claim that transgender athletes are different from typical men because they take cross-sex hormones. After two years of cross-sex hormone treatments, however, biological male athletes can still run 12% faster and pound out 10% more push-ups than women.

Allowing biological boys to compete as girls will harm women’s sports. Still, many activists believe their feelings and the feelings of transgender athletes are more important.

These activists allowed the 554th-ranked male swimmer, then known as William Thomas, to become the NCAA Division I national champion named Lia Thomas. Thomas’ participation in the pool eliminated the dreams of the biological women who worked for that title, and that wasn’t the worst of it. The locker room was.

According to a lawsuit filed by several women who competed against Thomas, no one warned them that they’d have to share a locker room. Instead, the tournament quietly and quickly redesignated the girls’ locker room as “unisex” without so much as hanging a new sign.

Athletic officials and other adult decision-makers ignored the privacy and dignity of young female athletes to help a biological male/transgender female feel included. They also put women and girls at risk of suffering much more severe injuries than they would typically face when playing against female opponents.

Biological women are more susceptible to injuries than biological men. Female soccer players, for example, are twice as likely to suffer concussions as male soccer players, in part because men have different neck-strength-to-head-size ratios that help them better absorb blows.

Several female athletes have suffered season-ending injuries against biological male competitors. In Massachusetts, for example, a girls’ basketball team forfeited a game because a transgender player on the opposing team injured so many of their players. In North Carolina, a volleyball player is suing her state after a transgender player dealt her a serious concussion.

Allowing biological men with gender dysphoria to compete against women jeopardizes women’s access to scholarships and other financial opportunities, too.

The NCAA limits how many scholarships each team can distribute. By definition, granting a scholarship to a biological man who is on the women’s team denies a biological woman of that scholarship. The University of Washington already has offered its first scholarship on a women’s team to a biological male. It likely won’t be the last opportunity taken from biological women.

Many fair-minded people reject the idea that women and girls who work hard to develop their athletic talents must sacrifice their opportunities, privacy and safety to promote gender activism. I’m one of them.

Louisiana is full of fair-minded people. We recognize that it’s common sense for boys and girls to compete in separate leagues. That’s why a bipartisan coalition in the Louisiana legislature passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act to prevent biological boys from competing against biological girls in our elementary and high schools and from sharing their locker rooms.

Protecting women and girls in sports doesn’t need to be a partisan issue. Congress should follow Louisiana’s leadership and do more to protect girls, their sports, their scholarships, and their futures from a social experiment that is already proving to be unwise.

– Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy

Some newspapers that published this op-ed have withdrawn this op-ed, most notably USA Today. When pressed, Senator Kennedy’s office was told the op-ed, which National Review later picked up, was taken down by USA Today over “loaded language” and the use of the phrase “biological male”, to which Senator Kennedy responded:

“[The] USA Today Network apparently does not like the way I express myself,” the senator told Fox News in a statement. “They think they are the speech police. Drunk on certainty and virtue, they think they are our moral teacher. This attitude is why so many Americans have lost confidence in the media. The media is not going to win that trust back until they return to neutrality instead of advocacy. Most people don’t support allowing biological men to participate in women’s sports because they think that will bastardize sports, skew the results, and hurt women. Other people disagree. Gannett should simply report the two sides and not try to silence the position it disagrees with.”

His other articles on Transgenderism are “President Biden Has Jumped the Title IX Shark” and “Congress must support parents who protect their children from irreversible gender procedures”, which should be read by all Americans to bring some sanity to this topic.

06/17/24 The Fellowship of God and Humans

Having just finished reading and thoroughly enjoying the book “12 Major World Religions” by Jason Boyett, I have pondered upon the many similar tenets of these religions of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Baha’i, Shinto, and Jainism were the founders of the major religions of humankind, and most are revered as prophets of God. They and other leaders of their religion pondered the nature of God, a person’s relationship to God, and how to live a Godly life. In my pondering, I began to think of how I would construct a new religion based on these common tenets (and may God forbid me from doing so, as I am unworthy of this task).

A person is capable of doing great good and great evil but often lives a life between good and evil. The purpose of this new religion is to help a person to recognize their duties and responsibilities to God and to guide them in the exercise of their free will to make moral, ethical, and virtuous choices in their life. If you apply the standard of “the right thing to do” for your words and deeds without a foundation of your duties and responsibilities to God, it is easy to justify any actions you take as the right thing to do. Thus, a belief in God and his teachings and wisdom is necessary to do the right thing. After all, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and Mao all believed they were doing the right thing, as did many other persons throughout history, but if they had believed in God and his wisdom and teachings they would have known that they were not doing the right thing.

In doing so, I have attempted to extract the wisdom from the world’s religions and the secularists and to ignore and discard the gobbledygook that is all too common in religions and the blather of secularists. This is done to achieve a core belief in God, a person’s duties and responsibilities to God, how a person should properly exercise their free will, and how a person can live a moral, ethical, and virtuous life. The Fellowship of God and Humans is focused on the individual relationship of God to a person and the Godly relationships between individual persons.

My new article, “The Fellowship of God and Humans”, are my thoughts on how I would construct this religion. The various topics that I address in this religion are:

Foreword
Dogmas—a doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

The Creation and The Hereafter
The Blessings of God
The Creed of Adherents

Tenets—a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

The Golden Rule
The Ten Commandments
The Five Virtues and Five Weaknesses:

The Five Virtues to be obeyed:
The Five Weakness to be avoided:

Doctrines—a belief that is accepted as authoritative

Natural Law and Natural Rights
Human Nature

The Roles of Humans—Normative and Customary

The Role of Worship
The Role of Work
The Role of Economics
The Role of Science and Technology
The Role of Society
The Role of Government

Dictums—authoritative declarations

The Seven Stages of Life
Leadership
Celebrations
Holidays and Festivals

Afterword

The Fellowship of God and Humans avoids any ancillary issues that are not germane to the relationship between God and humans, as well as Godly person-to-person relationships. It leaves these ancillary issues to the domain of politics, and where the domain of politics and the domain of God overlap, it is the domain of God that must take precedence.

06/17/24 The Elite Experts

The world abounds with experts. Experts that are more than willing to provide opinions, counsel, and recommendations to correct the ills and problems of society. Experts with much of their expertise in an academic sense rather than real-world experience. However, just as you would not go to a virgin to learn about the passions of sex, so you should be wary of experts without any real-world experience of what they expound.

Many of these experts have a presumption of correctness attitude, bordering on arrogance, especially those who have doctoral degrees or tenure at what they consider elite Universities. The Dirty Dozen of these elite Universities are:

Consequently, you should always be wary of the correctness of the experts from these Dirty Dozen Universities, as their opinions may appear to be conclusive, but they are often just a show of hubris rather than pride in achievement and veracity.

In addition, many of these experts often exhibit politically correct and woke opinions to maintain their social standing and prominent position in their departments of their University and academia. Another of their traits is a propensity for Multi-Nationalistic values rather than American values, often to the point of disdain for American values.

It has often been said that real-world experience is a slap in the face for college graduates when they leave academia. As most experts never left academia, they have not experienced this slap in the face. Accordingly, beware of experts who have not been slapped in the face by real-world experience, as they and their expertise have not faced the realities of the real world.

06/16/24 The Greater Good or The Common Good

God spare us from those who wish to institute the greater good for humankind, as only God knows what the greater good is. As for the greater good, I would paraphrase one of the great thinkers of our time:

"The most basic question is not what the greater good is, but who shall decide what the greater good is.” - Thomas Sowell

Those who believe that they know what the greater good is are delusional, as only God can know the greater good, and we should leave the greater good to God’s discretion. As for the common good, humankind should strive to institute the common good for all humankind, as the common good can be agreed upon by rational and reasonable persons.

Too often, those who believe they know the greater good often lump the greater good into the common good. The difference is that the common good is directly for the benefit of all, while the greater good often benefits selective groups and is justified as the common good by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language".

Do not be confused, as the greater good is often deleterious to society, while the common good is a benefit to society. The greater good has often been utilized to infringe on the Natural Rights of all persons and justification for acts of despotism and tyranny. Many wars have been fought for what was perceived as the greater good, and all such wars have been cruel and savage to all involved in them.

It is also true that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have been advocates for the greater good, while Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders have been champions for the common good. This difference is the basis for the different interpretations of the Constitution, as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". It is this difference that has been an underlying cause for the hyper-partisanship in America, as each side has a different perspective on the good that our society should undertake.

06/15/24 Why You Should Vote for Trump

I will admit that I voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections, not because I liked him, but because I believed that his opponents were incompetent, wrongheaded, deceivers, or corrupt. Hillary Clinton had the additional distinction of being a lawbreaker in her handling of classified information and the utilization of an unauthorized e-mail server, a distinction that Joe Biden now shares with his lawbreaker in his handling of classified information and utilization of e-mail outside of government e-mail servers. I, therefore, believe that Donald Trump was the lesser of two evils and that in the 2024 Presidential election we are faced with the same choice.

Most important to the future course of America is that they have instituted assaults on our democratic norms and a furthering of divisiveness in American politics. In the years of his administration, we have seen the slide towards an American Banana Republic through the utilization of The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump". He has also engaged in election interference and demagoguery, as I have Chirped on "05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery". We have also seen an assault on our Free Speech rights by the Biden Administration, as I have written about in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and a rise in despotism in America, as I have written about in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America". The Biden Administration has taken the art of evasive or non-answer answers in Congressional Oversight to a new height when they are ignoring or deliberately refusing to cooperate with Congressional hearings.

The Biden Administration has consistently ignored, defied, or circumvented Supreme Court rulings with which he does not agree, most blatantly in his attempts on student loan forgiveness. He and his minions in Federal, State, and Local justice systems have instituted frivolous prosecutions of individuals exercising their free speech rights in opposition to his policies and political goals, most especially in abortion protests, public schooling disputations, and the transgendered agenda. He has consistently instituted lawsuits against State and local governments, rather than working with them, who attempt to deal with the illegal immigration impacts on their jurisdictions. He has used Executive Orders for the non-enforcement of laws passed by Congress with which he disagrees and for forgiveness of the lawbreakers of the laws with which he disagrees.

We have also seen their incompetence in handling foreign affairs and domestic issues. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many scandals of the Biden Administration. Except for partisan-driven Americans, no one believes that we are better off than we were four years ago.

America has seen some political scandals during the Biden Administration (and many unseen, as they are either excused or ignored by the Mainstream Media), and we have also seen how the Biden Family and Joe Biden himself were involved in personal corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials. This does not mention that President Biden is in the midst of dementia and is not mentally (and perhaps physically) fit to be the President of the United States.

Alas, the Biden Administration has sown chaos in America and throughout the world. They have also demonstrated that they are the antithesis of American Ideals and Ideas and of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Nothing that Donald Trump could do if he is elected can match the magnitude of the chaos that the Biden Administration has done. Indeed, if we objectively look at the four years that Donald Trump was President, they were relatively calm except for the discord (the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Impeachments, and the anti-police protests and riots, amongst other discords) that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists sowed upon America to oppose President Trump.

Consequently, the only way out of this chaos is to elect Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates who will bring back sanity to America. Therefore, I will once again vote for Donald Trump, despite my dislike for his mannerisms, bombastic nature, and political theatrics. To not vote for Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates is to continue the chaos in America and to continue in the disintegration of our American Ideals and Ideas.

06/14/24 Why They Love Trump

Tucker Carlson recently commented on why so many people love Trump. I have transcribed this commentary and presented it here within this Chirp without comment, as it is so plain-spoken that it needs no comment:

“Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. They love him in spite of everything they've heard. They love him often in spite of himself. They love Donald Trump because no one else loves them. The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns, mocked and despised by the sneering halfwits with finance degrees but no actual skills who seem to run everything all the sudden. Whatever Donald trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness. Donald Trump, in other words, is and has always been a living indictment of the people who run this country. That was true eight years ago when Trump came out of nowhere to win the presidency, and it's every bit as true right now. Trump rose because they failed. It's as simple as that. If the people in charge had done a halfway decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than themselves even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting Celebrity Apprentice. But they didn't. Instead, they were incompetent, and narcissistic, and cruel, and relentlessly dishonest. They wrecked what they didn't build, and they lied about it. They hurt anyone who told the truth about what they were doing. That's true, we watched. America is still a great country, the best in the world, but our ruling class is disgusting. A vote for Trump is a vote against them. That's what's going on in this country.” - Tucker Carlson

06/13/24 A First Family Criticism

I prefer not to personally criticize those that I disagree with, but I choose to critique them, as I have explained in the Criticism vs. Critique section of these Chirps. Sometimes, however, a person’s words and deeds are so outlandish or harmful that they deserve criticism. Such is the case not only for Joe Biden but also for his family members.

Joe Biden is a pathological liar who serially repeats lies even when they have been proven to be lies, as I have commented upon in my Chirp on "10/29/22 A Pathological Liar". In a column by John Nantz, he poses the question, “How Do You Successfully Lie To 300 Million People?”, to which he begins to answer by stating:

“Joe Biden is a pathological liar. That’s easy to prove. Just about every public statement that he’s made is an outright lie. His claims about his law school career and standing were false. He claimed to have marched during the civil rights movement — a lie. He’s lied repeatedly, boldly about Hunter’s corrupt business dealings, and his intimate relationship to them. He’s spent 47 years stacking lie upon lie, building a colossal monument to his depravity and to the public’s gullibility.”

Perhaps he believes, along with Joesph Goebbels, that “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself”. It has been my experience that such liars do so out of a lack of confidence in their life’s achievements and that they must fabricate lies to validate their lives.

The ease with which Joe Biden will smear a person or persons who disagree with him betrays a meanness and cruelty streak within himself, along with a lack of confidence that he has the intellectual acuity to challenge them. The smirk and grin that President Biden gave when a reporter asked about the conviction of Donald Trump betrays his sinister side.

His wife, Jill Biden, is a modern-day Lady Macbeth, more interested in power and the trappings of power than in the well-being of a loved one. When you truly love another, you are caring and protective of that person. When a loved one exhibits signs of mental and/or physical decline, you try to insulate your loved one from doing harm to themselves or others. This often involves withdrawing a person from a public presence to the confines of a private life, not only to protect them and others but also to protect them from embarrassment and reputational harm as a result of their mental and/or physical decline.

His son, Hunter Biden, depravities and corruption are now so well known that they need no elaboration here within. He is a lost soul who has accomplished very little in his life, and his accomplishments are the result of grifting from his father’s name and positions of power in government. He leaves a trail of ruin in his wake to all the people who become involved in his schemes. If Hunter Biden is the smartest man that he knows (as Jor Biden once proclaimed), then Joe needs to dump his current friends and associates and obtain new friends with intelligence.

His daughter, Ashley Biden, had her diary stolen and revealed, which contains numerous salacious details of her upbringing that should bring a cringe to any decent parent. An upbringing that has resulted in many trials and tribulations in her life, including her addictions along with her being "hyper-sexualized" at a "young age" and being traumatized by it. Despite her attempts to walk back these words, we should all remember the wisdom in the 1859 poem ‘The Rubáiyát’ of Omar Khayyam:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” - Omar Khayyam

His brother, James Biden, has also been a grifter from his brother’s name and positions of power in government. It appears that the achievements in his life have been the result of his brotherly ties and his involvement in Hunter Biden’s schemes. Thus, James Biden does not have a record of self-achievement but a trail of accomplishments (and corruption) due to his family ties.

Such a family is often referred to in American life as trailer trash, but no, the Bidens are not trailer trash; they are a family of self-entitled scumbags. Consequently, Joe Biden is unworthy of holding any office of honor or trust at all levels of government, and his family needs to exit the public stage while their corruption is being cleaned up by others.

Alas, this is also a sad commentary on modern American political life. To those who would defend and support such a family, I would say that there is a black hole of depravity in your soul regarding morality and ethics in the lives of public officials. A black hole of depravity that should also preclude your participation in public affairs.

06/12/24 Equal Justice for All?

Theodore Roosevelt once famously said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." This quote encapsulates the fundamental principle that governs society - the adherence to the law, regardless of one's standing or authority. Roosevelt's words highlight the notion that the law is not a matter of preference but rather a universally applicable set of rules that must be followed by all. Regardless of power, wealth, or influence, the law is meant to serve as an equalizer, ensuring justice prevails.

In modern America, however, we seem to be morphing into a two-tiered system of justice, as I have Chirp on "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System". These two tiers of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are prosecuted for alleged violations of the laws, while Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are ignored or excused for alleged violations of the laws. Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the case of Huter Biden’s investigations and prosecutions on Federal Firearms violations of the law. The government tried to give him a sweetheart deal, but they were rebuffed by the judge overseeing the deal and a public outcry as to its unjustness. Thus, Hunter Biden is now involved in a trial to determine his guilt or non-guilt of these alleged Firearms violations of the law. One wonders how vigorously or effectively the prosecution will be, given how they first tried to arrange a sweetheart deal with Hunter Biden. One hopes that the jury will dispassionately examine the facts and the law to reach a proper verdict.

However, in two recent articles by Jonathan Turley, “Is Hunter Biden Pursuing a Jury Nullification Strategy?” and “Just Ask Mookie: Hunter Biden Has No Defense Other Than Nullification”, he examines the overwhelming evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt and the tactics of the defense attorneys to emotionally sway the jury so that they will reach a not guilty verdict through Jury Nullification.

Jury nullification in the United States occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It originated in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

In America, Jury Nullification often occurs because the jury sympathizes with the defendant, the law is disliked, or they believe the law is unjust. It also occurs when the jury believes that the prosecution has overstepped its bounds and is behaving unjustly. Some defendants and their attorneys often hope for a Jury Nullification when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the defendant or when they believe they can portray the prosecution as vengeful or vindictive.

Such is the case in the current trial and guilty verdict of Hunter Biden. The jury appeared to dispassionately examine the evidence and reached a sound verdict, and they were not swayed by Jury Nullification. The next question is, will the sentence be proper and just to fit the crime, or will it be lenient because Hunter Biden is the son of the President? The follow-on question is whether President Biden will issue a pardon for his son. I expect that the pardon question will be answered based on the sentence and will only come after the 2024 Presidential election so as not to harm the reelection chances of President Biden.

To those who would claim that the conviction of Hunter Biden demonstrates that we do not have a two-tiered system of justice, I would respond—Nonsense! The crime and criminal actions of Hunter Biden were clear-cut and unambiguous, and Due Process of Law was followed in his prosecution. In the case of President Trump’s conviction, the alleged crime(s) were ambiguous and deliberately multifaceted to sow confusion, the actions of President Trump were deemed to be nefarious as truthful motivations, and the conviction was obtained by violations of Due Process of Law via a biased process involving a partisan prosecutor, a conflicted and tendentious anti-Trump judge, and a jury selected from a pool of largely anti-Trump voters, as I examined in my collected Chirps on “The Trials of Trump”.

Such disparities between the trials of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump are proof of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America and not a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America. Such disparities will always occur in a two-tiered system of justice, as in a two-tiered system of justice, there is no justice, only favoritism. A favoritism that is destructive to our society and the antithesis of American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/11/24 The Trials of Trump Chirps

I have coalesced my Chirps on the travesty of justice that is the current prosecutions of President Trump into an article, “The Trials of Trump”. A travesty of justice as it is the flawed conviction of a biased process involving a partisan prosecutor, a conflicted judge, and a jury selected from a pool of largely anti-Trump voters. These legal indictments and trials of former President Trump are another example of "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" that have run rampant in modern America. They are also an assault on the principles of the American Judicial System, as these Chirps examine. As such, they should be opposed by all Americans who revere our American Ideals and Ideas and who are dedicated to our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/10/24 The Penance That Must Be Paid

In the 2020 Presidential election, Americans faced a choice between the incumbent President Trump, who many Americans disliked because of his boisterous and bombastic manner, and challenger Joe Biden, who was presented as a return to normalcy and would put the “adults in charge”. As we were in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the normal electioneering process and voting was circumscribed, and Biden ran a campaign from his basement. Thus, Americans did not get to know Joe Biden in the normal electioneering manner.

Other than in the COVID-19 period of the Trump Administration, America was experiencing economic growth and prosperity, and the international arena was relatively peaceful. Domestic disputes about social policy were still raging, and domestic tensions and mob actions (sometimes violent) were rising (many of which were stoked by Democrat Party Leaders words and sometimes deeds). Many Americans became weary of this situation and opted to vote for Joe Biden in a hotly disputed election in which Biden was declared the winner.

During the Biden Administration, America has seen many disgraceful events. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas and food price increases, to inflation, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many disgraceful events in the Biden Administration. We have also seen inordinate deficit spending and the national debt balloon to crushing levels. We have also learned how Joe Biden and the Biden Family were involved in corrupt dealings throughout his career, despite their and their supporters’ denials and lies (Joe Biden was involved in the business dealings of his son, and the Hunter Biden laptop and Ashley Biden’s diary were real).

We have also seen an increase in "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" under the Biden Administration, culminating in the indictments and prosecutions of President Trump. A weaponization that is a travesty of justice and an assault on the rule of law in America, as my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump" have examined.

Consequently, the American electorate was bamboozled by the Democrat Party and Progressive leadership in the 2020 Presidential election, as there would be no return to normalcy, and there would be no adults in charge. In the 2024 Presidential election, we are facing a choice between the same two candidates, the difference being that now Joe Biden has a record to run on (and seems to be running away from), which can be compared to the Trump record.

Many Americans who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election are beginning to question and doubt their vote for him, but they are hesitant to vote for Donald Trump for the same reasons they didn’t vote for him in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2024 Presidential election, however, they must confront the disastrous record of Joe Biden and ask themselves whether they want to continue on the path that Joe Biden has led America. To those Americans who question and doubt their vote for Joe Biden, I would say that we cannot proceed down this path, as it would lead to the ruination of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Thus, you must hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump to halt, and perhaps correct, the path of America. When you hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump, think of it as the penance that you must pay for being bamboozled and casting the poor vote you made in the 2020 Presidential election.

06/09/24 Kangaroo Kourt Konviction Lessons to be Learned

With the ‘kangaroo kourt konviction’ (sic) of President Trump (and make no mistake about it, this was a Kangaroo Court), we have learned some important lessons.

The first large lesson is that in any court proceeding against a politician or conservative activist, the verdict should be suspect, as it may not be based upon the law but on the emotions of the prosecutor, judge, or jury. This has become all too common in modern America as we have traveled down the path of "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, we must all beware of the label of “convicted criminal” and its variants when applied to a politician or conservative activist until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Of course, we should also be wary of the defendant declaring a political prosecution until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Therefore, do not place much credence on these verdicts when you adjudge the character of a person until you have all the pertinent information about the legal proceedings. Many of these prosecutions are done for reputational or financial harm to the defendant rather than serious illegal conduct. Indeed, much of the alleged illegal conduct has been for felonies wrapped around misdemeanors, which would normally be punished with a slap on the wrist.

We have also learned from the celebratory attitude of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" entities that they have demonstrated they are now active enemies of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re not just skeptical. They’re not just people who disagree with Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re certainly not objective, neutral truthtellers whose only goal is to enlighten the public. They want to actively influence the public, yet they want the respect that objective commentators might be due. These entities have been thoroughly weaponized against anyone who would disagree with their progressive propensities, and they must be not just neutralized but actively thwarted for the facts and the truths to be known by the public. They have also demonstrated that they have no allegiance to our American Ideals and Ideas.

The biggest lesson to be learned is that the hyper-partisanship of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders has overstepped the bounds of the political norms of politicking that were established prior to the 21st century. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons and that any means can be utilized to defeat them. Even the means of weaponizing the Government against their opponents and infringing on the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. Such means will eventually tear apart America and could possibly lead to civil strife or civil war as Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders assert themselves to regain their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, as I have Chirp on "02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction"’.

For those who would respond that a majority of American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservation of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to Natural and Constitutional Rights. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly, there was not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the American Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not - as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those who are resisting governmental actions that disregard or abrogate our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

06/08/24 There Will be No Consequences

In modern America, "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" go unabated and, indeed, are expanding. One of the reasons for this is that there are no consequences for engaging in these improper actions, as I have Chirped on "03/15/23 Lack of Consequences - I" and "03/16/23 Lack of Consequences - II". In many cases, these actions are rewarded through future reelections and appointments (sometimes for a higher elected or appointed office), or when they leave office, they obtain lucrative positions as commentators or book-signing contracts. In no cases are they prosecuted for abuse of office or dereliction of duty as they should be. In no cases have they been removed from office, as I have decried in my Chirp on "04/27/24 Dereliction of Duty". Thus, we can expect that there will be no consequences to those which I have Chirped about on “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”.

Much of this has been brought about by the loss of Religion, Morality, Ethics, and Virtue within Government and Society, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America". A loss of these fixed values with a replacement by relative values has led us astray and allowed our elected and appointed officials and our populace into words and deeds that are harmful to society. There has also been an increase in Virtue Signaling without true virtue, which leads to confusion as to what our fixed values should be.

This lack of consequences must stop, or our elected or appointed officials will continue in their abuses of office or their derelictions of duty, and our society will continue to degenerate. A good place to start would be the removal from office of those persons responsible for the travesty of justice that is occurring in the prosecutions of President Trump. However, this removal is fraught with Constitutional and legal issues, which I have written about in my article “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or Are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution”. These removal issues need to be resolved forthwith, and the removal of elected and appointed officials who are abusing their office or in dereliction of their duties needs to begin to right the course of America.

06/07/24 There Will Be Fallout and Blowback

Make no mistake about it: there will be fallout and blowback from the Trump trial and verdict.

The immediate fallout is a loss of faith in the Judicial System and the Rule of Law by most Americans who have recognized that this trial and verdict is a sham. A sham that can be perpetuated against anyone who would disturb the powers that be. As Alan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

“Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system would have failed us all.”

The excuse that the conviction can be overturned on appeal, which would be decided in the future, holds no water in the present. The present damage is appalling and has a deleterious fallout that will remain with us even if the conviction is overturned.

A deleterious fallout in the hesitation in decision-making by elected or appointed officials for fear of future legal actions by biased prosecutors and complicit judges. They will have to couch and frame their decisions with an eye to possible future frivolous prosecutions. Thus, limited paralysis will descend upon elected or appointed officials, which often results in poor, improper, or inappropriate decisions to cover possible future frivolous prosecutions.

Perhaps the most insidious and disguised fallout is in the inadvertent intimidation of future Republican or Conservative candidates who do not wish to place themselves in legal harm's way by possible frivolous prosecutions. A legal harm’s way that has deleterious impacts on their reputation and finances. This may deprive us of the best and brightest candidates who have unique and independent ideas, which will consign us to candidates who go along to get along to stay out of possible legal harm's way.

The blowback will occur in the 2024 election cycle and election. An ugly campaign will get uglier, and divisions between Americans will harden. Nobody will be satisfied with the election results no matter how the election turns out.

All of this strikes at the heart of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All of this leads to the corrosion of the American people’s belief that President Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg Address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

06/06/24 The Obituaries for the American Justice System

Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of Left, Central, and Right, respectively, have written columns that examine the travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law that has occurred in the Trump Trial:

Alan Dershowitz— “A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush!”
Jonathan Turley— “The Ghost of John Adams: How the Trump Trial Harkens Back to a Dark Period of American Law”
Andrew McCarthy— “In Memory of Justice”

The last few lines of each article are illuminative of the seriousness of the impacts of the Trump trial:

“DA Bragg has demonstrated how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious DA's are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.” - Alan Dershowitz

“In the faces of ecstasy of demonstrators and commentators alike this week, we see the same joyful release from the bounds of legal process. The addictive quality of rage. For them, it was a cathartic moment that was described by one commentator as a reason to celebrate and a “majestic” moment. For the rest of us, it was more menacing than majestic. It could prove to be the moment that galvanized many outside of Manhattan; the moment when citizens saw where our rage has taken us.Sometimes we have to be forced to see what we have become to better understand who we are. We are better than this.” - Jonathan Turley

“What happened in Manhattan was monstrous. The fallout is the antithesis of a constitutional republic that presumes innocence, imposes the burden of proof on the state, venerates its due-process rules, and guarantees equal protection of law. The antithesis is now the norm. Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump, all of us will live to regret it.” - Andrew McCarthy

These columns are sad commentaries on the current state of justice in America. A state of affairs that has been brought forth by the Biden Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and their lackeys in State and local governments. In this, they have been assisted by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", who will not accurately portray the facts and truths of this situation due to their predilections for the political goals and policy agendas of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

The comments that President Biden made after the verdict about the trial proceedings and respect for the legal process are outrageous in their lack of understanding of the meaning of the Rule of Law and the travesty of justice that occurred in the Trump trial. The smirk and grin that President Biden gave as he left the stage are indicative that he is knowingly trying to bamboozle the American public into accepting this travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law as normal and acceptable, or at least delay the consequences until after the 2024 Presidential election in which he can exploit the improper conviction of Donald Trump.

Consequently, we are sliding faster down the slippery slope to despotism in America and the loss of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/05/24 The Rubicon Has Been Crossed

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River, it signaled the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the rule by tyrannical Emperors. Ever since then, the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has been an idiom that means the passing of a point of no return. Unfortunately, with the conviction of Donald Trump, we have crossed the Rubicon in The Weaponization of Government.

With the tens of millions of dollars raised by the Trump campaign after his conviction, and the rise in his poll numbers after the conviction, the American people have opened their eyes to the corruptions of our political norms and the judicial system by the Biden Administration and their lackeys in State and local governments. Many Americans over the last few years have been suspicious that our judicial system has been corrupted by politics. With the Trump conviction, most Americans have reached the conclusion that the judicial system is corrupted by politics and that this trial is only the latest example of the use of the justice system for political purposes. In a democracy, when a majority of the people believe that an essential function of government is corrupt, you have crossed the Rubicon into something other than democracy.

Many legal scholars are hopeful that the appeals process will overturn the conviction and that the American people will regain confidence in our judicial system via this process. Alas, it is not only Trump's conviction that the American people are concerned about, but also the entire process of the judicial system that they are concerned about. It is obvious to all intelligent persons that the Trump legal process was instituted in a presidential election year to harm the prospects of a Trump election. As appeals and an overturning of a conviction can take many months and even years, the legal process is being corrupted to achieve a political goal. Thus, this corrupt process will impact the election while the appeal process is ongoing. It is, therefore, the failure of the judicial system that is the root cause of the distrust that the American people feel.

Unless the United States Supreme Court steps in and immediately ends this travesty of justice and the fracturing of the Rule of Law, the Rubicon has been crossed, and there will be no going back. The judicial system would have been corrupted to achieve a political goal, and the political norms shattered as it opened the door to political prosecutions to obtain political goals. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out:

The Rubicon has already been crossed, and like Humpty Dumpty in the Mother Goose nursery rhyme:

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall; All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.”

In crossing this Rubicon, we may never be able to put the shattered pieces of our judicial system and political norms together again unless the Supreme Court forthwith stops this shattering.

06/04/24 Under the Cloak of Legitimacy

In an article by Alan Joseph Bauer, “Why Do Despots Feel They Need Legitimacy?”, he raises this issue, which is apropos to the current prosecutions of President Trump. However, he is not the only person who has raised this issue regarding the prosecution of President Trump. Many legal scholars, on both the left and right, have become concerned that the prosecutions of President Trump have strayed far from our legal principles and the rule of law in America. Some of the first and loudest voices that have raised this issue are Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of left, central, and right, respectively.

Mr. Bauer begins his article by stating:

“There is a tendency for the most ruthless and autocratic countries in recent history to use democratic norms for cover. With the conviction of Donald Trump, the US has moved closer towards them.”

He then goes on to provide a litany of examples of the despots of the 20th and 21st centuries and the tactics they employed, and he then explains how these tactics were employed against Trump. Near the end of his article, he asks the question:

“What is the difference between the Soviet trials where the outcome was known from the start, the confession was obtained through force, and the judge understood his instructions and what we saw in New York?”

The answer is, of course, there is no difference—it is the same story of a cloak of legitimacy to cover up their illegitimacy. Finally, he asks, then answers, the following question:

“So where does America go? Will we have the perfunctory elections of Russia and the ersatz “people’s house” of Iran or will America still be the land of the free and the home of the brave? Tune in this November.”

06/03/24 A Corrupt State

In a New York Post editorial by Michael Goodwin, “A trial that exposes New York’s corrupt justice system”, he succinctly illustrates how New York has corrupted its judicial system to achieve the political goal of “Get Trump”:

“Only a top-quality case, beyond reproach and political taint, should have been used to bring the first-ever indictment of a former president. Instead, the city and state put on a show trial long on theatrics–porn star testifies about sex! — and short on evidence that any crime was actually committed.

And so the script has flipped, with the trial itself an assault on the notion that justice is blind. No matter what the jury says about Trump, the prosecutors, the judge, the state court system and the political class have been revealed as thoroughly corrupt.

This is the third time New York Democrats distorted the legal system to serve their partisan aim of destroying Trump. One case involved a change in a statute of limitations law that ultimately led to a defamation ruling against him and a ridiculous fine of $92 million.

Another murky case, brought by the overtly-partisan state attorney general, concocted a civil fraud charged aimed at bankrupting him. An amateurish state judge who enjoyed the spotlight far too much nodded yes and declared a fine of $355 million.”

The New York Sun editorial, “Judge Merchan’s Outrageous Jury Instructions”, is another example of how a New York judge has corrupted the judicial system, as they stated:

“President Trump’s fate went to the jury on instructions from Judge Juan Merchan that strike us as outrageous — and ripe for challenge. The judge’s instruction releases jurors from the obligation to make a unanimous decision on the key question. They “must conclude unanimously that” Mr. Trump engaged in an election conspiracy “by unlawful means,” the judge said. Yet, he added, “you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

At that point Judge Merchan supplied the jurors with a kind of à la carte menu for determining whether Mr. Trump had broken the law.”

These instructions, along with many of his rulings and gag orders, as well as his refusal to recuse himself due to his daughter’s involvement in Democrat Party fundraising, are outrageous and an affront to equal justice under the law. They are the rulings and instructions crafted to reach a guilty verdict and gag orders to restrict President Trump's freedom of speech. As such, as I have written in my Chirps on “05/17/24 True Justice” and “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”, they are a corruption of justice and an assault on our First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

Our American Constitution guarantees a republican form of governance and the protection of all Americans' constitutional and civil rights. This is no longer happening in New York State, as the legislators, governor, and judges have conspired to deprive Donald Trump of his right to equal justice for all. Therefore, it is my contention that the Federal government needs to step in to correct this assault on our Constitutional and Civil Rights. I do not expect this to happen, as the Biden Administration and the powers in New York State seem to be in cahoots with each other to get Trump. Our only hope is that the United States Supreme Court will step in and put an end to these corrupt actions by the New York state authorities.

This is but another example of how we are becoming an American Banana Republic through the utilization of The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare. This also leads us further down the path of becoming a Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”.

06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic

With the conviction of President Trump and President Biden’s brief remarks on Friday from the White House, we have officially entered into an American Banana Republic. Trumped-up charges, a jealous prosecutor, a biased judge, and a jury swayed by passion rather than law are all earmarks of a Banana Republic. Coupled with a chief executive who utilizes this situation for electioneering and to avoid campaigning against an opponent that leads only to despotism and authoritative government. Such a state of affairs now exists in America.

The smirk and grin that President Biden gave when a reporter asked about the conviction of Donald Trump, and his decrying his fate as a “political prisoner” and blaming President Biden directly, was the look of a despotic person and a semi-fascist attempt to hold on to power.

A semi-fascism that I have Chirped about on"11/04/22 Semi-fascism in America", and a power that is not for the common good of America but for the institution of their oligarchy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America". The excuse that they are attempting to save “Our Democracy” rings hallow, as hallow as what was said by a U.S. major after a battle in the Vietnam War, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”. Destroying our democratic principles and institutions is not the way to save “Our Democracy”; it is only the way to destroy “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy".

This is the ultimate corruption of “Our Democracy”, and it is being brought into America by President Biden and his Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists. Legal appeals and the overturning of convictions are too time-consuming to be effective in correcting this situation. Therefore, the only immediate correction to this situation is the election of Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates in the forthcoming election. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Democrats need to be turned out of power; otherwise, we will have instituted an American Banana Republic.

06/01/24 Absurdism

Albert Camus (November 7, 1913 – January 4, 1960) was a French philosopher, author, dramatist, journalist, world federalist, and political activist. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. His works include The Stranger, The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Fall, and The Rebel.

Camus was a moralist; he claimed morality should guide politics. While he did not deny that morals change over time, he rejected the classical Marxist view that historical material relations define morality. Philosophically, Camus' views contributed to the rise of the philosophy known as Absurdism (a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail). Some consider Camus' work to show him to be an existentialist, even though he himself firmly rejected the term throughout his lifetime.

Camus was also strongly critical of Marxism-Leninism, especially in the case of the Soviet Union, which he considered totalitarian. Camus rebuked those sympathetic to the Soviet model and their "decision to call total servitude freedom". A proponent of libertarian socialism, he claimed the USSR was not socialist and the United States was not liberal. His critique of the USSR caused him to clash with others on the political left, most notably with his on-again, off-again friend Jean-Paul Sartre.

While I do not hold many of Camus’s political beliefs, I do believe that his philosophical musings are worthy of serious consideration. I would also direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Albert Camus to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

This month’s Book It selections are two different types of biography of Camus, and a collection of some philosophical musings about him and his works.

05/31/24 The Core Existential Questions

What, who, when, how, where, and why I am are the big questions in life that philosophers and theologians have grappled with for millennia. The existential response to these questions is simple but profound.

What I am is a conscious, sentient, intelligent being. Who I am is a corporeal being of the male or female sex of the homo sapiens species. When I came into being is at the moment of conception, when I was endowed with my own unique human genetic structure. How I came to be is through the normal process of sexual conception, pregnancy, and birth. Where I came to be is somewhere on the planet Earth, in the Solar system located in the Milky Way galaxy of the Universe. Why I am is the unanswered question we all try to answer for ourselves throughout our lives.

The final unasked existential question is the easiest to answer: what is to become of me? The only answer is death, for all mortal being’s life ends in death. The only question about death is when it will occur, where it will occur, and how it will occur. There are no answers to these questions on death except to wait for death to answer them.

However, whenever we try to answer the “why” existential question, we must always base our answer on what, who, when, how, and where answers to the existential questions, as these answers are the core of our being. If we do not do so, we will reach a false conclusion, as the “why” answer depends on the other core existential answers.

It is unfortunate that in modern America and, indeed, in the rest of the world, we do not consider the answers to the core existential questions. This leads us astray into absurdities and foolhardiness in the conduct of our lives and our society. It is also a denial of our human nature to ignore or discount the core existential questions and answers, and as I have said:

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

05/30/24 Absurd Absurdism

In my Chirp on “05/29/24 Absurdism and Existentialism”, I discussed how Albert Camus was at the forefront of Absurdism. On March 28, 1946, Albert Camus gave a speech at Columbia University’s McMillin Theater on “The Human Crisis”. On that night, in less than thirty minutes, he somehow managed to distill and convey his deepest fears and steepest challenges in words that have lost none of their urgency or relevance in the over 75 years since he spoke to them. However, I have three challenges to his thoughts on the human crisis.

Throughout his life, Camus had two examples of what he considered part of the human crisis: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, and the utilization of Capital Punishment (the death penalty). He regarded them as abhorrent and an affront to humanity. I disagree with him on these two points. Indeed, I would respond that the atomic bombings were the only moral thing to do, and while I consider most death penalties inappropriate, there are circumstances when the death penalty is moral and appropriate.

In my Article on “The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings”, I explain my reasoning on the morality of the atomic bombings, and in an article by Dennis Prager, "Some on the Right Are Having a Moral Meltdown", he goes into more detail about the morality and history of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.

In my article on “Capital Punishment”, I examine the morality and utilization of the death penalty in more detail. I believe that the death penalty is moral and appropriate in circumstances such as crimes against humanity, mass murders, serial murders, heinous murders (murders accompanied by torture of the victim), political assassinations, or murder of civil servants. Conversely, the death penalty is not moral nor appropriate in any other than in these circumstances.

Regarding these two moral challenges, it is not always a black-and-white moral decision. If you choose to make it black and white, then you give evil the opportunity to triumph, or at least give evil the opportunity to wreak havoc. Sometimes, you must choose the lesser harm of two or more moral decisions to make the correct moral decision. The atomic bombings and the death penalty are the lesser harms that I believe are the correct moral decisions.

The third challenge is that he seems to be of the opinion that this crisis was a product of the 20th century. My contention is that the human crisis has been part of humanity's history. The struggle between liberty and freedom on one side and those who wish to have the power to rule over others is part and parcel of the history of humanity. The strategies and tactics in this struggle have almost always been brutal and are examples of the human crisis.

This human crisis may have deepened in the 20th century, but it has always been with us and will always remain with us, as the heart of this human crisis is human nature. Until human nature changes, we cannot escape the human crisis; we can only try to ameliorate, control, and direct human nature to minimize it.

05/29/24 Absurdism and Existentialism

Absurdism—a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail, and Existentialism—relating to or dealing with existence (especially with human existence) were two philosophical schools of thought that came about in the middle of the 20th century in Europe, and especially France. Both were new ways of looking at the meaning of life and the human condition.

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict with the world. This conflict can be between rational man and an irrational universe, between intention and outcome, or between subjective assessment and objective worth, but the precise definition of the term is disputed. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd. It differs in this regard from the less global thesis that some particular situations, persons, or phases in life are absurd.

Albert Camus (French: 7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960) was a French philosopher, author, dramatist, journalist, world federalist, and political activist. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. His works include The Stranger, The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Fall and The Rebel. Philosophically, Camus' views contributed to the rise of the philosophy known as Absurdism. Some consider Camus' work to show him to be an existentialist, even though he himself firmly rejected the term throughout his lifetime. I would direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Albert Camus to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

Existentialism is a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the issue of human existence. Existentialist philosophers explore questions related to the meaning, purpose, and value of human existence. Common concepts in existentialist thought include existential crisis, dread, and anxiety in the face of an absurd world and free will, as well as authenticity, courage, and virtue.

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (French: 21 June 1905 – 15 April 1980) was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of Existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution." I would direct you to the Wisdom Trove quotes of Jean-Paul Sartre to gain a better insight into his thoughts and musings.

Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre were initially friends, but they came to oppose each other philosophically, as well as because of Camus’s opposition to Communism and Sartre’s support of Communism. Each side had valid criticisms of the other side, and neither side provided definitive answers to their questions (which is true for much of Philosophy). What they did was expand the horizons to examine the meaning of life and the human condition. Absurdism declined toward the end of the 20th century while Existentialism grew. Today, however, Absurdism seems more relevant to the world we live in, and it has seen a rise in importance.

05/28/24 Capital Punishment

For the purposes of this Chirp, I define “Murder” as the deliberate unlawful taking of a human life, while “Killing” is the unintentional lawful taking of a human life. Those who murder should be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve significant prison sentences. Those who kill can do so in a justified or unjustified manner. A justified killing is when you kill another to protect the lives and limbs of you and your family, stop the commission of a violent crime in progress, or when in the armed forces under fire by enemy combatants. Unjustified killing is when you end the life of another through accident or negligence. Unjustified killers should also be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve an appropriate sentence for their acts, while justified killers should face no legal consequences.

I do not believe that capital punishment is appropriate for those who kill. The question to be answered is whether capital punishment is an appropriate sentence for those who murder. I do believe that capital punishment may be an appropriate sentence for those who murder, but only in limited and extraordinary situations. My reasons for believing in the death penalty in limited and extraordinary circumstances are explained in my new article on “Capital Punishment”.

05/27/24 What Can Be Done

Democrats have an existential question that they must answer before their convention—What can be done about crazy Uncle Joe and daffy Aunt Kamala? President Biden is a doddering dolt, who is now dimensia ridden, and who is controlled by a cynical or self-serving confidant that is his wife "Dr." Jill Biden, a 21st-century Lady Macbeth if there ever were one. Vice President Harris is a dimwitted cackler-in-chief, about as popular these days as a communicable disease. Yet they are the presumptive nominees for President and Vice-President of the Democrat Party.

As Josh Hammer explains in his column, “Democrats Are Stuck With Joe Biden as Their Presidential Nominee”, their choices have narrowed down to none. This also explains why the Democrats are so keen on Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government against President Trump during this election cycle, as they see it as the only hope of defeating Trump. Mr. Hammer concludes his column by stating:

“Democrats therefore have no choice but to take a deep breath, pray to the deity they probably don't believe in, and roll the dice with their impotent current ticket. And Republicans couldn't possibly be happier about it.”

05/26/24 There Be Witches and Warlocks

The Salem Witch Trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused. Thirty people were found guilty, nineteen of whom were executed by hanging (fourteen women and five men). One other man, Giles Corey, died under torture after refusing to enter a plea, and at least five people died in jail.

The trials began after a few local women in Salem Village were accused of witchcraft by four young girls, Betty Parris (9), Abigail Williams (11), Ann Putnam Jr. (12), and Elizabeth Hubbard (17). The accusations centered around the concept of "affliction," and the witches were accused of having caused physical and mental harm to the girls through witchcraft.

This was a dark and notorious episode in American History. The theocratic leaders of Salem, Massachusetts, believing in their moral correctness and self-righteousness and driven by a mass hysteria of the populace, proceeded to violate the rights of the accused to achieve their goals—a moral and pure religious society in their community. Most Americans were repulsed by what had occurred, and the Salem witch trials began the end of the experiment of religious theocracy leadership in America.

Today, in modern America, we have seen a new form of religious theocracy in America. The theocracy of Progressivism, whose beliefs are its woke ideology and of their own moral correctness and self-righteousness, which has led them to persecute and prosecute anyone who may disagree with them. Their mass hysteria is propagated through their Trump Derangement Syndrome that allows for no "Rationality" and "Reasoning".

They persecute their opponents through the utilization of "Political Correctness (PC)", "Identity Politics", "Cancel Culture", and "Doxing", and the tactics of allegations of "Racist", "White Privilege", and "Hate Speech", all the while they are "Virtue Signaling" their own belief in their moral correctness and self-righteousness. And they are now prosecuting their opponents through Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government.

They point to the wearers of MAGA apparel as the Witches and Warlocks and to any of the supporters of President Trump as the followers of the Witches and Warlocks. And, of course, President Trump is the devil leading the Witches and Warlocks.

In their words and deeds, the theocracy of Progressivism has become the Salem Witch Trials leaders of today. Thus, today will also become a dark and notorious episode in American history.

05/25/24 A Relevant Constitution

We have often heard that the Constitution is irrelevant to the modern world, as it was written over two centuries ago by dead white men. As such, it is said that it cannot meet the needs of modern America, and besides, it is undemocratic. The question is, then, do we ignore the Constitution and govern as the Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court see fit for modern times? The answer to the question is given by Rob Natelson in his article “Yes, the Constitution Does Matter—A Lot”. As he has stated in this article:

“The Constitution was not designed to solve all human problems, nor could any man-made document ever do so. Even if every clause in the instrument were enforced quickly and perfectly, life still would be marred by foolish laws, unfair conditions, political and economic mistakes, and other human failings.”

He then goes on to explain why the Constitution is important and relative to our society and concludes his article by stating:

“The inaccurate view that the Constitution doesn’t matter can have dangerous consequences. If we accept that view, then no one is bound to anything in the document. We have no legal basis for protest when an election has been corrupted or even cancelled.

If we believe “the Constitution doesn’t matter,” then we have no positive law basis for complaining about loss of rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, keeping and bearing arms, property—or any of the other hundreds of rights and rules we take for granted in daily life.

Ideally, we should not take those rights and rules for granted. But on a day-to-day basis we are able to do so precisely because the Constitution matters so much.”

Consequently, whenever you hear someone decrying the relevancy of the Constitution or saying that we should ignore the Constitution to do what is “Right for America”, you can be assured that the person making this comment is foolish and dangerous and fools should be given no heed and ignored.

05/24/24 Moderation

In reading the book, “A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning” by Robert Zaretsky, I came across the following quote about moderation:

“As a political value or philosophical concept, moderation is notoriously elusive. Is it, in fact, a full-bodied theory or a worldview? Is there, moreover, something questionable about the very desirability of moderation. It is not always the case, after all, that one of the extremes that define a mean is wrong. Or, for that matter, the mean is not always the most desirable end. Ultimately, is it something more than a disposition to avoid extremes, whether or not one of those extremes is desirable?

In a recent work, the political theorist Aurelian Craiutu insists that moderation is a positive theory, one based on the intrinsic values of pluralism, gradualism, and toleration. A moderate, Craiutu suggests, is a thinker who embraces ‘fallibilism as a middle way between radical skepticism and epistemological absolutism, and acknowledge[s] the limits of political action and the imperfection of the human condition.’”

I would like to suggest that moderation, in many instances, is desirable, but in some instances is undesirable, and moderation often leads to failure. America was founded on the failures of moderation and engaged in a Civil War on the failures of moderation. Prior to the Revolutionary War, many moderates sought accommodation with the British Crown and Parliament, but their efforts failed. Prior to the Civil War, there were moderates who tried to reach an accommodation on slavery, and their efforts failed. Today, in modern America, there are those who are trying to reach an accommodation on the issue of Abortion, and these efforts will fail as the beliefs of a woman’s right to choose abortion and the rights of the unborn child to live knows no accommodation. There are several other issues in modern America that may not be amenable to moderation, such as transgenderism and illegal immigration. Thus, moderation is only workable when the issue is one that is not polarizing based upon deep-seated morals, the issues of Liberty and Freedom, or concerns over safety and security.

If you ask the question, ‘Who are the great moderates of history?’ it would be a very difficult question to answer. Moderates generally achieve short-term successes but engender little long-term success in changing the course of history. As such, history rarely recognizes moderates as consequential to the advancement or devolution of human progress.

Consequently, moderation is not a solution to deep-seated problems but only a postponement of the problem to the future, a postponement that may have deleterious consequences in the present and future. It should also be remembered that moderation is only possible when all sides can acknowledge their own fallibility and concede that the other side may have valid arguments. Without this acknowledgment, even moderation is unlikely to succeed.

05/23/24 Progressive Claims

The history of human progress has zigged and zagged, retreated and leaped forward, and has been unpredictable. Progressives often like to claim that they are on the right side of history, but as I have written In my Chirp on "08/26/23 The Manifest Destiny of Progressivism":

“The originators and supporters of Progressivism attempted to take on the mantel of Manifest Destiny for their ideals and ideas. In doing so, they adopted many attitudes that their ideals and ideas were the only future course of history and that they are on the ‘Right Side of History’. However, the right side of history is an oxymoron; as there is no right or wrong side of history, history is just what has occurred in the past. Progressives believe in historical trends while ignoring that history has often diverged from a trend by circumstances and/or the actions of powerful or influential people or scientific or technological discoveries and innovations. After all, except by hindsight, who could have foreseen a historical trend that led to the Industrial Revolution or the Information Age, or the fall of civilizations that changed history, or leaders that changed history?”

Progressives also like to claim that when a person has changed their opinion to reflect a more progressive stance that they have “evolved”. But as I have written in my Chirp on "05/18/19 I'm With Stupid":

“They also utilize the term “evolved” to describe a person who has changed their position to a more progressive/leftist stance. They forget that evolving does not necessarily mean becoming better. Many species evolve and then become extinct, as their evolution was not conducive to their (changing) environment. Evolution does not necessarily mean improvement, and it certainly does not have anything to do with intelligence.”

Another Progressive claim is that when their candidates in the Democrat Party win control of Congress or the Presidency, they pronounce that the adults are now in charge. In Congress, it can be said that under the Democrat Party, rarely are there any adults put in charge, as their Congressional leadership is politically and not ability-determined. As for the presidency, the example of leadership in the Biden Administration demonstrates that they are anything but adults. The ineptitude of President Biden and Vice President Harris, as well as the across-the-board Executive Officers of the Biden Administration, is amateurish and astounding. This, along with their prevarications, evasivenesses, and ludicrously insincere or vague talk with empty promises that are supposed to impress, does nothing to impress and also demonstrates that they are not adults.

Thus, claims of the Right Side of History, a person evolving into progressivism, or the adults in charge should be mocked, as there is no such thing. These claims are only a ploy to induce you into believing that Progressivism is the only legitimate future course for America. The future course of America should be for the striving to attain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to effectuate the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

05/22/24 Intellectuals and Capitalists

In an article by Rainer Zitelmann, “Why Intellectuals Don't Like Capitalism”, he outlines some of the reasons that most Intellectuals dislike Capitalism. While he makes many interesting points, he has forgotten one important point. Capitalism does not allow for the control and power over government and society to be directed by a self-anointed elite. Intellectuals believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior and, as such, they should be in control of government and society. Capitalists believe that the meritocracy of talents, abilities, skills, hard work, and intelligence should be the determining factor in the leadership of government and society.

The term “Explicit knowledge” refers to knowledge acquisition that can be readily articulated, conceptualized, codified, formalized, stored, and accessed. However, there is a different kind of knowledge, “Implicit knowledge”, which includes personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition. Research has shown that implicit knowledge is the route of knowledge acquisition most often taken by capitalists, while explicit knowledge is the only acceptable route for intellectuals. Competition is the determining factor in Capitalism as to who rises to the top, while Intellectuals believe that academic credentials should determine who rises to the top.

Both capitalists and intellectuals believe that they deserve the leadership of government and society because of their accomplishments. Thus, we have a power struggle between Capitalists and Intellectuals. A power struggle in which Intellectuals demonize, denigrate, and disparage Capitalism to achieve the control and power over government and society that they feel they so richly deserve. Capitalists, on the other hand, discredit Intellectuals as not being attuned to the “real world”, and that Intellectuals' solutions to the issues, concerns, and problems facing the world are not economical or practicable and, consequently, they are better suited for control and power over government and society.

We should utilize intellectuals' explicit knowledge to guide us in making decisions and capitalists' implicit knowledge to guide us in implementing solutions, but we should not let the intellectuals or capitalists succeed in obtaining power and control. This is because Intellectuals are more often wrong than right as to the proper course of government and society, and Capitalists often fail to account for the moral principles of governance and societal interactions in their solutions.

05/21/24 Lies and Deceptions

Lies and Deceptions abound in modern America, especially in the use of studies and statistics. As I have written in my article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”, knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing studies or statistics is crucial to discovering the truth.

Studies can show anything. For every study that shows something, there is another study that shows the opposite. This is because every study has an inherent bias of the person or persons conducting the study or the organization that commissioned the study. A very good person conducting the study recognizes their biases and compensates for them to ensure that the study is as accurate as possible. Having been the recipient of many studies (and the author of a few), I can attest to this fact. Therefore, you should be very wary when a person says, "Studies show". You should always look into a study to determine who the authors are and who commissioned the study, then examine the study for any inherent biases that may be within the study.

Everything that I said about studies also applies to statistics. However, statistics requires more elaboration as it deals with the rigorous mathematical science of statistics. Statistics is a science that requires very rigorous education and experience to get it right. The methodology of gathering data, processing the data, and analyzing the data is very intricate. Interpreting the results of the data accurately requires that you understand the statistical methodology and how it was applied to the statistics being interpreted. If you are not familiar with the science of statistics and you have not carefully examined the statistics and how they were developed, you can often be led astray. Also, many statistics are published with a policy goal in mind and, therefore, should be suspect. As a famous wag once said, "Figures can lie, and liars can figure". So be careful when someone presents you with statistics. Be wary of both the statistics and the statistician.

Studies and statistics often claim to be scientific and rigorous. However, most of them are not as scientific or as rigorous as we may believe. Most studies are based on statistics, and most statistics become studies. However, most studies based on statistics have issues with data, methodology, correlation and causality, sampling, and confidence level, as well as risk factors and probabilities, along with a host of other issues.

Politicians, along with Activists and Activism, often cite studies and statistics to buttress their arguments, especially in an election cycle. However, all should beware of these studies and statistics as they are often incomplete, inaccurate, and sometimes incorrect. Even government agencies’ studies and statistics are prone to incompleteness, inaccuracies, and sometimes incorrectness, along with being politically biased to suit the predilections of Congressional leaders, Presidents, and Executive Officers, as well as bureaucrats. It is also an unfortunate fact that Justices and Judges often rely on statistics in their rulings without sufficient knowledge to ascertain the good from the bad studies and statistics. Alas, the "Mainstream Media" and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" accept these governmental studies and statistics without wariness, and thus, they foist these statistics as truths on the American public.

The faults of studies and statistics are predominant in the areas of the 1). Economy, 2). Crime, and 3). Climate studies and statistics. In some cases, they are deliberately deceptive to achieve a political or social goal. It is also an unfortunate fact that most of the people who tout these studies and statistics do not understand the intricacies of studies and statistics, nor the particulars of the subject of the studies and statistics. Those who tout these studies and statistics accept at face value the opinions and consensus of the “experts” on the subject and often ignore or reject the opinions of the “experts” dissenters, as I have written in my article “Scientific Consensus and Settled Science”.

An example of this is the current usage of statistics in ascertaining the current state of crime in America. John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center who has served as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department, has written a fine article, “The FBI's Crime Data Has Real Problems”, that demonstrates the woeful lack of the proper utilization of crime statistics by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program and the Bureau of Justice Statistics on crime. As the egregious errors in these statistics are beyond the normal boundaries of mistakes, it can only be assumed that this is a deliberate misuse of statistics with deception for the purposes of a political narrative.

Deceptions also abound in modern America. One of the biggest deceptions in modern America was that the use of masks and social distancing would slow the spread of the COVID-19 Virus. You do not need a knowledge of medicine to understand this deception, as a knowledge of the physics of gases and fluid dynamics would allow you to determine this deception. When the size of the COVID-19 virus was determined, you would have known that the pore sizes of masks were much too large to stop the virus from inhalation and exhalation. When the airborne means of the spread of the virus was determined, you would have also known that airborne distribution of the virus would occur rapidly and extensively, especially in modern heating, ventilating, and air-conditioned rooms and buildings, making any social distancing ineffective. Thus, the deceivers of slowing the spread of the virus through masks and social distancing were responsible for the terrible social and economic impacts that masks and social distancing brought forth upon America.

As the major literary figure Jonathan Swift wrote in 1710 on this topic in “The Examiner”, “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” often paraphrased as “A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.”, these lies and deceptions in modern America are meant to sway public opinion with falsehoods. We should also remember another quote about deceptions:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” - Sir Walter Scott

These lies are often followed by a tangled web of deceptions to support the lies. Consequently, those that lie and support the lie are deceivers. Deceivers who wish to mislead the public to achieve their political goals and policy agendas are based on falsehoods. Do not let them deceive you, and do not accept their studies and statistics at face value. It is especially important that you do not vote for the deceivers and not support the policy goals of activists who are deceivers. Determining who is and is not the deceiver can be difficult, but by listening to both sides of the studies and statistics, it can help you make a better decision on who the deceivers are.

05/20/24 Two Camps of Americans

Today, in modern America, the people have been divided into two camps: the camp of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the camp of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. The moderate camp, which was predominant throughout American history, has become a minor camp and is only significant in terms of their votes, as the two camps are about evenly divided in numbers. As such, moderate voters often determine the outcome of elections but have little effect on the direction of governance, as each of the two camps governs to their base’s inclinations. Consequently, elections are about appeals to moderates to win an election but are not determinative for future governance.

The Republican Party is the vehicle of an ideological movement, while the Democratic Party is a coalition of social groups. Republican leaders prize Conservatism and attract support by pledging loyalty to broad values and often speak to the principles of small and limited governance. The Democratic Party prizes Progressivism and seeks concrete government action, appealing to voters' group identities and interests by endorsing specific policies. It often focuses on entitlements and big activist governance to achieve its policy goals. Thus, both camps talk past each other, as they have different political goals and policy agendas. Unfortunately, these different political goals and policy agendas are often at odds with each other.

Politicians and candidates' political rhetoric and campaigning often focus on the hot-button issues that fire up their base. At the same time, they offer platitudes to the moderates in an attempt to sway their votes while simultaneously engaging in demonizing their opponents. In all of this political rhetoric, they often sow confusion as to what are our "American Ideals and Ideas", the meaning of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and by different interpretations of our Constitution, as I have written in my article on "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". They have also forgotten, or do not know, the difference between the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" and that the Constitution was forged for the common good.

Much of this confusion has been brought about by the advancement and failures of a Progressive agenda in America, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". It has also been brought about by Conservative failures to adequately address social issues and concerns and articulate the importance of individual rights in addressing these issues and concerns. Consequently, in this confusion, Americans have lost their identity as to the soul of America, as expressed in the words of the Declaration of Independence:

As well as the preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, we have divided into two camps with different ideologies and objectives for our governance. Camps that are often diametrically opposed to the political goals and policy agendas of each other. Camps that engage in bitter hyper-partisanship in trying to reach their objectives. Camps that have forgotten and do not address the soul of America, nor our Constitutional principles. Camps that will end up destroying American society in their quest to achieve their political goals and policy agendas.

05/19/24 An Assault on the American Judicial System

Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Jonathan Turley’s website Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks is a collection of his articles that are brief and easily understood by the general public, as well as being well reasoned and thoughtful. I am particularly impressed by Professor Turley’s articles on the defense of the Right to Free Speech and Due Process of Law. The sections on his website about Constitutional law, Criminal law, and Free Speech should be a must-read for all interested in these topics.

In a series of articles, he has eviscerated the legal travesty of the Trump prosecution by Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. These articles should be a must-read for all Americans to understand why this trial assaults the American judicial system. They are:

Please note that I will update this list as Professor Turley writes additional columns about the Trump trial.

Other legal scholars have also written and spoken of the travesty of justice that is occurring by both the prosecutor and judge in the Manhattan courtroom. Andrew C. McCarthy, the noted prosecutor and legal commentator and certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has written in his article “Trump Should Be Acquitted in Manhattan”:

“Let’s put aside all of the constitutional objections to Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump — objections premised on the shredding of both federal and state due-process guarantees. Trump ought to be acquitted for the simplest of reasons: Prosecutors can’t prove their case — neither the case the grand jury actually charged, 34 counts of felony business-records falsification, nor the case that elected progressive Democratic district attorney Alvin Bragg has imagined into existence, an uncharged conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information in violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

Allan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

This trial is another example of the Lawfare occurring in modern America and the division of Americans into two camps, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "A Tale of Two Cities". A lawfare and division that is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and a perversion of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. A lawfare that, for many Americans, has eroded faith in our justice system. A lawfare that, if it continues, will contribute to our society's disintegration and to the possibility of a civil war in America, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice

In my previous Chirp on “05/17/24 True Justice”, I mentioned that without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society and that some prosecutors and judges are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. This has become most evident in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and the lack of prosecutions of former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden for similar alleged “criminal acts”.

The actions and inactions of the prosecutors and judges in these cases have been astounding and breathtaking in their violations of true justice, and they may be in violation of the law and the canon of ethics for prosecutors and judges. As Andrew C. McCarthy has written in many of his articles in National Review, as well as Jonathan Turley in many of his articles on his website, the shenanigans that are going on in the courtroom and behind the scenes by the prosecutors and judges of former President Donald Trump are a clear violation of true justice and current jurisprudence. They may also be violations of former President Donald Trump's Constitutional Rights. They are, however, a prime example of how Lawfare has taken hold in modern America. They are also an attempt to influence an election, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference”.

These actions and inactions by prosecutors and judges in the cases against former President Donald Trump, former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden have already damaged the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system. It is my contention that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in immediately to stop these shenanigans and restore the integrity and jurisprudence of the American judicial system. For them to not do so risks calamitous consequences for our American Ideals and Ideas. We, the American people, also need to step up and demand that these prosecutors and judges who have participated in these shenanigans be forthwith relieved of their duties and responsibilities. If this is allowed to continue, it may irrevocably damage our judicial system, lead to widespread civil unrest, and contribute to the possibility of a civil war, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

05/17/24 True Justice

In Deuteronomy 16:18-20 of the Bible, it commands the people of Judges and Justice:

“18. You are to appoint judges and officials for your tribes in every town that the LORD your God is giving you. They are to judge the people with righteous judgment. 19. Do not deny justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. 20. Pursue justice, and justice alone, so that you may live, and you may possess the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” - Berean Standard Bible

In addition, there are many other Bible verses about Judges and Justice. Some of the more pertinent verses for the purposes of this Chirp are:

“Furthermore, select capable men from among the people--God-fearing, trustworthy men who are averse to dishonest gain. Appoint them over the people as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” - Exodus 18:21

“You shall not follow the crowd in wrongdoing. When you testify in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.” - Exodus 23:2

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” - Exodus 20:16

“You must not pervert justice; you must not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the rich; you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” - Leviticus 19:15

“Show no partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be intimidated by anyone, for judgment belongs to God. And bring to me any case too difficult for you, and I will hear it.” - Deuteronomy 1:17

These commands of God are words of wisdom no matter what your beliefs or non-beliefs may be, for without steadfastly holding to these words of wisdom, it is not possible to have justice. Today, in modern America, we have forgotten these words of wisdom in our pursuit of social and political justice. Much of this injustice is promulgated by prosecutors and judges who are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. The utilization of Lawfare in pursuit of social and political justice is a travesty of justice, and it destroys the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system.

Without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society. People will live in fear that if they violate a prosecutor’s or judge’s sense of righteousness, even if they have been lawful in their actions, they will run afoul of the judicial system. Such a fear paralyzes society and will eventually lead to its ruin.

05/16/24 The Berean Standard Bible

The Berean Bible Society was founded over seventy-five years ago for the sole purpose of helping believers understand and enjoy the Word of God. Their Organization holds without apology all the fundamentals of the Christian faith and is evangelical; that is, they believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone on the basis of the shed blood of Christ. They also emphasize the importance of proclaiming the whole counsel of God in light of the Pauline revelation. Insofar as Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, it is their firm conviction that in his epistles alone have the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny for the Church, the Body of Christ, during the dispensation of Grace.

The Berean Standard Bible is a completely new English translation of the Holy Bible, effective for public reading, study, memorization, and evangelism. Inspired by the words in the Book of Acts, and based on the best available manuscripts and sources, each word is connected back to the Greek or Hebrew text to produce a transparent text that can be studied for its root meanings.

The Berean Study Bible represents a single tier of the Berean Bible. This printing contains the full Berean Bible text, footnotes, section headings, and cross-references. It is not what is considered a traditional study Bible, as it includes only the text, cross-references, and footnotes. Additional components, including translation tables, lexicons, outlines, and summaries, are free online at their website, “Bible Hub”, which features topical, Greek and Hebrew study tools, plus concordances, commentaries, dictionaries, sermons, devotionals, and in a variety of apps and software.

I have found that the Berean Standard Bible is a good and understandable modern translation of the Bible. Previous translations of the Bible are often unreadable or misunderstood by the modern public mind. Many of these previous translations of the Bible were also influenced by incomplete or incorrect biblical scholarship and sometimes by political, economic, or sociological considerations of the times and environment in which they were translated. The Berean Standard Bible attempts to correct these problems based on modern biblical scholarship and not be influenced by political, economic, or sociological considerations.

Consequently, in my future Chirps and Articles, I will utilize and quote from the Berean Standard Bible and the Bible Hub when I reference the Bible.

05/15/24 A Civil War Future

No sane person wants a civil war, but then again, no sane person wants to live in an insane country. Regrettably, in modern America, we seem to be living in an insane country.

Anti-Americanism/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Israelism, Senseless Crimes/No Prosecutions/Defunding the Police, Violent Protests, Open Borders, Entitlements for Illegal Immigrants, Homelessness, Dangerous Drug Addictions and Legalizations, Youth Sex Changes, Unconstrained Transgenderism and Homosexuality in the Public Arena, Modern Feminism, Climate Change/Environmental/Energy Policy foolhardiness, Educational Inanities at all levels, Voter Fraud, Lawfare, Constrained First and Second Amendment Rights, Judicial Overreach and Convoluted Rulings, Unsustainable Deficit Spending and Debt Ceiling, and a litany of other insanities seem to pervade America.

The noted historian and commentator Victor Davis Hanson, in the YouTube video “Final Warning: America’s Last Chance Before Collapse” and his article “American Paralysis and Decline”, explains how our civilization is in a state of collapse. A collapse that may not be avoidable given the current insanity in America and which may only be recoverable via a civil war.

This, coupled with a despotic fear if you should speak out against these insanities, has led many Americans to consider if a civil war is the only solution to this insanity. Alas, they may be right that a civil war may be the only solution, as this insanity, led by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and supported by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", may be uncurable through normal democratic processes due to Hyper-Partisanship, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, Doxing, and the pitting of one group of Americans against another group of Americans.

A civil war is a terrible thing to endure, but an insane society is an even more terrible thing to endure and which will lead to the collapse of our society. Unless we correct the insanities in modern America, a civil war may be necessary to right our course and preserve our society.

05/14/24 Ten Most Common Untruths and Blood Libel

Victor Davis Hanson has written a new article, “Try a Little Honesty About Israel”, which examines ten of the most common untruths being bandied about by the Pro-Palestinian protestors. They are:

Progressive Hamas
Colonists and settlers
Two-state solution
Occupied Gaza
Netanyahu is the problem
Targeting civilians
Protestors are Pro-Palestine
Anti-Israel is not Anti-Semitic
Genocide
Disproportionate response

These lies, and his unmasking of them, expose the truth to the lies of the protesters. Thus, this article is an important read for those dedicated to the truth.

In an article by Dennis Prager, “The Genocide Libel Is the Blood Libel of Our Time”, he wrote:

“In medieval Europe, Christians who hated Jews spread the lie that Jews kidnap Christian children, slaughter them, and use their blood to bake matzos for Passover. This lie became known as “the Blood Libel,” probably the greatest libel in history. Over the course of many centuries, Jews were tortured and murdered, often by being burned alive, because of the Blood Libel.

The Blood Libel was particularly odious in light of two facts: It was the Jews who, through their Bible, first outlawed human sacrifice; and one of the first laws in the Hebrew Bible is a ban on consuming blood.

For centuries, Jews had to confront the fact that all around them, throughout Europe, a vast number of people believed an enormous lie about them. Jews have to confront the same thing today. We are now living through the Second Blood Libel: the claim that the Jewish state is committing genocide. But, unlike the Blood Libel, this libel is not the product of Christians; it is the product of Muslims and the Left. The very people against whom the greatest genocide in recorded history — the Holocaust — was directed are now accused of that crime.”

He then goes on to explain that the current cries of “genocide” by Israel against the Palestinians are the modern-day equivalent of medieval Europe’s “Blood Libel”. The purported number of Palestinians killed in the retaliatory strikes against Hamas for their October 7, 2023, terrorism against Israel was widely overinflated, and the corrections to these numbers have been underreported. Thus, as Mr. Prager ends his article:

“Even if the media give these new numbers the attention it has given the alleged “genocide,” it will not end a single anti-Israel demonstration or cause one Israel-hater to cease accusing Israel of genocide. Since the accusation was never based on truth, truth will not end it.

The only genocide in the Israel-Palestinian war is the one Hamas and Iran seek to perpetrate against the Jews of Israel.”

Untruths and Blood Libels against Israel are despicable and evil, and they need to be vigorously denounced by all who revere decency and honesty. Any prevarication or moral equivalence in condemning these Untruths and Blood Libels is tacit support of evil, and you must confront the evildoers and evil sayers to extinguish evil; otherwise, evil may triumph.

05/13/24 The Rise of Evil in America

As I have written in my Chirp on “05/16/24 Parallelism in America”, in today’s America, we are seeing a rise in evil. This rise has been illuminated by the current protests against Israel and for the Palestinian people. Make no mistake that these pro-Palestinian protests are nothing but a disguise for Anti-Semitism, as I have also Chirped on, "03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism".

The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is nothing but a phrase for the elimination of Israel, for Israel is totally between the river and the sea. As I have written in my Chirp on "01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue", these protests are simply virtue signaling with little knowledge or comprehension as to what they are protesting. They certainly do not realize that they are engaged in evildoing.

This Anti-Semitism must be forthrightly confronted and condemned by all who oppose evil. There is no moral equivalency when confronting evil, and there is no temporizing with evil. It is time for all clergy to point out this evil of Anti-Semitism, condemn it, and urge their congregations to condemn Anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it arises. All politicians and community leaders should also join in this pointing out and condemning Anti-Semitism, and all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All must condemn this Anti-Semitism.

For those who claim the situation in the Hamas-Israel conflict is complex, I am reminded of the thoughts of the famed Rabbi Jonathan Saks:

“The Israeli-Hamas conflict is not complex. It's very simple: One side wants the other side dead.” - Rabbi Saks

When one side wants the other side dead, it is not virtuous to support the side that wants the other side dead, and it is evil to aid and abet the other side who wants them dead. We all should also remember that:

Anti-Semitism must be confronted and condemned whenever it rears its ugly head. For history has shown that whenever it is not confronted and eliminated, it festers and grows to become a cancer that will eventually destroy society.

05/12/24 Evil Disguised by Moral Equivalence

In the Ten Commandments of the Bible, Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 states:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”, or "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (NRSV) and its variants, is an admonishment to not do evil or justify evil in the name of God. It is considered a grievous sin and will not be tolerated by God. Those who aid or abet the evildoers are just as guilty of evildoing as the evildoers. Therefore, those who justify evil acts with moral equivalence are evildoers, as they are aiding and abetting the evildoers.

There is no doubt that the acts of Hamas and Hezbollah are evil, and those who justify these acts with moral equivalence are aiding and abetting the evildoers. Hence, the Palestine protesters across the world are as evil as the evildoers. It is also an unfortunate fact that the Biden Administration's tepid support for Israel, and sometimes hindrance of Israeli responses to evil, is aiding and abetting the evildoers. Thus, the Biden Administration has become evil.

While many would complain that this judgment of the Biden Administration is too harsh, this Commandment is harsh and unyielding and not subject to disputations by mere mortals. As the prophet Nathan called out the sins of David And Bathsheba, so must we call out the sins of the Biden Administration.

I am not a prophet of God, nor do I claim any special wisdom about God. But I can recognize evil when it rears its ugly head. I also recognize that to live a Godly life, you must confront and extinguish evil; otherwise, evil may triumph.

05/11/24 The Chosen of God

The Jewish people are the chosen of God, chosen to show what faithfulness to God’s will means and the evils of the faithless against God’s will. Given the turbulent trials and tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history, they have provided this showing. Yet throughout these trials and tribulations and throughout history, the Jewish people have persevered. No historical people have persevered for as long as the Jewish people, which leads me to believe in God and that God chooses wisely.

Today, they are again showing the evilness of those who are faithless in God’s will. The terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah against the Jewish people demonstrates the evilness of the faithless against God’s will. The elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah from the Mideast may be another reminder by God as to the terrible consequences of evil against God’s will.

Just as God demanded that the ancient Jews eliminate the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:16-18), he may be directing the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those who oppose the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah may, therefore, be supporting the evils of the faithless against God’s will. Consequently, woe be to those who support Hamas and Hezbollah, as they may be supporting the evils of the faithless against God’s will, and God will judge of their words and deeds when they meet their maker.

To those Jewish people who have suffered the terrible consequences of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, I would say that your sacrifice has not been in vain, as you serve as a reminder of God’s will, and your sacrifice will be rewarded by God in the afterlife. I would also say long live the Jewish people as a reminder of what faithfulness to God’s will means and the evils of the faithless against God’s will.

05/10/24 Parallelism in America

A century ago, in a place almost halfway around the world, a great country was in despair. This great country, renowned for its Philosophers and Theologians, composers and musicians, authors and poets, artists and artisans, architecture and craftsmen, scientists and engineers, had succumbed to despair because of its loss of greatness and the economic devastations of World War I. In their despair, they searched for reasons as to their plight. Instead of looking at their own actions as the reasons for their dilemma, they began an outward/inward search for scapegoats. Outward in blaming other countries for their problems, and then inward in blaming groups of their fellow citizens for their problems. In this outward/inward search for scapegoats, they turned to evilness.

They began to listen to the demagogues amongst themselves in that:

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemöller

Within a few short years, the demagogues obtained control of the government, and they began their pogroms against their opponents, which ended up with World War II, millions of deaths, and calamitous ruination for all but America. It started with governmental control of society and the economy and ended with genocide and slavery for those who opposed them:

“It didn't start with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers. It started with one party controlling the media. It started with one party controlling the message. It started with one party deciding what is the truth. It started with one party censoring speech and silencing the opposition. It started with one party dividing citizens into 'Us' and 'Them'. It started with one party calling on their supporters to harass 'Them'. It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen. It ended with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.” - paraphrased from the Holocaust Museum

All of this is evil and an evil that may be festering in today’s America. The rise of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism in America, as I have written in my Chirps on “05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism” and “03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism”, along with "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", "Wokeness", "Doxing", and now "Lawfare" in America, are but symptoms of the rise of evil in America.These symptoms have given rise to a feeling of despair as to our perceived loss of greatness and the economic doldrums we are currently enduring. Symptoms that are being aggravated by the words and deeds of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters as a means to obtain and retain power to advance their political goals and policy agendas. We must fight this despair and reclaim our American Ideals and Ideas to ensure our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All so that we do not become an evil country like the other once great country became.

05/09/24 Non-Answer Answers

Congressional hearings and inquiries have become a joke. A joke in that the time limits for questioning are absurdly short, and the witnesses have become adept at not answering the question with absurd excuses for not answering a question, vacuous answers to the question, or running out of the clock with long-winded statements that do not answer the question. Indeed, these non-answers have become pathetic and/or humorous in their evasions. They also are injurious to our democratic process and balance of powers, as they thwart the role of Congressional Oversight in our system of government.

Instead, they use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language" as non-answers. Simple yes/no answers, such as Would you allow your teenage daughter to dress or undress in front of a transgender boy who is dressing or undressing in the woman’s locker room, or simple replies to what is your definition of a woman, are being evaded by non-answers. The litany of non-answers to Congressional Oversight hearings and inquiries in the last decades could fill a book and are far too numerous to list in this Chirp.

It is an unfortunate fact that Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters are especially addicted to non-answers, and it became a modus operandi in the administrations of President Obama and Biden. Non-answers are a tactic and means to obscure their actual intentions or deeds, as they are aware that if they did so, their actions or proposals would not be palatable to a majority of Americans.

As such, non-answers have become a means for Democrat politicians to obtain and retain power to advance their political goals and policy agendas. Rather than utilizing clear language and intelligent reasoning to explain and justify their words and deeds, they resort to non-answers to hoodwink the American public. As the old adage states, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”, the American people should be ashamed of themselves for allowing them to get away with non-answers.

05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference

The administrations of President Obama and President Biden have been very selective in who they investigate and prosecute for violations of federal laws and our constitutional and civil rights. It has become apparent to all involved that the selection criteria is Democrat and Progressive "Activists and Activism" who support their administrations versus Republicans and Conservatives who oppose the policies of the Obama and Biden administrations. Much of these investigations and prosecutions are not for the purpose of obtaining convictions for violations of the law but for intimidation and ruination of their opponents in a process known as "Lawfare".

This Lawfare has now extended to election interference. The prosecutions in an election year of former President Trump and his associates and supporters are for the purpose of keeping them in court proceedings and off the election trail. It is also for the purpose of delegitimizing President Trump in the eyes of the voters in the hopes that they will not vote for President Trump. It also has the repercussions of depriving President Trump of some of his most able and effective campaign aides and possibly diminishing campaign donations from wary supporters.

Two new articles, “The Travesties of the Trump Trials” by Victor Davis Hanson and “Biden’s Collusion in the Anti-Trump Lawfare Gambit” by Andrew C. McCarthy, examine the political impetus and machinations of this Lawfare against President Trump.

Consequently, this is but another example of the election demagoguery employed by Democrats, as I have written in my Chirp “05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery”. If they are successful in these efforts, then how elections are conducted will forever change, with Lawfare becoming part of the election process. Woe be to America if this should happen, as free and fair elections in America will be relegated to the ash heap of history.

05/07/24 Election Interference and Demagoguery

In the Presidential election of 2016, we had the issue of Russian collusion interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2020, we had the issue of the COVID pandemic interfering with the normal election process. In the Presidential election of 2024, we have the issue of President Trump’s indictments and trials interfering with the normal election process. In all three of these elections, it was the Democrat candidate and the Democrat Party that were interfering with the normal election process. In this, it appears that the Democrat candidate and party do not believe that they can win an election without interfering with the normal election process, and this belief may be true.

This election interference, along with fearmongering and demonization, as I have written in Chirp on "08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization", appears to be the preferred election tactic of Democrat candidates. These tactics of interference, fearmongering, and demonization are the tactics of demagogues that have been used throughout history, much to the detriment of humankind.

Many Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and their supporters would claim that both sides do it. However, as I have examined in my Chirps on 04/01/19 Both Sides Do It", the issue is not that both sides do it but whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes in their respective parties. In the Republican Party, few of the leadership engage in election interference and demagoguery, and the extremes are hardly paid attention to, while in the Democrat Party, many of the leadership engage in election interference and demagoguery, and the extremes are pandered to. Thus, it is the Democrats that are engaged in election interference and demagoguery as a tactic to win elections to obtain and retain power.

When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader standing on the front steps of the Supreme Court building, with an angry mob behind them, threatening the Supreme Court members on a decision they were about to render? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party House Speaker physically tear apart a Presidential State of the Union address in front of a national audience? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader making scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about Democrat politicians from the House or Senate floor while hiding behind Congressional immunity from slander or libel lawsuits? When was the last time you saw a Republican Party leader use pejoratives against a Democrat candidate or politician, as I have written in my article on Divisiveness in America? When was the last time you saw a Republican President give as vile a speech as President Biden gave in front of Independence Hall on September 01, 2022, as I have Chirp on, "09/03/22 A Terrorist and a Fascist" and written in my article on The Soul of the Nation? When was the last time that you saw a Republican Presidential administration (either directly or through its surrogates in the State and Local governments) prosecute Democrat politicians, advisors, and supporters for other than serious criminal actions that were unrelated to politics, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government"? The litany of Democrat Party leaders’ demagogic words and deeds in their official capacities could go on and on.

As I have often said, the major difference between Republican and Democrat leadership in their opposition to each other is that Republican Leadership believes that Democrats are wrong, while Democrat Leadership believes that Republicans are evil. This is why Democrat Leadership engages in demagoguery, as they believe that they are morally obligated to defeat Republican evils. This is also why they don't want to intelligently debate their opposition, as they only want to berate their opposition for their supposed evils.

As to election interference, it is the Democrat Party that advocates for voting changes that make it easier to cheat and harder to uncover cheating. They also utilize their political power to obstruct investigations into ballot cheating. The ballot counting in Democrat Party strongholds is so rife with abnormalities and inconsistencies that it is difficult to ascertain the integrity of the ballot counting. As I have discussed in my articles on Voting in America and Voting Responsibilities, many of these voting problems originate in Democrat Party machinations to rig the vote in favor of Democrat candidates. Consequently, the Democrat Party is heavily invested in election interference.

Thus, in modern America, we have election interference and demagoguery by the Democrats for the purposes of winning elections to obtain and retain power. A power that they are willing to utilize to install an Oligarchy in America composed of themselves and a power to institute Despotism in America against their opposition.

05/06/24 Whence Anti-Americanism

Many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have an Anti-Americanism attitude, as they believe that America is the worst country in the world because of its Racist history, White Privilege social structure, its Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society, and its Capitalism and Free Markets economy. Much of this belief is based on The Biggest Falsehoods in America and a lack of knowledge or misjudgments of history, economic ignorance or fallaciousness, and a flawed understanding of human nature.

As Winson Churchill once elucidated, “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”, I would say that “America is the worst country, except for all the others that have been tried”. All countries throughout history have had their flaws and faults, and all countries have been worse than America with all its flaws and faults.

In my Article “Condemned to Repeat It”, I note that without a true understanding of history, it is not possible to comprehend historical persons and times, which leads to false assumptions and conclusions about history. It is, therefore, important that you properly examine history. A preponderance of people believe that history is simply an insight into the past, mere stories of people and their lives, or a collection of dates and facts that are seemingly meaningless in our world today. However, as Disha Aadiya Ajit has written in his article, “Why history?”, properly examining history provides more than stories, dates, and facts. As he has stated, “History encompasses the bygone eras reflective of human advancement, spirit, resilience, successes and failures that have metamorphosed into the world as we know it today”, and history provides insights for making judgments on today’s events and the possibilities in the future.

The word “presentism” is the judging of people and events of another time by the standards of today. In literary and historical analysis, presentism is a term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. Some consider the practice of presentism a common fallacy when writing about the past. American historian Barbara Tuchman once said, “Nothing is more unfair than to judge the men of the past by the ideas of the present”. Thus, we should all be more circumspect in our judgments of historical people and events and be cognizant of the old saying that you must walk a mile in someone’s shoes to understand what they are going through. In another fine article by Disha Aadiya Ajit, “Opinion: Should We Judge Those From The Past By The Standards Of Today?” he explains why presentism is a fallacious judgment of history.

In an illuminating article by Mark Lewis, “'Progressivism': The Modern Zeitgeist”, he looks at Presentism in terms of the Zeitgeist characteristic of an age or generation. This article also makes for an interesting and recommended read.

It is readily apparent from their historical statements that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders lack a true understanding of history, that they utilize presentism in their judgments of history, and thus, they are distorting history to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. An examination of my various History Articles on American History points out many of the fallaciousness of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders regarding American history. This lack of a true understanding of history and presentism leads them to engage in anti-Americanism rhetoric.

In properly examining history, it is critically important that we understand the economic circumstances of the historical times. The economics of a society and its people were often the driving factor in what occurred in history, and so it is today. However, very few people have an understanding of macroeconomics, including many economists, which is necessary to understand the why and how a society operates economically. This lack of understanding of the economics of a society and of a person leads to misjudgments as to the functioning of a society and the reasons individuals make decisions about their lives. The economic ignorance or fallaciousness of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders leads them down a primrose path of decision-making to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. When their policy agendas fail due to their lack of understanding of economics, they often disparage Americans and America for their failure, which reinforces their anti-Americanism attitude.

My Chirp on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature" examines how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have an unconstrained vision of human nature. This unconstrained view of human nature leads them to believe that they can mold human nature to suit their political goals and policy agendas. While they may be able to change the minds of some people, the vast majority of people in America and the world are immune to their blandishments and enticements and will continue to make their decisions based on the constrained vision of human nature, which is not moldable. Thus, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are in denial of human nature. As such:

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

This denial of true human nature leads them to disparage most Americans and America, which reinforces their anti-Americanism attitude.

Consequently, anti-Americanism is based on a lack of knowledge or misjudgments of history, economic ignorance or fallaciousness, and a flawed understanding of human nature. There is also more than a touch of delusions of utopianism that permeate the deriders of America. A utopian delusion that they know what is best and how to best achieve their Utopia. But nobody knows what is best nor how to achieve the best, for as the great economist Thomas Sowell has said, "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs." It should also be remembered that Utopia can never be achieved; as the great French philosopher, author, and journalist Albert Camus has said, “Utopia is that which is in contradiction with reality.”

05/05/24 Virtue In America

In an article by Mark Lewis, “Have You Ever Heard Any Current Politician Use the Word 'Virtue'?”, he states:

“My dear friends, if you want to know how America has gotten so far off the track, where our beloved country has lost its way, why there is so much moral decadence, so many utterly corrupt, self-centered, power-hungry politicians, and a largely ignorant, gullible citizenry, the majority of whom don’t seem to know what is really happening, then please read the following quotes. Each of them is from James Madison, one of the greatest minds in our history, and the man given the most credit for writing our Constitution and establishing the government we were supposed to have.”

The five quotes of Madison that he utilizes are:

“I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” - James Madison

“If a man is not fit to govern himself, how can he be fit to govern someone else?” - James Madison

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” - James Madison

“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” - James Madison

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

His comments on these quotes are quite illuminative of the current state of virtue in America. I have also written an Article, “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society”, along with my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America", which examines the state of virtue in America. In Mark Lewis’s article, he also states that:

“If people aren’t taught virtue, honesty, self-control, respect for property, industry, truth, and goodness, then they will have none of these qualities. And, again I ask, when was the last time you heard ANY politician in America, on either side of the aisle, encouraging Americans towards the absolute necessity of a virtuous, godly, self-controlled life?”

And:

“An unvirtuous people with no self-control will produce societal chaos, i.e., America in 2024. And a society in chaos will cry out for greater government to protect it.”

In his article he concludes:

“The answer is the one Madison taught us: to educate our people in virtue and elect leaders of wisdom and virtue. If that is even possible any more.”

Alas, virtue in America has seemed to have been relegated to the ash heap of history. But without reestablishing virtue in America, it is not possible to properly address the issues and concerns facing America, or as James Madison has also warned:

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.” - James Madison

05/04/24 A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

A recent campus photo during the Anti-Israel protests says a thousand words about the importance of the Second Amendment. In the background, we see a Jewish student being assaulted by the protesters, while in the foreground, a law enforcement officer ignores the assault:

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Every person has the Natural Right to protect themselves, their family, and their neighbors from the criminal actions of others. We normally cede this right to law enforcement officers, but if they are unavailable or choose not to do so (or prevented from doing so by the orders of superiors), we need to be able to protect ourselves. Sometimes, the best protection is a firearm at our side to dissuade or defend ourselves from the criminal actions of others.

The old adage, “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away”, should be caveated by “but only if they should decide to protect you.” Alas, in modern America, they are often more than minutes away or unavailable to protect you, and many police departments seem uninterested in protecting you due to "Political Correctness" or "Wokeness". Their only purpose is to protect your life, liberty, and property, and in modern America, they seem to have little interest in doing so. It is, therefore, up to each person to provide their own protection, and the best protection is a firearm that can be brandished or used if necessary.

05/03/24 Getting It Morally and Historically Wrong

Recently, Tucker Carlson told Joe Rogan that any person who defends the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, is evil:

"People on my side ... on the Right, you know, have spent 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. Like, are you joking? That's just like prima facie evil. ... It's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people. And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil. Like, it's not a tough one. It's not a hard call for me. So, with that in mind, like, why would you want nuclear weapons? It's, like, just a mindless, childish sort of intellectual exercise to justify -- like, 'Oh, no, it's really good because somebody else will get it.' How about 'no'? How about, like, spending all of your effort to prevent this from happening? Would you kill baby Hitler, you know, famously?"

In this, he is morally and historically wrong, as I have written in my Article on “The Morality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings”. We must ponder the morality of these bombings, but we must do so in its historical context. An article by Dennis Prager, "Some on the Right Are Having a Moral Meltdown", goes into more detail about the morality and history of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Consequently, Tucker Carlson owes a retraction and apology for this comment, as it shows a lack of morality and historical insightfulness as to what occurred in the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

05/02/24 Morally, Intellectually, and Scientifically and Technologically Wrong

In my Chirps on “04/28/24 Morally Wrong”, “04/29/24 Intellectually Wrong”, and “04/30/24 Scientifically and Technologically Wrong”, I point out how the modern Democrat Party has gone astray. They have abandoned Reasoning" and "Rationality, and replaced them with their Lies and Beliefs, and they have trampled upon our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. In their going astray, they have become a threat to America, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "Despotism in America". In addition, they are attempting to institute rulership in America, as I have written in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, as they are trying to establish an Oligarchy in America as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

Their assaults on our free speech rights and their weaponization of government, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America" and "The Weaponization of Government", threaten the very fabric of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All in America. Their proposals for the scientific and technological issues facing America are often unscientific and uneconomical and are, therefore, destructive to our economy and our social fabric.

Consequently, it is imperative to vote out of office Democrat politicians until they reform their party to be in alignment with our American Ideals and Ideas. To not do so is to allow for the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas. In doing so, we should remember the words of President Lincoln:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

Also, in doing so or not doing so, we should remember the words of caution from President Lincoln:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth." - Abraham Lincoln

05/01/24 Wisdom Par Excellence

Thomas Sowell, (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books-and as a guest on TV and radio-he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.

He is also one of the wisest people I have ever encountered in my readings. His wisdom goes beyond economics, but economics is the foundation of his wisdom. Three books of his wisdom are this month's Book It selections, which all Americans should read to increase their own wisdom.

04/30/24 Scientifically and Technologically Wrong

As Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott in Star Trek: The Original Series has often said, “You cannot violate the laws of physics.” I would also add that you cannot compensate for the laws of physics, and you cannot ignore the laws of physics. You must always be cognizant of the Laws of Physics and obey them. As for technology, all technology is based on the laws of physics but is limited to what is achievable by the current state of engineering. Few people have sufficient knowledge of science and technology to ascertain the truth or falsehood of scientific and technological claims. Most people rely on “experts” to make a judgment of these claims. It is for this reason that I have written a series of articles about science and technology, which I am familiar with and which can be reviewed in the Science section of my website.

However, most people fall into the trap of automatically accepting the claims of experts or the consensus of experts. It should be remembered by all that experts are only experts in their field of study, that they can often be wrong, and that most have very little expertise outside of their field of study, which may impact their field of study. Regarding scientific experts, it is almost always the case that they have little expertise in the political, sociological, and economic impacts of what they may suggest or advocate. This has been especially true on the major scientific and technological issues of our time, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Climate Change", the "Coronavirus Pandemic", "Transgenderism - Sex and Gender", and energy policy as I have written in my Chirp on "11/16/22 Stupid Is as Stupid Does".

You should also be wary of Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, as throughout history, most scientific consensus and settled science has been overturned by advancements in science, as I have written in my article on Consensus and Settled Science. In addition, there are several problems of modern science that need to be considered when evaluating scientific claims, as I have written in my articles on Orthodoxy in Science and The Problems with Modern Science.

As I have written in my Chirps on "05/12/23 The Abandonment of Hard Science to be Replaced with Political Science", Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, as well as the Biden Administration, have abandoned hard science and replaced it with political science to achieve their political goals. This is foolish and destructive to our society, a destructiveness that may cause economic and/or sociological problems and may be uncorrectable. Thus, in most cases, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are Scientifically and Technologically Wrong on issues related to science and technology.

04/29/24 Intellectually Wrong

It is breathtaking to observe how Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are bereft of knowledge of Constitutional governance, economics, history, science and technology, and human nature. This lack of knowledge may be ignorance, but it may also be willful disregard, as when the facts and truths contravene their beliefs or political agendas, they disregard or dismiss the facts and truths. Many of my Chirps and Articles have dealt with their lack of knowledge of these subjects and the dangers of their disregarding or dismissal of the facts and truths, or as I have said:

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

And failure is what we have seen in modern America because of Democrat Party leadership and Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism. Not only have we experienced failures, but we have also seen Divisiveness in America and the loss of A Civil Society in America due to Hyper-Partisanship, which is leading us into Despotism in America. As I have written in my article, J'accuse!, the modern Democrat Party has become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Their being intellectually wrong has led America into chaos, a chaos that may destroy our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/28/24 Morally Wrong

The Democrat Party has morphed into a party of moral wrongs. Morally wrong on Anti-Semitism, Islamism, Racism, Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Transgenderism, Free Speech, Gun Rights, and a host of other Natural, Human, and Civil Rights issues. It is immoral to discriminate against any person, except for the content of their character and their competencies (i.e., Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)). It is immoral to persecute and prosecute their political opponents (i.e., The Weaponization of Government), and it is immoral to pit one group of Americans against another group (i.e., Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory (CRT), and White Privilege). It is immoral to take taxpayer monies from a person who has earned the money to give to another person who has not earned the money (i.e., Entitlements and the Greater Good versus the Common Good).

If it is a choice between doing what is morally right or politically advantageous, Democrat Party Leaders will always opt for politically advantageous. They are a party without principles except for the principle of obtaining and retaining power to enact their political goals and policy agendas.

They cloak their immorality in lofty words but implement dastardly deeds. Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "The Perversion of the English Language", they foster immorality. Many Democrats would claim that morality is relative to the circumstances and the context of the situation. But true morality knows no abridgment by circumstances and context, as righteousness and wickedness are bound by morality.

Thus, we have a party that wishes to lead or rule America, as I have written in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, and this leadership or rulership is without a moral basis for their political goals and policy agendas.

04/27/24 Dereliction of Duty

The Impeachment saga against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has finally ended with an unsatisfactory conclusion. Unsatisfactory in that it has not resolved the question of what is to be done when elected and appointed officials are engaged in a dereliction of duty, and most especially when they are not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress. As I have written in my Chirps on "03/16/24 Impeachment Proceedings" and "02/13/24 What is Impeachable?", I do not believe that the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas met the Constitutional criteria for impeachment. But I may have been mistaken.

In a new article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “The Mayorkas Senate Impeachment Trial That Wasn’t”, he states, “The contention that the two articles the House alleged against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas do not state impeachable offenses is wrong.” as he states that:

“The fact that his conduct is probably not criminally prosecutable is beside the point. Impeachment does not require a penal crime. As Hamilton memorably observed in Federalist No. 65, it is a political offense sounding in abuse of the power entrusted to a public official, not in common crime.”

His article explains his reasoning, and the Founding Fathers' reasoning, on the meaning and scope of impeachment and why dereliction of duty was not explicitly included in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution. This lack of dereliction of duty in the Impeachment clause of the Constitution, due to the Founding Fathers inability to articulate the difference between profound and trivial dereliction of duty, has led many to interpret impeachment as only for a criminal offense by an officeholder. Thus, the removal of an elected or appointed official who is in dereliction of their duty is unresolved to this day.

As I have examined in my article, “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials”, there are many issues and concerns about removing an elected or appointed official for dereliction of duty. However, this is an important issue to discuss and resolve, as in the last several decades, we have seen a dramatic increase in the profound dereliction of duty by the president and executive officers. Often, these profound derelictions of duties involve not faithfully executing the laws as passed by Congress, ignoring the law, redefining the meaning of the words in the law, or issuing regulations that are contrary to the intent of the law. Sometimes, Executive Orders creating rules and regulations that have no basis in law or are contrary to laws as passed by Congress are promulgated, as I have written in my Chirps on "07/28/19 Executive Orders" and "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders".

There is also the issue of lying or misleading Congress and the American people with no consequences when discovered, as I have Chirped on "06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying". Lying, misleading, obfuscating, not answering a question, or withholding information from Congress is a dereliction of duty under Congressional oversite responsibilities of the Constitution and should be cause for impeachment.

If we continue to allow politicians or officers to be in dereliction of their duties, then we no longer have a balance of powers between the branches of government or limited and enumerated powers within a branch of government. To not bring politicians or officers within the constraints of the Constitution is to allow for capricious and arbitrary government, which is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas". Thus, we must address and resolve the issue of impeachment for dereliction of duty.

04/26/24 Useful Idiots Leadership

In my previous Chip on “04/nn/24 Useful Idiots,” I discussed who the Useful Idiots are in today’s America. In this Chirp, I will examine the leadership and their motives of the Useful Idiots in America. Throughout history, Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership have come from both sides of The Political Spectrum. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the vast preponderance of Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership has been on the left side of the Political Spectrum.

Many of the non-politician Useful Idiots Leadership are Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism. Most of these people have a sense of self-righteousness and self-importance, as well as a lack of broad knowledge, an overabundance of irrational thinking, and a know-it-all attitude. These personality traits allow them to reject any facts or truths that are contrary to their beliefs. They also often have an unconstrained view of Human Nature as I have defined as "Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained)", which leads them to make proposals that are contrary to human nature, as I have written in my Chirps on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature" and "01/31/21 Human Nature and Behavior". Coupled with a lack of understanding of the economic impacts of their proposals and a lack of foresight as to both intended and unintended consequences of their proposals (as I have written in my article on "The Law of Unintended Consequences"), this leads to detrimental repercussions of their proposals if or when their proposals are enacted.

As for the politicians who are the Useful Idiots Leadership, most of them originate from Democrat Party Leaders. While many of the Democrat Party Leaders believe in the issues espoused by Progressives/Leftists Activists and Activism, much of their words and deeds are for the purposes of electioneering to obtain and retain political power. Rather than exhibiting true leadership by ameliorating the proposals of the Useful Idiots Leadership to constrict them to facts and truths, Constitutional limitations, Economic realities, Consequential analysis, and Human Nature constraints, they encourage their idiocy to gin up votes for Democrat Party candidates and their political goals and policy agendas. We should also remember my own aphorism:

It is also an unfortunate fact that many in the Mainstream Media who practice Modern Journalism are parroting the Useful Idiot's Leadership proposals, political goals, and policy agendas with an uncritical eye. Thus, allowing the Useful Idiots and Useful Idiots Leadership to appear to be reasonable is dangerous for America’s future. An ill-informed public cannot possibly make an informed judgment as to the proper future course of America, and decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information always lead to disastrous results.

Thus, in today’s America, we are being led by the Useful Idiots Leadership and their Useful Idiots for the purposes of control and power over Americans, as I have written in my Chirp on "02/08/24 It’s All About Control and Power". This needs to end by voting out the elected officials and removing appointed officials that pander to the Useful Idiots, as well as paying no attention to the Mainstream Media reporting and commentary. Until this happens, we can expect more chaos in America while being led down the path to the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/25/24 Useful Idiots

Useful Idiots, or useful fools, are people perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals or the consequences of obtaining the goals. They are often cynically used by the cause's leaders to achieve their goals. Useful Idiots have been a fixture throughout human history, but with the advent of mass communications in the 20th century, their presence and impacts have been magnified. Useful Idiots have also been ratings boosters and clickbait for the "Mainstream Media" and "Social Media", as they often provide spectacles without substance. Useful Idiots are often utilized to achieve political and/or social goals that, upon the utilization of "Rationality" and "Reasoning", would not be desirable by a majority of the people.

The question is how to discern a Useful Idiot from someone who is knowledgeable, as I have written in my article, "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". The answer is not as difficult as it would appear to be. If someone is a member of a disorderly crowd of people (a mob), it is an indicator of a Useful Idiot, and the more violent the mob, the more idiotic the Useful Idiots. Peaceful gatherings of a crowd to express an opinion are not mobs and, therefore, not an indicator of a Useful Idiot, and they often are an indicator of a thoughtful person.

When someone responds to an intellectually reasoned viewpoint with emotional pejoratives, then it is safe to assume that the responder is a Useful Idiot. Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel demonstrators (which is just another way of being an Anti-Semite) can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Supporters of open borders (no matter which national border is being violated) can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Supporters of defunding the police, no arrests for minor crimes, no or small bail for unlawful actions, and limited prosecutions of criminals can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. And people who would limit or suppress Free Speech, the Free Press, Freedom of Religion, Free Assembly, Free Petitioning, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Anyone who disregards economic principles when analyzing proposed governmental laws, rules, regulations, or social policies is a Useful Idiot.

In the arena of political and social advocacy, people who believe in "Critical Race Theory (CRT)" and "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Believers of an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society", "White Privilege", and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)" can also safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots. Anybody who believes in any form of Oligarchy, Socialism, or Communism can safely be assumed to be a Useful Idiot.

In the past few years, we have seen the utilization of Useful Idiots to implement policies to deal with the COVID-19 Pandemic and the issue of Transgenderism, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Coronavirus Pandemic" and "Transgenderism - Sex and Gender". Those that support the policies enacted under the pandemic mandates or transgendered rights can safely be assumed to be Useful Idiots.

In today’s America, the number of Useful Idiots far exceeds the number of Knowledgeable persons, but this has been the case throughout world history. The important point is whether we will allow the Useful Idiots to set out the future course of America or pause to consider the wisdom of Knowledgeable persons in setting the future course of America. Alas, we appear to be under the direction of the Useful Idiots rather than the Knowledgeable persons in today’s America. This bodes ill for the future of America, and unless we right our course, we can expect a chaotic future in America.

04/24/24 CPB, PBS, and NPR as Progressive Propaganda

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and National Public Radio (NPR) and were formed in 1967, 1969, 1970, respectively, at a time when over-the-air television and radio were dominated by a limited number of commercial interests. It was felt that there was a need for over-the-air broadcasting for educational and cultural purposes, which was being neglected by the limited number of commercial interests. Thus, the Federal government stepped in to provide this educational and cultural broadcasting. With the advent of cable television and the Internet, the need for educational and cultural programming was reduced, as it became financially possible for special interests to fund educational and cultural programming over cable television and the Internet. However, the federal government continued to fund CPB, PBS, and NPR with taxpayer monies after the special interests met the need for educational and cultural programming.

CPB, PBS, and NPR have always had a slightly liberal orientation to their programming, but they sometimes counterbalanced this viewpoint with some conservative programming. Alas, over the last few decades, they have become distinctly Progressive in their viewpoints and have ignored Conservative viewpoints in their programming. They have also aligned themselves with the policies of the Democrat Party while disparaging the policies of the Republican Party, so much so that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be renamed Corporation for Progressive Broadcasting, as well as renaming Public Broadcasting Service to Progressive Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio to National Progressive Radio.

In a new article by Jonathan Turley, “Should NPR Rely on Listeners Rather Than Taxpayers Like You?”, he examines the current kerfuffle regarding “the National Public Radio (NPR) after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at the media outlet.” He continued on to say, “Although NPR responded by denying the allegations, the controversy has rekindled the debate over the danger of the government selectively funding media outlets. That is a debate that does not simply turn on the question of bias, but more fundamentally on why the public should support this particular media company to the exclusion of others.”

After examining some of the issues and concerns of public funding for NPR, Professor Turley closed his article by stating, “The market tends to favor those products and programming that the public wants. If the demand for NPR is insufficient to support its budget, then Congress should not make up the shortfall and prop up the programming. If it is sufficient, then there is no need for the subsidy.” and “This debate should not turn on whether you agree with the slant of NPR programming. NPR clearly wants to maintain a liberal advocacy in its programming, and it has every right to do so. It does not have a right to federal funding.”

I believe that his points are also applicable to CPB and PBS, and I, therefore, think it is well past time that CPB, PBS, and NPR should be cut from governmental funding and allow them to compete in the free market of ideas and free speech for their funding.

04/23/24 A National Existential Decision

With the recent announcement of Presidential candidate Donald Trump that he believes that abortion is an issue to be decided by the individual States, as per the recent Supreme Court decision, he is attempting for electioneering purposes to sidestep this contentious issue. At the same time, President Biden has asserted that he wishes to make abortion legal in all States, thrusting this issue onto the national stage. Thus, the issue is whether abortion should be decided at the Federal level or if it is a States rights issue. I have made my thoughts on abortion well known in my article "The Abortion Question", in that I believe the core issue is one of whether an unborn child is a human being or not a human being. Consequently, the issue of abortion is an existential issue (relating to or dealing with existence—especially with human existence) that must be resolved on a national level, as it defines us as a people.

Trump’s position, and the Supreme Court’s position, is very much like Senator Steven Douglas’s slavery position of Popular Sovereignty prior to the Civil War. Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Citizens may unite and offer to delegate a portion of their sovereign powers and duties to those who wish to serve as officers of the state, contingent on the officers agreeing to serve according to the will of the people. In the United States, the term has been used to express this concept in constitutional law. It was also used during the 19th century in reference to a proposed solution to the debate over the expansion of slavery in the United States. Senator Douglas’s proposal would have given the power to determine the legality of slavery to the inhabitants of the territory seeking statehood rather than to Congress. His position would have left the contentious issue of slavery to the territories, therefore allowing America to continue to be divided into Free States or Slave States.

As Abraham Lincoln said on the issue of slavery in his House Divided Speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

So it is with the issue of abortion, as I have written in my article "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery". I, therefore, agree with President Biden that this is a national issue, but I vehemently disagree with President Biden that abortion should be permitted for the reasons stated in my aforementioned article on "The Abortion Question". I would also passionately disagree with President Trump and the Supreme Court’s decision to make this a State's Rights issue. We must resolve the issue of abortion at a national level, as it is an existential decision, as slavery was an existential decision. Otherwise, we will continue to be at each other’s throats until the abortion issue is resolved nationally.

04/22/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Harms

In my previous Chirp on “04/21/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Costs”, I examined the impacts of electric vehicles on roadways and firefighting. In this Chirp, I examine the health issues of electric vehicles.

While it may be true that the gross carbon footprint of an electric vehicle is less than an internal-combustion engine, there are other issues to consider. The carbon footprint of an electric vehicle must include the carbon emissions from the mining, transportation, and manufacturing of the specialized materials needed for electric vehicles, as well as the electrical power generation needed to recharge the batteries. Therefore, the total carbon footprint reduction is more than just the emissions from the electric vehicle. As such, the net carbon footprint reduction in electric vehicles may not be as great as it would first appear. Thus, the increased carbon emissions from the infrastructure needed to produce and recharge electric vehicles pose an additional health risk to those persons involved in these activities, as well as persons located near these activities.

According to some studies, electric vehicles tend to have, on average, higher claim severity for bodily injury and property damage liability claims, but they have a lower frequency than internal-combustion vehicles. Electric vehicles can be much heavier than an equivalent vehicle with an internal combustion engine, which may protect EV drivers and passengers but poses a greater risk to pedestrians or other vehicles and persons upon impact.

In addition, electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their internal-combustion engine counterparts, according to a resurfaced study. It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern internal-combustion engine tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing internal-combustion engine vehicles’ emissions to new lows. Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear. Thus, electric vehicles, which are heavier than internal-combustion vehicles, increase tire wear, which increases the health risks to all persons who inhale these toxins. As such, more electric vehicles on the road increase the health risk to all persons and the healthcare costs for those so affected.

It is also true that electric vehicle fires pose a health risk to firefighters and others nearby from the toxic chemicals and fumes they emit. Toxic chemicals that spread near the fire and into the sewers from firefighting actions and toxic fumes that are spread by winds. There is no way to contain these toxic chemicals and fumes while putting out electric vehicle fires, and the cleanup required for the toxic chemicals is difficult and expensive to accomplish, and toxic fumes are impossible to contain or remove once they are released.

Consequently, electric vehicles increase the health risks for all persons, and not just those who purchase electric vehicles. A cost that society must bear in the medical treatment costs of those persons so affected.

04/21/24 Electric Vehicles Hidden Costs

The increase of electric vehicles on our roadways causes some additional problems that are often not considered in the rush to adopt electric vehicles. A series of articles on the Verisk website examines the current issues regarding electric vehicles:

Many of these problems impose additional burdens on government agencies that have to deal with them. Some of the more pressing problems and their financial impacts on these government agencies are as follows:

It has become clear that the road surface wears out much faster from electrical vehicles compared to internal-combustion engine vehicles. Due to their massive battery, electric cars weigh more than ordinary internal-combustion engine cars. Because of this greater weight, not only do the tires wear out faster, but according to experts from the Delft University of Technology, the top layer of the asphalt is also likely to wear out more quickly. Therefore, roadway repairs need to be more frequent and thus more expensive to accomplish. In addition, need to account for the additional weight impacts of electric vehicles, making them more expensive to build and repair.

Car fires have always been dangerous and difficult for firefighters, but highly combustible chemicals in electric car batteries are posing new challenges. Unlike the gasoline tanks in internal-combustion engines, the enormous lithium-ion batteries used to power electric cars pose some significant fire risks; electric vehicle fires burn hotter, electric vehicle fires can reignite, electric vehicle fires can leak toxic chemicals and fumes, and electric vehicle fires can ignite from saltwater flooding. There are also some key differences that make electric vehicle fires harder to combat. One major difference is the possibility of what's referred to as a "thermal runaway," in which an EV battery falls into a cycle of overheating and over-pressurizing, causing fires and sometimes explosions. These powerful fires are plaguing ships carrying electric vehicles, causing extensive damage to parking garages and even leading to widespread recalls of electric vehicles.

Putting out electric vehicle fires is time-consuming and expensive. Electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries burn hotter and faster and require far more water to reach final extinguishment. Also, the batteries can reignite hours or even days after the fire is initially controlled, leaving salvage yards, repair shops, and others at risk. While normally, a conventional car fire may be put out with between 500 and 1000 gallons of water, an electric vehicle will often need a much more prolonged intervention because the battery is protected by a strong encasing. Because the chemicals in the battery will continue to produce their own oxygen to some degree, even when completely soaked, water is less effective in putting out an electric vehicle fire than an internal-combustion engine vehicle. An American fire company recently needed to use 24,000 gallons of water to put out a battery fire in a Tesla in a parking lot car fire. Studies suggest that even more water may be necessary to put out electric vehicle fires and that specialized firefighting equipment and fire retardants are needed to effectively put out electric vehicle fires.

Thus, putting out an electric vehicle fire takes longer to accomplish, uses much more material (water and other fire retardants), and poses a health risk to firefighters (and others nearby) from toxic chemicals and fumes. Consequently, government and volunteer fire companies must expend more time, effort, and expense in putting out an electric vehicle fire. There is also the additional expense in water and other fire retardants, additional expensive equipment to put out electric vehicle fires, and electric vehicle firefighting training.

This, coupled with the additional expense of roadway repairs, new roadways, and replaced roadways, adds to the financial burdens on governments to accommodate electric vehicles and thus increases taxes on all persons, even those who do not purchase electric vehicles.

04/20/24 Inanity of Progressive Economic Measures

The inanity of Progressive measures that subsidize demand while restricting supply is that they ignore the Law of Supply and Demand as a price and inventory determinant, as described in an article by David Luther, “Law of Supply and Demand Defined”. They also try to camouflage that subsidies require taking monies from taxpayers who are not interested in the product or service subsidized and then giving it to other taxpayers and non-taxpayers who are interested in the product or service subsidized, thus skewering the Law of Supply and Demand.

Most of this inanity is justified by doing good for America while ignoring the harm that they inflict upon America. With lofty rhetoric accompanied by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, they attempt to implement policies that violate economic principles. In this, they have forgotten the words of wisdom from Benjamin Franklin: "Well done is better than well said." They have also forgotten the discernments of Thomas Sowell, "The first rule of economics is there isn't enough to go around. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics." and "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."

This is most especially pronounced in the Renewable energy proposals as espoused by Climate Change activists, as well as Electric Vehicle mandates. The subsidies for the suppliers and the mandates for the consumers violate the Law of Supply and Demand and skewer the free marketplace. In addition, it subsidies the rich while it increases costs for the middle class and poor consumers, as I have written in my chirps on “04/18/24 Government Subsidies for the Rich” and “04/19/24 The Madness of Electric Vehicles Quotas”.

However, this inanity is not limited to climate change or electric vehicle measures; it extends to all government subsidies. It also presumes that the government can pick and choose the winners and losers in the economic marketplace, which governments throughout history were notorious for not being able to do. History has also taught us that it also increases the potential for graft and bribery amongst government officials involved in subsidies and mandate regulations, thus leading to poor decisions by government officials.

Almost all of this is justified by doing what is best for America and the World. In this, they have forgotten another discernment of Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?" When governmental decisions are made without accounting for economic principles, then I would suggest that the people making these decisions are not the ones that you want to decide what is best.

04/19/24 The Madness of Electric Vehicles Quotas

To combat Global Warming, President Biden is requiring that 50% of all new vehicle sales be electric by the year 2030. But nobody can require an automotive manufacturer or car dealer to make or sell a quota, as it is up to the American people to purchase an electric vehicle to meet any quota. And the American people are not purchasing electric vehicles in the quantity to meet President Biden’s goal.

Current sales and inventory data show that electric vehicles are piling up on car dealership lots across the country. Another sign that electric vehicle demand has cooled is that the car rental firm Hertz Global Holdings is selling about 20,000 of its electric vehicles, including Tesla’s, from its U.S. fleet after only two years of offering its electric vehicles for rent. Its decision underscores the bumpy road electric vehicles have hit as their sales growth slows, causing carmakers like General Motors and Ford to scale back production plans.

Recent cold weather events have shown that charging stations may fail to function in extreme cold, the time to recharge increases, the electric batteries will not take a full charge, and the range of the electric vehicles decreases. Add in the additional costs to repair an electric vehicle and the exorbitant price to replace the battery in the event of battery failure or collision damage; the American people are reluctant to purchase electric vehicles.

It is also true that even with government subsidies, the cost of a new electrical vehicle is greater than that of a gas-powered vehicle. Also, demand for used electric vehicles and prices are falling, thus decreasing the resale value of the electric vehicle to the purchaser.

Consequently, the electric vehicle green revolution has hit a speed bump, proving that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. Until the American consumer determines that it is receiving value for its purchase of electric vehicles, no electrical vehicle quota on manufacturing or sales of an automotive manufacturer or car dealer is reachable. Thus, President Biden’s electrical vehicle sales quotas are a delusion bordering on madness, as any attempt to enforce the quota has negative economic repercussions for the American economy and the pocketbook of the American consumer.

04/18/24 Government Subsidies for the Rich

It is all too possible for the government to subsidize an activity that seems to benefit society but, in effect, turns out to be a subsidy for the wealthy. This is especially true when it comes to government subsidies for Electric Vehicles and House Solar Panels.

Electric Vehicles are highly subsidized by the government to bring down the cost of these vehicles. Even with these subsidies, the cost of an electric vehicle is beyond the reach of most middle-class Americans and, therefore, is only a benefit to wealthier Americans. House solar panels can be expensive to purchase and install, for which government subsidies are available for Americans who can afford the purchase and installation costs. In addition, the excess electrical power that these solar panels produce when the homeowner is not utilizing the solar panels at full capacity is sold back to the electric companies or applied as credits to their electric bill for the normal electricity they utilize when the sun doesn’t shine. In many cases, this sale back occurs when the excess power generation of the solar panels is not needed by the electric company and hence goes to wasted electric power by the electric company. Thus, solar panel subsidies are mostly beneficial to wealthier Americans. In addition, when the government mandates solar panels for new house construction, it drives up the cost of home ownership, which puts many new home purchases out of the reach of middle-class Americans.

As I have Chirped on "10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels", Wind Turbines and massive Solar Panel arrays are heavily dependent on government subsidies and tax credits, which camouflage the economics of these technologies. Companies that depend on government subsidies are not competing in the free market, and thus, their costs and prices are skewered, and their incentives are skewered toward the government interests rather than the consumer interests.

These government subsidies and tax credits also shift the cost shift from individuals or companies to taxpayers, which shifts the economic risks of these technologies onto the public. Alas, this may make for good politics, but it is not good economics. It is not the function of government to provide subsidies and tax credits to individuals or companies, as it puts them in the position of choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, which a government is ill-suited to accomplish. It also allows politicians to reward and enrich political friends (the winners) while encumbering political opponents (the losers), all at taxpayers’ expense.

04/17/24 Ferreting Out Causes of Climate Change

As I have said in my Science Article on “Climate Change”, I believe in climate change. I believe the climate has changed in the past, the climate is currently changing, and the climate will change in the future. Throughout the geological history of the Earth, the global climate has changed dramatically. There have been periods when the Earth was warmer, hotter, cooler, and colder than it is today, and this is a geological scientific fact. If you have read my Science Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”, you know that I have a scientific orientation to my thinking, and I apply that scientific thinking to many of the issues and concerns of climate change.

Major shifts in the Earth’s climate have good scientific explanations, but minor shifts are less scientifically explainable. There are so many factors and interrelationships between the factors that the scientific explanations for minor shifts are much less certain than that for major shifts. In the last century and a half, we have undergone a minor shift of increased cooling followed by a minor shift of increased warming. The question as to why we have had these minor shifts in the last century and a half is not fully or completely scientifically understood. Many have suggested that the increased warming shift is a result of human-caused impacts on Climate Change. This may be true or may not be true, depending upon your interpretation of scientific facts and beliefs. The problem is that in ferreting out human-caused impacts on climate change from natural-caused impacts on climate change, you must fully understand and explain natural-caused shifts before you can attribute any change to human-caused impacts.

Until you can understand and explain natural-caused shifts, it is premature to attribute much of these shifts to human-caused impacts on Climate Change. That does not mean that we should not be concerned about the warming trend and take reasonable precautions to reduce possible human-caused impacts. However, to take inordinate changes without understanding natural-caused shifts runs the risk of not solving the problem, as well as severely impacting the foundations of our economies and social structures. Thus, it would be foolish to make any major changes until we have this understanding, and as the famous poet has said:

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” - Alexander Pope

04/16/24 Strings, Superstrings, and M-theory Oh My

String theory, Superstring theory, and M-theory became a field of study in Particle Physics in the late 1960s. Particle physics or high-energy physics is the study of fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings, and as the theory developed, it became Superstring theory, then M-theory.

In all these theories, there has never been one iota of verification. Indeed, some String Theorists are now making the claim that as Strings exist in multi-dimensions it may never be possible to experiment or observe Strings, as multi-dimensions are unobservable and not possible to experiment upon. In addition, String Theory has no predictability, and without predictability, it cannot be considered a strict science.

This raises the issue of whether these theories are a description of reality and, as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century has stated:

"Reality is the real business of physics." - Albert Einstein

My newest Science article, “Strings, Superstrings, and M-theory Oh My”, examines this issue for your elucidation.

04/15/24 Scientific Speculation, Hypothesis, and Theories

Good science generally proceeds in two steps: Scientific Hypothesis followed by Scientific Theories, as outlined in the section on The Scientific Methodology in my Science Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry“. In another section of the same article, Scientific Speculation, I examine the role of Speculation in Scientific Methodology. In modern science, in the last few decades, we seem to have expanded this methodology into three steps: 1.) Scientific Speculation, 2.) Scientific Hypothesis, and 3.) Scientific Theories.

Before this expansion, there was much Scientific Speculation, but it was generally kept to the scientists or a small group of scientists who were doing the speculation. Today’s modern science has morphed into scientific speculation, which is made publicly available before there are any observations or experiments to bolster the speculation. Much of this Scientific Speculation is bolstered by mathematics from the scientists, but as I have Chirped on "03/30/21 Mathematics is Not Science", good mathematics does not equate to good science, but good science requires good mathematics.

Such scientific speculation by scientists often raises their public profile, increases book sales and/or speaking engagements, increases media exposure, and can lead to increased funding for their scientific research. However, the downside is that the public may confuse Scientific Speculation with Scientific Facts that have been affirmed by scientific observations and/or experiments. Such confusion on the public’s part can lead them astray and introduce scientific beliefs about science that are not factual. As a person of the general public with some scientific knowledge, I can attest in my discussions on scientific topics with other people of the general public that they often have little or no understanding of the differences between Scientific Speculation and Scientific Facts. This leads them to have incorrect scientific beliefs, or as Mark Twain has said, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.”

Many scientists, when writing or speaking of their Scientific Speculations, will identify them as such but place little emphasis on the speculative nature of their ideas, as well as the fact that many Scientific Speculations are discarded when observations and/or experiments falsify them, as I have written in the Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories section of the aforementioned article. You must always keep in mind that just because science says something may be possible does not mean that it is possible, and just because science says that something may happen does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen. As such, I am concerned that the general public does not understand that the vast majority of Scientific Speculations will not come to fruition and that the vast percentage of their words are Speculations based on no scientific facts. This is the major complaint I have about the morphing into the new Scientific Methodology of Scientific Speculation, Scientific Hypothesis, and Scientific Theories.

Scientific Speculation is fun for both scientists and the general public, and Scientific Speculation should be encouraged, as it often leads to scientific breakthroughs. However, it should always be labeled and emphasized as speculation and not taken as factual until it is proven by scientific observations and/or experimentation.

04/14/24 The Ubiquitousness of Artificial Intelligence

Microsoft Copilot, Open AI ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and various other Artificial Intelligence (AI) apps have come of age and are becoming omnipresent in today’s technological world. Having spent my entire adult life in the computer technology world (mostly in computer systems, software, and databases), I believe that I am sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on AI.

Because of my experience, I am well aware of the problems that occur when developing computer systems and software. The biggest problem is the people who design and develop the computer system. Humans are fallible and will make mistakes. Even teams of computer systems and software designers and developers, which are necessary to develop modern complex computer systems and software, make mistakes even though one of the reasons that teams are formed is to minimize mistakes. The interpersonal dynamics between the team members often result in miscommunication that leads to mistakes. These human mistakes often result in incorrect computer processing and erroneous results.

The other major problem is an old saying in the computer field, “Garbage in results in garbage out (GIGO)”, and the precaution that improper Boolean logic returns incorrect results. If the data being utilized by the computer systems is incorrect, incomplete, or missing, then you will encounter GIGO. Boolean logic combines multiple statements that are either true or false into an expression that is either true or false. Boolean logic utilizes three basic logical operators: AND, OR, and NOT to reach a true or false state of the Boolean statement (IF Boolean logic THEN do X if true, ELSE do Y if false). Often, the Boolean statement contains multiple logic parameters that are processed in mathematical order or operations (which can be overridden using parentheses within the Boolean statement). If this Boolean statement is formatted incorrectly, then the truth or falsity conclusion (X or Y) will be wrong (often with detrimental consequences).

In AI computer systems processing, much data (information) must be analyzed to produce a result. The quality of the information and sometimes the quantity of information to be analyzed by AI can be lacking. This often results in incorrect or skewed results that can be misleading, if not downright wrong. The other issue is while there is a large amount of consensus (indisputable) information available, there is a much smaller amount of non-consensus (disputable) information available. The balancing of the consensus and non-consensus information can often be difficult and subject to the Boolean logic used to process the information, as well as human error and predilections of the team that created the AI computer systems and software. Therefore, what appears to be factual and truthful results from AI processing may not be so. An example of this is the recent disaster with Google's AI image generator, as explained in an article here, in which the results of a request were laughable if they were not so pathetic and ominous.

The manner in which a question is posed to an AI computer system and software can also be problematic. English is an imprecise language and open to misinterpretation, or the question can skewer the AI results to be favorable to the predilections of those asking the question. Thus, AI can be utilized to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The danger of AI systems to society is that many (if not most) people will allow the results of the AI computer systems and software to be a substitute for their own thinking. For the reasons about the problems with AI given above, this could lead you to make an improper decision that could have deleterious impacts on yourself and society. The ability of the human mind to research, analyze, and reason is crucial to understanding and proper decision-making, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". With the advances in AI technology and the ubiquitousness of AI, we may be creating a society where many people may not be able to think for themselves, while a few persons knowledgeable and experienced in AI will be in control of the levers of knowledge that society utilizes to make decisions. Thus, we may be slip-sliding into a Brave New World society, as I have examined in my Article, “Dystopia”.

AI is an important tool, but like all tools, it can be misused and/or fail to function properly. As such, it is very important that you be wary of all AI results and apply your own knowledge, intelligence, and reasoning to the results of AI.

04/13/24 Promises Made and Promises Not Capable of Being Kept

Tis the Presidential election season in which many promises by politicians are not capable of being kept. Two of the current big promises are Student Loan Forgiveness and Abortion Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues, and their rulings are the law of the land until they are overturned by a future Supreme Court Ruling. Thus, politicians’ promises to overturn or negate these rulings are empty rhetoric for political electioneering. Any attempts by President Biden to circumvent these rulings is an assault on the Judicial Branch of government and, thus, an assault on the Constitution of the United States.

In this assault on our Constitution, they are assaulting our "American Ideals and Ideas" of a Balance of Powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. Thus, they are assaulting our Democratic Republic and endangering our society. An endangerment in which we will slide down the slippery slope to a more authoritarian form of governance that endangers our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Their assaults are not only Unconstitutional, but they betray an attitude that they know what is best for America and they will institute what is best regardless of the consequences. In this, I am reminded of the words of wisdom of a modern scholar:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?" - Thomas Sowell

In America, the electorate decides what is best in accordance with our constitutional constraints, the limitations of governmental powers, and the duties and responsibilities of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Thus, they are making promises that they are not capable of being kept without overturning our Constitution.

04/12/24 Vote for Results

In an article by Laura Hollis, “Stop Voting for Intentions; Vote for Results”, she laments that too many voters cast their ballots based on their good intentions to do something to fix the problems facing America. However, she states:

“The sentiment "We have to do something" drives disastrous decisions. Sentiment doesn’t make sense. Feelings aren't facts. Loud protesting isn't logical. Politicians exploit voters when emotions run high. They get elected on facile promises to "solve" deeply entrenched problems. And then, when they enact policies that worsen those problems (and create others), they protest that their intentions were good.

That's not good enough.”

Good intentions rather than good results seem to be the criteria that these politicians wish to be adjudged. Rhetoric, rather than results, seems to be the order of importance, and when the results are detrimental, they are to be forgiven as their intentions were good. But as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Until we change the order of importance to results followed by rhetoric, we will continue to have unresolved (and more) problems in America. And the only way to change this order is for the American electorate to vote based on results and to ignore the rhetoric. Thus, her admonishment to “Stop Voting for Intentions; Vote for Results” is the best advice for solving the problems in America.

04/11/24 A Sexist Chirp

There has been much hubbub about rising movie stars Sydney Sweeney’s beauty and Timothée Chalamet's handsomeness, as can be seen here and here. There is no doubt that she is a true beauty, and he is very handsome. The only question is whether they will retain this beauty and handsomeness throughout their life. Life can be cruel in that as we age, we lose much of the physical appearance of our youth. Some people retain their physical beauty throughout their lives, while most people lose much of their physical beauty. This is why it is important that we judge the physical beauty of a person based on their age. People in their twenties do not have the same physical beauty as in their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and beyond. The same is true for the character of a person, as while we mature, we often gain more knowledge and wisdom that changes our character (sometimes for the worse). Indeed, the character of a person often changes over the decades of their life, and while they may be criticized or critiqued for their past words and deeds, they should be adjudged for their current character.

Just as you should not judge a beautiful or handsome person based on their youth, so you should not judge historical persons and eras based on today’s moral and ethical standards. The morals and ethics of people and events in previous centuries cannot be properly adjudged by today’s morals and ethics.

As I have written in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”, do not use our current morality and ethics as a basis of the judgment of what happened in a historical period or location, but only use it as a guidepost. Get to know the morals and ethics of that period or location so that you can judge the actions and events of the people of that period or location. You can then utilize our current morals and ethics to compare them to their morals and ethics and reach a fuller understanding of the people or events that occurred. You will often discover hidden truths about history if you utilize this technique.

Thus, we should all be more circumspect in our judgments of historical people and events and be cognizant of the old saying that you must walk a mile in someone’s shoes to understand what they are going through.

04/10/24 No Way Out

In a recent Townhall article by Jeff Davidson, “No Way Out: Tumultuous Months Lie Ahead”, he writes:

“It now seems inevitable that leading up to this November, and in the months that follow, America will experience extreme turmoil, if not outright hostilities and even urban warfare. Nothing that I write here will have any impact in terms of what is likely to occur. For one, Leftists don't tend to read Townhall articles, and, two, the wheels of extremism are already in motion.”

He then addresses the tactics that may be expected in the 2024 Presidential race and what may happen after Trump is elected if current polls are to be believed. It is not a pretty picture based on what Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are presently doing to President Trump and have done in the past to candidate and President Trump.

Much of the Democrat election tactics are based on fear of their opponents. An irrational fear based on their worry and distress that a Trump election would signify the end of their oligarchy, as I have chirped on many occasions, and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. They sow this fear to divide America in the hopes that fear of President Trump will outweigh those who do not fear President Trump.

These fear tactics rely upon disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and dezinformatsia (as I have Chirp on, "05/10/23 Dezinformatsia"), and the suppression of free speech as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". These actions, combined with "The Weaponization of Government", bring disrepute through aspersions upon President Trump and his supporters and are the true "Threats to Democracy" in America. If Democrats should win the 2024 presidential elections and control of Congress, we shall see the continued decline into "Despotism in America", as despotism seems to be the main tactic of Democrats for obtaining and retaining power in America.

04/09/24 Oligarchy in America

Over the past several years, I have Chirped about how our Democratic-Republic has morphed into an Oligarchy. This morphing has been a subtle and progressive occurrence in our government. I, therefore, thought it necessary to consolidate these Chirps to illuminate how this morphing has resulted in an Oligarchy in America. These consolidated Chirps can be perused in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America".

04/08/24 Ten Questions to President Biden

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. In this letter, Chairman Comer has pointed out that:

As Vice President, you met Jonathan Li, the chief executive of a fund that claims on its own website that it is a Chinese state-backed entity. You met Li in Beijing in 2013. You later wrote a college recommendation letter for Li’s child. Li sent your son hundreds of thousands of dollars and provided him equity in the Chinese state-backed entity;
You met Ye Jianming, the chairman of a state-connected Chinese entity, China Energy Fund Committee (CEFC), meant to further the “One Belt, One Road” initiative to spread Chinese influence around the world. Your son and business associates began courting business from Ye while you were Vice President. You then met Ye in 2017 in Washington, D.C., and his company wired $3 million to a Biden business associate days after you met him, which was shortly after you publicly signaled your intention to run for the presidency in 2020.1 In 2018, Ye was detained by Chinese authorities because of allegations of corruption;
You spoke with your son in front of one witness about your family obtaining Chinese investments in exchange for promising your position on a board of a company tied to the Chinese government after your departure from the vice presidency.
Since August 2023, the White House has had in its possession drafts of the speech you delivered to the Ukrainian parliament in 2015. Despite these drafts involving a small number of documents, for seven months the White House has prohibited production of these documents to the Committee;
During a briefing with Committee staff, the White House claimed it was an interagency policy decision to condition the United States providing a loan guarantee to Ukraine on the firing of the Ukrainian official investigating the company that was, at the time, paying Hunter Biden $1 million per year. The White House has refused to provide documentation to support this assertion;
Bank records uncovered by the Committee have shown that in 2016, shortly after you succeeded in having the Ukrainian official fired, the Department of State provided to Hunter Biden’s bank a letter stating the embassy did not have “negative information on Burisma Holdings[,]” despite in 2015—prior to your visit and speech—the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine singling out the owner of Burisma as corrupt.
In February 2014, the richest woman in Russia paid into your son and his business associate’s company $3.5 million days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in an apparent attempt to avoid U.S. sanctions on Russian bank accounts. To date, the Russian oligarch has not been subject to any public sanctions;
In May 2014, Hunter Biden attended a party and placed you on speakerphone with the same individual and her husband, the former mayor of Moscow. Days after that phone call with you, the Russian individual made a “hard order” of $10 to $20 million to a company in which your son had a large financial interest.
The Committee has identified and successfully traced money from foreign transactions—including from China—to your own bank accounts. Certain checks have been described as “loan repayment[s].” However, the person who provided you free bookkeeping during your time as Vice President (and your son’s business partner), did not remember any evidence of a loan from your accounts. When asked to provide evidence of the underlying loans, the White House refused.

Given the above facts the House Oversight Committee chairman has invited President Biden to testify to answer the following ten questions:

Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina?
Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov?
Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you?
Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017?

In this letter from the House Oversight Committee Chairman, the White House Counsel’s Office sent a mocking and taunting reply that was unbefitting an official correspondence between Congress and the White House. As Jonathan Turley has said in his commentary about this letter, “Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry”:

“The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics.

Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something.”

The Mainstream Media and Democrat Party Leaders have little interest in exploring and answering these facts and ten questions, but the American people should be interested, as they strongly indicate the corruption and even bribery of Joe Biden in his past and present actions.

04/07/24 The Hypocrisy of Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk

True hypocrisy is encapsulated in the saying, “Rules for thee, but not for me.” By this standard, the biggest hypocrites today are Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists activists, academics, intellectuals, commentators, journalists, the very wealthy, and those who consider themselves elites.

The phrase "talk the talk, walk the walk" is an idiomatic expression that emphasizes the importance of matching one's actions with one's words. It means that it's not enough to just speak about doing something or to make promises; one must also demonstrate those intentions through action. Thus, "Talk the talk, walk the walk" means to affirmatively match one's actions with one’s words.

Many, if not most, of the biggest hypocrites identified above, are good at talking the talk, but they are lacking in walking the walk. By talking the talk, they believe that they are doing good for humankind, which excuses their not having to walk the walk. Their own lifestyles demonstrate that they are hypocrites in that they are filled with excuses of why they cannot walk the walk while demanding others walk the walk of what they talk about. The litany of their unwillingness to walk the walk that they talk about is far too numerous to catalog in this Chirp, and their excuses ring hollow upon closer examination.

I suspect that their talking the talk has more to do with their assuaging their guilty feelings rather than deep concern about what they talk about. Guilty feelings that are brought about by their own successes, while most people have not achieved such success. Guilty feelings about their material possessions that are unattainable by most people. Guilty feelings about their lifestyle that are beyond the ken of most people. However, they need not feel guilty about their successes if their success was a result of the meritocracy of skill, ability, hard work, and intelligence, as success due to meritocracy is what propels humankind forward in prosperity for all.

Consequently, if you cannot walk the walk, then you should not be talking the talk, for all that does is make you a hypocrite. The world is much too filled with hypocrites who need to start walking the walk before they talk the talk. Otherwise, it is nothing but blather that they talk about.

04/06/24 MAD Magazine America

Mad (stylized as MAD) is an American humor magazine first published in 1952. It was founded by editor Harvey Kurtzman and publisher William Gaines, launched as a comic book series before it became a magazine. It was widely imitated and influential, affecting satirical media, as well as the cultural landscape of the 20th century, with editor Al Feldstein increasing readership to more than two million during its 1973–1974 circulation peak.

The magazine, which is the last surviving title from the EC Comics line, publishes satire on all aspects of life and popular culture, politics, entertainment, and public figures. Its format includes TV and movie parodies, and satire articles about everyday occurrences that are changed to seem humorous. Mad's mascot, Alfred E. Neuman, is usually on the cover, with his face replacing that of a celebrity or character who is being lampooned.

From 1952 to 2018, Mad published 550 regular magazine issues, as well as scores of reprint "Specials", original-material paperbacks, reprint compilation books and other print projects. After AT&T acquired Time Warner in June 2018, Mad ended newsstand distribution, continuing in comic-book stores and via subscription.

When I examine today’s "Mainstream Media", I can see the influence of MAD Magazine on "Modern Journalism". This is especially true when they cover Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, as Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are always characterized as being on the dark side of the forces in America, while Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are characterized as being on the good side of the forces in America. If there was ever a MAD Magazine parody of “Star Wars,” they could look to modern journalism as the basis for the parody.

Alas, much of the predilections and biases of the Mainstream Media go unnoticed by many Americans, and, therefore, many Americans have incorrect or insufficient information on which to make an informed decision about America's future. Thus, we are living in a MAD Magazine society in modern America.

04/05/24 A Special Kind of Stupid

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." - George Orwell

Absurdity abounds in today’s America, driven by intellectuals, activists, and politicians. It would take a special kind of stupidity to believe in what Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders think. Then again, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are a very special kind of stupid. A stupidity driven by an unwillingness to face reality and embrace a fantasy of what they want to believe.

This is demonstrated in the movie, ‘Back to School’, in which millionaire businessman Thornton Melon is upset when his son Jason announces that he is not sure about going to college. Thornton insists that college is the best thing he has never had for himself, and to prove his point, he agrees to enroll in school along with his son. Thornton is a big hit on campus: always throwing the biggest parties and knowing all the right people, but is this the way to pass college? In one of the scenes, he takes a business course with his son, taught by the learned and expert Professor Barbay. He starts the lecture by discussing how to create a fictional company from the ground up by constructing the physical plant, setting up an efficient administrative and executive structure, then manufacturing the product, followed by marketing of the product. Thornton Melon makes some astute observations on Professor Barbay’s on the building of a plant in the following dialog:

“Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff. Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance? Thornton Melon: First of all, you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building, I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh, and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long-term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business, but I assure you it's not the boy scouts. Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon! Thornton Melon: Sorry. Just trying to help. That's all. Dr. Phillip Barbay: Now, notwithstanding Mr. Melon's input. The next question for us is where to build our factory? Thornton Melon: How 'bout fantasyland?”

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' embrace of fantasyland leads them to make pronouncements, laws, rules, and regulations that are disconnected from the reality of social order and economics and of a constrained human nature, as in my definition of "Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained)". Thus, they bring chaos into our society with their words and deeds, as I have examined in my Chirp on "01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds".

To my fellow Americans, I would say, “Enough is enough!” It is time to ignore their words and deeds and vote for candidates that embrace reality. Only then can America right its course and ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren.

04/04/24 Get Trump

The movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’, is about an American court In 1948, in occupied Germany, that tried four Nazis for war crimes. Specifically, the movie is about a trial after three years since the most important Nazi leaders had already been tried. A trial of four persons who used their judicial offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies, including an esteemed Judge Dr. Ernst Janning, as well as Prosecutor Emil Hahn, Administrator Werner Lampe, and Minister of Justice Dr Karl Wieck, who are ably defended by the German lawyer Herr Rolfe. Retired American judge Dan Haywood has a daunting task ahead of him. The Cold War was heating up, and no one wanted more trials as the German and Allied governments wanted to forget the past. The overarching question for the tribunal to decide is what the proper thing to do is.

This movie contains a lot of thought-provoking dialogue about justice and jurisprudence, quoted here within, which makes for a rather lengthy but important Chirp. The thoughts that have provoked me are, ‘Are we seeing the perversion of justice and jurisprudence in today’s America as depicted in this movie?’ The following lines of dialog are illuminative of this concern:

“Judge Dan Haywood: The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime - is guilty.” __________________________

“Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said 'go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - remilitarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life. Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen year old girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.” __________________________

“Ernst Janning: Once more, it is being done - for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it - whatever the pain and humiliation. I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim.” __________________________

“Judge Dan Haywood: Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How *easily* that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what ‘we’ stand for: ‘justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!’” __________________________

“Emil Hahn: Today, you sentence me! Tomorrow, the Bolsheviks sentence you!” __________________________

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

“Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic... [Rolfe nods with an appreciative smile] Judge Dan Haywood: -so, what you suggest may very well happen. It is logical, in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not to be right, and nothing on God's earth could ever make it right! [Rolfe wipes the smile from his face]” __________________________

“Emil Hahn: Germany was fighting for its life. Certain measures were needed to protect it from its enemies. I cannot say that I am sorry we applied those measures. We were a bulwark against Bolshevism. We were a pillar of Western culture. A bulwark and a pillar the West may yet wish to retain.” __________________________

“Emil Hahn: [During dinner in the prison mess hall] How dare they show us those films, how dare they? We are not executioners, we are judges! Werner Lampe: You do not think it was like that, do you? There were executions, yes, but nothing like that, nothing at all! [Turning to a man at the table behind him] Werner Lampe: Pohl! Pohl, you were at those concentration camps, you and Eichmann. They say we killed millions of people. ‘Millions’ of people! How could it be possible? Tell them, how could it be possible? Pohl: [In a matter of fact tone] It's possible. Werner Lampe: How? Pohl: You mean technically? It all depends on your facilities. Say you have two chambers that accommodate two thousand people apiece. Figure it out. It's possible to get rid of ten thousand in a half hour. You don't even need knives to do it. You can tell them that they are going to take a shower, and then instead of the water, you turn on the gas. It's not the killing that is the problem, it's disposing of the bodies. That's the problem.” __________________________

In America today, we are seeing the corruption of the Judicial system to ‘Get Trump’ and his supporters, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Judicial actions against Trump and his supporters that they justified with the same type of reasoning employed by the four Nazis tried for war crimes in the movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’. If this is allowed to continue, we are indeed sliding down the slippery slope away from our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

In these prosecutions of Trump and his supporters there is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and the confidentiality of presidential advisors’ communications. They also do not consider the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. In this, we should also keep in mind the following dialogue from another movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Thus, the prosecutions of Trump and his supporters are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They, therefore, are violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

04/03/24 Freedoms of Western Culture

In an article by John Anderson, “Freedoms of West make our culture worth defending”, he states that “At a time when the West faces serious challenges from outside and within, we need to return to our roots and remember why Western culture is worth defending.”

He then goes on to state:

“The West has created a peace and prosperity unlike any other time in history, but that is no accident. It is thanks to Western institutions and values such as democracy, the free market, and the rule of law. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 because people were tired of totalitarian, communist governments. They wanted what the West had. In the 1990s the victory looked absolute and perhaps that made us complacent: we thought it would go on forever.

But we are not in a good place and, to return to a better place, we need to re-find our fundamental freedoms, which have been the engine for our progress. These are freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of belief and conscience, and freedom to own private property. Together they are four legs of a stool – if you weaken one, all are compromised.”

These freedoms are under assault from both external and internal forces in America. In my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy" and "Progressivism and Progressives", I have examined many of these internal threats. The biggest external threats are obviously China and Russia, whose government is antithetical to Western culture. However, these external threats also come from Western nations that will not stand up for liberty and freedom within their own countries, nor will they speak up for liberty and freedom in oppressive nations. For Western nations to not defend Liberty and Freedom for all peoples is a betrayal of the principles of Western culture and is a sad commentary on the state of Liberty and Freedom in today’s world.

Mr. Anderson ends this article by stating, “So let’s celebrate the freedoms we enjoy in the West and not take them for granted. They were hard won, but they’ll easily be lost if we don’t regain our self-confidence and live as responsible, virtuous citizens in our communities.” To which I say, “Hear, Hear”.

04/02/24 The Truths Behind the Lies

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “Gaza: Truths Behind All the Lies“, he examines the rhetoric of those who are protesting Israel's actions against Hamas in Gaza. He exposes the truths of the rhetoric of “Occupied Gaza”, “Collateral Damage”, “Disproportionate”, “Two-state solution”, “Ceasefire”, “Ramadan”, “Civilian Casualties”, “Foreign Aid”, and “Prisoners”.

Truths that expose the rhetoric as nothing more than Anti-Semitism, as I have Chirped on, "03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism". Alas, many Americans are beginning to believe these lies, for as Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels has stated, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

Do not believe these lies, for these lies will corrupt your soul and lead you to evilness. Even more so, you must counter these lies with truths, for to not do so is to succumb to the evils of Anti-Semitism. I would also remind you of the following words of warning:

Do not let America become Anti-Semitic, for to do so is to destroy our American Ideals and Ideas for all.

04/01/24 The Aftermath of the Civil War

The Reconstruction Era of 1865-1877 was a period in United States history following the American Civil War, which was dominated by the legal, social, and political challenges of abolishing slavery and reintegrating the former Confederate States of America into the United States. During this period, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were added to the United States Constitution, along with a variety of Civil Rights legislation, to end slavery and grant equal civil rights to the newly freed slaves.

The Reconstruction Era was fraught with controversy, intense political infighting, civil strife and violence, as well as financial corruption. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted by historians and legal scholars to this day. This month’s four Book It selections examine the modern view of The Era of Reconstruction.

03/31/24 Sex and Gender – Societal Impacts

In my Chirp on “03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science”, I explained that science informs us that male and female bodies differ not only in their sex chromosomes and their psychological organization for reproduction but also (on average) in their size and shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the heart and brain. Some of the more predominant societal impacts of these differences regarding Transgenderism are its impacts on athletic competitions, Transgenderism in public accommodations, public K-12 education of Transgenderism, and public displays of Transgenderism, which are the topics of this Chirp.

The physical differences between the sexes often provide an advantage for the male physique over the female physique in terms of physical exertions. Strength, speed, height and weight, heart and muscular capacity, and endurance are generally greater in the male than in the female. As such, any attempt to commingle biological males with biological females in any competitive sport gives the biological male an advantage over the biological female. As Riley Gaines has stated, when she was a top ten competitor in women’s swimming, and her husband was in the mid-two-hundreds in men’s swimming, when she privately competed with her husband, he “always beat the pants off me.” This is why so many biological males are in the top ten when they compete against biological females. Not only do biological males have a competitive advantage, but we have seen an increase in female injuries when a male competes against them.

Privacy in the public arena in restrooms, locker rooms, and other public accommodations that have been traditionally segregated by sex is also being challenged by transgender activists. Traditionally, segregated accommodations were done for the purposes of privacy and safety. Privacy has always been important to females, as they do not wish to be exposed to or gawked at by males except by mutual consent. Fears of molestation or sexual assault that may occur without this privacy are also a concern, and a transgender male in their midst often causes emotional distress on their part. There is also a concern that a male will pose as a transgendered female to gain entrance to their private spaces for nefarious purposes.

Public K-12 sexual education has always been a contentious issue, made even more so by the LGBTQIA+ community's insistence that they be included in this sexual public education. This issue revolves around the propriety of Public K-12 sexual education and the parental or legal guardians' rights to instruct their children on sexuality in the manner and at the age of their children in which they see fit. Public education on LGBTQIA+, and more specifically transgender sexuality, has caused an uproar when it became an elementary school issue. The insertion of transgender sexuality education in a child’s (age 4-12) curriculum at a time in their life at which a child is incapable of emotionally or intellectually processing these concepts is unjustified and, indeed, unethical and immoral. Even in an adolescent's (age 13-17) education, sexual education can be confusing, given the hormonal changes that are occurring within their bodies. Transgender education in public education has even stepped into Gender Transitioning counseling in public education. Such teaching and counseling are not education but indoctrination, and it is often given without the knowledge or approval of a child’s parent or legal guardian.

We have also seen a rise in the lack of decorum in public displays of sexuality in flagrant public displays by the LGBTQIA+ community that would not be tolerated if they were done by the heterosexual community. The pride parades by the LGBTQIA+ community often devolve into simulated sexual acts that are inappropriate for public (especially children) viewing. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your sexuality, but pride should be tempered by modesty in public displays of your sexuality. There is also the issue of flagrant public displays and instruction of Transgenderism in public forums such as libraries, community centers, gyms, and other public accommodations. The issue of public libraries lending sexually explicit books and materials to underage adults without parental or legal guardian consent is also a concern.

In all of the above issues, the question is of a conflict of rights—the LGBTQIA+ community members' rights versus the non-LGBTQIA+ community members' rights. At what point do individual rights clash, at what point do the parental or legal guardian rights take precedence, and at what point do societal concerns override individual rights? This is a delicate question that has always been at the forefront of our American Ideals and Ideas. We should also remember my own aphorism, “The liberty and freedom to choose what you do or say does not free you from the consequences of your deeds or words.”

In the societal impacts of LGBTQIA+, and especially Transgenderism, we should all remember a rule of thumb: “First, do no harm.” Do no harm to both the LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ community members, as well as do no harm to society as a whole. All persons need to be treated politely and respectfully, with dignity, and with regard to their Natural, Human, and Civil Rights, but one person’s individual rights cannot transgress upon another person’s individual rights. The boundaries of transgression are very difficult to qualify and establish, but they must be dispassionately examined and instituted.

As for my opinion, I do not believe that Transgenderism should be permitted in athletic competitions or in public accommodations, nor should it be permitted in a child’s education and constricted in an adolescent’s education. I also believe that lewd and lascivious behavior in the public arena should not be allowed.

This viewpoint does not constitute hate for the transgender or the LGBTQIA+ community, but it does constitute a concern for the physical and mental well-being of persons suffering from transgender dysphoria. They need assistance in dealing with their transgender dysphoria, but this assistance should consider all options for treatment. To do otherwise is to potentially harm a transgendered person rather than help them with their dysphoria. When thinking about Transgendered Rights, we must always remember the scientific facts and truths; otherwise, we will make ill-informed or uninformed decisions on how to help and/or treat a transgendered person.

03/30/24 Sex and Gender – Gender Transitioning

In my Chirp on “03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science”, I examined the basic differences between the sexes (male and female) and the meaning of gender. I would note that facts and truths must be based on reality; otherwise, we will live in a fantasy land that can change according to anyone’s discretion. Ignoring scientific facts leads you astray and to untruths. Science informs us that male and female bodies differ and that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential.

Transgendered Rights activists would also have you believe, as Shakespeare put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question” on a transgendered sex transition. But this is the wrong question. Claiming that a question is wrong may sound odd. Surely, answers can be wrong. Likewise, suppositions, views, claims, and assertions can be wrong. But can the questions be wrong? The answer to this question is given in the Psychology Today article, “To Be or Not to Be": Is That Really the Question? Hamlet's famous question is limited and misleading” by Iddo Landau, Ph.D..

If you attempt to change your gender, it is not a change of your sex, as sex is at the chromosomal level, which cannot be changed. Substituting your gender through drug or surgical treatments runs the risk of physiological problems that could adversely impact your health for the rest of your life. There is also the possibility that you will encounter physiological problems in the attempt, which may require years of therapy to countervail. Drug and surgical treatments only impact your hormones and physical appearance, but your chromosomal structure will remain the same. Thus, any attempts to change your sex are futile, and any attempts to change your gender could be dangerous to your physical and mental health.

The question is not to be one sex or another, as this is impossible, but what is the best method of dealing with transgender dysphoria? Gender dysphoria is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex. Is it to be by gender transition, or is it to be by mental health therapy? The Transgendered Rights activists would have you believe that the only means of dealing with transgender is to physically transition to the other sex. The scientific facts and truths say otherwise. No one can fully transition to another sex, and many transitioned transgender persons experience physical and mental problems during and after the transition. Many transgender dysphoria persons can be helped by mental health therapy rather than transitioning, but most do not receive the proper mental health therapy for their dysphoria. In today’s America, there is too much rush to transition a transgender person and insufficient consideration of mental health therapy.

The other question is, at what age should a transgendered physical transition be allowed? An adult person (18+ years old) should have the right to physically transition as they see fit. The real question is, is it appropriate to allow physical transition for children and adolescents? Many children role-play genders in their discovery of the world in which they live, but does this mean they are transgendered dysphoric? Adolescents, as a result of their puberty, go through tremendous mood swings as they adjust to the changes in their bodies from their sex glands becoming functional. Confusion abounds in adolescents during this time as they receive mixed messages about their bodily changes. In this confusion, they may question their gender identity, which is perfectly normal. But does this confusion mean that they are transgendered dysphoric?

In medicine, Informed Consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law, and media studies that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. In our society, it is not possible for children and adolescents to give informed consent as we recognize that their brains and intelligence are not sufficiently developed to properly reason for giving informed consent. Thus, for children and adolescents, informed consent can only be given by their parents or legal guardians, as I have discussed in my article on “The Destruction of Our Children”. Consequently, only a parent or legal guardian may approve a gender transition. However, society has a say in gender transition, as it impacts the physical and mental well-being of future members of society (which is why we have many different laws dealing with the upbringing of children).

In discussing the wisdom of allowing children and adolescents to gender transition, there has been much "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” on both sides of the issue. It is, therefore, important that we cut through this gobbledygook with a dispassionate analysis of the costs and benefits of children and adolescents' gender transitioning. But until this dispassionate analysis occurs, we should all remember a principle of medicine, “First, do no harm.”

03/29/24 Sex and Gender – Meaning and Science

Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes. During sexual reproduction, a male and a female gamete fuse to form a zygote, which develops into an offspring that inherits traits from each parent. By convention, organisms that produce smaller, more mobile gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) are called male, while organisms that produce larger, non-mobile gametes (ova, often called egg cells) are called female. An organism that produces both types of gamete is hermaphrodite. Sex is determined by The XY sex-determination system, which is a physiological sex-determination system used to classify many mammals, including humans, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, some fish (guppies), and some plants (Ginkgo tree). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. In most cases, females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX) and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY) and are called the heterogametic sex.

There is another class of sex chromosomes, XXY syndrome, XYY syndrome, and XXYY syndrome, which are variations of the normal XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomal structures. The exact number of people with these variations is unknown, as these syndromes are often not diagnosed until physiological complications and sometimes psychological difficulties occur from these variations.

Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles) and gender expression. Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into two categories, and people are considered part of one or the other (boys/men and girls/women); those who are outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic of social organization.

In general, medical doctors must treat their patients based on their sex, while psychiatrists treat their patients based on sex and gender, and psychologists treat their patients based on gender for those who suffer from Gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex.

Science informs us that male and female bodies differ not only in their sex chromosomes and their psychological organization for reproduction but also, on average, in size, shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the heart and brain. These secondary sex differences are not what define us as male or female; organization for reproduction is what does that. If you are bodily structured to inseminate, then you are male, and if you are bodily structured to gestate, then you are female.

When we step back from contentious political debates, we can see scientists acknowledging what might be otherwise an unpopular truth: that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential. The Institute of Medicine at the Nation Academy of Sciences published a report in 2001 titled Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?, in which the chapter titles of the report sum up basic truths of our bodily nature: “Every Cell has a Sex”, “Sex Begins in the Womb”, “Sex Affects Behavior and Perception”, and “Sex Affects Health”. Wikipedia has three main articles on the differences between males and females: Sex differences in human physiology, Sex differences in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic that highlight the main differences between males and females.

These are the scientific facts and truths that the Transgendered Rights activists would have you ignore or that they obfuscate with terms such as “Gender Identity”, “Gender Fluidity”, “Gender Affirmation”, “Gender Confirmation”, “Sex Assigned at Birth”, and other terms to lead you astray, which is the topic of my next Chirp “Sex and Gender – Gender Transitioning”.

03/28/24 Modern Anti-Semitism

In a book by Alan Dershowitz, “War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old”, he devotes an entire chapter to modern Anti-Semitism in America and the world and equates it to McCarthyism. This is an excellent chapter that explains why Israel and the Jewish people are not responsible for the turmoil in the Mideast and how Hamas and its supporters, as well as Anti-Semitic persons throughout America and the world, have inappropriately twisted the facts to support their Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitism, and Anti-Zionism viewpoints. Much of the support for the recent Hamas terrorist’s actions comes from a twisted sense of morality, as I have Chipped on, “01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue”, “11/20/23 Humanitarianism and Terrorism”, “10/19/23 Moral Equivalence”, and “10/18/23 Unadulterated Evil”. For those who wish a clear-headed explanation of wrongdoing and responsibility for the current events in Israel and the Palestine people, this is a must-read chapter.

The fact is that this Anti-Semitism is a growing problem in Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders circles. Whether it be worldwide or in America, modern Anti-Semitism is mainly a left-of-center problem. There are, of course, Anti-Semitic sentiments on the far right, but these are outliers on the right and are given no heed by the mainstream right (see my Chirp on “04/01/19 Both Sides Do It”). However, the Anti-Semitism on the left is becoming more mainstream. Whether it be politicians, commentators, activists, College and University students and professors, and even journalists, it is more acceptable to express Anti-Semitic sentiments. Those who practice Anti-Semitism must be rebuked and should not have a position of power or authority in society so that they cannot sow their Anti-Semitism.

The problem that I have is that Alan still believes in a two-state solution where an Israel and Palestine state live in peace and harmony with each other. However, a two-state solution is not possible when one state believes in and desires the destruction of the other state. A two-state solution can only be considered after the total destruction of the Hamas terrorists and their supporters has been accomplished. But it also requires a change of heart in the minds of the Palestine people that Israel has the right to peacefully co-exist alongside the other states in the Mideast. Given the blindness and furor of the Palestine people against Israel and the Jewish people, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon.

I would also remind Alan that the vast majority of Anti-Semitism McCarthyism is originating from Progressives/Leftists and some Democrat Party Leaders. This is a problem that he has to confront from his being a part of that Political Spectrum, and as I have discussed in my Chirp on “03/27/24 An Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz”.

03/27/24 An Open Letter to Alan Dershowitz

He is a person that I highly respect and someone who I regularly read and then think about his articles and books, and I will sometimes modify my opinion based upon his thoughts. While Alan is a Liberal Democrat, with whom I often disagree with his governmental and social policies, I am in solid agreement with his views on Constitutional law about our individual rights in our First Amendment rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, religious freedom, and petitioning government, and our Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitution Amendments rights of the due processes of the law, as well as Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that each State not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, the due process of the law, or the equal protection of the law.

In two of his newer books, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law” and “War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old”, he examines how modern Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are destroying the Constitution and individual rights. Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. War on Woke exposes new McCarthyite tendencies and tactics of academia, the media, and the business community, especially high-tech, that promote closed-minded intolerance.

In the book War on Woke, Alan states that the bedrock principles of American democracy and jurisprudence are:

“This new McCarthyism challenges the basic tenets of the classic liberal (in the traditional sense) state: Freedom of expression; due process; presumption of innocence; right to counsel; equal application of the law; tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints; an acceptance of the reality that in a democracy, no one always gets their way. And noble ends do not justify ignoble means.”

These bedrock principles are those with which I agree with and support and matters that I have written about in many of my Chirps and Articles.

Alan has recently been comparing what is happening in today’s America to McCarthyism. However, what is happening in today’s America is worse than McCarthyism, in that Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee did not control the Executive Branch of Government and thus could not bring the full weight of government against their political opponents. Alas, in today’s America, we see the Executive branch persecuting and prosecuting their political opponent, which poses an existential threat to our rights and our Republican form of government, as I have written in my articles on “A Republic versus a Democracy” and "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

We are all creatures of our upbringing and education, and the times that we grew up in, and we all have political biases that shape our person. As such, Alan was shaped by the words and deeds of conservatives and liberals, as well as the Democrat and Republican Parties of the 1950s and 1960s. Consequently, his perspective is clouded by the events of his youth, and he does not fully appreciate how much conservatives and liberals, and Democrat and Republican views and opinions have changed since then. Indeed, the views and opinions of both conservatives/liberals, and Democrats/Republicans have switched so much that they mirror the views and opinions of each other from the 1950’s and 1960’s. He also fails to recognize that the power and control that the Conservatives and Republicans wished to exercise in the 1950s and 1960s is the power and control that the Progressives and Democrats wish to exercise in modern America. He also does not fully understand that modern Democrat Party Leaders are more interested in being rulers rather than leaders, as I have examined in my article on "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Alan does a good job of trying to overcome these biases, and he critiques both sides of the political spectrum, but he fails to appreciate the full extent of this change from the 1950s to the 1960s.

As I am a "Constitutional Conservative", I believe that he goes a little light on his criticisms of Democrat Party Leaders. In particular, his tepid support and belief in the good intentions of Attorney General Merrick Garland is misplaced, as Attorney General Garland is leading the Justice Department that poses a threat to our individual rights, and as the leader of the Justice Department he bears ultimate responsibility for their actions, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans. In this, Attorney General Garland has failed, which makes him part of the problem.

Alan is a big believer, as am I, in “the shoe on the other foot” legal analysis of the issues, which is another way of saying, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. In this, he is properly concerned that the actions being taken by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders will be taken by future Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders if they regain power. However, the devil we know poses such an existential threat to our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" that the future possible threats are of less importance than removing the current threats.

The questions I have for Alan are “What are the determinants to know when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have Cross the Rubicon and have become an existential threat to America and Israel?” and “Have they already crossed the Rubicon?”. If or when they have crossed the Rubicon, “Will you call for the election of Republicans in the 2024 elections to end this existential threat?” or “Will you continue to hope that you can change the Progressives and Democrats practices and end this existential threat?”. Thus, Alan has a Hobson's Choice of the necessity of acting on two objectionable alternatives from his perspective. Elect Republicans to stop this existential threat or to continue to believe that you can change Progressives/Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds and risk the possibility that they will destroy America and Israel before you change their minds.

Given the religious fervor that permeates those who believe in these practices, as I have Chirped on “03/12/24 Onward, Progressive Soldiers”, it can hardly be expected that they will change their minds based on "Reasoning" and "Rationality", but it can be expected that they will continue to engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" for those that would oppose them.

This is not only a Hobson's Choice for Alan Dershowitz but for all Americans, for if we do not end these practices by Progressives and Democrats, then we shall meanly lose the last best hope of earth.

03/26/24 Social Media Narcissism and Victimization

It is my firm belief that "Social Media" is an outlet for the narcissism and victimization of the posters and repliers. It is the perfect example of my “The 10-80-10 Rule” in that 10% of those involved in the endeavor are incompetent and should find another endeavor, and 10% of those involved in the endeavor are superior and are those who you would want to do the endeavor. The other 80% of those involved are somewhere between those two extremes, usually graphed on a bell curve, with the peak being around 50%. Therefore, only about 10% of social media posts have any worth, while the rest are the musings of narcissists. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find the worthwhile without wading through narcissism and victimization. As such, much time is wasted reviewing social media posts to find the nuggets of what is worthwhile. This is why I spend so little of my time reviewing social media posts.

Recently, many psychologists and psychiatrists have noted that excessive use of social media has led to pathologies that can be harmful, especially to children and adolescents. I believe that social media reinforces narcissism or a sense of victimization in the posters and repliers. It has also changed the dynamics of personal interrelationships, as there is less personal interaction and more social media interactions between individuals or groups of individuals. These social media interactions act as a shield and protector of posters and repliers to make comments (sometimes anonymously) that they would not make in personal interactions. Many of these social media posts and replies are impolite, discourteous, disrespectful, and outright rude and denigrate those that they are directed against. This social media behavior often translates to personal interactions, as social media posters and repliers have no sense of decorum when personally interacting with individuals or groups of individuals. This may also be a contributor to the rise in the volume and heat of the political rhetoric in today’s America.

Alas, I cannot foresee a solution to this problem except to reinstitute a sense of shame on the posters and repliers. Regrettably, in today’s America, shame seems to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history".

03/25/24 Progressives Deconstruction of America’s Culture

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have a vision of what America should be and what Americans should believe. As many, if not most, Americans do not share this vision, they believe that it is necessary to deconstruct America in order to reconstruct America to fit their vision. They, therefore, engage in the deconstruction of American culture in the following ways:

Hyper-Partisanship: Progressives believe that the politicization of everything is necessary to achieve a better society, according to their vision of a better society. A vision that is often Utopian but that fails to account for the constrained nature of most people, as I have defined in Human Nature (Unconstrained or Constrained). Thus, they practice Hyper-Partisanship in all that they say and do to achieve their deconstruction, and they often engage in The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate against their opponents.

Speech Constraints: Political Correctness, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Virtue Signaling are de rigueur amongst Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Woe unto thee who would dare not to constrain their speech according to their tenets. Ostracization and ruination are to be vested upon those who do not limit their words and deeds to within these constraints, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on The Decline of Free Speech in America.

Non-Judgmentalism: The demands from Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that we not judge another’s words and deeds, but to treat them as relative to an individual and circumstances, is to have a society without a moral or ethical code to live by. Such a society cannot long endure, as it often devolves into chaos. If anyone insists on judging another person’s words and deeds according to a fixed moral or ethical code, they are often labeled as perpetrators of Hate Speech against those so judged.

Tribalism: The utilization of Identity Politics, driven by Intersectionality, has driven Americans into tribes with their own issues and concerns. These tribes compete with each other to obtain governmental favoritism and/or entitlements. This tribalism has now encroached into the non-governmental world with the introduction of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) into businesses and Higher Education. Thus, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have forgotten that we are all Americans first, with a common heritage and shared beliefs on Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

Victimhood: Allegations of Racist and White Privilege, based upon Critical Race Theory (CRT), have at their core a belief that most Americans are victims of a patriarchal society. In their victimization, they believe that the forces arrayed against them are so oppressive that they cannot be overcome through personal endeavors and that their only recourse is strong governmental actions against their oppressors. Such feelings make them dependent on government Entitlements and place them in a cycle of poverty in which they cannot break free to achieve all that they can based on their own abilities, talents, and efforts.

Modern Feminism: Modern Feminism is anti-male in that it pays little heed to the needs of men, and it devalues males and masculinity, as I have discussed in my article on Feminism and the Devaluation of the Male. This starts in primary education (K-12), where teaching techniques are oriented toward feministic characteristics, and boys are expected to behave like girls. This continues throughout the life of males and leads to a dysfunctional lifestyle amongst many males in which many boys do not mature into men. This is one of the major causes of gang membership and gang violence, as boys will disassociate with a society that does not recognize their needs and join a gang that does recognize their maleness.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and More (LGBTQIA+): All individuals deserve Natural, Human, and Civil Rights and to be treated with dignity, respect, and politeness. Today, however, the LGBTQIA+ community wants more than to be able to live their lifestyle in the privacy of their abodes. They wish to thrust their lifestyle into the public arena and engage in public words and deeds that the non-LGBTQIA+ community would not consider appropriate public words and deeds for even for their own heterosexual private lifestyle.

As such, with these deconstructions, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints. This is not Liberty and Freedom but subservience, and it is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Such deconstruction often results in civil strife that can lead to a civil war, as I have Chirped on, "02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction".

03/24/24 Wealth Accumulation by Politicians

I recently ran across the following quote that raises an important issue:

“If we don’t allow athletes to gamble on games in which they participate, then why do we allow politicians to invest in companies that they regulate?” - Anonymous

Often, a politician will claim that a spouse, a sibling, their children, or other family members are the ones doing the investing and that they had no knowledge or input on the investment. However, to believe that a politician had no knowledge or input requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Who knows, except the principles, what conversations occur in the privacy of their homes? What we do know is that many politicians have become wealthy during their public service, and the wealth is far greater than their salaries would make possible. Some of this wealth accumulation may be legitimate, but some of it appears to be far beyond what even a smart investor could hope to achieve.

Of course, no laws were broken, or at least provenly broken, as lawmakers have written few (and effective) laws to regulate the financial transactions of lawmakers and their families. Protestations that the current financial transactions laws are sufficient to cover this situation should fall on deaf ears, as the results of these financial transactions speak loudly for themselves.

The Constitutional question of special financial transaction laws for lawmakers and their families is also a concern. Equal protection of the laws would indicate that this may not be possible, as well as the question of interference by legal and regulatory forces in the operation of the Legislative or the Executive branch. However, insider trading by lawmakers is covered by current laws, but these laws are insufficient to cover the special circumstances of politician’s financial transactions, especially by family members engaged in financial investment transactions.

This wealth accumulation by politicians bespeaks of corruption, as well as bespeaking of politicians acting on “rules for thee, but not for me”. This is a corruption that harms the body politic. It also harms other investors who do not have the insider’s knowledge that a politician has of proposed laws and regulations that will impact the financial health of those being regulated.

The ultimate answer to this problem is to elect politicians who conduct themselves with virtue, character, and ethics, as I have written in my Chirps on "11/23/23 Ethical Conduct" and "11/22/23 Virtue and Character". However, virtue, character, and ethics in modern politics seem to have been relegated to the ash heap of history, and voters seem little concerned about these characteristics in a politician when they cast their ballots.

03/23/24 Senator Schumer Must Go

As Conrad Black has written in his article, “Schumer’s Speech on Israel Completes a Trifecta of Errors Suggesting He Is Ripe for Removal as Democratic Leader”, Senator Schumer has had:

“. . . a trifecta of Major blunders, any one of which should have been quite sufficient to sack Mr. Schumer from his high office and replace him with someone less mindlessly accident-prone. In 2017, in an orgy of histrionics, he purported to weep on the Senate floor in sympathy for those whom the newly installed President Trump wished temporarily to keep out of the United States because they emanated from terrorism-afflicted Muslim countries”.

“This boffo performance was followed several years later by the spectacle of the Democratic Senate leader standing on the steps of the United States Supreme Court and threatening, apparently physically, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they provided the margin in cases antithetical to Mr. Schumer’s far-left ideology. (The Constitution be damned.)”

“Senator Schumer’s call last week for a change of prime minister through an election in Israel was, as it has widely been regarded, an outrageous intrusion in the affairs of another sovereign country, and a close American ally, for whom Mr. Schumer is advocating, substantial, military assistance.”

Senator Schumer has also demonstrated hyperpartisanship in his dealings with Republicans, especially House Republicans, who are now the majority party in the House of Representatives. His leadership in the change of the Senate Filibuster rules for short-term gain has turned into a long-term blunder on his part. His response to the George Floyd killing by the police and the riots of the “summer of love” of 2020, in which “peaceful protests” did $2 billion of damage, wounded hundreds, and killed approximately 45 persons, was pathetic and harmful to the body politic. He has demonstrated through his words and deeds that he does not wish a leader in America but a ruler of America, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". These, and so many other miscues and mistakes, have done harm to the Senate and to the country.

Consequently, he must join Senator McConnell (who also has a litany of miscues and mistakes) in leaving his leadership of the Senate. To do otherwise is to further harm America.

03/22/24 The First and Second Rules

Anyone who has read my Chirps and Article knows I am a big fan of the economist Thomas Sowell. He is an excellent example of a person who has tread the path of "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". Over his ninety-plus years on this earth, he has had many notable quotes, with many being very witty, some of them of which I have collected in my webpage on the quotes of Thomas Sowell, and many of them collected by Dean Kalahar in his book “The Best of Thomas Sowell”. One of his most notable and witty quotes is:

"The first rule of economics is there isn't enough to go around. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics." - Thomas Sowell

If you want a succinct explanation of why our national debt has kept rising over the decades, you only need to refer to this quote for the basic explanation of this debt. Ignorance of economics, or the unwillingness to accept economic facts, is the underlying reason why politicians keep increasing the national debt. The second most important reason can be found in other Thomas Sowell quotes:

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.” - Thomas Sowell

“Compassion is the use of public funds to buy votes.” - Thomas Sowell

“One of the grand fallacies of our time is that something beneficial should be subsidized.” - Thomas Sowell

Thus, we have a plethora of politicians who live by these first and second rules. The few politicians that attempt to buck these rules are often labeled as uncaring, mean-spirited, selfish, money-grubbing, racist, privileged or patriarchal, and other pejoratives. However, a better label for them would be ‘realists’. We should all be cautious of ignoring these realists, as you can only deny reality for so long, as when reality returns, it often returns with a vengeance. A vengeance that will wreak havoc on the economy and will result in much pain and suffering for all Americans.

03/21/24 Purposes and Limitations of Government and the Law

Those of you, like me, who are political theory geeks are quite familiar with the writings of John Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, Thomas Jefferson in the American “Declaration of Independence”, and Frederic Bastiat in an essay called "The Law", which defines the purposes and limitations of government and the law. These three writings set the boundaries of legitimate government and the law for a people that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

In an article by Allen West, “You Own Nothing”, he examines how modern America has strayed far beyond these boundaries as a result of progressive political agendas and policy goals, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

Thus, we have morphed into a form of Despotism and Totalitarianism in modern America. Unless we can reverse this trend, we shall continue to morph outside the boundaries of legitimate government and the law. Unless or until we change this course, we run the risk, as forewarned by one of our greatest Presidents:

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” - Abraham Lincoln

03/20/24 Liberty Relies on Rule of Law

In an article by S. T. Karnick, “Liberty Relies on Rule of Law”, he reminds us that:

“The past few years have provided a crucial lesson for the liberty movement: our freedoms rely on the rule of law. People cannot be free without the protection of a strong and fair sovereign government.

Our rights to life, liberty, and property depend on due process and full respect for the people's rights, privileges, and immunities. Without that, arbitrary government can do pretty much as the current individuals in control desire—and it generally does that, up to and often beyond what those in power perceive they can get away with.”

This article then reviews the government actions in the last two decades that endanger the rule of law and our liberties and closes with the statement:

“We are in the grip of an uncomfortable paradox. Those of us who believe in freedom must devote our energies to the restoration of the rule of law in this nation. It is the precondition for all the freedoms we enjoy.

That is a harsh truth for us freedom-lovers to accept, but it is nonetheless true.”

I would remind everyone that to preserve our liberties, we must be proactive in protecting them. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” If we do not do so, then, as Thomas Jefferson has also said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

03/19/24 Presidential Succession

As anyone who has had a relative or friend who is or has suffered from dementia, it is quite clear that President Biden is in the throes of dementia. Special Counsel Robert Hur’s release of his report on Senator and Vice-President Biden’s mishandling of classified documents in which he stated that President Joe Biden was too old to charge for the mishandling of classified documents, noted his memory and recall lapses, and described the President as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

My mother, my mother’s mother, as well as some other family members, have suffered from dementia, as I have Chirped on, “08/08/20 A Most Terrible Disease”. Dementia is a serious mental health issue and is not to be taken lightly. Consequently, people who suffer from dementia should not be in control of themselves, let alone be in control of others. I am sorrowful to say that when President Biden speaks, along with how he speaks (unnatural pauses, losing focus, stiff posture, hanging sentences, etc.) along with his physical motions, as well as when I look into his eyes I mostly see empty space behind his eyes, reinforces my opinion that he is in the throes of dementia.

His family, his friends, and his political associates owe it to him and our country to remove him from office and allow him to retire in peace and dignity. To allow a person in the throes of dementia to be in control of the levers of government is too great a danger to be contemplated. For those people who do not believe that Joe Biden has dementia, they are either ignorant of dementia, engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief about Joe Biden’s mental state, or have a visceral fear of an opponent and/or a lust to retain power. For a politician to even consider allowing a person with dementia to run for President and serve four more years is the height of absurdity. Any politician who entertains this absurdity is not fit to be a leader of the American people, as a true leader under these circumstances will do what is best for the country without considerations of fear or power.

Thus, it is time to consider the invocation of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove and bar President Biden from office. Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation has written a fine short article, “The 25th Amendment and a Disabled President”, which examines the history and usage of the 25th Amendment. Alas, he ends this article by stating:

“Some have suggested that it is time to invoke the 25th Amendment. It is, of course, exceedingly unlikely for a host of political reasons that Ms. Harris and a majority of Mr. Biden’s Cabinet would send Congress that notification.

We are, however, living in dangerous times where we need a president who has the ability to competently and effectively protect the nation and handle the duties of what many believe is one of the hardest jobs in the world.”

Unfortunately, by not removing President Biden from office, we are endangering America and the rest of the world by allowing a mentally incapacitated person to be President.

03/18/24 Election Interference in Israel

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for new elections in Israel, claiming that the prime minister has "lost his way." Not only is this election interference in trying to overturn a democratic election in a foreign country but the reasons he has given for the new elections is hubris on his part that the Israeli people should only elect a person who agrees with his viewpoint on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war.

As Senate Minority Leader McConnell rightly pointed out in a clear admonition about getting involved in foreign elections. "Israel is not a colony of America whose leaders serve at the pleasure of the party in power in Washington. Only Israel’s citizens should have a say in who runs their government. This is the very definition of democracy and sovereignty," he offered. "Either we respect their decisions, or we disrespect their democracy."

For Senator Schumer, who expresses so much concern about “Our Democracy”, he shows little concern for other countries' democracy. This should be of no surprise to anyone who has observed how Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists operate in a manner that is antithetical to democracy, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy" and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”.

03/17/24 Rotten Justice

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “That's forbidden love! ALAN DERSHOWITZ slams Georgia judge for letting DA Fani Willis continue her war on Trump despite paying her 'lover' with taxpayer dollars... ... it's more proof of America's rotten justice” he chastises Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee as essentially letting District Attorney Fani Willis off the hook. Rather than splitting the baby, Judge McAffee has cleaved justice by allowing a prosecutor who has lied in her depositions and testimony to continue being a prosecutor. President Trump should immediately appeal this decision for the reasons given In Professor Dershowitz's article. In addition, President Trump’s lawyers should seek to have DA Fani Willis's law license revoked for perjury to a court and to have the trial delayed until the revocation process is complete as if she is disbarred, she would be ineligible to prosecute President Trump.

He ends his article by stating, “But no matter the outcome, this prosecution has been irrevocably tainted – and the U.S. justice system sinks deeper into decay.” This is an opinion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

03/16/24 Impeachment Proceedings

As I have examined in my Chirp on "02/13/24 What is Impeachable?", I do not believe that the impeachment of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is Constitutional. However, the House of Representatives passed the Impeachment Articles against Secretary Mayorkas on February 13, 2024. Regrettably, indications are that the Senate may not even bring the Impeachment to a trial or vote, as most Senators do not believe Secretary Mayorkas has committed an impeachable offense.

I say regrettably because I do not believe that it is proper for the Senate to ignore an impeachment from the House, and I believe it is important for the Senate to consider and vote on what is impeachable. I, therefore, believe that the Senate should address this impeachment, but in a narrow manner.

The Senate should introduce the Articles of Impeachment in their chamber but then limit what is to be first debated in their chamber. The Senate should give the House Impeachment Managers thirty minutes to explain and defend why these Articles of Impeachment are Constitutional, then give the defenders of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas thirty minutes to explain and defend why these Articles of Impeachment are Unconstitutional. The Senate should then adjourn for two hours to think about and privately discuss these arguments.

When the Senate comes back from this adjournment, they should pose one question for a yes or no vote by the Senators: Do the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment rise to the level of Constitutional Impeachment? I believe that a large majority of Senators would vote nay, and then a motion to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment could be introduced and passed. Upon the dismissal of these Articles of Impeachment, the matter would be resolved, and a strong message would be sent to the House that Articles of Impeachment must pass Constitutional muster before the Senate would fully act on them.

03/15/24 RINO's and Unjustness

In an article in The Washington Times by Peter Navarro, “RINO opposition must unite around Trump to stop destruction of our country”, he cautions the Republicans In Name Only (RINO) opposition to Donald Trump that:

“Whatever complaints or quibbles you may have had with Mr. Trump over the years, all of these grievances pale in comparison to the very real and enormous damage that Mr. Biden as president is doing to our economy, our fiscal balance, our border security, our social and political fabric, and most dangerously, our national security. To oppose Mr. Trump is to support a Biden agenda that threatens the very viability of our republic.” - Peter Navarro

This caution is applicable to the Democrat electorate, which is concerned about the direction and future of our country. To them, I would say if you cannot vote for Donald Trump and you are concerned about Joe Biden, then I would suggest you don’t vote at all, for a vote for Joe Biden is a vote to continue the damage of his political policies and agenda.

I would also note that former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has been ordered to report to a Miami prison on March 19th, 2024, to begin serving a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena from the January 6th House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 “Insurrection”. Given that we now know that the January 6th Select Committee engaged in disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and a cover-up of information that exonerates President Trump, and that the committee itself may have been constructed contrary to House rules, a defiance of the subpoena seems justified.

The January 6th Select Committee was not properly authorized and constructed through normal House procedures. In addition, it did not properly operate with "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" that a normal House committee implements. As such, it had all the appearance of a Kangaroo Court befitting a Banana Republic. To imprison Peter Navarro under these circumstances seems unjust, especially when the committee itself was unjust.

This is but another example of a two-tiered system of justice that has become normal in today’s America. Anything dubious that President Trump or his advisors said or did becomes subject to criminal prosecutions, while anything dubious that his opponents did or said is ignored by the justice system. As dubious words and deeds have become all too common in today’s political arena, to prosecute only one side is another example of "The Weaponization of Government" that “threatens the very viability of our republic.”

03/14/24 Insurrection Cover-Up

It has been claimed by the House Committee investigating the January 6, 2001 “Insurrection” that President Trump took no actions to suppress the “Insurrection” that he instigated. An “Insurrection” of which I have extensively Chirped, which can be reviewed in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection".

What was not revealed by the committee, as they didn’t want it to be widely publicized, was the Trump administration’s security plans, which included 10,000 National Guard troops to protect Washington, DC., and that the city rejected his offer to provide these troops. These revelations were gleaned from an interview with Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, who heard conversations between White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. Meadows wanted the city to request whatever they needed to keep the city secure. Rep. Liz Cheney’s Cheney was reportedly present for these interviews, and as The Federalist journalist Mollie Hemingway has reported:

“Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.”

My question is, why would anyone who would instigate an “insurrection” want to use armed troops to suppress said “insurrection”? They wouldn’t—and it is oxymoronic (or political chicanery) to claim otherwise.

Thus, the members of the January 6, 2001, House Investigative Committee were either moronic or they were being deceptive. I doubt very much that they are moronic, but I have no doubts that they were being deceptive. A deception upon the American people that continues and is being utilized by Democrat politicians and the Democrat Party to advance their electioneering.

A deception that strikes at the heart of America, as it is based on disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation being propagated upon the American public, thereby creating an ill-informed electorate. Such deceptions are not uncommon among Democrat politicians and the Democrat Party, as facts and truths are a hindrance to the election of Democrats, not to mention an impediment to the enactment of social policies and political goals of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

03/13/24 It is a War

America has become "A Tale of Two Cities", as Progressivism has divided America into two cities—Progressives and non-Progressives. It has become a conflict between "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution" and a war between two visions of America. A war that pits "Progressivism and Progressives" on one side and a war for our "American Ideals and Ideas" on the other side. It is a war against Progressivism’s "Despotism in America", "The Weaponization of Government", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and a diminishment of "A Civil Society" in America, as well as a war on the West as I have Chirped on “01/05/24 The War on the West”. It is a war that is being waged that threatens our Republic, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Threats to Democracy". It is a war that poses an existential threat to the future of America. It is a war that must be won by non-Progressives to preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

It is a war that is being waged through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” by the Progressives and their allies in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". It is a war that is not being waged effectively by non-Progressives, as their appeals to the American public require intelligent thought rather than the emotional appeals of Progressives; as I have written in "Think vs. Feel - or - Emotions are Easy, Thinking is Hard".

At this moment in America, it is a cold civil war between the two sides. However, it could break out into a hot civil war as more non-Progressives feel threatened by Progressives and governmental words and deeds that encroach upon their Liberties and Freedoms. This process has been accelerated by the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders. While most Americans would abhor a hot civil war, it should be remembered that historically, civil wars are initiated by a large minority that feels oppressed, as was the case in the American Revolutionary War.

In modern America, we are reaching that point where a hot civil war may be possible. The best means to avert a hot civil war is for the American people to turn out of elected and appointed office the Progressives who are leading us down this path to a hot civil war. The best means to accomplish this is for Americans to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates in the 2024 election. Otherwise, we will continue down the slippery slope to a hot civil war.

03/12/24 Onward, Progressive Soldiers

‘Onward, Christian Soldiers’ was a hymn sung during the American Civil War, which I have adapted to fit modern American times as follows:

1. Onward, Progressive soldiers, marching as to war, With the banner of DEI going on before! Wokeness, our only Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle, see our banner go!

Refrain: Onward, Progressive soldiers, marching as to war, With the banner of DEI going on before!

2. At the sign of triumph MAGA's hosts doth flee; On, then, Progressive soldiers, on to victory! Evil's foundations quiver at the shout of our indignation; Comrades, lift your voices, loud your demands raise! [Refrain]

3. Like a mighty army moves the powerless aside; Comrades, we are treading where the self-righteous have trod; We are not divided; all one body we, One in anger and doctrine, one in solidarity. [Refrain]

4. Onward, then, ye people, join our rowdy throng, Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song; Glory, laud, and honor, unto Wokeness our Master! This thro' countless ages Progressives we shall sing. [Refrain]

03/11/24 Backward to Intolerance

In the play and movie ‘Inherit the Wind’ by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, the following bit of dialogue occurs between Defense Attorney Drummond and the Judge:

“Drummond: (turns to Prosecuting Attorney BRADY, in righteous anger) I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at BRADY, then to various members of the audience and the JUDGE) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!

Judge: Colonel Drummond!

Drummond (Striding to the JUDGE’s bench. This speech builds to a crescendo at the end.) Can’t you understand that if you take a law like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it? (Turns to the crowd in the gallery and begins addressing them. The crowd has grown strangely quiet during all of this as they listen. BRADY looks worriedly.) And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man! If you can do one, you can do the other! Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. (Strides slowly back to the JUDGE’S bench) And soon, Your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating we’ll be marching backward – BACKWARD - to the glorious ages of that sixteenth century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind! (DRUMMOND turns with disgust back to the defense table as he continues to pack his bag.)

Judge: (In an angry, but shocked tone) I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.

Drummond: Your Honor has the right to hope!” - Inherit the Wind: Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

While this play and movie spoke directly of religious intolerance and scientific advancement, in a larger sense, it was about trying to silence or impose a belief or opinion upon another person or persons who do not share this belief or opinion.

Alas, this reminds me of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who would silence or impose their beliefs upon Americans and, indeed, the rest of the world. Such a silencing or imposition is contrary to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of a person or persons. The statement “I will not tolerate intolerance” is an oxymoron, and it is an excuse to impose their intolerance upon Americans. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is to be tolerated, but who shall decide what is to be tolerated.”

As such, the warning of Defense Attorney Drummond “that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!” is apropos to modern America. If we continue to allow this silencing or imposition, we are moving backward in time when intolerance of another’s thoughts and speech is suppressed or punished if it does not agree with Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders beliefs.

03/10/24 Another Impactful Decision

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

Those words from the Supreme Court in its Trump v. Anderson ruling on Monday put an end to the effort of Democratic secretaries of state to engage in ballot cleansing by removing former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. The court’s decision was one of the most important and impactful moments in its history, as Jonathan Turley has written in his article on this subject.

Another impactful decision awaits us in President Trump’s claim on Presidential Immunity. The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for April 25 to review Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. I am troubled by President Trump’s claim of blanket Presidential Immunity, but I am even more troubled if we allow prosecutors at all levels of government to lodge civil and criminal complaints against a former President. If we allow this to happen, then any prosecutor at any level of government, with a political axe to grind, could institute legal action against a former President.

The question is, where do we draw the line on legal actions against a former President, and is it even possible to draw a line? I do not have an answer to this question, but I am certain that in this age of hyperpartisanship, if we do not draw a line, then we will have a multitude of prosecutions against former Presidents motivated by political considerations. No President could effectively preside over an administration if they believed that any of their words or deeds were subject to future legal actions by politically motivated prosecutors at all levels of government. This situation will strike at the heart of our republic with ruinous consequences and chaos. Which brings me back to the ruling of the Supreme Court in its Trump v. Anderson decision:

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.”

03/09/24 Threats to Democracy - In Closing

In 20th century America, the rise of Progressivism and big government in the administrative state has gradually accumulated the threats to democracy so that the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy which have dangerously converged in the 21st century. In my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", I have examined the meaning and history of Progressivism and its impacts on American Governance and Society.

As to the current immediate threats to democracy, we have a convergence of forces in America that are the prime instigators of these threats in the 21st century. These forces are, as I have written in the "Terminology" webpage, "Democrat Party Leaders", "Progressives/Leftists", the "Administrative state", "Big Tech", "Mainstream Cultural Media (MCM)“, "Mainstream Media (MSM)", "Modern Big Business (MBB)", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate".

Accordingly, I have collected my Chirps on the "Threats to Democracy" into an article in the order in which they should be read. We should all read this article and weep for America if we do not correct this situation. Otherwise, as Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth,” and we will see an end to democracy in America.

03/08/24 Threats to Democracy - Getting Away With and Rewarded For It

One of the aggravating factors of the threats to democracy is that the officers in government who engage in actions that are a threat rarely suffer negative repercussions or legal consequences for their actions. Rarely does the government institute legal actions against its own officers, especially if they are acting on behalf of elected politicians’ wishes. Many times, their actions are not illegal by statute but are contrary to Constitutional principles and, therefore, not subject to legal proceedings. For those individuals or groups who have been harmed by their actions, it is legally difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to pursue a civil lawsuit against the government, especially if their actions were not illegal by statute (i.e., Unconstitutional actions). Consequently, legal consequences for their actions are rarely successful. There are sound reasons for making it difficult for an individual or group to pursue legal action against the government. However, it is possible and sometimes successful to sue the government for Unconstitutional actions, but it is rarely successful to sue for illegal actions as criminal actions are the purview of the judicial system of government.

Usually, the only time the government institutes legal actions against its officers is when a political uproar arises whenever their actions are discovered. Even then, the legal actions are mild, as there are political considerations that temper the government’s response. In today’s bitter hyper-partisan political environment, the actions that are a threat to democracy are often justified or vilified by the different sides of the issues, and just as often are defended or attacked by the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”. Rarely does the public understand the legalities or constitutionality of the issue at hand, and they often support one side or the other based on their politics.

A more insidious aggravating factor is that the perpetrators of these threats to democracy feel no shame for their actions, as they believe that their actions are justified by saving “Our Democracy” or their commitment to “A Higher Loyalty” than to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and act within the law. All people who work in the government have no higher duty than adherence to the Constitution and the Law. It is also expected that all government officers act with virtue, character, and ethics, and they should feel shame when they do not do so. However, virtue, character, ethics, and shame in modern politics seem to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history".

Another aggravating factor is that many of the government officers that have engaged in these threats to democracy leave their government position for lucrative jobs in the media, higher education, or big business as a reward for saving “Our Democracy” or their commitment to “A Higher Loyalty”. Some have even written books (with hefty advances and royalties) to justify their actions. Thus, we have instituted a perverse reward system for those who have been a threat to democracy. A reward system that encourages other government officers to engage in threats to democracy with expectations that they will be rewarded for their actions.

It should be noted that this perverse reward system most often favors Democrat officers and Democrat Party Leaders while rarely favoring Republican officers or Republican Party Leaders, as the predilections of the media, higher education, and big business are to promote Democrat Party politics and Progressivism.

Consequently, we glide down the slippery slope of losing our democracy by these government officers’ actions. Threats to democracy by government officers which are destabilizing America and leading us down the slippery slope of Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

03/07/24 Threats to Democracy - The Biden Presidency Scandals

America has seen many scandals during the Biden Administration. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many scandals of the Biden Administration. We have also seen how the Biden Family was involved in corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials.

The question for this chirp is, do these scandals rise to a level of a threat to democracy? Not all of them rise to this level, but some of them are threats to democracy. In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy.

It is an unfortunate fact that much of the Biden Administration has been a threat to democracy. From the very first day of his office, he and his administration have taken actions or sided with Progressive forces that pose a threat to democracy. Many of these threats to democracy have been examined in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America", "The Weaponization of Government", "The Decline of Free Speech in America", and many more have been examined in other of my Chirps. He also ignored and did not enforce the laws with which he disagreed, a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Consequently, President Biden has acted as a ruler rather than a leader of America, as I examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

The Biden Administration and the Democrats have called into question the freeness and fairness of elections by all the irregularities of the 2020 Presidential election. They have impinged on the rule of law by taking extraordinary and excessive legal actions against their opponents. They continually question the legitimacy of the opposition by derisively labeling them MAGA Republicans or right-wing extremists (along with their supporter’s derogatory labels of Fascists and Nazis) and questioning their commitment to our democracy. They have also tried to implement many social policies that most Americans do not support through the use of Executive Orders or regulatory changes, which have not been authorized by Congressional legislation. They have also harmed the integrity of our rights by continually trying to restrict the First and Second Amendment rights of individuals and groups.

In these actions, they have engendered political polarization by pitting one group of Americans against another group of Americans. Their attempts to legalize illegal immigration with future voting rights for those who entered America illegally create conflicts over who belongs in the political community. Their economic and inflationary policies have resulted in higher and growing economic inequality. They have also exercised excessive executive powers through a multitude of executive orders and burdensome regulations without Congressional authorization.

Alas, in the Biden Administration, we have seen all the threats to democracy in all the four key attributes and four specific threats of democracy as examined in the book ‘Four Threats’. The threats to the four key attributes pose a danger to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and the four specific threats are an assault on the body politic. The authors of ‘Four Threats’ note that these four specific threats have been present in America’s past, but not all four threats simultaneously, while in modern America, these four threats have arisen simultaneously and are threatening our democracy. They caution that the simultaneity of these threats is the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

Thus, the actions of President Biden and his administration pose an existential to democracy and America. A threat that is destabilizing America and leading us down the slippery slope of Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

03/06/24 Threats to Democracy - The Trump Presidency Scandals

President Trump continued the use of excessive executive powers through a multitude of executive orders, first by nullifying many of President Obama's executive orders and then by issuing his own executive orders. From the beginning of his administration, President Trump was at loggerheads with FBI Director James Comey, along with the entrenched leadership of the Intelligence community. This clashing extended to Attorney General Jeff Sessions when President Trump thought that he was not being proactive in protecting President Trump’s interests. This resulted in the scandals of the Firing of James Comey and forcing Jeff Sessions to resign. Some of the other scandals of the Trump administration were his Impeachment, the 2020 Election, the Russia Scandal, Travel Bans from Muslim Countries, the building of the Border Wall, the Resignation of Michael Flynn, Public Service and Private Gain, and Trump's Use of Twitter.

The question for this Chirp is, do these scandals rise to a level of a threat to democracy? Not all of them rise to this level, but some of them are threats to democracy. In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the four key attributes of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights, and the four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy.

There is also the question as to whether these scandals were actual scandals or fabricated scandals by President Trump’s political opponents, which I will address later in this Chirp. Some of these scandals were much ado about very little, and they were hyped by his political opposition and the "Mainstream Media" and "Mainstream Cultural Media", which were in almost unanimous opposition to the Presidency of Donald Trump. Part of the perception of these scandals is President Trump’s utilization of a forehand slap against his opponents and that he has a crude and in-your-face style of political fighting, which intensifies political polarization. However, President Trump’s bark was often louder than his bite. That said, President Trump had a bite that posed threats to democracy. These bites were of the same manner and magnitude that President Obama and now President Biden posed in their threats to democracy.

What President Trump did was more of a threat to the political goals and policy agendas of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They regard President Trump and his MAGA supporters as an existential threat to their political power and the "Administrative state" that they utilize to exercise their power. As such, they believe that any and all tactics to stop President Trump were acceptable, which in itself are threats to democracy. This is demonstrated by the Congressional actions against President Trump during his administration:

The House and Senate spent about two and a half years investigating allegations that candidate Trump colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 Presidential election. Allegations that were fabricated by the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign and supported by the FBI and Intelligence agencies even when they knew they were dubious allegations. The FBI even submitted false affidavits to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, to obtain warrants against Trump campaign advisors and Trump Administration officers. Allegations that were later revealed to be fabricated and false by the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation and FBI actions for which special counsel John Durham slammed the FBI in his 2016 probe scrutinizing then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and its alleged ties to Russia. The conduct and statements of the Democrat House and Senate members during the Congressional investigations were inflammatory and reckless, which further polarized America.

As to the impeachments of President Trump, I have written an entire series of articles on "Impeachment" and why I thought that these impeachments were unwarranted. In bringing these impeachments against President Trump, Congress was engaging in a threat to democracy in trying to overturn an election and make Donald Trump ineligible to run for office again. By not utilizing "Justice and the Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" in the impeachment process, they have besmirched the concepts of justice and posed a threat to democracy.

As I have written in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection", the events at the Capitol building on January 6th, 2001, were more of a ruckus and riot than an insurrection. While many of the actions by the people involved were unlawful, they were not attempting to overthrow the government of the United States. Yet Democrats and some Republicans portrayed them as insurrectionists for political gain.

Thus, while President Trump posed a threat to democracy, it was the same threats to democracy that was posed by President Obama. However, the threats to democracy of the Biden presidency exceed those of Presidents Obama and Trump, which I will examine in my next chapter.

03/05/24 Threats to Democracy - The Obama Presidency Scandals

You often hear that the Obama administration, whatever its other failings, has been “scandal-free.” However, this is a myth propagated by Obama supporters and by a complacent "Mainstream Media" and "Mainstream Cultural Media" that hears no evil, speaks no evil, and sees no evil about the Obama administration.

Some of the Obama administration scandals include the AP Phone Records Scandal, the Attack on the Benghazi Compound, Secretary of State Clinton's Email Server, DOJ and the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation, Fast and Furious Gun Walking, GSA Spending Spree, Hacking Data Breach, IRS Targeting Scandal, Trump’s Russian Collusion fabrication and FISA Warrants, Solyndra Subsidies, and the VA Waiting List Scandal. These, and other scandals and controversies, are outlined in the following articles:

“Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free Administration’ Is a Myth” by Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation
“The Biggest Controversies of Barack Obama's Presidency” by Tom Murse of ThoughtCo
“9 Controversies Obama Didn’t Mention When He Denied Any ‘Major Scandals’” by Fred Lucas of The Daily Signal

We have learned that Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey, along with other prominent Obama Administration leaders, have been involved in activities that are threats to democracy, as I have Chirped on “03/03/24 Threats to Democracy – II”.

President Obama himself has also engaged in activities that are a threat to democracy, and more specifically, his utilization of Executive Actions and Executive Orders as a run-around against Congress. As President Obama announced at the beginning of his administration:

“I've got a pen, and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive action. I've got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won't. Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. I have got a pen and I got a phone. And that is all I need.” - President Barack Obama

President Obama did, indeed, use his pen and phone to bypass Congress and rule by executive fiat, which is a threat to democracy of the highest order. He expanded and enlarged on the predicates of executive aggrandization set by other presidents of the 20th century, but the breadth and depth of this bypassing of Congress exponentially increased in the Obama Administration, which continued in the Trump and Biden Administrations. He also had a disposition to not enforce the laws with which he disagreed, a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which requires that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Consequently, President Obama tended to rule rather than lead America, as I examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Thus, the actions of President Obama and his administration did pose a threat to democracy. Threats to democracy that continued and expanded into further actions by the Trump and Biden administrations based upon the Obama administration predicates.

03/04/24 Threats to Democracy - III

In my previous Chirps on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy" and “03/03/24 Threats to Democracy – II”, I discussed the current and historical threats to democracy in America. The first Chirp is my opinion about the threats to democracy in modern America, while the second Chirp is about the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, in which the authors examine the history of America regarding the threats to democracy. This Chirp is about some critiques I have about the book and a current threat to democracy that the authors of this book have not considered.

In this book, they give no credence to the accusations that the modern "Mainstream Media" and the "Mainstream Cultural Media" have political predilections and biases that make it difficult, if not almost impossible, to have Conservatives and Republicans fairly represented in the mainstream media. This contributes to political polarization, as when Conservatives and Republicans believe that their voice is not being heard, they become frustrated and then angry. In addition, "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" are often utilized against Conservatives and Republicans, which belittles them. This is the main reason for the rise of alternative conservative media, rather than the threat of legitimacy of the opposition that the authors attribute to the rise of alternative conservative media. Recently, we have seen that the Conservative and Republican voices in the mainstream media are being censored or repressed, which further increases political polarization and the rise of alternative conservative media.

This mainstream media predilections and biases also gives rise to the differences in the electioneering between the Democrats and Republicans. Republicans and Conservatives must be more aggressive to get their message across in the mainstream media, which is demonstrated in the differences between Obama, Trump, and Biden electioneering. Obama utilizes a backhanded slap against his opponents, while Trump utilizes a forehand slap against his opponents. Obama has an elegant and debonair style of political fighting, while Trump has a crude and in-your-face style of political fighting, and Biden has adopted both types of slaps and styles. However, both types of slaps and styles from these presidents are politically polarizing.

The authors also attribute the rise of big money contributions of the rich and big business to Republicans as another threat to democracy in modern America. However, no mention is made of big money contributions of the rich and big business to Democrats, which has become greater than the contribution to Republicans per Open Secrets analysis of the 2022 election cycle, which is based on Federal Election Commission data.

I would also take issue with their utilization of economic inequality, as their analysis of economic inequalities is sophomoric, in some cases untrue, and betrays their lack of knowledge of basic economics. This analysis utilizes the perceived inequality in modern America without examining the underlying truths of the economic situation. Economic inequality can be a threat to democracy if the inequality is of the rich growing richer at the expense of the poor, as was true at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However, in the middle of the 20th century, the abuses of the wealthy against the lower classes were abated by the enactment of laws to prevent these abuses. Economic inequality in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century was a result of entrepreneurs providing goods and services at an affordable price to the middle and lower classes that generated wealth for those who succeeded in doing so, but it also elevated the living circumstances of the middle and lower classes. Technological creativity and innovation also contributed to this economic inequality, which led to explosive wealth generation for the creators and inventors of this technology, while at the same time, it bettered the lot of people in American society. The authors also do not account for the mobility of persons between economic classes that is prevalent in today’s America, which blunts the threat of economic inequality being a threat to democracy. These and other issues of economic inequality are best illuminated in an article by Thomas Sowell, “Using Statistics To Lie About Inequality”, which is based on his book “Wealth, Poverty and Politics”.

In modern America, this feeling of economic inequality is due to the loss of employment of previous lower-class labor-intensive jobs and the reduction of our middle-class industrial base employment due to foreign competition. However, perceptions often become a reality in the minds of people, and it is the perception of economic inequality that often drives this threat to democracy.

I believe that one of the modern threats to democracy is our poor and improper public education, as I have written in my articles on "Indoctrination versus Education", "Public Education", and “College and University Education”. We also have the problems of "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" that plague America. Much of these problems are a result of Progressivism, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". These problems engender an electorate that can be easily swayed by undemocratic forces, especially unscrupulous politicians that are more concerned about power than democracy while professing their commitment to “Our Democracy”, as I have examined in my Chirps on “02/18/24 The Greatest Danger to Democracy” and "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".

This lack of proper public education is the greatest threat to democracy in modern America. It is a threat in that modern education is producing a one-eyed man, blind in his right eye, which does not allow for the full consideration of the issues and concerns of the threats to democracy.

Consequently, the author's analysis of the causes of the modern American threats to democracy is deeply flawed and biased. It is a flaw and bias that is all too common in the intelligentsia in modern America, and it is a flaw and bias that is contributing to the threats to democracy in modern America. It is a flaw and bias based upon a lack of proportionality between Democrats and Republicans in modern America, where the Republican threats weigh heavily, and the Democrat threats are minimized or ignored. Based on my knowledge of history, chapters two through seven are a good analysis of the historical threats to democracy in America. While chapter one exhibits some flaws and biases, chapters eight and nine are not a worthy effort by the authors. As such, the author’s analysis in Chapters 8 and much of Chapter 9 is not helpful but hurtful to the cause of democracy in America.

03/03/24 Threats to Democracy - II

In my Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy", I discussed the biggest threat to democracy in modern America is the people who utilize the phrase “A threat to our Democracy”. Democracy is all about a cacophony of opinions freely expressed and freely debated. The phrase “A threat to our Democracy” is often used by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as an attempt to intimidate into silence those that disagree with them. In some cases, it is an excuse to persecute and sometimes prosecute those who disagree with them.

In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, the authors examine the history of America regarding the threats to democracy. In Chapter 1 of the book, ‘Threats to Democracy’, they examine the meaning of democracy and the threats to democracy. The authors state that functioning democratic systems tend to share four key attributes: free and fair elections, the rule of law, legitimacy of the opposition, and integrity of rights. They then go on to explain the presence of four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that leads to the destabilization of democracy. While Chapter 1 exhibits some of the authors' political biases, these biases are not detrimental to the topic of this chapter.

In Chapters 2 through 6, they examine these threats in American history: ‘Chapter 2—Polarization Wreaks Havoc in the 1790s’, ‘Chapter 3—Democratic Disintegration in the 1850s’, ‘Chapter 4—Backsliding in the 1890s’, ‘Chapter 5—Executive Aggrandizement in the 1930s’, and ‘Chapter 6—The Weaponized Presidency in the 1970s’. These chapters provide an excellent overview of the events in American history that posed threats to democracy.

In Chapter 7— ‘At All Costs, How the Four Threats Endanger Democracy’, they examine the extent and impacts of these four threats and four key attributes to American democracy.

Chapter 8— ‘Dangerous Convergence’, is the most disappointing chapter in this book. It is nothing more than a diatribe against Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, placing the blame on them for the modern-day threats to democracy. It is based upon the premise that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders represent moderation and restraint in their approaches to the issues and concerns of modern America. The authors express a viewpoint that Democrats and Progressives have not stoked any political polarization, but they have only reacted to Republican and Conservatives stoking of political polarization. Very little is said of the Threats to Democracy by the Obama Administration (partly because the chicanery of the Obama Administration has only come to light about and after this book was written), and as this book was published in 2020, there is no examination of the threats that the Biden Administration to democracy.

In Chapter 9— ‘Putting Democracy First’, the authors continue this diatribe against Trump but then rise above it in the section on ‘Learning from the Past’. However, in the next section ‘Putting Democracy First’ they espouse that “equal representation of the states in the Senate” and the “Electoral College” are undemocratic without noting that both ideas contribute to democracy for all across America, as without them, politics would gravitate to densely populated areas leaving behind other areas of the country. Such gravitation was ultimately responsible for the Ancient Greek Athenian democratic state to collapse, as our Founding Fathers were aware of and tried to prevent this collapse by including these two ideas in the Constitution.

Therefore, I would suggest that the authors issue a new edition of this book that rewrites Chapters 8 and 9 with a more evenhanded approach through an examination of the threats to America by the Obama and Biden administrations. To do so, however, would require them to cast aside their political predilections and biases, which, given their tone in Chapters 8 and the beginning of Chapter 9, I do not expect will happen.

The authors note that these four threats have been present in America’s past, but not all four threats simultaneously, while in modern America, these four threats have arisen simultaneously and are threatening our democracy. They caution that the simultaneity of these threats is the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

The main issue I have with this book is when the authors look at modern America through the right lens of their eyeglasses, they see much of these threats in Conservatives and Republicans. However, when the authors look at modern America through the left lens of their eyeglasses, they seem a little short-sighted to these threats in Progressives and Democrats.

If you believe, as I do, that the Federalist policies of Alexander Hamilton are more like the policies of the Democrats of today, while the Republican policies of Thomas Jefferson are more like the policies of the Republicans of today, then their historical analysis shows that the Democratic party politics was responsible for most of the initiation of the threats to democracy, while the Republican party politics were often apathetic or supine in the face of these threats. This does not let the Republicans off the hook, as apathetic or supine in the face of wrongs is no excuse, and standing up for what is right and not allowing the wrong is the only proper course of action.

In my next Chirp on “03/04/24 Threats to Democracy – III”, I will examine some more of the critiques that I have of this book.

03/02/24 Mega-Fines

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “Is Trump's Mega-Fine Unconstitutional?”, he examines the constitutionality of the fines imposed upon Donald Trump in the New York state court case against him:

“Arthur Engoron, the New York Supreme Court judge in the real estate case brought against Donald Trump by the state attorney general, has fined Trump and members of his family $464 million. This raises the question of whether the fine – which does not reflect damages actually done – is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."”

I would also note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in Section 1 states that:

Consequently, this trial may have also been unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as it deprived Donald Trump of property, without due process of law, nor with the equal protection of the laws.

This article is a perfect complement to his book, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law”. The actions of the state are also an example of "Lawfare", as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, this trial and the fines imposed by Judge Engoron are an assault on the Constitution. As such, any person concerned about our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" should stand in opposition to this trial and the fines imposed. Thus, I hope that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this and will declare the entire trial and fines as Unconstitutional under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

03/01/24 Supreme Civil War Scholarship

James Munro McPherson is a preeminent American Civil War historian. He, along with Allen C. Guelzo, are my favorite historians of the Civil War Era. While I have reviewed several of Professor Guelzo’s books in my Book It of “09/01/20 The Meaning of History”, I have yet to review books of Professor McPherson. This month’s Book It selections are of my favorite books by Professor McPherson.

02/29/24 Thoughts on a Life Worth Living and Death

As I am now firmly ensconced in my senior years, I have the luxury of reminiscing on my life and taking stock of it. The question that I have often asked myself is what makes a life worth living, and how do you determine if your life is or was worth living? For me, the ultimate answer is if you have lived a moral and ethical life and have acted with virtue and character in your life, as I have as I have written in my new article “A Life Worth Living”, you have lived a worthy life. If you can answer in the affirmative to these four attributes, then when your life comes to an end, you can pass away in peace, knowing that you have experienced a life worth living.

One of the certainties of life is that we will all die. The only question is when, where, and how we will die. Therefore, to be afraid of death is an emotional waste of time and energy. Rather than be afraid of death, we should be careful not to court death by taking actions (or inactions) that may court death. Live your life carefully to the fullest without being afraid of your inevitable death, and use your concern about death to guide you into minimizing your actions that may lead to your death.

The concept of hell is mostly a Christian concept, in which the souls of the dead who led an immoral life will suffer in the afterlife. Many historical concepts of hell involve fire and brimstone that inflict physical pain upon those consigned to hell. However, I believe that this concept is incorrect. A more painful hell would be for those consigned to hell to experience the pain and suffering they inflicted upon others during their lives. Thus, the suffering of those consigned to hell would be an emotional pain that is a far more appropriate punishment.

Of course, the truly evil persons of history deserve any and all punishments for all time that can be inflicted upon them in the afterlife. I also believe that a person can redeem themselves from this hell after they are fully cognizant of their misdeeds and repent to God. But only God can determine if they are fully cognizant and repentant, as only God can determine the truth of their repentance and bestow forgiveness.

For those who believe that there is no repentance from hell, I would remind them of the words in the Bible, “The judgments of the Lord are True and Just.”, and trust that God will make the proper decision on their repentance and forgiveness.

02/28/24 Relying On Others’ Opinions

In the research for my writings, I attempt to read and listen to the thoughts and opinions of other people with whom I agree or disagree. It is not possible to fully read or completely listen to the opinions of others, as it can be time-consuming to do so. This is especially difficult to accomplish when I may disagree with another, as it takes self-control and discipline to pay attention to those with whom I disagree. But it is important that you do so when forming an opinion or criticizing or critiquing another person. Too often in America today, we are quick to criticize or critique another person based on what someone else has said about the other person. In doing so, it is easy to mischaracterize what a person has written or said. In addition, what is said by someone else is often an Ad hominem-based argument rather than a reason-based argument, which is not illuminative of the topic that is being discussed. Consequently, if you wish to disagree with someone, you have the responsibility to read and/or listen to what they have written or spoken and not rely on what someone else has said about them.

In this, I am reminded of the words of wisdom by the great English philosopher, political economist, politician, and civil servant John Stuart Mill:

“He who only knows his own side of the case, knows little of that. . . Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do there very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. . .” - John Stuart Mill

02/27/24 Superlatives

It is all too common in today’s America to praise a person with superlatives such as great, wonderful, brilliant, marvelous, fantastic, first-rate, superb, marvelous, etc... Much too often, these superlatives are undeserved and are nothing but flattery. I find this inappropriate use of superlatives to be demeaning and repugnant, as it cheapens a person who is deserving of the superlative. It also has the pernicious effect of those so praised in believing that they are better than what they truly are and perhaps ameliorating their efforts to improve themselves. There is also the problem that those listening to the superlatives may not have the knowledge, intelligence, or experience to properly appraise whether the superlative is appropriate or inappropriate. All of this is to say that everyone, the speaker, the object of the praise, and the listener, needs to be more judgmental of the worthiness or unworthiness of the superlative.

Whenever I evaluate a person, I try to categorize their qualifications as follows:

Excellent or Great
Good
Average
Mediocre
Poor

Within these categories, I also sub-categorize them into three levels:

Upper
Middle
Lower

This is an imperfect and subjective scale, and a person may have a different categorization based on the topic that they are elucidating. This categorization and sub-categorization allow me to make a judgment on a topic by the quality of the person providing me with the information that I need to make a judgment. A person's higher categorization and sub-categorization also motivates me to think about and research a topic that they are elucidating that has piqued my interest, which sometimes results in my changing my opinion on a topic.

We would all do well to judge a person and what they are elucidating by their qualifications and to ignore the superlatives of others in making this judgment.

02/26/24 Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules

I have extracted and edited my Principles, Truisms, Locutions, and Rules from my life observations web page that I have tried to apply to my life, and while I have not always succeeded, I have tried. While many of these items are wise, quite a few are also humorous. I hope that these items are helpful in your life, or at least put a smile on your face.

02/25/24 Depoliticize Our Lives

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he concludes the book with a section on “DEPOLITICIZE OUR LIVES”:

“The aim of identity politics would appear to be to politicize absolutely everything. To turn every aspect of human interaction into a matter of politics. To interpret every action and relationship in our lives along lines which are alleged to have been carved out by political actions. The calls to spend our time working out our own place and the places of others in the oppression hierarchy are invitations not just to an era of navel-gazing, but to turn every human relationship into a political power calibration. The new metaphysics includes a call to find meaning in this game: to struggle, and fight and campaign and ‘ally’ ourselves with people in order to reach the promised land. In an era without purpose, and in a universe without clear meaning, this call to politicize everything and then fight for it has an undoubted attraction. It fills life with meaning, of a kind.

But of all the ways in which people can find meaning in their lives, politics–let alone politics on such a scale–is one of the unhappiest. Politics may be an important aspect of our lives, but as a source of personal meaning it is disastrous. Not just because the ambitions it strives after nearly always go unachieved, but because finding purpose in politics laces politics with a passion–including a rage–that perverts the whole enterprise. If two people are in disagreement about something important, they may disagree as amicably as they like if it is just a matter of getting to the truth or the most amenable option. But if one party finds their whole purpose in life to reside in some aspect of that disagreement, then the chances of amicability fade fast and the likelihood of reaching any truth recedes.

One of the ways to distance ourselves from the madnesses of our times is to retain an interest in politics but not to rely on it as a source of meaning. The call should be for people to simplify their lives and not to mislead themselves by devoting their lives to a theory that answers no questions, makes no predictions and is easily falsifiable. Meaning can be found in all sorts of places. For most individuals it is found in the love of the people and places around them: in friends, family and loved ones, in culture, place and wonder. A sense of purpose is found in working out what is meaningful in our lives and then orienting ourselves over time as closely as possible to those centres of meaning. Using ourselves up on identity politics, social justice (in this manifestation) and intersectionality is a waste of a life.

We may certainly aim to live in a society in which nobody should be held back from what they can do because of some personal characteristic allotted to them by chance. If somebody has the competency to do something, and the desire to do something, then nothing about their race, sex or sexual orientation should hold them back. But minimizing difference is not the same as pretending difference does not exist. To assume that sex, sexuality and skin colour mean nothing would be ridiculous. But to assume that they mean everything will be fatal.”

Perhaps it would be best if all Americans make a resolution to depoliticize our lives. It would certainly lower the volume and heat of the political rhetoric in today’s America. I would also suspect that it would be a calming influence in everyone’s lives. Unfortunately, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have made this nearly impossible, as they have politicized almost all aspects of American life with a constant barrage of negativity about American society and Western Culture, as I have Chirped on "01/04/24 Western Culture".

02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction

As I have written in my recent Chirps on "02/22/24 The Administrative State" and "02/23/24 Unbalanced and Unlimited Powers", America is undergoing a “fundamental transformation” that negatively affects our "American Ideals and Ideas", "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This fundamental transformation is a result of sliding into a more Progressive and secular society that is hostile to our American values, and especially to our Judeo-Christian mores. This fundamental transformation is being led by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders through a process of Civil Deconstruction of American society.

In their attempts to fundamentally transform America, they often engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against anyone who disagrees with them, which has resulted in the pitting of Americans against Americans and a rise in hostility between different groups of Americans. Recently, we have seen a pushback against their ideology and ideas and their tactics to obtain their political goals and policy agendas. A pushback that has elicited even more hostility from them towards their opponents.

In the past, there have been many physical confrontations from the fundamental transformers against their opponents, and some of this hostility has resulted in physical violence. The mob violence of the 2020s, which resulted in deaths, injuries, arson, property destruction, and looting, perpetuated by Progressives/Leftists, was defended by the Democrats, assisted by the actions of Law Enforcement by Democrat Mayors and Governors, and not prosecuted by Democrat local District Attorneys or State Attorney Generals. However, the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by far-right individuals that resulted in trespass, theft, and destruction of property was vigorously confronted by Democrat Congressional Laws Enforcement and is being fully prosecuted, and in some cases, being maliciously prosecuted. There have been many other instances of violence by Progressives/Leftists against their opponents on a smaller scale. Thus, it can be said that violence is but one of the tactics that Progressives/Leftists utilize to achieve their goal of fundamentally transforming America.

Another recent tactic being utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders is the weaponization of government via "Lawfare", as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government".

However, such hostility begets hostility to the point where physical altercations between the sides are a distinct possibility. Also, the weaponization of government may be turned against them if their opposition obtains control of the levers of government. Thus, the question is, are we headed for a Civil War between the two sides or a continuation of the Civil Deconstruction that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are engaged in?

In the book Four Threats by Suzanne Mettler and Robert Liberman, they discuss the presence of four specific threats to democracy: political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality, and excessive executive power that lead to the destabilization of democracy. These four threats have arisen in modern America and are threatening our democracy, and they are the basis for Civil Deconstruction that may lead to a Civil War.

No sane person wants a civil war, as civil wars wreak havoc on society. Death, Disease, Destruction, serious injuries, and economic disruptions are the consequences of a civil war. But Civil Deconstruction also wreaks havoc on society. Civil Deconstruction leads to a collapse of the functioning of a society and destroys the civil bonds that bind a people together. With this civil deconstruction comes a devaluation or destruction of our American ideals and ideas, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and freedoms, liberties, equality, and equal justice for all. It then becomes a question of what is worse—a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction?

In examining this question, it is necessary to analyze both the pros and cons of a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction, as I have Chirped on “02/17/24 Both Sides Now”. As history has taught us, Civil War or Civil Deconstruction often leads to a collapse of society and just as often leads to new Forms of Governance that are antithetical to democracy. It is hoped that we can avoid both a Civil War and a Civil Deconstruction, but that hope is fading as each side digs in and hardens its stance against the other side. Thus, we should be fearful of both a Civil War and Civil Deconstruction, but we must also be aware that each is possible in today’s America.

As for me, I am unwilling to sacrifice our American ideals and ideas, Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and freedoms, liberties, equality, and equal justice for all to civil deconstruction. Therefore, if it becomes a choice between either a Civil War or a Civil Deconstruction, I will opt for a Civil War to retain our American values and mores.

Let us hope that it never becomes necessary to make this choice; however, let us also remember that our American way is the last best hope for humankind to retain what is best for humankind. Let us then do what is right, what is just, and what is true, as if we do not, then we shall die as one of the great civil libertarians of our time has said:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

02/23/24 Unbalanced and Unlimited Powers

The United States Constitution was designed to have three co-equal branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. It was also formulated to have a balance of power between the branches of government in which each branch has limited and enumerated powers. A balance of power that is needed to prevent the abuses of power, and limited and enumerated powers that are needed to prevent the proliferation of powers.

Unfortunately, with the rise of Progressivism and the Administrative state, this no longer seems to be the case in America. Our Founding Fathers envisioned the Legislative Branch as establishing the laws that the Executive Branch would faithfully execute, and the Judicial Branch would determine the Constitutionality of the laws and adjudicate any disputes of the laws. However, the rise of an “Administrative state”, along with an underlying "Bureaucratic Swamp", has shifted the balance of powers in America to an undeclared fourth branch of government—Independent Agencies and Government Bureaucracies.

We have also seen an unbalance between the branches of government with the ascendency of a powerful President, Congress ceding power to bureaucracies to formulate rules and regulations covering almost all aspects of American life, and a Judiciary that feels it can intervene in any aspect of government and society and make rulings that fall outside of their purview.

All these forces in modern America are like a spreading cancer. Elected or appointed officials within government seem to pay little heed to the Constitution or to our "American Ideals and Ideas". It seems that our elected or appointed officials often attempt to circumvent the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. Much of this is driven by the hubris of elected or appointed officials who believe that they can control the American people regardless of human nature or economic realities. In this, I would remind them that:

This is also a fatal conceit that is devaluing our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and ruining America. It is also fueling the demise of "A Civil Society" as the hyper-partisanship of to whom and how much control will be exerted by the government is bitterly fought about between the partisans.

Much of this is a result of the Supreme Court's reluctance to declare laws, rules, and regulations to be unconstitutional and to seek a compromise between the partisan parties, some of which I have examined in my Articles on “The Failures of the Supreme Court” and “Supreme, But Not Always Right”.

Alas, I am doubtful that the Supreme Court will change its approach or that it will be enough to change the course of America that we have embarked on in the last half-century. We, the people, need to be proactive in removing this cancer within our society. A removal of this cancer which will require an excising of our political leadership that has engaged in these unconstitutional actions, as I have discussed in my article “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials Who Violate their Oath of Office”.

Until we right the course of America, I can foresee more deconstruction of our American Ideals and Ideas or the possibility of a civil war to reestablish our American Ideals and Ideas.

02/22/24 The Administrative State

The "Administrative state" is a term used to describe the power that some government agencies have to write, judge, and enforce their own laws and regulations. Since it pertains to the structure and function of government, it is a frequent topic in political science, constitutional law, and public administration. The phenomenon was relatively unknown in representative democracies until the beginning of the 20th century. Its sudden rise has corresponded to the rise of Progressivism, and many claim that the two are interrelated. The impact of the Administrative State on Liberties and Freedoms and representative democracy is much debated.

In America, the administrative state is mostly found in the independent agencies of the federal government (although some states have independent agencies). The Constitution neither makes nor infers anything that resembles an Administrative state, and thus, many believe that Independent agencies are Unconstitutional.

In addition, in America, the way that some Independent agencies operate would seem to be in violation of justice and the rule of law as incorporated into the Constitution, as I have examined in my Article "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". The violation of these Constitutional protections would also make Independent agencies Unconstitutional. In America, the officials of Independent agencies are appointed (often without Senatorial approval) and usually with a fixed term of office, which makes it exceedingly difficult to remove them from office. Thus, they are not responsive to the will of the people as expressed by elections but can operate in opposition to our elected officials' will, which is an assault on democracy.

Consequently, these Independent agencies can operate on a capricious and arbitrary basis, and this must end. As I believe that independent agencies are Unconstitutional and are being done wrongly, perhaps the better solution would be to fold these independent agencies into the Executive Departments or the Executive Office of the President, which would then make them Constitutional and subject them to Constitutional constraints. Many supporters of Independent agencies would respond that they need independence to operate impartially and that all that is required to correct these problems is a reform of how an Independent agency operates. However, it is impossible to be impartial in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, and we should never compromise our Constitutional rights for the nebulous purposes of “impartially”. In this, I would paraphrase the words of Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is impartial, but who shall decide what is impartial?" and paraphrase Benjamin Frankin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase Impartially, deserve neither Liberty nor Impartially."

In our attempts to grapple with the issues and concerns about Independent agencies, we should also remember my allocution:

“It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.” - Mark Dawson

02/21/24 Human Nature or Free Will

Human nature is the shared psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings. Human Nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind or what it 'means' to be human. Human Nature has been molded by the physiological construction of the human brain and millions of years of human evolution.

Progressives/Leftists have an Unconstrained vision of human nature that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures. Conservatives have a Constrained vision of human nature that believes that human nature is not malleable and that people will act in their own best interests and of their own Free Will, while Moderates have a vision of human nature that believes that human nature is somewhat malleable and can be improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures.

Free Will is the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. Free Will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, and other judgments that apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is, and the implications of whether it exists or not constitute some of the longest-running debates of philosophy. Some conceive of free will as the ability to act beyond the limits of external influences or wishes.

Human Nature and Free Will would seem to conflict with each other. However, I believe that human nature is an unconscious guide, while free will is a conscious choice, and free will can and will override human nature as the individual so chooses.

Therefore, because of free will, each person is responsible for their own words and deeds. While there may be societal pressures and impediments that influence your decisions, it is possible to overcome these factors and achieve your goals. Your achievements are based on your physical and mental capacities, skills and abilities, intellect, knowledge, and hard work to achieve your individual goals and to rise above the circumstances of your birth.

However, it is only in a free society that respects "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" that each individual can rise above their circumstances and achieve their goals. Any other type of society artificially constrains an individual and defies human nature and free will.

02/20/24 Keeping Silent About Islamic Pathologies

In a recent forward to the book “Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam” by Raymond Ibrahim, the eminent scholar and commentator Victor Davis Hanson made the following cogent statement:

“And in the current mood, whether in academic circles or popular culture, Western browbeating manifests itself in virtue-signaling damnation of Western civilization—while quite timidly practicing self-censorship, or keeping silent, about Islamic pathologies, including those, ironically, most illiberal to race and gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion.” - Victor Davis Hanson

This statement encapsulates what I have Chirped on “01/05/24 The War on the West”, as well as my Article “The Problems with Islam”. For those Western browbeaters and apologists of Islam, my reply to them is that which I have written in my aforementioned Chirp and Article.

02/19/24 The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials

In modern America, the Oaths of Office of Public Officials have become just a formality to start their term of office. Little thought and fidelity are given to their oaths once they begin their term of office. These Oaths of Office are a vow to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as their primary responsibility and the Constitutional constraints to their duties and responsibilities as defined by the Constitution. In the past, we have relied on the virtue and character of elected or appointed officials to keep their oath of office, along with the shame they engendered if they did not do so. However, virtue, character, and shame in modern politics seem to have been relegated to "the ash heap of history". Thus, little heed is given to their Oath of Office when they are executing the powers of their office. As such, they do not consider the Constitutional restraints on their powers, as they are more concerned about their political goals and policy agendas and the resulting political popularity gains and/or their reelection prospects to their current elected office or future elective or appointive office.

The question is, then, what can be done about reigning in these violations of their oath of office? The most common answer is their removal from office by impeachment. However, impeachment is not often available, is rarely utilized, and even more rarely results in their removal from office. This is because the Constitution is quite explicit and thus narrowly defines impeachment as “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Consequently, a violation of an Oath of Office is not considered sufficient grounds for impeachment, as rarely do the violations of their Oath of Office concern Treason, Bribery, or high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

My new Article, “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials”, examines this question and provides some possible answers. This article supersedes my previous articles on “Removal of Executive Officers” and “Removal of Justices and Judges”, and, as such, I have withdrawn these articles.

02/18/24 The Greatest Danger to Democracy

As I have written about in my Chirp on “02/16/24 A Slight of Hand”, the Biden Administration poses a threat to democracy in how they operate authoritatively and in secrecy:

“The greatest danger to democracy is not from outside sources but from insiders who operate authoritatively and secretly. Such has been the modus operandi throughout the Biden Administration, which makes them a great danger to our democracy, as I have Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".”.

But in a larger sense, the greatest danger to our democracy is an apathetic electorate not interested in our "American Ideals and Ideas", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", but only concerned with getting their piece of the pie. We also have the problem of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" utilized to engender fear of the opponent, and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify political agendas and policy goals that are threats to democracy. Adding into the mix of "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" only makes for more confusion in the minds of the electorate.

Much of this is made possible by improper or incomplete civics instructions in modern public education, as well as the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" support for policy positions that are counter to our "American Ideals and Ideas". There is also a dearth of knowledge amongst the American public on "Capitalism and Free Markets", as well as much mistaken knowledge on "Socialism". This leads to confusion and improper economic understanding as to the repercussions on governance based on this lack of or incorrect knowledge. Much of this misunderstanding has been brought forth by Progressivism, as I have explained in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", and is being led by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in modern America. Despite their cries of saving “Our Democracy”, they operate in a manner that is antithetical to democracy, as I have Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy" and as Rob Natelson has written in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”.

Consequently, the greatest danger to democracy is an electorate that is unaware or unconcerned about how the government operates or the means that they utilize to obtain their political agendas and policy goals. Alas, there seems little hope that the American electorate can be awakened to this danger, considering the political and social forces that would prefer to keep them in darkness of this greatest danger to democracy.

02/17/24 Both Sides Now

When discussing significant changes or new proposals to how our government functions, it is common and correct to be concerned about potential negative repercussions to any proposed change and/or new. What is less common and incorrect is to balance the fear of a change and/or new with the negative repercussions of the current functioning of government.

Politicians are loath to see any change in the functioning of government, as this could disrupt their control and power over the levers of government. They are often supportive of the new—when the new increases their control and power over the levers of government. Change and/or new can also impact their reelection prospects, as any change and/or new to government functioning will have impacts (both positive and negative) upon their constituents.

Many people are also fearful of any change to government functioning, as it could disrupt their lives and understanding of how to utilize the government to achieve their ends. However, the old saying “Better The Devil You Know Than The Devil You Don't” is not a good basis for resisting change and/or new, as the devil you know could be more harmful than the devil you don't.

Hence, change is often necessary when the government is not operating in the best interest of the people but in the best interests of the government. Often, the change is a choice of the lesser of two evils. However, it is necessary to examine the current evils and possible changes and/or new evils to determine the best future course to undertake. When examining these evils, it is best to remember my concerns on "Change and/or New" before undertaking any change or new proposal.

As such, we should examine both sides of the change and/or new government functioning before we undertake a change and/or new. We should also always remember that it is more important that change and/or new should be in the best interest of the people and not the best interests of the government or the politicians.

02/16/24 A Slight of Hand

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article “The Rasputin Effect: Biden Moves To Make Podesta the Climate Czar With A Crown… or a Confirmation”:

“With the departure of John Kerry as “climate czar,” President Biden has announced that he will be replaced by John Podesta, a Democratic powerbroker and Washington insider.

Podesta, however, will take the power and not the title. He will be appointed as “coordinator,” thus sidestepping and confirmation by the Senate, which could have been brutal.

Such action will shield Podesta from questions about Kerry’s work and expenses as climate czar. Before leaving office, Kerry refused to turn over information on his staff to Congress and the public. The Biden Administration is now being sued over the secrecy.”

This is but another example of the government operating in secrecy from the public when secrecy from the public is not necessary. It is especially pernicious as the Biden Administration is attempting to operate in secrecy from Congressional oversight. The issues of government climate change policy are of such magnitude that secrecy is anathema to democracy. Thus, the Biden Administration is operating undemocratically and, ergo, poses a danger to democracy.

As usual, the words and deeds of the Biden Administration are in contraction to each other. They talk one game but walk another game. Such slights of hand are typical in the Biden Administration, as they do not want the American public to be aware of what they are actually doing. This is because they realize that much of the American public would not be supportive of what they are doing, so they must do it secretly to obtain their political agendas and policy goals.

The greatest danger to democracy is not from outside sources but from insiders who operate authoritatively and secretly. Such has been the modus operandi throughout the Biden Administration, which makes them a great danger to our democracy, as I have Chirp on "11/08/23 Threats to Democracy".

02/15/24 An Intriguing Legal Question

In an article by Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation, “Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?”, he points out a question of the legality of the appointment:

“Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.”

Mr. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Garland to be the chief prosecutor for all of the January 6, 2021, “Insurrectionist” litigation, as well as President Trump’s role in the “Insurrection”. This amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues as to whether Attorney General Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Mr. Smith as special counsel. If he was not legally appointed, then all actions taken by Mr. Smith are null and void, including the overturning of the convictions of the January 6th defendants and his prosecution of President Trump. It would also be necessary for the court to seal all evidence that Mr. Smith has obtained, as it would be the fruits of the poisonous tree.

This issue needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it will be possible for an Attorney General to appoint persons who would be the hounds of "Lawfare" against their political opponents.

02/14/24 The Persecutor in Atlanta

The political persecutor in Atlanta has found herself in troubled waters. Normally, I am not much concerned about the personal indiscretions of public officials, as we are all human and subject to human fallacies. However, when a public official’s personal indiscretions impact their official duties, we all should be concerned.

When Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County GA, who is responsible for the election case prosecution of former President Trump, hired attorney Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor to lead the Trump prosecution, she went over the line from personal indiscretion to official duties. It is now apparent that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were engaged in an extramarital relationship. A relationship that is inappropriate in a professional setting and creates concerns about a conflict of interest.

In hiring Mr. Wade at a large expense and for a prosecution in which he has no legal experience, Ms. Willis has enriched her lover. In addition, Mr. Wade has utilized his enrichment to pay for several expensive vacations with Ms. Willis and himself. In my opinion, this is corruption and a misallocation of government funding. In addition, she may also have perjured herself in the affidavits she filed with the court to explain her relationship with Mr. Wade. All of this points to a prosecutor who is derelict in her duty to engage in an above-board prosecution.

Consequently, I believe that a mistrial without prejudice should be declared and that a change of venue outside of Fulton County, GA, with another district attorney, should be instituted to determine if President Trump has run afoul of election laws.

02/13/24 What is Impeachable?

With the failure of the Impeachment vote against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the question of what impeachable offenses are has again arisen. The Constitution is quite explicit on impeachment in Article II, Section. 4. in that:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Many legal and Constitutional scholars have narrowly construed this clause to mean Treason, Bribery, or illegal actions. As I have written in my article, Impeachable Offenses, there are good reasons to narrowly construe this clause, as Stanford law school professor Pamela Karlan has written about the impeachment clauses:

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts.”

As Secretary Mayorkas was not charged with Treason, Bribery, or illegal actions, but only the failure to faithfully execute the laws on immigration, his was not an impeachable offense under a narrowly construed interpretation of this clause.

The President of the United States has a duty, under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and the Oath of Office of Executive Officers requires them to discharge the duties of the office for which they enter, which includes faithfully executing the laws:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

However, Secretary Mayorkas has violated his Oath of Office by not enforcing immigration laws, and thus, he has not faithfully discharged the duties of his office. Many claim that he has the power to do so, usually under the guise of Prosecutorial Discretion or establishing regulations that make a mockery of Illegal Immigration laws. In doing so, he has challenged the authority of Congress to establish the laws of the United States by evading the immigration laws established by Congress. His utilization of Prosecutorial Discretion to not enforce the law has been beyond the pale, as I have written in my Chirp on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion".

This utilization of regulations to evade the law and Prosecutorial Discretion to not enforce the law has been on the rise in America in the 21st century, especially in the administrations of President Obama and President Biden. Thus, the question of how to bring the Executive branch into compliance with the laws passed by Congress is of paramount concern for the balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. In the case of illegal immigration it has also pitted State and Local governments against the Federal government, as the economic and criminal impacts of illegal immigration have placed a burden on them and the people within their jurisdiction.

In a larger sense, however, it is a question of what type of governance the American people will tolerate. Will we have a powerful Executive branch that can override the will of Congress or an Executive Branch that will faithfully execute the laws that Congress has passed? Consequently, it is a question of whether we will be true to our "American Ideals and Ideas" or whether we will reshape America into a more authoritative form of governance directed by the Presidency.

The answer to this question is how we respond to Executive Officers who do not faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. If they are allowed to continually flaunt the laws passed by Congress without consequences, then we will continue and expand an authoritative form of governance directed by the Presidency. Congress and the judiciary must find a way to impose consequences for those executive officers who flout the law. If we wait until the next Presidential election to correct this situation than much harm can be done to America (as can be seen from the negative impacts of this flaunting on America by the Biden Administration), and it will encourage future Executive Officers to flaunt the law as they see fit.

It should be remembered by all that if you don’t like a law, you should change the law, not evade nor enforce the law. To do otherwise is to make the law capricious and arbitrary, as well as to increase lawlessness and chaos in America to the detriment of all Americans.

Update – The House of Representatives passed the Impeachment Articles against Secretary Mayorkas this afternoon. However, indications are that the Senate may not even bring the Impeachment to a trial or vote, as most Senators do not believe Secretary Mayorkas has committed an impeachable offense. Therefore, the questions raised in this Chirp are still applicable, and the answers are unresolved.

02/12/24 The Supreme Law of the Land

In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but by the “spirit of Aloha.” While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices of the United States Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.

When the people of Hawaii agreed to join the United States, they agreed with Article. VI. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution:

Consequently, anything in Hawaii’s history, traditions, or laws that conflicted with the Constitution was null and void when they joined the United States. Thus, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is null and void as it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States as determined by previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

This is but another example of State courts trying to circumvent the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions on constitutionality when they disapprove of the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. This must stop, and any Legislative, Executive, or Judicial official who attempts this is not upholding their oath of office. Flagrant disregard of the Constitution should be met with removal from office by any Legislative, Executive, or Judicial official who engages in flaunting the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings. To not do so is to allow for chaos to reign supreme and for the eventual dissolution of the rule of law in America.

02/11/24 Social Justice Fallacies

In an instant New York Times bestseller, the new book Social Justice Fallacies by renowned economist Thomas Sowell demolishes the myths that underpin the social justice movement. In the first four chapters, he examines the common fallacies, in both their history and economics, that social "Activists and Activism" labor under. He then concludes the book by examining the words and deeds of social justice and the dangers of implementing their policies based on their fallacies.

In reading this book and then thinking about this Chirp, I realized that a brief synopsis of these chapters would be inappropriate, as each chapter is a brief synopsis of the fallacy it describes. Indeed, the book is only 130 pages of narrative, with another 71 pages of notes and a comprehensive index. Instead, I will simply provide the chapter titles and subtitles in this book:

“Equal Chances” Fallacies
- Reciprocal Inequalities
- Origins of Inequalities
  - Inequalities Among Individuals
  - Inequalities Among Groups
  - Environment and Human Capital
  - Episodic Factors

Racial Fallacies
- Assertions Versus Evidence
- Genetic Determinism
  - Early Progressivism
  - Later Progressivism

Chess Pieces Fallacies
- Redistribution of Wealth
  - History
  - Tax Rates versus Tax Revenues
  - The Inflation “Tax”
- Chess Pees and Price Controls
  - Reaction to Price Controls
  - Minimum Wage Laws
- Chess Pieces and Income Statistics
  - Trends Over Time
  - Different Numbers of People
  - “Stagnating” Income Growth
  - Turnover in Income Brackets
  - The “Rich” and The “Poor”
  - Implications for “Social Justice”

Knowledge Fallacies
- Conflicting Visions of Knowledge
  - Consequential Knowledge
  - Opposite Visions
- Facts and Myths
  - Employment Issues
  - Payday Loans
  - Housing Decisions
  - Children
- Patterns and Consequences
- Implications
Words, Deeds, and Dangers
- Visions and Vocabularies
  - Merit
  - Racism
  - Affirmative Action
- Implications

I would encourage all to read this book, as it provides illumination on the Social Justice Fallacies predominant in today’s America. For those who would disagree with his analysis, I would remind them of the importance of reading the words of those with whom you disagree, as expressed by the great English philosopher, political economist, politician, and civil servant John Stuart Mill:

02/10/24 What Do You Expect of a Politician?

Most people have unreasonable expectations of politicians. They either expect that they will deliver the goods or that they provide leadership based on knowledge and wisdom of the issues and concerns. However, it is not possible for them to deliver the goods as they are constrained by what is allowable by the United States Constitution and their State Constitutions. They are also not very knowledgeable or wise on most of the issues and concerns, as no one person can be very knowledgeable or wise on all the issues and concerns.

Their motivations for entering into politics are also varied. Some see it as a career path to effect change for the betterment of society; some see it as a service to their country after they have achieved some success outside of government. All politicians are concerned about their reelection and often temper their decisions based on reelection criteria. Some politicians will tell you what you want to hear, while occasionally, some politicians will tell you what you need to hear. In this, they are like all persons who wish to obtain, retain, and advance in their employment, trade, or profession.

So, what should we expect of a politician? My personal opinion is that the most important expectation we should have of a politician is that they have virtue and character, as I have examined in my Chirps on "11/22/23 Virtue and Character" and "10/09/22 Financial Virtue in Public Office". When judging the virtue and character of a politician, it is important to remember that:

"It is much more difficult to be virtuous than it is to virtue signal." - Unknown

And:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said 'Well done is better than well said.'". - Mark Dawson

I also expect that a politician should be willing to change their opinion based on new or additional information that they may encounter and to explain to their constituents their reasoning for their change of opinion. For, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility." - Benjamin Franklin

These are high expectations that are difficult for a politician to achieve, but I expect politicians to strive for this achievement. Those politicians who do not strive for this are unworthy to be leaders of a Liberty and Freedom-loving people. Indeed, it seems that politicians who do not have virtue or character wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have examined in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

I, therefore, expect that politicians should be virtuous and act with character, work within the bounds of the Federal and State Constitutions, and be leaders rather than rulers, as I have examined in my article on “Religion, Morality, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”.

02/09/24 A State of Chaos

Any society in chaos is a society on the decline, and it will eventually slide into a form of a repressive government. When people feel that they are in danger from enemies both foreign and domestic, when crime has risen and remains unchecked, when the economy is deteriorating and not beneficial to the common person, when governmental intervention into the lives of the populace restricts their Liberties and Freedoms, the flowering of chaos leads to an overthrow of the government, often to be replaced by a repressive government.

This is because people will not live long in a state of fear, danger, and uncertainty that chaos engenders. They will demand that order and stability be restored, whatever the costs and the cost is often a repressive government. Many times throughout history, this chaos has led to rulership by a strong man and a repression of the populace of the society. This repression has often had a right-wing flavor, but the 20th century has proven that this repression can have a left-wing flavor.

When we observe the modern state of America, we can see the seeds of chaos. A chaos that seems to be deliberate with the intention of replacing our "American Ideals and Ideas" with those of "Socialism" ideals and ideas, as they believe that "Socialism is Acceptable". Alas, these seeds of chaos are being planted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in America.

The nonsense of "Activists and Activism", "Adjective Justice", "Big Bad Science", "Bureaucratic Swamp", "Cancel Culture", "Conspiracy Theory", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Greater Good versus the Common Good", "Hate Speech", "Herd Mentality", "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Lawfare", "LGBTQIA+", "Modern Feminism", "Political Correctness (PC)", "Racist", "Social Engineering", "Social Media", "Virtue Signaling", "White Privilege", "Wokeness", being spouted and implemented in America are the seeds of chaos.

Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, the American people are being bamboozled into believing that these seeds of chaos are in their best interest and the best interest of America. Do not be fooled—as the flowering of chaos always results in a repressive government.

The chaos that is being sown is an attempt to fundamentally transform America into a society that is under the control of a Progressive/Leftist ideology. A control that is based on rulership rather than leadership, as I have examined in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Such control and rulership can only be implemented by despotism, which will soon morph into Forms of Governance that are not respectful to the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the American people.

02/08/24 It’s All About Control and Power

In my Chirp on "01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature", I discuss how Progressives/Leftists have an Unconstrained vision about humanity that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures. I also discuss how Conservatives have a Constrained vision of humanity that believes that human nature is determined by human evolution and that people will act in their own best interests, while Moderates have a vision of humanity that believes that human nature can be somewhat improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures.

With the Unconstrained vision comes a belief that it is possible to control what a person thinks and believes, as well as their speech and actions, for the purposes of improving society, while Moderates believe that some control is necessary to improve society. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that controlling people is specious and doomed to failure. It is also a fact that to control a person requires power over a person to exercise this control. This power over people is often in the form of despotism that just as often morphs into other "Forms of Governance" that suppresses the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of the individuals in a society. For my own part, I have learned from my life experiences that:

"Control over others is illusionary, as the only control that you have is over yourself." - Mark Dawson

As such, I have learned that it is important to Be in Control of Yourself, as I have written on my Pearls of Wisdom webpage.

Thus, we have seen in America that Progressives and Leftists are attempting to gain power to institute control over others for the purpose of trying to improve humanity. This has been true for most of the 20th century and has accelerated in the 21st century, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". In doing so, they have staged an assault on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" by attempting to control our thoughts and speech, as I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America". Or, as I have said:

"The law is meant to control a person's actions, not their thoughts or speech. The thoughts and speech of each person are controlled by their own morality, ethics, and religious beliefs." - Mark Dawson

In this, they are restricting our Liberties and Freedoms for:

"Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, while Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights." - Mark Dawson

Thus, Liberty and Freedom are the antithesis of Control and Power. We should also remember my other quote:

"The hubris of a government that believes they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled." - Mark Dawson

Finally, it should be remembered that human nature has been molded by six million years of evolution that cannot be changed over decades, as the efforts of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in the 20th century have demonstrated, for:

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

02/07/24 The State is the Problem!

Argentina's new President, Javier Milei, surprised diplomats at the World Economic Forum last month by saying, "The state is the problem!"

He spoke up for capitalism, "Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state ... If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution."

He also said, "If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, competition, price systems, trade and ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty."

Perhaps he should be invited to address a joint session of Congress to impart his wisdom upon Congress’s members. I doubt, however, that this will happen, as Democrat members of Congress have no interest in hearing anything except their own predilections. They also seem incapable of understanding basic economics and the role of government in a free society.

02/06/24 A Democracy or a Republic

The question of whether the United States was to be a Democracy or a Republic was debated by the members of the Constitutional Convention. Many of the wisest members of the convention were rightly concerned about the stability of a Democracy, as well as the encroachments on the Liberties and Freedoms of the minority in a Democracy. This can be seen in some quotes from the members of the convention:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” - John Adams

“Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” - James Madison

“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” - Alexander Hamilton

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” - John Marshall

In addition, many others have had concerns about Democracy, as a few quotes illustrate:

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” - John Quincy Adams

“Democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” - Ambrose Bierce

“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.” - Oscar Wilde

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Winston Churchill

It is for these reasons that the Constitutional Convention instituted a Republic rather than a Democracy. In our Constitution, the only body that is democratically elected is the House of Representatives, while Senators were appointed by the State legislators until the 17th Amendment and the Presidency was elected by the Electoral College, whose members were democratically elected. Thus, we have a hybrid government that is best described as a Democratic-Republic form of governance, as I have Chirped on "01/12/24 Our Republic".

Therefore, when you hear the cries of “Our Democracy”, you should be wary of what the speaker has to say, as they are ignorant or duplicitous of the nature of democracies and our Founding Fathers' wisdom. To be guided by the cries of the ignorant or duplicitous is foolish and often leads down the slippery slope to despotism or other forms of governance that do not respect the rights of the individual.

02/05/24 The Firm®

U.S. Senator for Utah, Mike Lee (R), fired off a lengthy X (formerly Twitter) post on Thursday, Feb1, 2024, in which he thoroughly blistered both the bill—and Senators Schumer and McConnell. He began by recounting a short conversation with a reporter:

“Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm® plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

Rather, it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell (“The Firm®”), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which The Firm®:

(1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

(2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

(3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm® itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

(4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

Whenever The Firm® engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

By so doing, The Firm® effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans—at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand—and that’s tragic.

It’s also unAmerican, uncivil, uncollegial, and really uncool.

So why does The Firm® do it?

Every time The Firm® utilizes this approach and the bill passes—and it nearly always does—The Firm® becomes more powerful.

The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm® has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm® with various privileges that The Firm® is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm® is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

It’s through this process that The Firm® passes most major spending legislation.

It’s through this process that The Firm® likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm® has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm® has been willing to share.

But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions, the minimum period of time we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months, not days or hours.

Please share this if you agree.”

As I could not agree more with this statement, I am sharing it with my readers.

02/04/24 This Too Shall Pass

In the history of governments, scholars throughout the ages have debated the rightness and efficacy of the various Forms of Governance. Most of these arguments have proven to be faulty or fallacious. This is not to say that the originators of these arguments were unknowledgeable or unintelligent, but that the experience of history has demonstrated the defects in their arguments. Thus, these theories of government have been consigned to the ash heap of history. So it should be, as experience and better information should be the determinate of the validity of an argument about governance.

Much of this change in the scholarship of governance has arisen because of a better understanding of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of individuals has expanded, as well as the negative economic impacts of bad governance upon the society and the groups and individual members of the society. When history has shown the failure of the different types of governance, then the scholarship on the failed governance should be put aside and relegated to historical analysis.

The history of the 20th century has shown that Marxism, Communism, and Socialism in their various forms (including Nazism and Fascism) have been abject failures in both the Natural, Human, and Civil Rights of the members of society and the negative economic repercussions to their society.

Consequently, we should relegate Marxism, Communism, and Socialism to the ash heap of history and only support historical scholarship of their failures. To do otherwise is to mislead people into believing that these forms of governance can be improved and made workable. A misleading which can have terrible consequences if some form of these governances is instituted in the future. We would all do well to remember that any government that does not recognize the Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of its populace is doomed to failure, with terrible consequences for the people and their society.

02/03/24 The Lost Cause

In the aftermath of the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, there arose a mythology of “States Rights” and the “Lost Cause” and of the nobility, honor, dignity, bravery, and selflessness of the Confederate leaders, both military and civilian. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery. This mythology grew to such proportions that even reputable historians affirmed and propagated the mythology. At the same time these Southern sympathies were being disseminated, they were also disparaging, denigrating, and demonizing the Union Leaders. Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and others were derided, and the cause of Union and Emancipation was taken to task by falsehoods and deceptions. This tide crested in the middle of the 20th century, but vestiges still remain, especially in public perceptions.

First enunciated in 1866, The Lost Cause has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religious attitudes in the Southern United States to the present day. The Lost Cause's false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporary historians, who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of the Lost Cause mythos.

In the twenty-first century, many of the supporters of Communism and Socialism have claimed that their failures were because they were not implemented properly. There is no acknowledgment that Communism and Socialism may be contrary to human nature, governmentally unworkable, and not economically feasible. Thus, they are simply wrong, and as I have often said, “It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.”

However, Communism and Socialism supporters continue to make excuses, much like the supporters of the Lost Cause continue to make excuses. It is well past time that Communism and Socialism be historically dismantled and consigned to the dustbin of history. Such consignment would relegate them to the historical departments of academia, and be taught as contrary to Natural Rights, uneconomical, unworkable, and failed systems in the political, economic, and sociological departments of Colleges and Universities. To do otherwise is to ignore the facts and deprivations of Communism and Socialism, which is unworthy of any scholarship.

02/02/24 What Was the Civil War About?

Many modern historians in the last half century or so frame the Civil War in terms of race and racism, as well as the preservation of white privilege and white superiority. Despite a lack of documentary evidence for this framing, and because of the insertion of personal opinion by these historians, many Americans do not have a grasp of the true meaning and significance of the Civil War.

Most people would say that it was about slavery. However, the more complicated truth is that the Civil War was, at its root, a dispute about whether states could secede from the Union. The proximal issue was, of course, slavery, but in the 70 years prior to the firing on Fort Sumter, other issues had driven citizens to talk of secession or rebellion, including taxation during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791; the War of 1812, during which the Hartford Convention of New England states made it plain that they believed secession was legitimate, and trade and tariffs during the nullification crisis in 1832. In 1860, the riveting issue was slavery, but the underlying conflict was about secession.

At the beginning of the Civil War, President Lincoln and others sought to downplay the issue of slavery, as they knew it would fracture the Union cause and potentially lead to defeat. It was only in the middle of the Civil War after most in the Union fold realized that it was not possible to have a Union half free and half slave, that the issue of the abolition of slavery rose in prominence. By the end of the Civil War, the issues of the Union and the abolition of slavery were on equal footing (especially after the Union soldiers observed firsthand the deprivations of slavery and the humanity of the slaves).

Consequently, the result of the Civil War was that succession was not Constitutional, and the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. Thus, it is proper to say the Civil War was about the unconstitutionality of succession and the elimination of slavery.

02/01/24 Understanding Civil War Motivations

With the rise of a free press that could praise or criticize the events of the war, and the extensive letter writing between those that fought the war and the those that remained on the home front, The American Civil War was a sea change in the volume of the historical information about what the people thought about the war. This month’s Book It selections examine the Civil War from the perspective of the people who fought the war and those that stayed behind at home. These books provide a good understanding of what the people of the Civil War thought they were fighting for.

01/31/24 Rabble-Rousers

Today's rabble-rousers demonstrate and demand (usually at the top of their voices and often with mob actions) for "Change and/or New" laws and/or policies in government actions. They have no interest in a proper "Dialog and Debate" to determine the impacts of the change/new, and they especially do not want the opposition to have any voice in the change and/or new.

In this, they remind me of those people who rabble roused for the sparing of the life of Barabbas rather than the life of Jesus. Barabbas was a criminal who may have been a rebel against Rome, a robber, or a murderer who was set free by the rabble-rousing mob. Jesus was a preacher of love, kindness, forgiveness, and charity for all, whose followers were not rabble-rousers but devotees of living the life that Jesus preached.

It is an unfortunate fact that the rabble-rousers are those who get almost all the attention. At the same time, those who live a life of peace, as defined by the Philosopher Baruch Spinoza as, “Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.”, receive little attention. The rabble-rousers are attempting to stampede society into the actions they desire rather than convince the American people of the desirability and effectiveness of their demands. In this, they are not trusting the good sense of the American people to choose the proper course for America. As such, they believe in a command-control form of government, where they command and control the people.

Their argument that they only want a democracy of the people to institute change and/or new is specious, as it is a democracy of mob rule that does not recognize the Natural Rights of the minority. Often, their demands are not approved of by most of the American people. In addition, a two-tiered justice system has been implemented in America in which the Barabbas of our society face little justice for their destructive actions. At the same time, the peace lovers are threatened by legal actions for exercising their First and Second Amendments Rights, as I have Chirp on "07/31/21 A Two-Tiered Justice and Governmental System".

Consequently, we are setting free the Barabbas of our society to wreak their havoc while the peace-loving people are being condemned to suffer the consequences of their havoc.

01/30/24 Standing Up to Bullies

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, College and Universities students, professors, and administrators, LGBTQIA+, Antifa, BLM, and a host of other Activists and Activism all operate with the strategy of intimidation and bullying. Using the tactics of "Adjective Justice", "Cancel Culture", "Conspiracy Theory", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Doxing", "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", "Equity and Equality", "Greater Good versus the Common Good", "Hate Speech", "Herd Mentality", "Hyper-Partisanship", "Identity Politics", "Intersectionality", "Lawfare", "LGBTQIA+", "Political Correctness (PC)", "Racist", "Virtue Signaling", "White Privilege", and "Wokeness", they attempt to bully their opponents into silence. There is a constant barrage of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" in their encounters with their opponents.

They have also utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their policies. Thus, they have become the thought and speech police with the support of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate". In this, they are attempting to silence any opposition to their policies and political goals. They are also attempting to inflict reputational and financial harm, as well as the possibility of civil torts or criminal prosecutions, for any that would speak out against them.

In this, they are violating the Constitutional rights of their opponents, most especially their First and Second Amendment rights. They will ignore or discard the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" to achieve their goals.

As with all bullies, it is necessary to stand up and confront the bullies to stop the bullying. This is most difficult in today’s society, as the forces of bullying seem overwhelming. But as it was prior to and during the American Revolutionary War, overwhelming bullies can be successfully opposed. The preservation of our "American Ideals and Ideas" is worth the efforts and costs of standing up to bullies; otherwise, as Abraham Lincoln has said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” and succumb to despotism.

01/29/24 Swatting

In our Age of Rage against political opponents, a new tactic to express a person’s rage is “Swatting”. Swatting is the act of making a false report to emergency services to prompt a response at a particular address. The goal is to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to show up at a person’s home with whom they disagree and disrupt their lives.

Initially, this occurred against Conservatives and Republicans, but it is starting to occur against Progressives and Democrats. No matter who it occurs against, it is wrong and needs to stop. It is an attempt to intimidate the opposition into constricting their freedom of speech in that if they speak up, they run the risk of having their homes swatted, which endangers not only them but their families and their properties. As such, it is a form of terrorism and should be dealt with as if it were a terroristic act. Therefore, it should be made illegal and prosecuted as a terrorist act. Those who are convicted of swatting should receive long prison sentences and large fines because of these terrorist swatting acts.

If this continues, we will eventually see harm to personal property, injuries to the unsuspecting victims of swatting, the possible deaths of swatting victims, and perhaps harm to the response team members. It is also a violation of the Constitutional rights of those swatted, most especially their First Amendment rights.

01/28/24 Go Woke, Go Broke

Adam Smith, born 300 years ago on 16 June 1723, was a Scottish economist and philosopher who was a pioneer in the thinking of political economy and a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment. Seen by some as "The Father of Economics" or "The Father of Capitalism", he wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work that treats economics as a comprehensive system and as an academic discipline. In The Wealth of Nations, he offers one of the world's first connected accounts of what builds nations' wealth and has become a fundamental work in classical economics. Reflecting upon economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Smith addresses topics such as the division of labor, productivity, and free markets. Smith refuses to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of God's will and instead appeals to natural, political, social, economic, legal, environmental, and technological factors and the interactions between them.

While the academics of economics have significantly advanced in the intervening centuries, many of the core principles that Adam Smith elucidated still hold true. One of these principles is how the “invisible hand” of the market worked as people exercised their choices between certain products. This principle can shape economies and challenge whole governments. It is this principle that determines the success or failure of a business, as a business must produce something that a consumer wants or needs at a price that the consumer can afford, or it will go out of business. Thus, it is in their own interest to tailor their business to the consumer to ensure that sufficient profits are created for their own needs to be met. As Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the Butcher, the Brewer or the Baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “Happy Birthday, Adam: The Invisible Hand Just Slapped Disney”, he points out that alienating your consumers is not in your own interest. To do so will have negative repercussions on your business—even to the point of the failure of your business. To foist something upon your customers that they do not want or to demean or insult your customers is to risk the failure of your business. Yet, many businesses in today’s America seem intent on doing so in their attempts to institute Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, and Wokeness within their business. In doing so, they are alienating their consumers who do not believe in these principles, and these consumers make up a significant percentage (if not the majority) of Americans. Some of their words and deeds have become so offensive that those Americans who are so offended are taking their business elsewhere and significantly impacting the profitability of the businesses that engage in these words and deeds.

We also have the example of Sports Illustrated, in which they went woke in their annual swimsuit issue by featuring plus-sized models and a transgendered (male to female) model. Their sports coverage had also been veering from sports coverage to sports social activism coverage. As a result, they lost their subscribers and newsstand sales in the process and have laid off all their employees. Other companies (Bud Light, Target, Gillette, etc.) have also become woke in their marketing and social activism and have seen a decline in their sales.

Thus, the phrase “Go Woke, Go Broke” has arisen in America. This phrase, however, is just a restatement of Adam Smith’s principle of the “invisible hand” in the marketplace. Consequently, it would behoove business leaders to reacquaint themselves with Adam Smith’s principles and operate their businesses with these principles in mind.

01/27/24 Oligopoly

An Oligopoly is an economic system in which the control over the supply of a commodity in the marketplace is in the hands of a small number of producers, and each one can influence prices and affect competitors. In the latter part of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we have seen the rise of Oligopolies in America, as companies merge or are purchased by other companies. In financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, Mainstream Media, Social Media, Internet Access providers, Cell Phone service providers, transportation services, consumer electronics, and consumer goods purchases, a few companies dominate their marketplace. While they have competitors, their competition outside of the oligopolistic marketplace is not significant. It is also very difficult for an outside company to break into this Oligopoly.

While an Oligopoly may provide visible benefits to consumers (in terms of lowering prices and wider availability of products and services), the negative repercussions are not as visible. Often, these Oligopolies can freeze out smaller competitors and set prices unresponsive to the Free Market, where prices are determined by competition between businesses. In the past, America has been concerned about monopolistic companies, and as these Oligopolies are not monopolies, they are not subject to monopolistic regulation. Consequently, it may be necessary to create laws to regulate Oligopolies to ensure that they do not abuse their oligopolistic powers. The difficulty is in determining what constitutes an oligopoly, what is an abuse of power within an oligopoly, and what the proper laws and regulations are for an oligopoly.

The most pernicious abuse of an Oligopoly is their involvement in politics and social policy. All large businesses become involved in politics regarding the laws and regulations that impact their business operations. However, many of these Oligopolies have become heavily involved in areas outside of the laws and regulations of their business operations, in that they are supporting social activism and politicians that have their social activism propensities. Many of these Oligopolies have Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders propensities, and many times, they shut out voices that are in opposition to their social activism propensities. Thus, they are violating the spirit of our First Amendment rights of free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, religious freedom, and, occasionally, our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Alas, the almost universal establishment of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)" departments in these Oligopolies is also a violation of our rights, as I have Chirped on "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)".

Therefore, we have the additional problem of determining what constraints should apply to Oligopolies in their social activism and political support. My personal opinion is that no company should be involved in politics and social policy, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. As for Oligopolies' involvement in government regulations, I also believe that this is pernicious, as I have examined in my Chirp on "05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship".

Thus, it is time for the American people and Congress to examine Oligopolies and their powers to determine the limits to their powers for the protection of the American people’s rights within an Oligopoly. Otherwise, we will be subsumed by Oligopolies and subject to their propensities.

01/26/24 Intersectionality

Intersectionality in mathematics is the intersection of two or more objects consisting of everything that is contained in all of the objects simultaneously. For example, in Euclidean geometry, when two lines in a plane are not parallel, their intersection is the point at which they meet. More generally, in set theory, the intersection of sets is defined to be the set of elements that belong to all of them. Unlike the Euclidean definition, this does not presume that the objects under consideration lie in a common space (a set with some added structure).

The Set Theory of Intersectionality can be illustrated by the following Venn Diagram:

Venn four ellipse construction of Intersectionality

Complications arise when you apply the Set Theory of Intersectionality to groups of people, especially when it is done for social or political purposes. The following are the various definitions of Intersectionality based on a Progressive and Conservative viewpoint of Intersectionality when applied for social or political purposes:

Intersectionality (Wikipedia) is an analytical framework for understanding how individuals' various social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Intersectionality identifies multiple factors of advantages and disadvantages. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, weight, species, and physical appearance. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empowering and oppressing. However, little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the theory of Intersectionality.

Intersectionality (Conservapedia) is a form of left-wing identity politics and cultural Marxism. Intersectionality, so named because it relies on the intersection between race, class, sex, sexual preference, religion, gender identity, and a myriad of other irrelevant characteristics, is a bigoted ideology used by leftists to make policy. It is constantly pushed by university professors, journalists, and politicians, along with the rest of the establishment. One's level of oppression is determined by the number of oppressed groups they fall into, and/or where that group falls on the oppression hierarchy. Islam is at the top, followed by the LGBT community, then "people of color," then women, Jews, and WASPs.

At the highest level of all people-oriented Intersectionality is the set of “All Human Beings”, while the core of every people-oriented intersectionality diagram is an “Individual Human Being”. This core can only be subdivided by sex—Male and Female (XY DNA or XX DNA Chromosomes), but not gender identity, as that is a higher-level element in the intersection. Thus, a more accurate diagram of people-oriented Intersectionality is as follows:

Therefore, the core of all people Intersectionality is an individual human being, and this individual human being must be considered in dealing with all social or political purposes of Intersectionality. Those who do not acknowledge this highest level or core are not properly intersecting, or they are being duplicitous for social or political purposes. We all should be wary of those who are improperly intersecting or being duplicitous, as they are not trying to ascertain the truths of Intersectionality but are trying to push an agenda upon an unknowledgeable or unsuspicious public.

You must also be concerned about the percentage of Intersectionality within the set of All Human Beings and the percentage of each element in the Intersectionality to ascertain the scale of the Intersectionality. It is also true that each person has a weighted scale of the element's importance in their person, and weighted scales are challenging to incorporate into a Venn diagram. There is also the issue of multiple intersectionality sets within the set of all human beings. The question then becomes how each Intersectionality set intersects with the other Intersectionality sets in the human beings set, and what is the weighted importance of each Intersectionality set in the set of all human beings?

The pernicious impact of Intersectionality is in categorizing a person based on their intersections. An example of this is the Intersectionality of my nationality origins. I am one-quarter English, one-quarter Scottish, one-quarter German, and one-quarter other Eastern European nationality. This has little weight on my person (other than some minor pride or embarrassment of the contributions to humanity from these nationalities), but I am one hundred percent American, in which I take great pride. But above all, I am a human being who has Natural Rights that cannot be circumscribed by any intersectionality preferential treatment or discrimination. That is what we must remember when discussing Intersectionality—that every person is a human being entitled to their Natural Rights before all else and that:

01/25/24 How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration

In a series of articles by Rob Natelson, he examines the Constitutional questions and summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings. For those interested in the Constitutional questions and state powers in resolving the open borders problem we currently face, I would recommend these articles:

Yesterday, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas sent a letter to President Biden after a Supreme Court decision that gave Border Patrol agents permission to slash state-installed razor wire at the border. Governor Abbott argued in this letter that Texas has a "Constitutional right to self-defense", explaining that the White House had failed to hold up its end of the Constitutional compact that guarantees the federal government will protect its 50 states and territories from external invasions. He noted that by not taking action to quell the influx of illegal immigrants over the past three years, President Biden has failed to meet his constitutional duty and, as such, Texas has the constitutional right to protect itself against invasion. This letter and his actions are certain to generate constitutional issues that will reverberate throughout America. This letter can be viewed here.

01/23/24 The Blade of Perseus - II

Victor Davis Hanson was a website, “The Blade of Perseus”, which I wrote about in my Chirp on "11/09/23 The Blade of Perseus". While this website is a paid subscription of $50 per year to have full access, it is worth every penny to be able to read, listen, and view his insights and wisdom on modern American society.

Some recent articles that he has written have especially intrigued me and are evidence of his knowledge, intelligence, experience, and wisdom. The first article is:

The 10 radical new rules that are changing America:

Money is a construct.
Laws are not necessarily binding anymore.
Racialism is now acceptable.
The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen.
Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children.
Hypocrisy is passe.
Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it.
McCarthyism is good.
Ignorance is preferable to knowledge.
Wokeness is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity.

He also has a series of articles on his thoughts about the current state of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in America:

I would also recommend his thoughts about The Hysterical Style in American Politics and how Biden ‘Saves’ Democracy by Destroying it, as in the 21st century, we have seen Progressives and Democrat Party leaders engage in a left-wing, hysterical style of inventing scandals and manipulating perceived tensions, as well as engaging in "Lawfare", for the purposes of political advantage.

I would highly recommend that my readers review these articles, regularly read his other thoughts on America, and support Professor Hanson by subscribing to his website.

01/22/24 Does Political Moderation Work?

Many who are not politically attuned or unaware of the repercussions of government policies on "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" often claim to be "Moderates or Centrists". This can be an emotionally satisfying response, but it often has negative repercussions that impact our "American Ideals and Ideas". In addition, Moderation or Centrism rarely solves the problems in America and often introduces additional problems. Moderation or Centrism has also been a driving force for the growth of government and increased government spending and taxes, as a little bit here and there without corresponding cutbacks equates to growth in government, spending, and taxes. Moderation or Centrism also elects politicians who do not wish to make difficult choices for fear of losing electoral support in making a difficult decision, as these politicians often wish to be all things to most voters.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to list the great moderates of history, as Moderation or Centrism tends not to promote greatness but graduations of improvements in the lot of humankind. However, Moderation or Centrism can also result in a decline in the lot of humankind when it detracts from their Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. In addition, Moderates or Centrists often believe that the changes they support will have minimal impacts on themselves or society. This belief betrays a lack of knowledge of basic economics and "The Law of Unintended Consequences", as a change in government will have both positive and negative impacts.

Consequently, Moderation or Centrism is not a long-term solution to the problems that beset America. Difficult decisions need to be made as to the future direction of America in the role of government and the scope of spending and taxes. Postponing these difficult decisions by engaging in Moderation or Centrism only postpones the inevitable reckoning of not making difficult decisions. It also shifts the burden of not making these difficult decisions to our children and grandchildren, which is a moral failing on our part.

01/21/24 Socialism and Capitalism Disputations

In a series of short eBooks from the Hoover Institute, they examine the disputations between Socialism and Capitalism. Each one of these eBooks is less than a dozen pages long (except for the first one, which is twice as long as the others), and each page is well worth the read. These eBooks are:

My new article, “Socialism and Capitalism Disputations”, is a short synopsis of the main differences between Socialism and Capitalism that these eBooks discuss. I also have a new article, “Economists You Should Know—Foundations for the Conversation On Socialism And Capitalism”.

I conclude my article on Socialism and Capitalism Disputations by warning that in utilizing democratic means to reform our American society, we must always be careful to ensure the importance of individual rights and protect the life, liberty, and property of each person. We must always carefully evaluate any socialistic proposal as to its impacts on our Liberties and Freedoms, as well as its impacts on our economy. Otherwise, we run the risk of severely impacting our society to the detriment of all Americans.

Therefore, I would highly recommend that you read these four eBooks from the Hoover Institution to properly understand the meaning of Socialism and Capitalism and to discuss the implications of Socialism intelligently.

01/20/24 Tear Down This Wall!

The Berlin Wall Speech, which was delivered by United States President Ronald Reagan in West Berlin on June 12, 1987, is commonly known by a key line from the middle part: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The full paragraph from this speech was:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” - Ronald Reagan

The speech drew controversy within the Reagan administration, with several senior staffers and aides advising against the phrase, saying anything that might cause further East-West tensions or potential embarrassment to Gorbachev, with whom President Reagan had built a good relationship, should be omitted. American officials in West Germany and presidential speechwriters, including Peter Robinson, thought otherwise. According to an account by Robinson, he traveled to West Germany to inspect potential speech venues and gained an overall sense that the majority of West Berliners opposed the wall. Despite getting little support for suggesting Reagan demand the removal of the wall, Robinson kept the phrase in the speech text. On Monday, May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential", and Deputy U.S. National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in."

And leave it in, he did, to the great effect of the people of Berlin and East and West Germany. An effect that spread across the world, as it signified the final collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and eventually the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan was a great communicator in that he said what he thought and believed, rather unlike other politicians who say what they think you want to hear and couch their statements in vapid language to disguise their true intentions. On many other issues that faced America during his Presidency, Ronald Reagan often utilized the same approach of saying what he thought and believed.

Today, we face a slate of politicians who will not say what they mean and often lie about their intentions. They often use polls and focus groups, as well as political consultants, to determine what they will say. As such, there is “no truth to power” in what they express, and, indeed, their statements are often “go along to get along”. Alas, they also often engage in "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those with whom they disagree, in which they pit one group of Americans against another group of Americans. Consequently, the bitter hyper-partisanship we have in America continues and deepens.

Today, most politicians wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". However, there is one politician who is not engaged in these political rhetorical games but is instead saying what he thinks and believes. This politician is Vivek Ramaswamy, who was an entrepreneur before he began his 2024 Presidential Campaign. You may not agree with what he says, but you can clearly understand what he means. While I do not believe that Vivek Ramaswamy is yet qualified to be President of the United States, I do believe that he shows promise to eventually rise to the top in political leadership. He may also be the best person to be Vice-President, as a person who would clearly articulate the core issues in America and illuminate the choices of the future path of America, as Ronald Reagan did when he counseled General Secretary Gorbachev to tear down this wall.

01/19/24 Show-and-Tell

Show-and-Tell is a game that children engage in, but it is also an electioneering game that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders engage in. It is a Democrat Party game of style in their electioneering rather than of substance of their policies. The problems that beset America are problems of substance, but the Democrats do not address the substance but instead concentrate on a façade of lofty words to disguise the harmful deeds of their policies. This, along with their tactics of fearmongering and demonization, as I have written in my Chirp on "08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization", is the basis of their electioneering.

Thus, the Democrat candidates are often nominated based on their style rather than their substance on the issues. This gives them an appearance of concern for the issues and problems in America, but it does not provide any concrete solutions to these issues and problems. It is as if they are trying to disguise their solutions from a fear that the American electorate may reject their solutions (which is probably a rational fear). After winning an election, the Democrat Party candidate will then attempt to implement policies that do not comport with their lofty rhetoric and are often detrimental to America. Therefore, the Democrat Party candidates are engaged in lofty words while they perpetuate disreputable deeds.

America has seen many botches in the last few years under Democrat Party leadership. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and the reaction to Hamas Terrorism in Israel, and on the National stage, the negative impacts of their economic policies on the economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problems, to gas price increases, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, to the Suppressions of Free Speech and the Weaponization of Government, and to a host of other issues we have seen many botches. All these botches are the result of the policies of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and at the same time, they try to disguise these problems with a façade of words. In this, they are contemptible for not addressing and correcting these problems.

Consequently, they engage in a show-and-tell without substance when electioneering, but their substance when governing has been harmful to America.

01/18/24 Depressive Personality Disorder

Aaron Beck of the Beck Institute is the creator of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and he believes that a depressed person has three basic storylines: 1.) I’m a terrible person, 2.) the world is a terrible place, and 3.) the future is bleak. Having had bouts of depression in my past, I can attest to the truth of these storylines for depressed persons.

Michael Shellenberger is an Environmental activist who writes about politics, the environment, climate change, and nuclear power. He has commented that the advocates of Global Climate Change believe that humankind is destroying the planet, the future is bleak, and the world is failing. Hence, they share the common storyline of a depressed person in that it is a collective rather than an individual depression.

My own perception of Progressives/Leftists activists is that they share this storyline, in that they are always claiming that their opponents are terrible people, that the world is a terrible place to live in and needs to be put right, and that the future will be bleak if their policy prescriptions are not implemented.

Thus, using the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy criteria of a depressed person, we can conclude that Progressives/Leftists suffer from a form of depression. Being a depressed person leads you to make decisions that are not reality-based, and often, these decisions are not to your benefit. As such, we need to be wary of their policy prescriptions as they will often not be to our benefit, and they are not reality-based. Consequently, do not be taken in by their pronouncements and be leery of all their policy prescriptions, as they come from a depressed person’s perspective.

01/17/24 Totalitarian Evil: Crimes, Terror, Repression

In the 1997 book, “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Margolin, and several other European academics, the authors document a history of political repression by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, and deaths in labor camps and artificially created famines.

My new article, “Totalitarian Evil: Crimes, Terror, Repression”, is a brief examination of the scope and impacts of these totalitarian evils that have a proven record of failure and that in these failures, they have committed crimes against humanity.

01/16/24 Who Are the “Privileged”

As an addendum to my Chirp on “01/15/24 CRT, DEI, and ESG as Destructive Forces”, I have discovered that John Hopkins recently sent out a list of people automatically guilty of "privilege", whether they know it or not. This message was emailed directly to employees from the DEI Office. Those so labeled as “Privileged” are:

Males
Whites
Christians
Mid-aged people
Able-bodied people
Middle & owning class people
English-speaking people

When this email became publicly known, they were forced to withdraw this email after a public outcry. However, in sending this email, they disclosed the criteria that they were utilizing for DEI implementation at Johns Hopkins, which I suspect is the criteria for all DEI implementations in America. In doing so, they revealed a discriminatory criterion not based on a person’s knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, abilities, and talents. Thus, they are not meritocracy-based criteria, which is contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas". Indeed, they are a form of "Socialism" that has always proved to be unworkable and is harmful to all the persons who have to live within these criteria.

01/15/24 CRT, DEI, and ESG as Destructive Forces

In the last several years, we have seen three forces arise that are destructive to our Western traditions, as I have written in my Chips of “01/04/24 Western Culture” and “01/05/24 The War on the West”. The three largest forces are "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)".

CRT, DEI, and ESG are forces that involve the deconstruction of Western traditions that threaten the cohesion of society and civilization. CRT, DEI, and ESG are forces of racism, discrimination, and opposition to "Capitalism and Free Markets". CRT views all of society under the prism of race and categorizes a person based on their race, ordering them from the most oppressive to the most oppressed. DEI, while sounding lofty in its goals, requires that you discriminate against some people to favor other people rather than utilize meritocracy to evaluate a person. Much of this DEI discrimination is based on the "Intersectionality" of a person, with little regard to the knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills, and abilities of a person. ESG does not reward the success of businesses in providing goods and services at an affordable cost, nor effective and efficient governmental policies, but uses "Progressives/Leftists" social criteria to determine the successes of a business/government.

In this, CRT, DEI, and ESG deconstruct society on an incomplete and artificial criterion. It is also a deconstruction without constructivism, which leads to nothing but the destruction of our society. When they try to reconstruct, their reconstructions are often "Socialism" or utopian based and do not account for human nature or economics. As such:

When their failures become evident, they often claim that the failure was based on Racism or they were victims of an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society" or "White Privilege". This was most recently seen in the backlash to recent Congressional testimony by the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT on anti-Semitism on their campuses. After the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and Penn, they trotted out the usual excuses for their failure. However, as Konstantin Kisin has said in his article about Claudine Gay, who resigned as the President of Harvard:

“So here is the truth: we must return to pursuing the goal of a colour-blind society immediately. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. All discrimination is wrong. And because it is wrong, it will create precisely the kind of resentment that Claudine Gay is now facing. She is seen as the standard-bearer of the DEI industry and is being treated as such by people who have had enough.

All of us must be treated on the content of our character. When we refuse to follow this principle, we hurt everyone: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish. A healthy society relies on the equal treatment of all individuals. The fact that we have to say this out loud in 2024 is a sign of how far we’ve fallen.”

And fallen we have. CRT, DEI, and ESG are antithetical to our Western traditions and must be actively opposed and ended. Otherwise, Western society will collapse, and all the human progress that Western tradition has achieved will be negated.

01/14/24 Constrained or Unconstrained Human Nature

It has been suggested that partisanship in today’s America is a result of a Constrained and Unconstrained vision of human nature, as examined by Thomas Sowell in his book “A Conflict of Visions”.

Progressives/Leftists is an Unconstrained vision that believes that human nature is malleable and can be improved by governmental actions and societal pressures, and that appealing to the better nature of a person will accomplish this improvement. They also believe that social problems and issues can be resolved through governmental actions and the world can be made a better place by governmental actions. Thus, they believe in a big government that acts for the greater good, as I have defined as the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", and that the Natural Rights of the individual should be circumscribed to the needs of society.

Conservatives is a Constrained vision that believes that human nature is determined by human evolution and that people will act in their own best interests. They also believe that governmental and societal pressures on human actions have limited effects and that these societal and government pressures should only be utilized to constrain a person to lawful actions that do not impinge on the Natural Rights of a person. They also believe that social problems are inherent in human nature and are uncorrectable through governmental actions. Thus, they believe in a limited government that only acts on the common good, as I have defined as the "Greater Good versus the Common Good," which preserves the natural rights of the individual.

Moderates have a vision of human nature that believes that human nature can be somewhat improved by limited governmental actions and societal pressures and that society can be improved by limited governmental actions. As such, they believe that it is possible to pick and choose from policy positions of both Progressives and Conservatives to achieve a better society. Therefore, Moderates want a government that addresses the common good and the major issues and concerns that will improve society and for the government to be as large as necessary to achieve the common good and to address important social policies. The difficulty of moderation is the determination of what the major societal issues and concerns are and how much governmental actions are required to address these problems without significantly impacting the natural rights of a person.

It is this dichotomy of beliefs that has pitted one group of Americans against another group. Thus, we have a conflict of visions that leads to the bitter partisanship that we see today. Progressives want big government to solve the issues and concerns facing Americans, while Conservates want limited government that allows individuals to resolve these issues and concerns, and Moderates want some of both for the benefit of society. Neither of these sides wishes to concede to the other side as they believe that their vision is correct, and to concede to the other side is to abandon their vision of human nature and governance.

01/13/24 Constitutional Supremacy

Today, we have seen many challenges to the supremacy of the Constitution from many politicians of the local, State, and Federal governments. While many such challenges may be justified, some are in direct opposition to Constitutional Supremacy as defined in the Constitution:

Legal challenges, adjudicated by the Judiciary, are proper and necessary when the Federal government oversteps its bounds. However, many of these challenges are in direct contradiction to the supremacy of the Constitution as the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government, which also restricts the Federal Government to these powers. The Founding Fathers clearly articulated the limits of the federal government by the passage of the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, no local or state government, nor the three branches of the Federal government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) may violate the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in today’s government, violations of the Constitution abound. Much sophistry is utilized to justify these actions, but sophistry in governance often leads to anarchy. Politicians engaged in these challenges and sophistry are also in violation of their Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. As such, they are deserving of impeachment and removal from office and barred from serving in any office of trust at all levels of government.

Much of this has occurred because politicians have corrupted the Judiciary by appointing judges who will make decisions based on politics rather than the law, who then engage in sophistry to justify their political decisions under the law. Such judges that engage in political decisions and sophistry are also in violation of their Oath of Office to “I, (NAME) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (TITLE) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” As such, they are also deserving of impeachment and removal from office and barred from serving in any office of trust at all levels of government.

However, I do not expect that this impeachment will happen as politicians are very good at protecting their power and privileges. Also, if impeachment is done injudiciously, it could lead to chaos in government. What needs to be done is for the electorate to turn out of office those politicians that violate the Oath of Office and for judges to face more strict scrutiny, before confirmation, on their philosophy in making judicial decisions (and not just on what they say but what they have said and done in the past). Again, I do not expect that this will happen, as the American electorate is not engaged in its electoral decisions by Constitutional concerns, and politicians want judges who will rule based on their predilections.

Consequently, we can expect that this situation will continue to occur, and our Constitution will continue to lose its supremacy.

01/12/24 Our Republic

As the Founding Fathers were departing the Pennsylvania State House at the close of the Constitutional Convention, one of the bystanders shouted a question to Benjamin Franklin:

Bystander - 'Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?' Franklin - 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangers of a Democracy and the inherent instability of democracies. They knew that there were significant differences between a Republic and a Democracy in the governance of the people. They knew that democracies, through mob passions, would often trample upon minority rights, which often led to civil strife and civil wars that ended the democracy. They knew that democracies would tax and spend (or not spend) on the basis of popularity rather than necessity, which often led to economic hardships and an economic collapse of the democracy. They knew this from their studies on the histories of Democracies and Republics. They, therefore, were careful to institute a Republic rather than a Democracy for America.

01/11/24 Equal Justice for All - II

Once again, the Justice Department announced that they would pursue prosecutions against those that were involved in the January 6, 2021 “Insurrection”, as I have written about my collection of "Insurrection". This time, the Justice Department will be charging people who were present at the Capitol building but did not engage in any lawlessness except for simply walking onto restricted areas of the Capitol grounds.

This is in contrast with the lack of prosecutions for the people who engaged in the Summer of Riots in 2020, in which the rioting and looting cost many more lives and much more property destruction and damage, as well as extensive looting then that which occurred at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. This summer of riots mob actions of murders, assaults, arsons, and lootings in many cities was well past the limits of a peaceable assembly to protest injustices in America. They were an insurrection against the legal and lawful authority of the State and local governments and, indeed, were directed at the legal and lawful authority of the Federal government. These rioters no longer wish to correct injustices but to overturn our republican government through mob rule.

It has become apparent that in the Biden Administration if you commit “Insurrections” in support of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders predilections, you will face little consequences, but if you commit “Insurrections” in support of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders predilections, you will face the full weight of the law. This is not limited to “Insurrections” but can also be seen in the threats of prosecutions of anyone who would oppose Democrat policy positions, from School Board meetings to other public policy gatherings in that if you would vigorously protest their predilections you are often threatened with prosecutions. This is in addition to the "Lawfare" that they are engaged in, as I have Chirped on "09/19/23 Lawfare".

Consequently, these actions by the Biden Administration are a direct threat to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". Such actions by the Biden Administration demonstrate that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". Thus, it is the Biden Administration that is in Insurrection against the Constitution of the United States.

01/10/24 Equal Justice for All - I

Hunter Biden defied a Congressional subpoena to testify about his and his family’s financial involvement with foreign nationals, which is relevant to the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry as well as other Congressional Committees’ oversight investigations. As a result, the House of Representatives is considering a resolution to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress:

“Resolved, That Robert Hunter Biden shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.

Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the report of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, detailing the refusal of Robert Hunter Biden to appear for a deposition before the Committee on Oversight and Accountability as directed by subpoena, to an appropriate United States attorney, to the end that Mr. Biden be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.”

The particulars of his lack of compliance are:

“On December 13, 2023, Robert Hunter Biden failed to comply with deposition subpoenas issued by the Committees on Oversight and Accountability and the Judiciary for testimony relevant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the Committees’ oversight investigations. Instead, Mr. Biden opted to read a short, prepared statement in front of the Capitol. Accordingly, Mr. Biden has violated federal law, and must be held in contempt of Congress. Mr. Biden’s testimony is a critical component of the impeachment inquiry into, among other things, whether Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as Vice President and/or President: (1) took any official action or effected any change in government policy because of money or other things of value provided to himself or his family; (2) abused his office of public trust by providing foreign interests with access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or him; or (3) abused his office of public trust by knowingly participating in a scheme to enrich himself or his family by giving foreign interests the impression that they would receive access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or him.

[...]

The Oversight and Accountability Committee, with the other investigating committees, has accumulated significant evidence suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated in, and profited from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, about which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden during his deposition. Mr. Biden’s decision to defy the Committees’ subpoenas and deliver prepared remarks prevents the Committee from carrying out its Constitutional oversight function and its impeachment inquiry. Mr. Biden’s refusal to comply with the Committees’ subpoenas is a criminal act. It constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution as prescribed by law.”

Whether the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution will carry out their duties and responsibilities and pursue prosecution is another matter. If not, then there will be no equal justice in America, as the Rule of Law will not apply to the Biden family.

01/09/24 Virtual Signaling without Virtue

With the cries throughout the world for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas conflict and a pause for humanitarian aid for the Palestine people, we have another example of virtual signaling without virtue. While calls for a cease-fire and peace sound virtuous, it should always be remembered that:

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

As there is no disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice with Israel amongst Hamas and the Palestine people, there is no virtue in calling for peace between the two sides. It is equivalent to calling for peace with Germany and Japan before World War II, in which peace would allow the German Nazis and Japanese Imperialists to continue their aggressions and murderous ways.

There have also been many calls for a two-state solution to the current crisis in Israel. However, this is nothing but a fable and virtual signaling. A fable in that you cannot have a two-state solution in which one state is dedicated to the eradication of the other state. It is not only the Hamas and the Palestine leadership that is dedicated to the eradication of Israel, but also a vast majority of the Palestine people also wish to eradicate Israel. Thus, those that call for a two-state solution are only virtue signaling, as the virtue of a two-state solution where one state is dedicated to the eradication of another state is not a virtue, but instead, it is a path to more violence against Israel.

The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is nothing but a phrase for the elimination of Israel, for Israel is totally between the river and the sea. As it is used in the slogan, the word “free” is either an adjective or an adverb. It modifies either a condition or an action. Dictionaries offer us several definitions of “free” when used. If it is used as an adjective, it can refer to a right to self-governance, suggesting an absence of constraints, restrictions, or controls. When used as an adverb, it can mean the removal of an obstruction or of an unwanted feature. As Hamas and the Palestine people have never (along with other mid-East Arab states) been dedicated to self-government and the individual rights of its populace, we can only conclude that the word “free” in this phrase means the removal of Israel.

The call for humanitarian aid to the Palestine people is also virtual signaling, as much of this humanitarian aid is directed into Hamas coffers, which is then utilized for terrorism purposes. Thus, humanitarian aid to the Palestine people is allowing them to continue their attempts to eradicate Israel. The Palestine people must bear the burden of the Hamas terrorists they supported and allowed to operate in their midst, and until Hamas is eliminated and the Palestine people adopt the meaning of free as self-government and the individual rights of its populace, and peaceful coexistence with Israel, humanitarian aid is counterproductive to peace.

For those who claim the situation in the Hamas-Israel conflict is complex, I am reminded of the thoughts of the famed Rabbi Jonathan Saks:

“The Israeli Hamas conflict is not complex. It's very simple: One side wants the other side dead.” - Rabbi Saks

When one side wants the other side dead, it is not virtuous to support the side that wants the other side dead. Thus, calling for a cease-fire, a two-state solution, and humanitarian aid for the Palestine people is not virtuous and, indeed, it is immoral.

01/08/24 Laws of War

As I have written in my Chirp on "09/01/19 War is Hell!", war is hell but often an unavoidable hell. In the course of the history of warfare, we have developed some rules of war to constrain the war to the combatants of the war. Colleterial damage and innocent casualties will be incurred in a war, but as a result of the concept of Just war theory as a doctrine of war, the colleterial damage and innocent casualties are to be minimized.

The Law of War is the component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello). Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law. Among other issues, modern laws of war address the declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality, and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering. The law of war is considered distinct from other bodies of law—such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict—which may provide additional legal limits to the conduct or justification of war.

These Laws of War are violated by Hamas daily. Such protocols as requiring combatants to wear uniforms, not to blend in with civilians, not to use them as shields, not to murder noncombatants, not to rape them, not to mutilate them, and not to execute civilians without trial have all been violated by Hamas. Consequently, Hamas is waging an unjust and immoral war, and anyone who supports them in any manner is supporting unjust war and immorality. As I have written in several of my Chirps, many of the supporters of Hamas are also exhibiting Anti-Semitism, which is in itself immoral. Thus, the supporters of Hamas are supporting unjust wars and immorality.

It is well past time that a people dedicated to justice and morality stand up to the supporters of Hamas and ostracize them from society. In no case should the supporters of Hamas be allowed in a position of authority or governance, as this institutes injustice and immorality. This ostracization is especially important for those who are involved in government, education, entertainment, sports, and business leaders, as they are influencers of our youth and society. Without ostracization, our society will no longer be a "A Civil Society" dedicated to our "American Ideals and Ideas", and, indeed, we will become corrupt of our values, which will result in our being relegated to the dustbin of history.

01/07/24 Why They Hate Us (in Their Own Words)

During 2014-2016, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) published a monthly magazine called Dabiq. The glossy publication was high in quality and was used to communicate with the world. In issue 15, Dabiq explained, in a short article, why they fight us. While there is no doubt that this is an extremist viewpoint in the Islamic world, it is, unfortunately, a viewpoint shared by millions of Muslims. Until this viewpoint is fully contained or eradicated, we will continue to see Islamic Terrorism throughout the world. While it is probably not possible to contain or eradicate Islamic extremism, a good start would be the removal of radical Imans who preach hate and extremism against non-Muslims. Thus, we must wage war on radical Islam and the Imans who preach for it. Otherwise, Islamic Terrorism shall plague us throughout the 21st century. This article can be read on my website at Why They Hate Us (In Their Own Words).

01/06/24 Higher Education Reforms

In my articles on "Indoctrination versus Education" and “College and University Education”, I lament the current state of higher education in the world. This was fully on display in the recent Congressional testimony by the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT on anti-Semitism on their campuses. Their answers (or lack thereof) displayed the hypocrisy of the leaders of these institutions with checkered records on free expression, suddenly claiming their institutional commitments to free speech prevented them from cracking down on anti-Semitic speech.

Their adherence to "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", "Critical Race Theory (CRT)", and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", also shows a lack of commitment to the ideals and ideas of University and College education that Western culture spawned. Indeed, they seem to be antithetical to anything that is rooted in Western culture and, indeed, seem to be engaged in a war on the West as I have written in my Chirp on “01/05/24 The War on the West”.

Three recent articles about their testimony highlight the problems in modern University and College education:

“Dissolve the Universities?” By Helen Dale
“FIRE to Congress, University Presidents: Don’t expand censorship. End it.—No hypocrisy. No double standards.” by Nico Perrino
“Reverse Speech Codes Aren't the Answer—Fighting Campus Hate and Anti-Semitism at the Roots of the Problem” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

I would suggest that we take to heart the comments in these articles and begin the process of reforming our Universities and Colleges to our Western cultural ideals and ideas on a University and College education. Until this reform is accomplished, our universities and colleges will not achieve their purposes, and they will be unworthy of the esteem that they have or desire.

Note – This attitude and approach to educating our youth is also seeping down to K-12 education and needs to stop forthwith.

01/05/24 The War on the West

In the last several decades, we have seen a war on Western ideals and ideas. Do not be confused by the lofty words and political rhetoric of those engaged in this war, as it is a war to fundamentally transform Western civilization. Those who would wage war on the West have many criticisms of the West (some justifiable), but they are woefully short on practical solutions to these problems. Their solutions are often socialistic or utopian ideal-based and do not account for the dark side of human nature but instead depend on the goodwill of human nature. Such an ideal and dependence is doomed to failure as:

This War on the West is a war against Republicanism, Judeo-Christian Religion, Capitalism and Free Markets, and the Culture of the West. In the introduction to the book by Douglas Murray, The War on the West, his first paragraph states:

“In recent years it has become clear that there is a war going on: a war on the west. This is not like earlier wars, where armies clash and victors are declared. It is a cultural war, and it is being raged remorselessly against all the roots of Western tradition and against everything good that the Western tradition has produced.”

And the Western tradition has produced much good, such as:

The right to life, and the individual worth and dignity of all people.
The preservation of the Natural Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties of all persons.
The right to property and the pursuit of happiness.
The right to equality of opportunity in the utilization of your intellect, talents, skills, and abilities.
The right to be treated equally under the law.
The right to think, speak, and publish whatever you wish.
The right to peaceably associate with whomever you wish.
The right to criticize and critique any person, organization, or government without fear of repression or despotism.
The right to practice your religion or non-religion without fear or intimidation.
The right to defend yourself, your family, and your community by any means necessary against anyone, organization, or government who would deprive you of your natural rights, freedoms, and liberties.

It can be reasonably said that whoever would violate any one of these rights violates all these rights, as these individual rights cannot exist without all of them existing. It is also true that:

“Liberty is to choose the what and how in exercising your Natural Rights, and Freedom is the absence of repression before, during, or after exercising your Natural Rights.” - Mark Dawson

Thus, anyone who would curtail or abrogate any of these Western traditions is engaged in a War on the West. Much of this War on the West is a war on the white race, as they assert that white people are inherently racist and oppressive to non-whites. While some of this is historically true, the twentieth century saw much of this crumble. It is also historically true that other races were also racist and oppressive to those not of their race. Thus, this historical guilt of racism and oppression is a shared guilt of all humans and all cultures and societies. Consequently, historical guilt is not that important, except for the purposes of learning from and not repeating the ill lessons of history. What is important is how we conduct ourselves in the present and future.

Much of this War on the West is being conducted by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as a means to obtain and retain power to implement their political goals and policy agendas. It is also being conducted by many white people to assuage their white guilt from the sins of their forefathers. But such assuaging is also a rejection of the Western tradition, in that in the Western tradition, the sins of the father are not to be invested upon the son. Each person should be judged by their own words and deeds and not be burdened by the guilt of their family members or by their association with others.

It is a War upon the West that must be lost by those who would wage it, and the defeated must be vanquished to ensure that it shall not fester and thrive again. Without doing so, we shall see the crumbling of Western civilization into despotism and anarchy and the repression and oppression of the individual rights of all persons throughout the world.

Note – for more on these Western traditions, I would direct you to my articles on "A Civil Society", "American Ideals and Ideas", "Aspects of Freedom", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and “How Christianity Transformed the World”.

01/04/24 Western Culture

All cultures are not equal, and all cultures have contributed to the advancement of humankind. However, one culture has contributed more, indeed much more, than other cultures to the advancement of humankind. This is the Western culture, and primarily, it has been accomplished by dead white men.

From the ancient Greeks to modern Americans, the Western culture has been primarily responsible for the advances of humankind in all spheres of Human interactions. From politics, economics, science and technology, medicine, the fine arts and music, literature, and many other spheres, Western culture has contributed much more than other cultures to the advancement of humankind. This is not said to denigrate any other culture, as other cultures have contributed to the advancement of humankind, but to explain that Western culture has done far more than any other culture to improve the lot of humans.

In weighing the benefits and harms of Western culture, it can be determined that Western culture has contributed much more positivity than negativity to the advancement of humankind. Those who try to denigrate Western culture because of the negativities often do not recognize the great positivity of Western culture. When evaluating any culture, it is necessary to look at both the good and the bad and to weigh the good and bad to determine the impact of a culture on humankind. We should also learn from the mistakes of every culture and try not to repeat the errors of the past, but we should also try to build upon the good of every culture for the advancement of humankind.

Much of Western culture has been the result of the adoption of the Christian religion by Western culture, as I have examined in my article “How Christianity Transformed the World”. Western culture has also incorporated the best of other cultures to try to improve itself. Thus, Western culture has not been exclusive of other cultures but indeed has built itself upon other cultures. Therefore, cultural appropriation of the good of other cultures has been to the benefit of Western culture, while the rejection of the bad of other cultures is also good for Western culture.

Those who would wage war on the West have many criticisms of the West. Some are justifiable, but they are woefully short on practical solutions to these problems. Their solutions are often "Socialism" or utopian based, and a rejection of "Capitalism and Free Markets", which do not account for human nature. Consequently, as I have often said:

Many of socialism's advocates claim that socialism has never been implemented in the right manner, to which I have responded that “It is not possible to do the wrong thing rightly, as no wrong thing can be done rightly.” Thus, their solutions to the problems of Western culture will not improve Western culture and may lead to the destruction of Western culture. Such destruction will lead to the decay or reversal of the advancement of humankind, for which Western culture has been largely responsible.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others, I would say that Western culture was the worst culture in history, except for all the others. As such, to those that denigrate Western culture, I would respond, “What a load of crap!”

01/03/24 Knowledge of History

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." - Edmund Burke

Those who do not know history are prone to making judgments about current events that have little basis in the facts and truths of history. Yet knowledge of history is necessary to make informed judgments about current events to determine the proper course for today and the future.

As Douglas Murray has written in his book, The War on the West:

“First, it runs on the presumption that knowledge of Western history inside the West is uniquely lacking; Westerners have become increasingly unaware of what is true and what is not about their own past. Second, it runs on the presumption—again also true—that almost nobody in the West has any knowledge of what countries such as China have done throughout history or are doing today.”

As well as:

“The only thing that modern Western populations are more ignorant about than their own history is the history of other peoples outside the West. Yet such knowledge is surely a prerequisite to be able to arrive at any moral judgments.”

In getting to know history, it is important to separate the myths from the facts. Myths of history abound today, as they are useful to sway public opinion to achieve a political goal. Facts and truths about history often contradict the myths and lead you to a different conclusion about historical events. Therefore, the problem is not only a lack of knowledge about history but also an abundance of incorrect knowledge of history. Or, as Mark Twain has said:

“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.” - Mark Twain

Some of these myths and facts of history I have examined in my section on “History” within this website.

Some have claimed that the advances of modern science and technology have changed the application of historical lessons to our modern society. But as the esteemed Professor J. Rufus Fears has stated in The Great Courses on “The World Was Never the Same: Events That Changed History”:

“There are those who believe that Science and Technology have negated the importance of history, that through Science and Technology, humans had moved to a new dimension where the lessons have of history have no meaning. This course shows how false that view is. human nature does not change. Men and women still have the same intellect and the same passions they did in the Babylonia of Hammurabi and the Florence of Dante. As long as human nature remains the same, history will be our best guide to life. The aim of this course is to make us think historically: to use the lessons of the pass to make decisions in the present and to plan for the future.”

For as long as human nature remains the same, the lessons from history are still applicable. To those who wish to transform human nature for the better, I would say that millions of years of human evolution cannot be redone in a few decades, and whenever it has been tried (i.e., Communism and Socialism), it has failed and brought much suffering and misery on the people who it was imposed upon.

Thus, it is important to know and understand history to ferret out the myths from the truths of history, to make better decisions in the present, and to plan properly for the future.

01/02/24 A Core Issue Person

This month’s Book It selections are three thought-provoking books by Douglas Murray, a British author and political commentator. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy has said of Murray, "Whether one agrees with him or not," he is "one of the most important public intellectuals today." While often controversial in his writings, he is always intellectual and thought-provoking. He often goes beyond the talking points of his critics and examines the core issues of what is bedeviling our society. As I am myself a core issue person, I have commented in my Chirps and Articles on the core issues he illuminates. Therefore, having recently read three of his books and found them to be enjoyable and thought-provoking read, I have decided to make them this month’s Book It selections.

01/01/24 How Christianity Transformed the World

As we have finished celebrating Christmas is important to reflect on how Christianity impacted the world. Wars, Oppressions, Slavery, Injustice, Degradation, Thefts, Murders, Rapes, Disease, Poverty, Destruction, and other harsh living conditions were the lot of the common man throughout history. With the advent and establishment of Christianity, this all began to change. In no other part of the world, except Christendom, was there any hope of change for the betterment of the common man. Christianity changed all that by its theology of the individual worth and dignity of all people. Christianity established that Human rights were a gift from God and could not be abrogated by any government, organization, or person, or as the Declaration of Independence stated:

In no other part of the world was this recognized as integral to the individual human being. Christianity was responsible for bringing these truths to light and establishing them as a basic tenet for all persons. This tenet changes the world for the better. The journey took two millennia to get us to where we are today, with several false starts, wrong turns, dead ends, and occasion retreats before much progress was made. My new article, “How Christianity Transformed the World” examines the impacts of Christianity upon the world.

12/04/23 A Respite

I am due to have my left knee replaced tomorrow due to my osteoarthritis, and my surgeon has informed me that during the first two weeks, I will be on strong pain relief medicine, and in the next few weeks, I will be in much discomfort. As such, I have decided to take a few weeks off from my Chirps and Article writings.

I, therefore, would wish everyone a happy holiday season. I also promise that ‘I Shall Return’ to my writing after I recover from my surgery.

12/03/23 How Dare You!

The war on the West is very real and very dangerous. Western values, especially Christian values, are under constant attack from both within and outside the Western world. As I have written in my Chirps of "12/01/23 How Christianity Transformed the World", the Western World has been primarily responsible for the advancement of the individual worth and dignity of all persons and for the betterment of the common man. Although this advancement was not without its faults and setbacks, it did advance humankind as no other religion or civilization did, as I have written in my article How Christianity Transformed the World.

Thus, it can be said to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Western values are the worst in the world, except for all the other world’s values.” In the last few decades, we have seen a significant increase in attacks on the Western world’s values for its actual and perceived faults without an acknowledgment of its benefits to humankind. However, no current or historical civilization has been without its faults, but Western civilization has been by far the greatest positive influence in the advancement of humankind.

Much of these attacks have been upon Christianity, as a strong Christian faith precludes tearing down Christian values and Western civilization. These attacks have resulted in a decline in Christian faith in the Western world, as I have chirped on"12/02/23 The Decline of Christian Faith and Values". Such a decline bodes ill for the advancement of humankind and perhaps a retreat into barbarism. This has been pointed out by Bill Maher in his monolog on The War on the West and in a book by Douglas Murray, The War on the West.

Konstantin Kisin is a Russian-British satirist, author, political commentator, and co-host (with Francis Foster) of the Triggernometry podcast. Kisin has written for a number of publications, including Quillette, The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph, and Standpoint, on issues relating to tech censorship, woke culture, comedy, and culture war topics in the past but currently publishes articles on these subjects on his website. With intelligence and humor, he comments on current events, and in a recent video, Konstantin Kisin’s full speech to world leaders at Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Conference 2023, he stated:

“There are some people whose brains have been broken. To them our past is abominable and our future is one of managed decline. My message is simple. How Dare You!? You will not steal my son’s future with empty words”. - Konstantin Kisin

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish. This thirteen-minute video is a good encapsulation of the attacks on Western values, and it is well worth the time to view as well as your time to think about what he said.

To those who constantly criticize, denigrate, or want to fundamentally change the West, I would respond, “How Dare You!” and I will continue to oppose your efforts to ensure the continued advancement of humankind.

12/02/23 The Decline of Christian Faith and Values

Today, in America and in other parts of Christendom, we are seeing a decline in Christian faith and ideals in the world. This bodes ill for the future advancement of humankind, and it bespeaks the possible increase of oppressive governments in the world. Indeed, we have seen an increase of oppression in the government actions within Christendom, with the most common being in the attempts to restrict the Liberties and Freedoms of thought, speech, association, press, and the practice of religious faiths, as well as constrict the concepts of “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”. We have also seen an increase in the weaponization of government against those who would disagree with government actions, as I have written in my collected Chirps on “The Weaponization of Government”. All such restrictions and constrictions fly in the face of our Christian values, as I have written in my article “How Christianity Transformed the World”.

In many of my Chirps and Articles, I have pointed out that the concepts and practices of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Identity Politics, Wokeness, Equity and Equality, Social Engineering, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good are antithetical to the Christian theology of the individual worth and dignity of all people, as I have Chirped on “11/07/23 The Divine Sovereign Individual”. These concepts and practices are most often the words and deeds utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to obtain their political goals and policy agendas. Thus, they are engaging in unchristian-like behaviors and sowing disharmony and chaos in our society and governance.

Alas, until we return to our beliefs in Christian values and uphold them in our society and governance, we shall see more disharmony, oppression, and chaos in America and the world, to the detriment of all Americans and the freedom-loving peoples of the world. This decline of Christian faith and values will also result in the atrophy of the advancement of humankind and an increase of barbarianism in the world.

12/01/23 How Christianity Transformed the World

Wars, Oppressions, Slavery, Injustice, Degradation, Theft, Murder, Rape, Disease, Poverty, Destruction, and other harsh living conditions were the lot of the common man throughout history. With the advent and establishment of Christianity, this all began to change. In no other part of the world, except Christendom, was there any hope of change for the betterment of the common man. Christianity changed all that by its theology of the individual worth and dignity of all persons. Christianity established that Human rights were a gift from God and could not be abrogated by any government, organization, or person, or as the Declaration of Independence stated:

In no other part of the world were these truths recognized as integral to the individual human being and incorporated into governing laws. Christianity was responsible for bringing these truths to light and establishing them as a basic tenet for all persons. This tenet changed the world for the better, as I have examined in my article How Christianity Transformed the World.

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ this month, the December Book It selection recommends three books that examine the importance of Christendom to the world, how it has positively impacted civilization, and how the abandonment of Christian ideals has been detrimental to our modern world.

11/30/23 Christian Wars

Widespread war is not peculiar to Christianity, as it has always been practiced by all religions in human history. What is peculiar about Christian wars is that the teachings of Christ would seem to preclude engaging in wars or violence, as he commanded:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ but I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

So why is it that Christendom has engaged in so many wars?

The simple answer is that humans are fallible and that they are often motivated by other concerns rather than Christian morality. Many Christian leaders looked to the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles to justify what they wished to do rather than for guidance on what they should do. Thus, we have Christian wars.

It is also because we have the concept of Just war theory as a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists, and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum ("right to go to war") and jus in bello ("right conduct in war"). The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory (jus post bellum) dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

Many wars have been fought within Christendom from its ascent to the present. Among those major wars were the Crusades (1095–1291), the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the American Revolution (1775–1783), the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), the American Civil War (1861–1865), World War I (1914–1918), and World War II (1939–1945), along with the European wars of religion of the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. Emperors, Kings, Princes, Popes, and other leaders and religious extremists have often claimed that their wars were just wars, but the real question is, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is a just war, but who shall decide what is a just war?".

We can certainly say that the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and World War II were just wars, as they were fought to reestablish the Natural Rights of individuals against oppression. The other Christian Wars have more ambiguity in their justification. Thus, we can condemn these wars as not being just, but we cannot condemn Christianity if it is an unjust war. However, we should condemn those who led Christians into an unjust war. The question is, should we condemn Christianity for engaging in any war? Unfortunately, evil, greed, and lust exist in the minds of men, and sometimes, it is not possible to confront and eliminate such evil without a war. To not engage in a war against evil portends the destruction of the good of Christianity without such confrontation. The first duty of a Christian is to attempt to change the minds of such evil men without a war, but when push comes to shove, evil should not be allowed to triumph. Thus, war is sometimes necessary to ensure that Christian values will triumph and humankind will not descend into barbarity once again.

11/29/23 An Intelligent Designer?

It is an unfortunate fact that many scientists are atheistic or agnostic. While many other scientists are believers in God, they often remain silent for fear of being deprecated or ostracized. Atheistic scientists often use their scientific knowledge to try to disprove God or disavow the need for God, while agnostic scientists often remain silent as they are unsure or unassertive in expressing their opinions.

This was not always so. At the beginning of the Scientific Revolution in the sixteenth century, a series of events marked the emergence of modern science during the early modern period of history. When developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy), and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature, most Natural Philosophers had a firm belief in God. They saw Natural Philosophy as a means of explaining the mind of God. With further advances in what is now termed Modern Science, Natural Philosophers became Scientists who believed that science could answer all the questions about the workings of the Universe. Thus, they lost their Theistic Science viewpoint and became believers in a Scientific Materialism viewpoint.

However, advances in modern Physics (1905-today) and Astronomy and Cosmology have raised questions as to whether scientific materialism can answer all the questions about the workings of the Universe. The discovery that the Universe must have been created in the Big Bang Theory and that the physical constants and properties of the Universe are extremely fine-tuned for the emergence of life. These discoveries have raised the scientific question of an Intelligent Designer that created the Universe.

We have also seen advances in Molecular Biology that show the incredible complexity of the internal workings of the cell and the enigma of the complex information coding of the DNA in the cell that is required for even the simplest forms of life to exist. This has raised the question of how life could have arisen that requires such complexity to exist, as we know that complex systems require an Intelligent Designer to create the system.

Materialist scientists have speculated and postulated some answers to these questions, but these explanations lack any scientific basis as they are not based on observations or experiments, nor do they determine the realities of the universe. They also make extensive use of mathematics to justify their claims. However, mathematics is needed to affirm a scientific theory, but you should not utilize mathematics to confirm a scientific theory. Only observation and/or experimentation can confirm a scientific theory; otherwise, you have a belief and not a science. These speculations and postulations also have several philosophical issues and conundrums that do not fully satisfy as an explanation.

A good book that examines the scientific basis for an Intelligent Designer is “Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe” by Stephen C. Meyer. While I still believe that most Intelligent Design proponents approach this topic from a theistic argument with insufficient or incorrect science and mathematics, which I find unconvincing, there are Intelligent Design proponents that approach this topic from a scientific argument, which I find is much more intriguing and convincing. It is within these scientific arguments that the topic of an Intelligent Designer should be considered.

As the late great Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow commented when confronted by the evidence of the reality of the Big Bang Theory in the creation of the Universe:

“it is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the bible. In the beginning God created the heaven and earth . . . . The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the highest rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Given the above, I have done additional research and reading on the question of a Naturalistic/Materialistic or an Intelligent Design Evolution. This has resulted in my writing a new science article that can be read here, which scientifically examines this issue. I have also revised another article, “Science versus Religion” that reflects my new understanding of this issue. I have also withdrawn my article of “PragerU and 'Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven”, as it does not comport with my new understanding of this issue.

11/28/23 Hardware versus Software

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he points out that in many of the contentious social issues of today, a core difference between the opposite sides is that one side believes that a person’s gender, race, and identity are inherent in their physiology (Hardware), while the other side believes that they are a result of the person’s psychology (Software). Thus, the disagreement is one of Nature vs. Nurture. There is also an undercurrent that your Hardware is a basis for your political and social beliefs. Thus, we hear the phrases not truly (insert race), not truly (insert gender), and not truly (insert identity).

This resort to claiming that Hardware is a basis for the correctness of their beliefs is one that also attempts to shut down opposition discussions on these issues, as these bases are innate and immutable and therefore indisputable. In On Liberty, first published in 1859, John Stuart Mill famously laid out four reasons for why speech is a necessity in a free society: the first and second being that a contrary opinion may be true, or true in part, and therefore may require to be heard in order to correct you own erroneous views; the third and fourth being that even if the contrary opinion is in error, the airing of it may help to remind people of a truth and prevent its slippage into an ignorant dogma which may in time—if unchallenged—itself become lost.

In the sciences, free speech is essential for the advancement of science. Almost as important is that a scientist needs to communicate exceptionally complex truths in as simple and clear a language as possible so that they can be evaluated and confirmed by other scientists and, hopefully, can be made understandable to the lay public. This clarity and this honesty, may still exist in the sciences, but it is dead—if it ever existed—in the social sciences. The practitioners and commentators of the social sciences often speak and write in unreadable prose that even its supporters do not fully understand, and its critics cannot dispute that which is not understandable.

Consequently, we have often seen that those who would dispute the claims of Hardware are often shouted down or prevented from espousing their viewpoints in violation of their Free Speech rights. As has often been said, the answer to free speech for that you disagree is free speech to disagree with what has been said by others. However, the free speech of all parties should strive for clarity and honesty so as to be understandable and subject to critique, as I have written in my article "Dialog and Debate".

Alas, this is infrequently occurring in America and seems to be absent in Colleges and Universities where it is most important for the enlightenment and the discovery of truths. This suppression of free speech in Colleges and Universities has also occurred against Professors who would dare to speak truth to power in challenging the orthodoxy of Progressives/Leftists. Two of many illuminating examples are:

As a self-identifying progressive, left-winger, and Bernie Sanders supporter, Professor Bret Weinstein attempted to defend himself against charges of racism by pointing out that “there is a difference between debate and dialectic”. As he also said, “Debate means you are trying to win. Dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I am interested in only dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me.” Professor Weinstein persevered: “I am talking about terms that serve the truth.” As it happened, Professor Weinstein never taught at his college again.

Professor Nicholas Christakis, as Master of the residential college at Yale, became involved in a ruckus with students when he tried to explain his view that even if two people do not share exactly the same life experiences, exactly the same skin color or gender, they can still understand each other. I did not work. Later, he tried to explain what a university should be and that it is the duty of a university to “cut at the root of a set of ideas that are wholly illiberal.” These include that “Disagreement is not oppression. Argument is not assault. Words—even provocative or repugnant ones—are not violence. The answer to speech we do not like is more speech.” Nevertheless, Professor Christakis was forced to resign his position as the Master of the residential college.

What is more alarming is that the Colleges and Universities leadership and other Professors, who should know better, are kowtowing to these suppressions of Free Speech. Whether through fear or intimidation or in agreement with the suppressors, they are permitting or sanctioning the suppression of Free Speech on their campuses. It seems that mob passions and mob rule are now the basis for instruction and education at Colleges and Universities, and indoctrination in the orthodoxy of Progressives/Leftists is de rigueur on campuses, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education". Thus, we need to cleanse the College and University leadership and Professors that do not support and uphold Free Speech and institute and enforce protections for the Free Speech Rights of all viewpoints on campus.

Alas, this Hardware versus Software (i.e., Nature vs. Nurture) reasoning has spread throughout other areas of our society, which is having the same effect of the suppression of Free Speech and the cutting off of dialectic in the debates on the contentious social issues in today’s America. This suppression and cutting off of Free Speech is dangerous to the fabric of our society, as people who are muted will often rise in revolt against their mutters. In today’s America, the numbers of the muted far outnumber the mutters, and tragic consequences for the mutters may occur in a violent revolt against the mutters. What is needed is a peaceful revolt that turns out of power and responsibility to those who would mute others.

We should allow the Hardware believers to espouse their viewpoints, as it is their Free Speech Right to do so, but we should not allow them to be able to be in positions of power and responsibility if they are muting the Free Speech Rights of those with whom they disagree. An insistence on dialectic, which means I listen to you, and you listen to me, without resorting to pejoratives and intimidations, as I have written in my article "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" would be a good start in restoring "A Civil Society" in America.

11/27/23 Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

In my new article, Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant, I have republished an article by Paul E. Marek, which explains that throughout history, wars have been initiated in which most of the populace desired peace. This article explains why this can happen, as the majority often sit back and let it all happen as the fanatics gain control of a government. He subtitles this article: ‘History lessons are often incredibly simple’, and this simple history lesson is that we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life. This article is a good companion piece to my Article on “The Problems with Islam”, and both articles should be considered when determining the best approach to dealing with Islam and Islamic nations.

But fanaticism is not constrained by religious fanatism. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, we have seen the rise of fanaticism toward political ideology. In the twentieth century Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism in Japan, Islamism, and all their variants became fanatical, and in the twenty-first century, we have seen Progressives/Leftists become fanatical in their ideology.

This fanaticism is in their policies and political goals regarding Abortion, Modern Feminism, Racism, Transgenderism, Illegal Immigration, Law and Order, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Modern Education, Global Warming, etc., and can be seen in their tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Conspiracy Theory, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Hyper-Partisanship.

This fanaticism is made possible by the American people believing in the good intentions of their lofty rhetoric while discounting the dastardly deeds of their actions, as I have written in my article “Grandiloquent Statements” and Chirped on "01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds". In this, the American people have forgotten the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Fanatics also invent boogeymen for the populace to fear and to unite against as threats to their safety, security, and well-being, not to mention their being a threat to democracy, as I have Chirped on “11/08/23 Threats to Democracy”. This can be seen in the Democrat Party Leaders demonizing, denigrating, and disparaging their opponents as Right-Wingers, Far-right, Extreme-right, Fascists, Nazis, Racists, and other pejoratives, as I have written in my articles on "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" and "Divisiveness in America".

Fanaticism rarely regards any boundaries of civility, and it is destructive to any society that condones it. Unfortunately, the fanatics in America hold the reins of power and are exercising their fanaticism. In pursuit of their fanatical goals, they are endangering our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", placing in jeopardy our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and putting an end to "A Civil Society" in America.

We must learn the lesson of history that fanatics are dangerous to civil society and to anyone that they oppose. Consequently, we must put an end to and eradicate fanatism. Otherwise, we can expect that our "American Ideals and Ideas" will be confined to the dustbin of history.

11/26/23 Forgiveness

In the book The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, he has an interlude between chapters titled “On Forgiveness”. This interlude highlights one of the more pernicious problems of the Internet age of Social Media. Social Media gives everyone a voice in expressing their thoughts, but it also records for posterity their thoughts. Thoughts that are often ill-informed, capricious, impulsive, hotheaded, and sometimes offensive. Thoughts that, upon reflection, the person often regrets or has a change of mind, which cannot be forgotten, withdrawn, or sufficiently nor suitably apologized for.

Many of these thoughts are posted by young people who are incapable of curbing their thoughts due to the fact that the human brain does not fully develop until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to develop is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is responsible for most "higher-order" or intellectual brain functions such as thinking, reasoning, judging, planning, voluntary movement, and overall behavior. Thus, until the cerebral cortex is fully mature, impulsive behavior and thoughts are the norm of youth, as I have Chirped on "07/20/20 Ah, Youth”. Even after our cerebral cortex is fully developed, the habits of our youth often impulsively supersede our discretion, and we say or do things that we quickly regret. But the Internet does not forget what we have posted on social media in our youthful exuberance or thoughtlessness.

The Internet and Social Media forever remembering is also a problem in our adult life. After our brains mature and we accumulate more knowledge, life experiences, and perhaps wisdom, we come to realize that what we believe to be certainly true becomes less certain as we mature. Indeed, many times, we reach a different conclusion as we age. This often forces us to reevaluate what we may have said or written in our past, and many times makes us regretful of our words and deeds of the past. Or, as one of our Founding Fathers has so eloquently stated:

Thus, for the mistakes of youth and for changes of mind based on fuller consideration, it is best to forgive our and others’ past words and deeds. Ergo, I have elucidated upon this in “To Err is Human, To Forgive is Divine” in my Pearls of Wisdom, which is based upon a great English Poet who wrote in his An Essay on Criticism:

“To err is human; to forgive, divine.” - Alexander Pope

For those who believe that they have nothing to be forgiven, they are delusional, as all humans err in their words and deeds. Unfortunately, in today’s society, many apologies are not sincere apologies but an attempt to paper over objectionable words and deeds. An insincere apology that attempts to dodge, duck, or shift responsibility to others is no apology at all. And anyone who attempts to cover up their past words and deeds is not worthy of forgiveness. Only a sincere apology should be reciprocated with forgiveness.

In forgiving, it is important to Forgive Ourselves, Forgive Others, and Forgive Past history. We must Forgive Ourselves for the mistakes of our youth and our regrets over the words and deeds that we now conclude were in error. For if we cannot forgive ourselves, then we will find it almost impossible to forgive others. We must Forgive Others for their youthful mistakes and their past regrets, for without forgiving them, we cannot ask for forgiveness for ourselves. We must also Forgive, but not forget, the Past History of a nation or society, as all nations and societies have regrettable pasts. The past should be utilized to learn from mistakes and to not repeat them, and all other words and deeds about the past are nothing but flagellations that do not lead to improvements in a nation or society.

If we cannot forgive ourselves, others, and the historical past, then we shall always be at each other’s throats, and our past words and deeds will hang like an albatross around our neck for the rest of our lives. An albatross that impedes a person or society from becoming a better person or society and which damages all in society. In November 1964, Hannah Arendt, a German-born American historian and political philosopher, delivered a lecture at the University of Chicago in which she stated:

“Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victim of its consequences, forever, not unlike the sorcerer’s apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell.”

In all forgiveness, we should remember that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone. This does not, however, constrict us from critiquing another’s words and deeds, but we should remember the difference between "Criticism vs. Critique" and confine ourselves to critiquing rather than criticizing others, except in the case of immoral or criminal actions of others. In our forgiveness, we should also remember the words from the Lord’s Prayer:

“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.”

11/25/23 Domains and Virtue, Character, and Ethics

We all have only one life to live, but in living our lives, we exist in several domains—the domains of a personal life, a family life, a friends’ life, a public life, and an employment life. These domains are shaped by our knowledge, understanding, and experiences in the domains of humanity—a Political Domain, the Religious and/or Philosophical Domains, the Economic Domain, the Scientific Domain, the Sports and Entertainment Domain, and the Artistic Domains (Literary, Fine Arts, Musical).

It is how we live in these domains that is a test of our Virtue, Character, and Ethics. There is no doubt that our words and deeds vary between these domains, but our virtue, character, and ethics should remain the same between and within these domains. To do otherwise is a betrayal of our Virtue, Character, and Ethics, which is demeaning to ourselves.

As the Bard of Avon has written:

“This above all: to thine own self be true.” – William Shakespeare in Hamlet

Most modern people interpret this saying as to mean to pursue that for which you are desirous and beneficial to yourself. But it means much more than this. It also has three other meanings; the first meaning is that someone can better judge themselves if they have done what they should or could have done. The second meaning is that one must be honest in their ways and relations. The third meaning is that one must always do the right thing.

As I have written in my Chirp on "05/17/20 Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage Within Ourselves", Truth, Honesty, Character, and Courage are essential to becoming fully human. Without these items, you cannot be fully functional within yourselves and within society. You also cannot be truly Virtuous, Character-laden, and Ethical without remaining true to your Virtue, Character, and Ethics across the domains that you inhabit. Consequently, you should always be true to your own self in all its meanings.

11/24/23 You Cannot Legislate Virtue, Character, or Ethics

In my previous Chirps on “11/22/23 Virtue and Character” and “11/23/23 Ethical Conduct”, I discussed the importance of Virtue, Character, and Ethics in our lives and society. While we have laws against conduct that harm others, it is not possible to legislate Virtue, Character, or Ethics, for "The Law is Not All". Virtue, Character, and Ethics exist above the law and are necessary for a just society, as I have discussed in my article "A Just Government and a Just Society". We should also remember what one of our Founding Fathers has said about this:

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.” - James Madison

Thus, Virtue, Character, and Ethics are necessary and above the law and as a foundation for the law. For those that would respond to their non-virtuous, lack of character, or ethical violations that they have done nothing illegal, I would respond that justice requires more than obedience to the law. While you may not face prosecutions for your transgressions of Virtue, Character, or Ethics, you deserve disdain from all who value justice.

There is also the question of the violation of the Natural Rights of others from non-Virtuous, Lack of Character, or Ethical violations, as I have discussed in my article "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". To violate the Natural Rights of others while remaining within the law raises the question of a person’s Virtue, Character, or Ethics. These questions should make all wary of dealing with such a person. Thus, not only should a person remain within the confines of the law, but they should also constrict themselves to conduct which is of Virtue, Character, and Ethical.

As I cannot claim that I have lived a life of virtue, character, and ethics, especially in my youth, I can claim that since I have examined this issue in my early adulthood, I have tried to live a life of virtue, character, and ethics. As such, I can be at peace with myself for my past words and deeds, and I can recommend to all that they lead a Virtuous, Character-laden, and Ethical life as it will be rewarding.

11/23/23 Ethical Conduct

In my previous Chirp on “11/22/23 Virtue and Character”, I proselytize on the importance of virtue and character within a person. However, virtue and character are not only important within a person but are extremely important within many professions. Doctors, lawyers, judges, accountants, financial advisors, and other professionals must have virtue and character in their professions, as they have a direct impact on the well-being of their clients. This is why most professions have a code of ethics for their practitioners. It is also why we have laws to prosecute professionals who transgress their professional duties and responsibilities.

There is another group of people who profess to a code of ethics — politicians, but these ethics are often not followed in their spirit and almost as often not prosecuted. Too often, we have seen what a common person would regard as unethical conduct of a politician that does not result in a serious consequence for their breach, or at most; they suffer an official rebuke with only minor penalties from their colleagues. These politicians often run for reelection and are often reelected despite their unethical conduct.

Thus, we have lower standards for politicians than for other professionals. This is pernicious as politicians have a direct impact on all Americans, and most especially on the Liberties, Freedoms, and governance of Americans. However, much of the blame for this situation is shared by the American electorate for electing and reelecting those politicians who do not engage in ethical conduct. This is also a sad commentary on the American electorate, as had been said as a warning by one of our Founding Fathers:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." - Benjamin Franklin

We have also seen a rise in unethical conduct by our government bureaucrats. This is in the dual problems of fidelity to our Constitutional Ideals and Regulatory Capture, as I have written in my article on "American Ideals and Ideas" and my Chirp on "08/20/23 The Administrative State and Practical Difficulties". Many bureaucrats wish to rule by regulation rather than serve with fidelity to our principles. Thus, they are behaving in an unethical manner.

It is also true that, too often, the American electorate becomes caught up in the words rather than the deeds of politicians. When the words are virtuous, we often overlook the deeds that reveal the character of the politician. Thus, whenever we cast our votes, we should always remember in our evaluation of a candidate that:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said, 'Well done is better than well said.'". - Mark Dawson

Consequently, America is becoming a society in which materialism is predominant while Virtue, Character, and Ethics are receding in importance.

11/22/23 Virtue and Character

Virtue is the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. It is also a test of one’s character, which is the inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions. To be virtuous also requires that you do what you think is proper, notwithstanding all the pressures for you to do otherwise. As been said by one of our Founding Fathers (who practiced what he preached):

"Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone." - John Adams

As to character, we should remember what an American author who was best known for his inspirational book, ‘Life's Little Instruction Book’ has said:

“Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.” - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

But both virtue and character require that you confront and admit the truths about yourself so that you can make a virtuous decision and act with character. However, if you should do this, then be forewarned:

"Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them." - Albert Camus

When adjudging a person’s virtue or character, we should always bear in mind:

"The words of a person are important to adjudge their virtue. However, the deeds of a person are important to judge their character. And deeds have much more of an impact than words. Or, as Benjamin Franklin has said, 'Well done is better than well said.'". - Mark Dawson

The strongest test of Virtue and Character is when it becomes necessary to confront wickedness or evil. Any person unwilling to confront wickedness or evil or to temporize or excuse wickedness or evil is a person without virtue or character. Such people who do so are complicit in the wickedness or evil of others. As two of the great Philosophers of the Enlightenment have stated:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - attributed to Edmund Burke

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill

11/21/23 Proportional War

War is not waged proportionally. You are either in a war to win the war, or you will lose the war. Response to terrorism also cannot be proportional, as you either eliminate the terrorists, or you will be subject to more terrorism. And by their very nature, both modern war and terrorism will result in civilian casualties on both sides. Some of these civilian casualties are the result of inadvertent casualties during the course of military operations (i.e., collateral damage), some are a result of their being targeted for their active involvement in the war or terrorism efforts, and some are targeted for psychological warfare or terrorism purposes. Regrettably, in modern terrorism, some of these causalities are a result of the terrorist using them as human shields as protection to thwart retribution for their terrorism.

In war or terrorism, the moral side is the side that seeks to minimize civilian casualties, while the immoral side seeks to maximize civilian casualties. So, it is, for what is occurring in present-day Israel. Those who are confused about which side is moral and which side is immoral are confused because they have no true understanding of morality. To deliberately target civilians as a goal is the moral equivalent of murder. Consequently, Hamas terrorists are murderers and immoral, and their supporters are either directly or indirectly aiding and abetting this murder.

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “When Has War Ever Been 'Proportional?” he outlines the moral and immoral actions of both Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Upon reading this article, it becomes very clear which side is moral and which side is immoral in the present conflict in Israel.

11/20/23 Humanitarianism and Terrorism

With the rise in rhetoric for a humanitarian response to Hamas's Terrorism in Israel, those who engage in or are supportive of this humanitarian response have forgotten or did not know that Terrorism does not recognize Humanitarianism and that Terrorism is the antithesis of Humanitarianism.

To respond with Humanitarianism to Terrorism is to allow for the continuation of Terrorism, as it protects the terrorist from the consequences of their actions. It allows the terrorists to slip away to continue their Terrorism, and it shields them from being exposed by the non-terrorists whom they hide amongst. Until the terrorists are rooted out and eliminated, humanitarian responses aid and abet the terrorists. Once the terrorists are rooted out and eliminated, then Humanitarianism for those remaining is warranted and should be given. Until then, however, Humanitarianism in response to Terrorism plays into the hand of Terrorism, and to play into the hand of Terrorism is immoral and counterproductive to Humanitarianism. Thus, those who demand humanitarian responses before Terrorism is eliminated are reacting in an immoral manner, for to aid and abet Terrorism is immoral, and those who engage in these humanitarian words and deeds are bereft of morality.

Many would respond that these words and deeds of Humanitarianism are a response based upon our Christian heritage values. As Jesus spoke in the Gospels of the Bible:

“You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

But Terrorism is not a slap on the cheek that hurts a person but a stab to the body that maims or kills a person. We all have the Natural Right to protect ourselves from harm by another, to the point of justifiably taking the life of another to protect our lives, our family's lives, and the lives of others from the violent deeds of others. And Terrorism is one of the most violent deeds that can be inflicted upon ourselves and others.

This protection for our lives, our family's lives, and the lives of others is thus a moral act, and it is immoral to deny someone this moral right. As it is in all modern warfare, when engaged in a just conflict with an immoral enemy, there will be civilian casualties. The minimization of these civilian casualties should be a goal in this warfare, but not a reason not to engage in a just war. The war on Terrorism is a just war, as it is a war against the evil acts of the terrorists. Regrettably, there will be civilian casualties in this war on Terrorism, but it is something that must be endured for the greater good of eliminating the evil of Terrorism.

Consequently, Israel’s response to the Terrorism of Hamas is moral, and the efforts to thwart this response based on Humanitarianism are immoral.

11/19/23 Reaping What You Sow

The phrase “whatever one sows, that will he also reap” is third within a series of three statements by Paul in Galatians 6:7. The first statement is, “Do not be deceived” and the second is, “God is not mocked.” Although this is a New Testament saying, it is applicable to all human activities and not restricted to any religious faith. Our words and deeds have consequences, and not all consequences are favorable. In today’s America, we are experiencing the unfavorable consequences of what has been sowed in the last half of the 20th century by events in the first half of the 20th century.

In the first half of the 20th century, America was a nation dominated by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), and there was much bigotry and prejudice against non-WASPs. This was reflected in our electoral politics, in which Republicans were often WASPs and Conservative in their outlook, while Democrats were often non-WASPs and Liberal in their outlook. In the second half of the 20th century America, this gradually changed in that the Civil Rights movement awoken Americans to unjustness and, indeed, the immorality of the bigotry and prejudice against non-WASPs (especially Black and Jewish Americans). This reaped great benefits for all races and religions in America, and we seemed to be on a path of tolerance and acceptance for all races and creeds in America.

However, the fidelities of non-WASPs to the Democrat party in the first half of the 20th century often remained and became ingrained in our politics in the second half of the 20th century. This was most predominant among Black and Jewish Americans. They overwhelmingly supported the Democrat Party and their candidates in elections, and it was a given that upwards of 90% of this populace would vote for Democrat candidates. In addition, in the last few decades, the Democrats and Liberals morphed into Progressivism and an intolerance for religion in America. Many people lost or were not raised in their faith, and atheism and agnosticism began to rise in America.

Yet, despite this rise in Anti-Semitism, we continue to see continued overwhelming support for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders within the Jewish community. The same can be said for the deterioration of race relations in America. Despite the overwhelming support of the Black community for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, race relations have declined in America in the last several decades. Much of this decline in Black America can be attributed to Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders politics, as I have noted in my Chirp on “11/04/23 It’s Working Just Fine”. This overwhelming support of Blacks and Jews for the Democrat Party must end, for it is sowing and reaping Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America, and stymieing Black progress in America.

Despite the protestations by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that they are the party of inclusiveness and tolerance, “Do not be deceived”, for their actions speak louder than their words, and their words often contrary to “God is not mocked.” If Americans can retain their Judeo-Christian values, then we can overcome these problems in America. If not, then these problems will continue to bedevil America, and we will continue to be a nation in decline.

In the last decades in America, we have seen a rise in Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America within the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in America. With the recent Hamas terror attacks in Israel, this Anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head within these ranks. With this rise of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christianism in America, I have decided to change my logo. A Mezuzah and a Cross have been added to remind all Americans that our values are based upon our Judeo-Christian Heritage. A heritage to all humankind that has resulted in the greatest advancement of humankind in our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as the Advancements in the Sciences and the Arts, as I have written in my Articles “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and “How Christianity Transformed the World”. Thus, my new logo is a reminder that our Judeo-Christian values are essential to all aspects of our society, and all aspects of our society must be evaluated within these Judeo-Christian values:

11/18/23 Senseless Criminal Acts

The unalienable right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is not possible without a lawful, just, and peaceable society. Any society that cannot guarantee these unalienable rights is doomed to anarchy and destruction or to tyranny. Unfortunately, in modern America, we are degenerating into anarchy as the increase of senseless criminal acts is on the rise. Individual criminal acts, along with gang and mob criminal acts, have surged in America. Nobody and no place is safe from these criminal acts, and fear of these criminal acts has permeated our society. Not only are these acts committed in public places, but they have occurred in personal and business abodes.

In my Chirp on “11/17/23 The Dark Triad and Psychopathy”, I raise the question about the psychology of the perpetrators of these criminal acts, as well as the possible reasons for the increase of senseless criminal acts. There is, however, a more direct reason for an increase in these criminal acts. The perpetrators have little fear of being arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned for these criminal acts. They, therefore, feel unconstrained in their actions, and without self-constraint, they act impulsively and without forethought of the possible consequences of their actions.

This little fear has been brought forth by Progressive District Attorneys, Progressive Police Commissioners, and Progressive Politicians, who seem to be more concerned about the perpetrators rather than the victims. In their quest for a more perfect society (as they view a perfect society), they have failed to faithfully execute the laws as their Oath of Office requires them to do so. They ignore or neglect to enforce the laws that they disagree with or use prosecutorial discretion to circumvent the laws, as I have Chirped on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion". They often use lofty or supercilious language to justify their actions, but the results are that senseless criminal acts are on the rise. In this lack of performing their duties and responsibilities, they have become autocratic rather than public servants responsible for ensuring a lawful, just, and peaceable society.

People who believe, speak, or act upon compassion and understanding for the perpetrators without justice for the victims are either inane or nefarious. If compassion and understanding of the criminal behavior of a person is to be considered, it should be done after a conviction and during the sentencing, and it should be tempered with justice for the victim. No allowance for criminal acts should be tolerated before a conviction, as only empathy for the victims and their families is acceptable.

11/17/23 The Dark Triad and Psychopathy

The Dark Triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct, although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.

Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.
Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a strategic focus on self-interest.
Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU), and remorselessness.

High scores in these traits have been found to statistically increase a person's likelihood to commit crimes, cause social distress, and create severe problems for organizations, especially if they are in leadership positions. They also tend to be less compassionate, agreeable, empathetic, and satisfied with their lives and less likely to believe they and others are good.

A factor analysis found that among the big five personality traits, low agreeableness is the strongest correlate of the dark triad, while neuroticism and a lack of conscientiousness were associated with some of the dark triad members. Research indicates that there is a consistent association between changes in agreeableness and the dark triad traits over the course of an individual's life.

Robert D. Hare, a Canadian forensic psychologist known for his research in the field of criminal psychology, developed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-Revised), used to assess cases of psychopathy. This tool is commonly used to assess the presence and extent of the personality trait psychopathy in individuals—most often those institutionalized in the criminal justice system—and to differentiate those high in this trait from those with Antisocial Personality Disorder, a related diagnosable disorder. He has identified the psychopathy as consisting of:

Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm
Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth
Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Item 4: Pathological lying
Item 5: Conning/manipulative
Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt
Item 7: Shallow affect
Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy
Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle
Item 10: Poor behavioral controls
Item 11: Promiscuous sexual behavior
Item 12: Early behavior problems
Item 13: Lack of realistic long-term goals
Item 14: Impulsivity
Item 15: Irresponsibility
Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Item 17: Many short-term marital relationships
Item 18: Juvenile delinquency
Item 19: Revocation of conditional release
Item 20: Criminal versatility

It has been affirmed that about 3% of the American population suffers from this mental health issue. It has also been stated that it can sink to 1% in peaceful times but rise to 5% in troubled times. The question, therefore, is what the causes of this decrease or increase are. It is Nature or Nurture, Sociological or Economic, lack of deterrence by the failure of law enforcement to aggressively arrest and prosecute such persons, or perhaps other unknown reasons, and what can be done to keep this at a minimum? One can also wonder if the Dark Triad and personality trait psychopathy in individuals are responsible for the increase of criminality in America. In either case, this must be examined to determine the causes and hopefully cures for this mental health issue.

11/16/23 Gay or Queer Rights

In a book by self-professed homosexual Douglas Murray, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, he has pointed out that the LGBTQIA+ community (an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more) is not a united community as it is perceived. Within this community, there are sharp differences in the goals, strategy, and tactics to obtain their goals, and there are factions within the community that dislike each other.

One of these fractures is in the differences between “Gay” and “Queer”. The Gay faction believes that gays are—and should be—just like everyone else. As he has stated about the Gay faction:

“That they will win any and all remaining rights battles by demonstrating that nothing makes them different from their heterosexual friends and neighbors. Just like straight people, gays can live in houses with nice picket fences, can marry, have monogamous relationships and eventually produce and raise children like everybody else. In essence they can be respectable.”

The “Queer” faction was—and is—the homosexuals that believe that being attracted to the same sex means more than being attracted to the same sex. As he has stated:

“It is a group of people who believe that being attracted to the same sex should merely be the first stage in a wilder journey. The first step not just to getting on with life but to transgressing the normal modes of life. Whereas gays may want to be just accepted like everyone else, queers want to be recognized as fundamentally different to everyone else and to use that difference to tear down the kind of order that gays are working to get into.”

This has resulted in the Queers believing that they have the right to public exhibitionism, most prominently in ‘Gay Pride’ marches in their dressing in puppy gear and to be led on all fours by a ‘master’ down a public street, along with their antics of simulated homosexual sexual acts. As Mr. Murray has said:

“There is nothing wrong with people enjoying whatever kinks they like in the privacy of their own homes. But you don’t have to be prudish to feel that the phalanxes of people at such protests dressed in fetish gear, in chaps and more, is off putting to whatever cause they are hoping to advance. If the black civil rights movement had included a fetish section it would have been considerably easier to ignore its moral force.”

Just as I am opposed to overt sexual actions in public by heterosexuals, so I am opposed to overt sexual actions in public by Queers. I also believe that it is acceptable if the acts are mutually agreed upon by all parties, for people to enjoy whatever sexual kinks they like in the privacy of their own homes. The government has no business in intruding into the privacy of a person’s home unless they are engaged in criminal activities. And sexual acts between mutually agreeable persons is not a criminal act.

While I am in favor of Gay Rights, I do not believe in Queer Rights. Thus, I have no problem with banning such overt public exhibitionism by all sexual orientations. The right to free assembly gives homosexuals the right to demonstrate, but the right to free assembly does not give anyone license to do whatever they want in the assembly. After all, as we ban any criminal actions or exhortations to violence in any assembly, so should we ban displays of simulated sexual acts and sexual fetishes in a public assembly. Common decency should also preclude any overt sexual licentious in public by anyone or any group.

I have also written about homosexuality in my articles on Homosexuality Nature and Homosexual Marriage and The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered and Assisted Suicide, which explains my stances on Homosexual Rights.

11/15/23 Deepfake

A deepfake is a computer-generated image or video of someone based on manipulating existing images using Artificial Intelligence (AI), esp. to make them appear to do or say something that they did not do. With the advent of more AI tools available to the public, it has become easier to create a deepfake that is convincing and harder to detect. This can lead to serious repercussions for those who have been a target of deepfake.

Images, videos, and words have been attributed to people that are not about or from them. In one case, an adolescent boy superimposed images of some girls in his school on pornographic images that were not discernable to the viewer. The girls and their parents were aghast when he started to electronically distribute these deepfake images to other boys in his school. There have been numerous other cases where deepfake words have been attributed to someone, and deepfake photos and videos have been distributed to tarnish a person’s reputation. For as Shakespeare has said in Othello:

It is not only our reputations that need to be protected, but deepfake makes it easier to sow disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation to mislead the American people into making poor decisions, as well as sowing more divisiveness in America.

Indeed, Mounir Ibrahim, executive president of Truepic, a technology company focused on transparency and authenticity in digital content, has stated about Deepfake technology, “In my opinion, this is one of the greatest challenges we face today" he said. "Some estimates are that in one to two years, 90 percent of new digital content created online will be wholly or partially synthetic. Without wide adoption of interoperable standards to clearly differentiate authentic content, AI-assisted, and fully generated content, our entire informational ecosystem will be at risk.”

In an article by Leah Barkoukis, “Deepfake Technology Is Now 'One of the Greatest Challenges We Face,' Expert Tells Lawmakers”, she stated that “Artificial intelligence is developing faster than any rules or regulations can keep up.” She has also stated that:

“A legislative fix is one tool but Ibrahim said it won't be enough. Work on content provenance is already being advanced, while other stakeholders are exploring different remedies.”

We would all be advised to read her article and begin to think about and implement the processes necessary to deal with deepfakes. For without doing so, we risk more reputational harm, more bad decisions, and more divisiveness, and we and America will all be poorer.

11/14/23 What is Wrong with Our Universities?

In a column by Alan Joseph Bauer, “The Left Has Shown Its Moral Bankruptcy”, he begins the column by stating, “The response to the barbaric attack in Israel has exposed the liberal and intellectual left as being bereft of knowledge, insights, judgment, and compassion. The left has become a pathetic collection of ideological zealots.” The then proceeds to excoriate the left for their lack of moral clarity and states that “. . . our modern liberal left which has great technical knowledge but no moral depth. All of our leaders are university-trained, without exception. Some have bachelor's degrees while others have advanced diplomas. Yet, they have shown themselves to be morally bereft of compassion and understanding of the severity of the events in southern Israel two weeks ago.”

In a series of articles by Rob Natelson, he examines what is wrong with the Universities. He begins by stating his credentials for analyzing the problems of universities:

“I have studied and worked in a wide range of campus settings. I earned my bachelor’s degree at a private college. I attended law school at a large university, half private and half state, after turning down offers from more prestigious institutions. (I’ll explain the practical implications of that decision later.) I also studied Greco-Roman classics in a large state university.

While practicing law, I was an adjunct (part-time) professor at a community college and later at both a large state university and a large private university.

After taking a basic course in teaching techniques, I served briefly as the manager of a community college program and eventually returned to academia on a full-time basis. I became a tenure-track and later a tenured professor and remained one for the next 25 years. I initially taught at a small private university and then at a medium-sized state university. I also served as a visiting professor at a large state university and as a researcher at a large foreign one.

I can compare academia to other institutions in a way most professors can't, because I’ve also worked extensively in private business, mostly small business, and currently operate a consulting practice.”

With such credentials and experience, he is eminently qualified to dissect the problems of universities, and he has done so in the following articles:

What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 1 - Laboring under a toxic cultural virus.
What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 2 - How the university model creates bad results.
What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 3 - Certification, sports-fever, and other distractions.
What’s Wrong with the Universities, and How to Fix It: Part 4 - Proposed Solutions.

Alas, our current College and University are not producing graduates who can think dispassionately and analytically, using proper reasoning grounded in facts and truths. Instead, they are being indoctrinated into the ideology of their professors that is skewed to Progressive/Leftists viewpoints devoid of intellectual rigor. They are also emotionally coddling their students against the harsh tumults of the real world into which they will enter upon graduation. As such, they are failing their students, parents, and society. That they are doing this to young minds that have not fully developed physiologically, intellectually, and emotionally is unethical and an act of turpitude on their part. This must stop! Otherwise, our society will further collapse into a state of chaos ruled by mob passions rather than rationality.

11/13/23 Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

Res ipsa loquitur is the website blog of Jonathan Turley, one of America’s foremost Constitutional scholars. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation.

His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO.com, an online marketplace for legal services. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.

Professor Turley’s political inclinations are left of center, but he is a passionate defender of Freedom of Speech and Constitutional adherence to laws, rules, and regulations of government. As such, I often quote Professor Turley in my Chirps and Articles on these topics, and I visit his website blog almost daily to see and read his thoughts. I would suggest that my readers make it a point to frequently visit his website blog to partake in his wisdom.

11/12/23 Americans Estimate

Apparently, when it comes to estimating the size of demographic groups, Americans rarely get it right. In two recent YouGov polls, they asked respondents to guess the percentage (ranging from 0% to 100%) of American adults who are members of 43 different groups, including racial and religious groups, as well as other less frequently studied groups, such as pet owners and those who are left-handed. The results of this polling can be reviewed in their article “From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans”, while the main graphic from this poll is as follows:

The other results from this poll provide some interesting food for thought, and I would recommend that you read this article and ponder the impacts on our social polices of these misestimations.

11/11/23 The Failure of Consensus and Compromise

Consensus and Compromise leave no one satisfied and resolve no important issue. Consensus and compromise are important for smaller issues or the details for the resolution of larger issues, but larger issues need to be resolved by a commitment to scrupulousness and righteousness of the core of a major issue. Even then, people of goodwill can disagree about the core of a major issue.

This is best exemplified in the Constitutional Convention when much dissension was overcome by consensus and compromise. However, the consensus and compromise left many unresolved major issues that bedeviled America in the next several decades. This bedevilment rose to a peak in the antebellum and Civil War era of American history. The importance of the Union and the end to Slavery were the core issues for one side, while the other side’s importance was for self-determination and for the preservation of property in the form of slavery. Each side thought that they had a moral and justifiable stance on the core issues. Compromises had been tried prior to the Civil War, and compromise had failed, resulting in a Civil War to resolve the major core issues.

Thus, it has been throughout history. When consensus and compromise fail on a major issue, it often results in a rebellion or war to resolve the core issues. Even then, the victor may not partially or fully resolve the core issue, which leads to further conflicts. Such was the Case of the American Civil War, as the core issues were resolved, but the ancillary issues of civil rights, bigotry, and discrimination remained unresolved until over a hundred years after the Civil War ended.

In America today, we are facing several core issues that cannot be resolved by Consensus and Compromise, as they each have core issues that must be decided in favor of one side or the other. These issues are:

What are the proper powers, limits, and size of the Federal Government?
What are the Human Rights of an unborn child?
What is the extent of the Civil Rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals?
How we eradicate the Weaponization of Government against political opponents?
What are the permissible limits on First and Second Amendment Rights by non-governmental entities?
What are the limitations on government regarding the Parental Rights of underage children?

These core issues define the character and substance of a society, which require the thoughtful consideration of all parties to resolve the core issues. Sometimes, however, the parties are so far apart in their beliefs that it cannot be resolved peacefully. At such times, one party must impose its beliefs upon the other party. It is not always the majority that gets to impose its beliefs, as a moral and just minority should prevail as it was during the American Revolution and Civil War.

Alas, we are at this point on the core issues facing America today. The only question is by which means, peaceable or belligerent, will be used to resolve the core issues, as Consensus and Compromise have failed us on these core issues.

11/10/23 An Unjust Law

Much has been said and written about the recent elections in which several States have incorporated the “Right to Abortion” in their Constitutions or laws. The political ramifications of the majority of voters accepting this right and swaying elections in favor of the Democrats that support abortion have led many commentators to suggest the Republicans drop their anti-abortion stances in order to win elections.

However, the core concern should not be about winning elections but about the morality of the “Right to Abortion”. As Martin Luther King Jr. has stated in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ of April 16, 1963:

“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I–it” relationship for an “I–thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

If abortion is the unjust taking of human life, as I have written in my article on "The Abortion Question", then the incorporation of the “Right to Abortion” in their Constitutions or laws is immoral and unjust, and that “an unjust law is no law at all.” In America’s past, we have had many unjust laws that have been overturned upon further consideration, and we have had slavery, which is among the most morally unjust laws possible. As abortion is also morally unjust and morally equivalent to slavery, as I have written in my article "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery", it should not be incorporated into our Constitutions and Laws.

In the movie “Inherit the Wind”, which is about the Scopes Monkey Trial on the law against the teaching of evolution in the classroom, there is a courtroom scene in which the Defense Attorney Drummond turns to the Prosecuting Attorney Brady and says in righteous anger:

“I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at Brady, then to various members of the audience and the Judge) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!”

The “Right to Abortion” is a wicked law that will destroy America. In the Gospels of the Bible, Jesus says to his followers, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” What have we given of our soul in the incorporation of the “Right to Abortion” in our Constitutions or laws? Will the righting of the wrong of abortion tear us apart as the slavery laws did?

The wicked often find justification for their actions in the use of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to vindicate their actions. But there is no justification for enacting unjust laws, and it is but a hollow victory when we do so.

Abortion Rights are not the only laws that pose the question of just and unjust laws. As I have written in my article, “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, the issue of morality and just and unjust law is the core concern that must be addressed in these issues. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As much as these laws are being formulated that uplift the rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide, they often do so at the expense of degrading the rights of others not covered within the scope of these laws.

Thus, we should not be addressing the political ramifications of the laws, for to do so is to put politics above morality and the institution of just laws. As such, we must act with virtue in doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong in the creation of our laws.

11/09/23 The Blade of Perseus

Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. Hanson has written over a dozen books, which can be reviewed here, hundreds of columns in various media outlets, and he maintains a website, “The Blade of Perseus”, that has his many columns and videos. A search of YouTube also reveals hundreds of clips and interviews with him.

However, his website requires a subscription of $50 per year to have full access, but it is worth every penny to have access to his insight and wisdom on modern American society. Three recent series of short articles from his website have especially intrigued me, and I have extracted the first few paragraphs from each part of the three series. Hopefully, they will intrigue my readers to support Professor Hanson by subscribing to his website.

Woke Hits the Wall

Part One - The hard-left revolution is running out of gas. We can tell that because the inherent anti-civilizational nature of wokism is beginning to devour the very architects of its creation.

Part Two - Wokeism also sought to defund the police, end cash bail, and empty the jails. George Soros and others poured millions into electing nihilist city and state prosecutors who simply did not enforce the law and let criminals out, often just hours after committing heinous crimes.

Part Three - The entire BLM movement is now in shambles, due not just to its racist tropes, but the sheer corruption and grift of the entire enterprise of mostly middle-class black activists using the threat of riot and violence of the poor underclass as leverage to enrich themselves.

Part Four - Another tenet of woke was a veritable war on gas and oil. Note the same serial ironic theme: if Biden inherited a calm border, he had the luxury or rather the margin of error to demagogue it, destroy it, and not be swamped by illegals—for a while.

American Pravda

Part One - In communist countries, there were two levels of consciousness, two mindsets in other words. What all people mouthed publicly became the opposite of what most thought in private. When the private mind finally became all dominant, the entire system of the Soviet Union and communist Eastern Europe abruptly collapsed under the weight of its own lies.

Part Two - Most believe saying the truth is not worth the cultural opprobrium that honesty earns. So, they keep quiet and, in matters of trans topics, watch female sports wrecked by the participation of biological males, females with male genitalia in their daughters’ school locker rooms, and often obscene drag shows conducted at libraries and army bases.

Part Three - There is a host of other lies that utopian progressives have constructed as orthodox “truths” in order to sabotage reality and ensure a particular code of behavior and thought.

Part Four - Call all this mere “political correctness” or “woke” nonsense. But these disconnects are in essence Maoism. They are dangerous lies that are promulgated by elites to further their own selfish agendas at the expense of the general public, who is to be shamed and ostracized as counterrevolutionaries.

The U.S. Is In Real Decline—No Kidding!

Part One: Energy - There is proverbially a lot of rot in any great nation, which accordingly can endure a lot of self-induced damage.

But has the U.S. exhausted its reserves? Britain after World War I denied that its empire was doomed and its standard of living unsustainable. The Soviet Union was in decline gradually, then abruptly by 1989 became doomed. In the fourth century AD, Rome had established a modus vivendi of incorporating non-Romans into the empire, defending its borders, and tamping down on corruption. A century later, the Western empire collapsed from internal decay and tribal invasions across the Danube and Rhine.

Part Two: Racial Relations - I say America is in serious trouble because the Left has attacked systematically all of the U.S.’s great strengths and advantages on the world stage. It apparently thinks it must dismantle the old America before it can create a “new” America, something like a European Union state, only far more radical and volatile.

Part Three: Insecurity - There are unfortunately other barometers of U.S. ossification.

America’s great strength was also its security. We were protected by two oceans and a similar English-majority speaking and constitutional state on our northern border. In the modern age, we used to insist on only legal immigration from an often corrupt and impoverished Mexico. No longer.

Corruption and lawlessness destroy civilizations. The 20th-century American ability to curb both, at least on the everyday level, explains in part the American success story. But now?

Part Four: Lawlessness and Corruption - Corruption and lawlessness destroy civilizations. The 20th-century American ability to curb both, at least on the everyday level, explains in part the American success story. But now?

Part Five. News Corruption - There is no news media as we once knew it. And without an independent media reporting the news, democracy “dies in darkness.” That Washington Post motto applies best to itself. If every story is milked for political purposes, if any unhelpful news account is censored, if the purpose of reporting is to magnify a leftist and diminish a rightist, then how do the people navigate around our Pravda conglomerate to find the truth?

11/08/23 Threats to Democracy

The biggest threat to our democracy is the people who utilize the phrase “A threat to our Democracy”. Democracy is all about a cacophony of opinions freely expressed and freely debated. The phrase “A threat to our Democracy” is often used by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders as an attempt to intimidate into silence those that disagree with them. In some cases, it is an excuse to persecute and sometimes prosecute those who disagree with them.

The true threat to democracy is the issues I have discussed in my collected Chirps on "The Decline of Free Speech in America", "Despotism in America", "The Weaponization of Government", and my Chirps on "07/28/19 Executive Orders", and "03/08/21 Rule by Regulation and Executive Orders". Lying to Congress and the American people with no consequences when discovered is another true threat to democracy, as I have Chirped on "06/04/21 Why They Lie and Why They Get Away with Lying". Stonewalling Congressional Investigations for the purposes of political cover-ups also plays a role in the true threats to democracy. When the people in power, whether elected, appointed, or bureaucratic, have no accountability for their words or deeds, then democracy is threatened. The big lies and deplorable actions of these people in power over the last few years about the Steele Dossier, Russian Collusion, Wuhan Lab COVID-19 origination and the virus lockdowns, and the Hunter Biden Laptop directly impacted democratic elections and are a threat to democracy.

Another big lie being perpetuated that threatens democracy is Climate Change, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Climate Change" and my science article on “Climate Change”. Prior to the Climate Change lies, we have seen other big lies, as I have written in my article "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

In almost all cases, these big lies have come from Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, with assistance from Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. The tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Conspiracy Theory, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, and Wokeness also constitute a threat to democracy.

Consequently, the true threats to our Democracy are from the false words and nefarious deeds of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". For more on the threats to our democracy, I would recommend that you watch the video “Victor Davis Hanson: Threats to Our Democracy w/ Dr. Scott Atlas”. His words of wisdom on this topic are a warning to Americans that we can ill afford to ignore.

11/07/23 The Divine Sovereign Individual

With these words, our Founding Fathers expressed an eternal truth about the Natural Rights of an individual. It is an eternal truth that the Sovereignty and the Dignity of the Individual are supreme over any other considerations and that it is divinely bestowed. Any government, organization, or person who does not recognize the divine sovereign individual is corrupt and devoid of virtue, ethics, and morality.

An individual bestows some of their divine sovereign individual rights unto a government for the purposes of a peaceful, orderly, just, and safe society and the protection of their other rights. Governments do not decide what the rights of their citizens are, nor does any organization or person have the right to violate an individual’s rights. The Constitution of the United States was formulated in an effort to establish a government that protects the rights of the divine sovereign individual while maintaining a government and society that is peaceful, orderly, just, and safe.

A prosperous society is no excuse for the abjuration of divine sovereign individual rights, as it effectively results in the subjugation or slavery of the individual. Or as it has been said in the Bible in Deuteronomy 8:3, “that man does not live on bread alone”. Nor is the redistribution of wealth or the favorable treatment of one person or a group of people over another justification for infringing upon divine sovereign individual rights. Any governmental law, rule, regulation, or social policy that infringes upon divine sovereign individual rights is, therefore, contrary to Natural Rights and consequently unjust.

Today, in America, we are seeing an assault on the divine sovereign individual rights. Thru the use of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, the American people are being bamboozled by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders into believing that they are enhancing and extending the Natural Rights of its populace. But anything that infringes upon divine sovereign individual rights is not an enhancement or extension of Natural Rights but an attempt to disaffirm the Divine Sovereign Individual.

11/06/23 The Pro-Islamic Gamesmanship - Part II

With the Islamic terrorist attacks in Israel, we have seen a rise in Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islamism in much of the world, particularly in America. This rise has also seen an increase in violence against persons and organizations of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Such violence is never acceptable, as it never resolves the problem and often begets more violence. But as I have pointed out in my Chirp on “11/05/23 The Pro-Islamic Game - Part I”, Anti-Semitism is immoral, while Anti-Islamism is moral if it is based on critiques of Islam tenants or criticisms of immoral words and deeds of Islamists.

Alas, another game has arisen in America, where many Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders offer perfunctory criticisms and little actions against Anti-Semitism, while at the same time, they are offering vigorous words and enacting deeds against those that engage in Anti-Islamism actions. In doing so, they are demonstrating a lack of morality. A lack of morality by equating Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islamism, and a lack of morality by not vigorously condemning Anti-Semitism while at the same time they are defending immoral Islamic actions by such an equation.

Their silence in condemning the support in America of Hamas terrorism in Israel, under the guise of pro-Palestinian sentiments, is deafening. It is only understandable by political gamesmanship in not alienating a voting block within the Democrat Party. As such, they are once again demonstrating they are more concerned with votes rather than doing the right thing.

The cowardness of College and University administrators in condemning the words and deeds of their professors and students in support of Hamas is astounding and very troubling. It is troubling as Colleges and Universities are not only responsible for providing an education, but they are also responsible for molding the character and virtue of their students. In not doing so, they are creating a generation of ill-educated students who cannot discern right from wrong. A generation that will enter and lead our society without a moral code to guide them in their decision-making.

Thus, in America, we have one party, the Democrat Party, that has little concern for morality or virtue and that is driven by a lust for votes and, therefore, power. Such a party is not fit to lead a people dedicated to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". If we continue down this road, we will lose our "American Ideals and Ideas", and descend into the chaos of mobocracy and lose the last best hope for humankind.

11/05/23 The Pro-Islamic Gamesmanship - Part I

There has been a tendency in modern America to equate Anti-Semitism with Anti-Islamism and to label Islam as a religion of peace. But this equation is improper and immoral. Anti-Semitism is based upon falsehoods about the Jewish religion, people, history, and their traditions and customs. Anti-Islamism, however, is based on truths about the practices of Islam, as I have written in my Article “The Problems with Islam”. Some of these truths are:

A religion in which the majority believes that criticism of the Prophet Muhammed is punishable by death.
A religion in which the majority believes that apostates should be put to death.
A religion in which the majority believes that non-believers should be eradicated or subjugated.
A religion of which the majority believes that non-heterosexuals should be executed.
A religion in which the majority believes that education should be restricted to males.
A religion in which the majority believes that women should be subservient to and dominated by males.
A religion in which the majority believes that female genital mutilation and honor killings are acceptable.
A religion in which the majority believes that the rule of law is subservient to religious doctrine and tenets and that fatwas supersede the due process of law.
A religion in which the majority believes in a theocracy with no participation by individuals.
A religion in which the majority believes that lying about their beliefs to non-believers is acceptable if done to advance Islamism.

While this list of the practices of Islamism is hardly inclusive, it demonstrates that Islam is a far cry from a religion of peace as well as a violator of the Natural Rights of people. While I recognize that many Muslims are attempting to reform these practices, while these practices remain, it is not possible to include Islam as a religion of peace. As a great philosopher of Jewish origins has said:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." - Baruch Spinoza

As a majority of Islamic believers do not have a disposition for benevolence, confidence, or justice, it is immoral to equate Anti-Semitism with Anti-Islamism and, indeed, to have an Anti-Islamism bias is a moral stance. It is especially not moral to excuse or accept the violence of much of the Islamic world, and until Islam becomes understanding and tolerant of others and discards its Anti-Semitism, they should not be allowed to join the ranks of the civilized world, as they are a danger to civilization and non-Islamic peoples.

11/04/23 It’s Working Just Fine

The state of America’s urban areas has reached the level of pathetic. Education, housing, employment, crime, infrastructure, and governmental services are uneffective, decrepit, or dilapidated. Many reforms have been suggested, and a few of them have been implemented with negligible or marginal results and sometimes the reforms have produced unintended negative consequences. Reformers and Republicans criticize this state of affairs, and many are baffled as to the fruitlessness of reforms. All decry this situation and wonder why the reforms are not working.

My contention is that the urban areas are working just fine. As much of these urban areas have been under Democrat Party control for decades, I believe that if you define working just fine as the successful election and reelection of Democrats in these urban areas, then these urban areas are working just fine. It is the achievement of this goal that leads the Democrat leadership to believe that everything is working just fine in urban areas.

If your primary goal is to be elected and reelected, and you have been successful in this goal, then you have little inclination to change and much fear that a change will impact your success in this election and reelection goal. Thus, the status quo is preferable to change. This is the main reason that reforms in urban areas are marginal or ineffective. For a party to declare itself the party of change, as the Democrats often do, there is very little "Change and/or New" that they are interested in if it could disrupt their election or reelection chances. This situation is also exacerbated by the implementation of Liberal/Progressive policies, and now some Leftist policies in these Urban areas, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives".

The example of New York City is illuminating. In the modern history of New York City (1974-2023), in the first twenty years, they had liberal Democrats in control (Abraham Beame, Ed Koch, and David Dinkins). This was followed by eight years of moderate/conservative Republican control (Rudy Giuliani) and twelve years of liberal Republican control (Michael Bloomberg). In the last nine years, New York City has been under Progressive Democrat control (Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams). In the first twenty years under Democrat control, the quality of life in New York City declined to the point that the people of New York City elected a Republican to reform the city. For the first eight years of Republican control, the quality of life in New York City significantly improved, while in the next twelve years of Republican control, the quality of life in New York City began to fall. In the last nine years under Democrat control, the quality of life in New York City precipitously fell to the point that New York City is almost unlivable. This is also indicative that Liberal and Progressive policies are prone to failure, while moderate to conservative policies tend to stabilize or improve the quality of life in New York City. This is true for other urban areas, as Republican control has been nonexistent or very brief, and these urban areas have been in steady decline under Democrat control and Liberal/Progressive policies.

Consequently, it can be said that Democrat control and Liberal/Progressive/Leftists policies result in the decline of the quality of life in urban areas. It can also be said that urban areas work just fine in electing and reelecting Democrats and that the only means to reform urban areas is in the election of Moderate/Conservative Republicans. Until this happens, you can expect that urban areas will continue to decline in the quality of life, and no effective reforms will be possible as urban areas are working just fine in electing and reelecting Democrats.

11/03/23 The Behavior of Bullies

With the recent election of the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson, the bullying tactics by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media started immediately, as I have Chirped on, "09/21/21 Bullies and Brownshirts". They immediately engaged in an effort to discredit him, as I examined in my article on "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". Is it any wonder that America is so divided when they engage in "Hyper-Partisanship" at a moment’s notice?

The Republican National Committee just put out seven principles for new House Speaker Johnson. The principles include freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity. It is a set of principles that is contrary to the principles of the Democrat Party's political goals and policy agendas. Thus, I would expect them to oppose House Speaker Johnson, but I also hope that they will do so in a civilized manner.

Alas, it is an unrealized hope, as this is not how Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists oppose those who disagree with them. They utilize the tactics of a bully attempting to impose his or her will upon another. For bullies, they have become, and bullies they will remain, until the American people turn them out of office and force them to change their tactics.

Thus, it is the American electorate that bears the ultimate responsibility for the hyper-partisanship in modern America. By electing and reelecting the Democrats that engage in these tactics, the American people are giving tacit approval for these tactics. Regrettably, I expect this bullying and hyper-partisanship to continue, as I have not seen any attempts by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to temper their bullying behavior. Alas, this bullying behavior further increases hyper-partisanship and also stokes fear between groups of Americans, all of which is much to the detriment of American society.

11/02/23 Two Sides of the Same Coin

The ability of the Democrat Party leaders to see Russian Collusion with President Trump where none existed is one side of the coin. The ability of the Democrat Party leaders to not see the influence peddling of President Biden and his family, as it has been revealed, is the other side of the coin. It is the coin of hyper-partisanship in that Republicans are always in the wrong, while Democrats can do no wrong. It is a coin flip of heads and the Democrats win, while on tails the Republicans lose. As such, it is a coin flip in which the American people always lose.

To not recognize wrong when it occurs on your side and to presume wrong on the other side bespeaks to a moral failure. The moral failure of not recognizing what is rightful and what is wrongful, no matter which side is rightful or wrongful. Such people who do so do not deserve to be in a position of leadership or authority, for such people cannot make a decision based on moral grounds, no matter where the chips may fall. It is, therefore, the coin of immorality.

Such moral failure is predominant amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons. It is also a sign of their lust for power and lack of virtue, as they will think and speak immorally if they believe it will further the election and reelection of Democrats. This lust for power and lack of virtue also leads them to select and retain appointed or bureaucratic officials that will support them regardless of the person’s wrongful conduct.

This lust for power and lack of virtue is also seen in their political goals and policy agendas, as they will make decisions based on electoral advantage rather than morality and virtue. When doing so, they will often utilize the tactics of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their positions. However, immoral policies and agendas have no moral justification, and the utilization of these tactics is also a sign of immorality.

The "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education" also bear a large responsibility for this state of affairs, as their predilection is to support Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists regardless of their immoral conduct, decisions, and tactics.

Thus, when Democrats are in a position of authority, we see immorality in their conduct and decisions, as they have little fear of losing their reelection or appointments from their immoral conduct.

11/01/23 Abortion, Transgenderism, Same-Sex Marriage, and Assisted Suicide

In my article, “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, I examine these rights and their dichotomy between individual and societal rights. As these topics are deep and nuanced, they deserve to be considered in depth. This month’s Book It selections are about these four topics that provide the depth and nuance to fully understand these topics. While I have mentioned these books in my article, I believe that they are deserving of a Book It recommendation as these books are an intellectual, philosophical, and reasoned discourse on these topics. For those who are interested in a dispassionate analysis of these topics, I would highly recommend these books. These books will inform you on what you need to know, not what you want to hear, a practice that I have endeavored to keep all my adult life.

10/31/23 Are the Intelligentsia Intelligent?

The Intelligentsia (the educated and intellectual elite) have forgotten the intelligence aspect of the meaning of Intelligentsia and have instead focused on the education aspect of the meaning. In doing so, they have focused on information and understanding while not fully applying intelligence and not recognizing the importance of experience and wisdom, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". As illustrated in the following diagram from my article, the Intelligentsia gathers a large amount of knowledge and understanding on topics but only organizes it intelligently to fit their biases and without recognizing the gaps in their information and understanding. It is also rare that an Intelligentsia person has real-world experience that allows them to derive wisdom.

This is often the result of the failures of modern "Public Education" and “College and University Education”. It is further exacerbated by a sense of self-importance and infallibility that permeates most of the Intelligentsia. Coupled with a sense of self-righteousness, the Intelligentsia believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. Anyone who disagrees with them is viewed as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil people.

Thus, anything that an Intelligentsia person has to say should be viewed with skepticism, as an Intelligentsia person has often become an ignoramus person.

10/30/23 A Life of Illusions

The great playwright Eugene O'Neill once said, “A life without Illusions is unpardonable and a life with Illusions is unbearable.” It is most common for a person to begin their adult life with illusions, but as they experience life, they often shed many illusions. Or, as King Oscar II of Sweden has said, "A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head." I disagree with O'Neill that their lives are unbearable or unpardonable. Life is a burden, but it is a burden that most people learn to deal with, while others wallow in victimhood and shift blame to anyone other than themselves. As for being unpardonable, many people can forgive themselves if they believe that their intentions were not malicious. I agree with King Oscar II that youth is intoxicating with optimism while getting older sobers us into reality.

In my life, I have observed that most conservative people tend to live life without illusions, and I believe that most Progressive/Leftists tend to live a life of illusion, while moderate persons live a life of both. I have also observed that a person with illusions often has difficulty understanding those people who do not conform to their illusions about life, while a person without illusions cannot understand why others are not realistic. Thus, the divisiveness in America often is between those who live a life of illusionistic optimism and those who live a life of non-illusion realism.

Many of the Progressive/Leftists illusions are of human nature and the economic forces that drive human nature, while the realism of Conservatism often mitigates optimism and can often lead to cynicism. It is also an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, attending a college or university delays experiencing reality and reinforces illusions. A reinforcement that can linger for several years after graduation and sometimes for their entire life. It is most often the bitter experience of the real world that morphs someone from a life of optimistic illusions to a life of realism. But it is also true that this bitter experience of life can lead you on a path of wisdom. As I have often said, "True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!" but you must consider the bitter experience realistically and without excuses for your own culpability in the bitter experience. Otherwise, you will reach the wrong conclusion as to the reasons for the bitter experience, and you will not be able to make better choices in the future to avoid bitter experiences. You should also remember that:

"Shit happens. Sometimes you shit on yourself, sometimes others shit on you, and other times shit just happens. It doesn't matter how shit happens, it only matters how you deal with the shit. You can either clean yourself up and smell the roses, Or you can wallow in the shit and everything stinks. And remember; It's just as important to learn from the shit, as it is to clean yourself up from the shit!" - Mark Dawson

As I have examined my life, I have determined that I began my life with illusions but have learned to live a life without illusions. I, therefore, have experienced both the unbearable and unpardonable in my life. I also have had many bitter experiences, and all the types of shit have happened to me. But I have learned from the bitter experiences and the shit, and I have had a better life from living a life of consideration and realism.

10/29/23 Living a Life of Lies

It is an unfortunate fact that in the 20th and 21st centuries, a large percentage of many counties’ populace were and are living a life of lies. From Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Dictatorships, and a whole host of oppressive governments, their populace has been told lies, and they must repeat these lies or face frightful repercussions from their governments. Nowadays, the rise and dominance of Progressivism is repeating this scenario in countries that are supposedly free.

In America, this life of lies is being fostered by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are under attack by the tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering, and a Herd Mentality common in today's American society. These tactics are to reinforce the lies being told and to instill fear into anyone who would challenge these lies. These lies started with "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" but have expanded to include, but are not limited to, the following lies:

As Victor Davis Hanson has said, despite the claims of government officials to the contrary that “. . . most Americans saw January 6 for what it was—a buffoonish protest that for some devolved into a spontaneous riot and felonious behavior that desecrated chambers in the Capitol. But the public did not see evidence of a planned armed “insurrection” or “rebellion” or “conspiracy” to “overthrow the government”.

Most Americans had concluded that the Wuhan virology lab was the source of the COVID-19 virus and that the quarantines and lockdowns ruined the economy and had negative social repercussions. Most Americans became suspicious that the COVID-19 vaccines were not nearly as effective as touted by the government and that there were negative reactions to these vaccines for many persons. All this despite the contrary claims by government officials and the Mainstream Media.

Most Americans are furious that the border has ceased to exist while the government claims that the border is secure and that these illegal immigrants pose no danger to Americans despite government assurances to the contrary.

Most Americans believe that crime in the street is being fostered by Progressive law enforcement that is more concerned about the criminal rather than the victim and that it is not racist to believe otherwise.

Most Americans know that Transgenderism is not a major concern and that transgender counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery for minors is wrong without parental permission. They also know that thrusting transgenderism into public arenas such as schools, libraries, and the restrooms and locker rooms of children is harmful to the non-transgendered child and should not be allowed. They also know that transgender males competing in female sports events give the transgendered male an unfair advantage, and that is unfair to the female athletes competing for prizes and scholarships.

Most Americans, upon a cursory examination of the facts, knew that Hunter Biden’s laptop was his and not Russian disinformation and that it revealed the corruption of the Biden family, despite the claims that it revealed no criminality or unethical conduct by Joe Biden and his family.

Most Americans believe that the FBI, DOJ, DHS, IRS, and intelligence agencies have been corrupted and that the DOD is following in their path.

And now, most Americans believe that the "The Weaponization of Government" is occurring and that "Lawfare" is being practiced against those that opposed the Progressive political agenda and policy goals.

Alas, most Americans are afraid to publicly speak up about their beliefs for fear of negative repercussions to themselves, their families, or their career and/or their employment. This fear is thus leading most Americans to live a life of lies. But as Victor Davis Hanson has also pointed out, those governments that practice and allow for lies eventually collapse upon themselves, as the people often rebel against these lies. Let us hope that America can dig itself out of these lies before it collapses or rebels against a government of lies.

10/28/23 Speaking Truth to Power

Speaking Truth to Power used to be a badge of courage when confronting the orthodoxy of the political, economic, and social forces in America. Nowadays, it has become a mark of shame to do so. This major change was wrought by those who have become the powerful. In the past, it was the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders powers that were being challenged. Today, it is the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders powers that are being challenged.

And woe be to those who have a change of heart and head to speak the truth to the powers of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Those who have changed their opinions to the center or to the right of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are instantly subject to vitriol, and the tactics of Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and possible Lawfare, as well as the allegations of Conspiracy Theory, Hate Speech, Racist, LGBTQIA+ phobia, and Hyper-Partisanship fury.

One of those who has had a change of heart and head is Michael Shellenberger. He has written two books that speak truth to power that the Progressives/Leftists have employed vitriolic comments, and he has been subject to the tactics stated above. These books, “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” and “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities”, have engendered the wrath of Progressives/Leftists as they have spoken truth to power.

Michael Shellenberger is the founder and president of Environmental Progress (EP), which was founded in 2016 with the mission of achieving nature, peace, and prosperity for all. They believe everyone has a right to affordable energy, a healthy planet, and urban environments that enable citizens to thrive. Their strategy has been to organize grassroots movements to defend these rights and to fund research into why they are threatened.

He also has many videos posted on YouTube, with “Michael Shellenberger's Guide to Escaping the Woke Matrix” being particularly apropos of speaking truth to power. I would recommend his website and the two books previously mentioned as a starting point for understanding the truths as opposed to the orthodoxies of the current powers.

10/27/23 How Pathetic

The satirical site Babylon Bee has an excellent record of capturing the inanity of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Some of their recent headlines about the Hamas attack in Israel are pathetic in their pointiness:

Emperor Hirohito Calls For Ceasefire After Bombing Of Pearl Harbor
Harvard Student Leaves Lecture On Microaggressions To Attend ‘Kill The Jews’ Rally
Islam Downgraded To Religion Of Mostly Peace
State Department Issues Stern Warning To Hamas Not To Misgender American Hostages
White House Claims $6 Billion To Iran Absolutely Not Related To The Exactly $6 Billion Worth Of Rockets Being Fired Into Israel
White House Issues Condemnation Of Attack Biden Funded
Biden Offers The Palestinians $100 Million In Exchange For None Of The Hostages

In fact, much of what the Babylon Bee has satirized has turned out to be prophetic, so much so that they have a webpage, Book of Prophecy, that catalogs their prophecies. I often visit the Babylon Bee website to get a good laugh at the inanities of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and to maintain my sanity, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/25/23 That of Laughter”. I would suggest to all my readers that they make this website a frequent source of information along with the other websites I have mentioned in my Chirp on “10/26/23 Where Do I Get My News From?”.

10/26/23 Where Do I Get My News and Opinions From?

It is an unfortunate fact that Modern Journalism has descended into Progressive predilections and Democrat Party bias, as I have written in my article on Modern Journalism. While my own predilections are of Constitutional Conservatism with a hint of Libertarianism, I do attempt to read contrary viewpoints if they are knowledgeable and intelligent and presented with "Rationality" and "Reasoning" that utilizes a "A Philosophical Approach". However, I do have regular sources of news and opinions that I check on a daily basis. These news sources are:

As for opinion pieces, I believe that the following columnists have intelligent, reasonable, and cogent opinions, and I read their articles whenever a new column appears from them:

Finally, when it comes to wisdom about human nature, I regularly view the YouTube videos of Jordon B. Peterson.

While I do not always agree with this news reporting or the viewpoints of these columnists, I do find that they are thought-provoking and deserving of consideration.

10/25/23 That of Laughter

As I have often mentioned Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are wont to utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to bolster their arguments for their political goals and policy agendas. A careful analysis of their arguments reveals a lack of proper facts and proper truths along with incorrect "Reasoning" and "Rationality". Some of their arguments are so outlandish that it is exceedingly difficult to respond to their assertions in an intellectual manner. When reviewing their arguments, I often find myself responding in the manner of the following quote:

" I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers- that of laughter." - Charles L. Black (American Scholar)

But it is laughter to relieve the anguish of remorse that these arguments hold any weight with the American people. I also do so by remembering the aphorism that “Tis better to laugh than to cry.”, for if I didn’t laugh, I would find myself constantly crying for America. I also remember that in responding to these arguments, it is best to apply Hitchens's philosophical razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." and that their assertions should be challenged by insisting that they prove their assertions, for:

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish." - Mark Dawson

Otherwise, their incoherent arguments will continue to plague America to the detriment of the American people.

10/24/23 It’s a Conspiracy Theory

A new term has arisen amongst Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media—“Conspiracy Theory”. It has no formal definition, but it is being applied to anybody who disputes the Progressive political narrative, Mainstream Media accounts, or government assertions. Therefore, it is just a dismissive means of labeling dissenters and questioners as kooky. The word conspiracy also has a dark undertone connotating some nefarious, harmful, or illegal purpose to their words or deeds. It is also being used to ignore the allegations of those labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. However, it should be remembered that allegations with veracity are not a “Conspiracy Theory” but are simply unproven allegations. And allegations with veracity need to be investigated to determine the facts and truths.

In the past, the term bogeyman was used as an imaginary monster used to frighten children. Today, we are using the term Conspiracy Theorists to frighten adults for the purpose of psychologically intimidating them into not examining the allegations and evidence. In doing so, the labelers are also attempting to suppress the free speech of dissenters and questioners by relegating their free speech to a black hole where it will not be examined. As such, we should all remember the words of wisdom of our first President:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

This dumbing and silencing of dissenters and questioners is the goal of those who label them Conspiracy Theorists.

It was not too long ago when persons who raised the allegation that the Wuhan virology lab was the source of the COVID-19 virus were labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. The same is true for those who raised concerns that the COVID-19 virus vaccines may not be as effective as promoted or possibly harmful to many people.

We also had allegations of irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election that raised concerns as to the fairness and outcome of the election. Without any proper investigation of these irregularities, the people concerned about possible voter fraud were labeled as Conspiracy Theorists.

Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, we have seen a sharp rise in the usage of the term Conspiracy Theorists. Almost anyone who questions the motives or goals of the Biden Administration has been labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist.

This time-worn tactic of labeling those in opposition to government words and deeds for the purpose of marginalizing then ostracizing them from society has often been the first step into despotism, then dictatorialness. A step that, if successful, often leads to terrible consequences, as we have seen in the 20th and 21st centuries pogroms, concentration and work camps, gulags, and massacres of those that oppose a government.

10/23/23 Avarice Not Empathy

In an article by Jonathan Turley, “The Biden Family Tree: How Investigations are Exposing the Bidens’ Influence-Peddling Dynasty”, he examines “. . . the exposure of the Biden family and its long-standing business of influence peddling. Newly released evidence from the House Committee on Ways and Means reveals over $20 million coming from 23 separate countries on four continents to at least nine Biden family members. Not only are the Biden transfers becoming clear, so is the Biden family tree in this lucrative form of corruption.”

Professor Turley points out that “There is a sharp disconnect between the public persona long maintained by the press and what is becoming more apparent to the public now.” Joe Biden has long portrayed himself as a common person and a man of the people who is empathetic to the concerns of the people. As Professor Turley also points out, “That is not the image that emerges from the growing evidence about Biden and his family. The Bidens are suffering from legal exposure in actions concerning everything from withholding child support to peddling influence to federal felonies.” and that “. . . it is not empathy but avarice that defines the Bidens.”

It has thus been revealed that Joe Biden and his family are bad actors on the American stage of politics. They are what most Americans despise about politicians—self-centeredness composed of deceptions, corruption, and power hunger. It is time for Joe Biden and his family to exit stage-left from the American stage and face the legal repercussions of their avarice.

10/22/23 Learning History

It is an unfortunate fact that much of people’s knowledge of history comes from movies and television. While movies and television about history are often entertaining, they are just as often not historically accurate nor comprehensive. Even television documentaries about history contain inaccuracies, and they are definitely not comprehensive. There is also the question of the comprehensiveness of the historical knowledge of the people involved in the production. This is because the producers, writers, directors, and even the actors need to be entertaining and often have a viewpoint that they wish to express, and they are willing to fit the facts into the story. Even the historians that they utilize in the production of their movies, television, and documentaries have viewpoints, and sometimes biases, that they incorporate into the production. However, we should all remember:

“You should not learn your history from movies and television, but you should be inspired to learn history from movies and television.” - Mark Dawson

Many times, I have viewed historical movies, television, and documentaries and have become inspired to learn more about the history that they depicted. I will often do an Amazon search for books on the topic and carefully review the Publisher's Synopsis and Editorial Reviews of the books that have piqued my interest. I also scan the user reviews of the book but do not place much credence on these reviews, as I have no way of discerning if the review is by a village-wise or a village idiot person or someone who has an axe to grind. If I am interested in a book, I will do a library search to see if I can borrow the book from my local library. If it is not available from my library, and I desire to read the book, I will purchase a copy for my personal library. In some cases, if the author or reviewer is someone with whom I am familiar and whom I think highly of, I may purchase the book. After I have read a library book and have determined that it is of high quality that I may want to refer to in the future, I will purchase a copy of the book for inclusion in my personal library.

This has led me to have hundreds of books in my personal library that I often refer to when writing my Chirps and Articles. These books are not only about historical topics but span science and engineering, computer technology, mathematics, economics, politics, music, fine arts (while my wife has many books of English literature and fine arts), and a sundry of other topics.

I must confess, however, that I have not read all the books that I have purchased. I would guesstimate that I have read about 75% of the books in my personal library, while 20% are books that I have purchased for reference purposes, and the remaining 5% are books that I will hopefully read before I pass away. I have also discarded dozens of books that I have purchased and read as unworthy of being retained in my personal library.

Thus, I believe that I have a broad spectrum of knowledge, but while my depth of knowledge is limited to computer technology, I believe that I have a sufficient depth of knowledge to comment on the topics that I have written about in my Chirps and Articles. For more of the books that I deem worthy of your own reading, I would direct you to my Book It webpage.

10/21/23 Historical Knowledge and Historical Mythology

Most people’s historical knowledge is limited to events that occurred during their lifetime and occasionally a few decades before their birth. This knowledge is often incomplete or erroneous, as they do not have sufficient knowledge or proper facts and proper reasoning to understand historical events. What they have is beliefs based upon what they have seen or heard from others, and often, they only pay attention to others who confirm their beliefs. Many times, their historical understanding is of memories that are prone to inaccuracies or contorted to fit their beliefs. This unconscious process is what I describe as Historical Mythology rather than Historical Knowledge.

This unconscious process has been illuminated for me by my interest and extensive readings on American history and by what others have written or said about American history, as well as my conversations on history with others. This dearth of accurate historical knowledge is self-obvious to those who have extensive historical knowledge. The other issue is that even those who have some historical knowledge often do not examine historical knowledge contrary to their beliefs. Thus, their historical knowledge is incomplete or inaccurate.

This lack of historical knowledge allows unknowledgeable or unscrupulous politicians to manipulate the public for political purposes. Examples of this include a lack of knowledge of the history and meaning of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation. If the public had the proper historical knowledge of these events, they might have a different attitude about American history and a different outlook on the racial divisiveness in America than what is propagated by unknowledgeable or unscrupulous politicians. This is usually true for many great historical events in American history, and this lack of historical knowledge leads to the repetition of mistakes, as I have written in my Chirp on “Condemned to Repeat It”. This is also a condemnation of the public education system failures in modern America, as I have written in my article “Indoctrination versus Education”.

Alas, in modern America, we live in a society of historical mythology rather than historical knowledge. This historical mythology allows for social policy to be determined not by historical knowledge but by the passions of historical mythology that are without foundation. This also is a factor in the breakdown of "A Civil Society" in America, as civility requires "Rationality" and "Reasoning" based on knowledge founded on proper facts and proper truths, as I have Chirped on "08/11/23 Proper Reasoning".

10/20/23 A More Dangerous World

In foreign affairs, the modern Democrat Party has been all about giving peace a chance and depending upon the goodwill of those intent upon harming America and others that they oppose, most especially in the Middle Eastern countries of the world. Jimmy Carter’s debacle in Iran started a downward slide by the Democrats regarding dealing with terrorism. Terrorism increased during the Clinton Administration, and while the 9/11 attacks occurred nine months after Bush took office, they were planned and practiced during the Clinton Administration. During the Obama Administration, America has endured seven major Islamic terrorist attacks on its soil on Obama's watch, as well as the Arab Spring uprisings, a political crisis in Egypt, the collapse of Libya into a Civil War, and Syria’s bloody civil war. The Biden Administration has seen more aggression from Russia and China, while Iran and North Korea have become more threatening. The haphazardness of the Afghanistan withdrawal by the Biden Administration once again turned Afghanistan into a hostile country engaged in terrorism.

During Republican Administrations in this same time period, the incidents of world instability and terrorism subsided to manageable levels that did not threaten world peace. Thus, it can be said that Democrat administrations engender more instability in world affairs, while Republican administrations bring more stability to the world.

The main reason for this difference is that the Democrat leadership often sees the world for what they want it to be, while the Republican leadership sees the world as it is. The propensity of Democrat leaders to believe that goodwill will be matched by goodwill demonstrates their unwillingness to believe that self-interest, economics, passions, and a lust for power and influence of human nature is often the prime consideration motivating the decisions of other parties. Thus, they miscalculate the intentions of others by assuming the best in others.

Consequently, whenever Democrats assume control over foreign affairs, the world becomes a more dangerous place. This, alone, is a sufficient reason for the American electorate to be wary of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate. Until the Democrat Party leadership wakes up and smells the coffee, the world will be a more dangerous place with them in control.

10/19/23 Moral Equivalence

In an article by Dennis Prager, “Moral Equivalence Means Either Moral Confusion or Hatred of Israel”, he examines the use of moral equivalence by the defenders of the Hamas evildoers. The opening sentence of this article has pertinence to all users of moral equivalency:

"Moral equivalence has two purposes. One is to enable the morally confused to hide their confusion. The other is to enable the immoral to hide their immorality." - Dennis Prager

Thus, it is so for almost all users of moral equivalency when contrasting the wrongdoing of both sides of any issue. To properly utilize the moral equivalency argument requires that you have a weighted scale of moral wrongdoing and apply this balance in your arguments. Without this weighted scale, moral equivalency equates the morally insignificant with the morally grave. This leads to an overreaction to the morally insignificant and underreaction to the morally grave.

Alas, this moral equivalency in modern America is predominant and often paralyzes the proper response to morally grave events, and thus, we do not take the proper and effective response to morally grave events. Calls for reasonable and proportionate reactions to morally grave events are not effective in stopping these morally grave events and, indeed, encourage future morally grave events. The reasonable response to morally grave events is that which is necessary to punish these morally grave actions, and the proportionate response to morally grave events is that which is necessary to deter any future morally grave actions. Consequently, for morally grave events, we need to take the necessary actions, and not a reasonable and proportionate response, to punish and deter morally grave events.

10/18/23 Unadulterated Evil

As President Biden has stated, the Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel are “unadulterated evil”. My righteous anger at the events of Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel has delayed my response to this event. This anger leads me to believe that the people who planned and carried out these evil attacks need to be eliminated as both retribution and deterrence from future evil acts. This anger is also directed at the people who supported these evil attacks, either by their silence or vocal support, and they need to be driven from our midst and consigned to wander a desolate wilderness (literally for those in the Middle East and figuratively for their supporters around the world). However, the return of my rational and reasonable thought has given me pause to determine the best course of action to undertake in a manner that confronts evil without trampling on the Natural Rights of others.

However, these attacks were an act of war, and in war, it is often not possible to preserve the Natural Rights of all in confronting evil. The only question is what the response to such unadulterated evil should be. The Biden response is pathetic, as it does not actively confront the evildoers nor their supporters. Consequently, all humanitarian peoples and governments must proceed as if we are at war with these evildoers and temper our concerns for Natural Rights to eliminate these evildoers.

As these attacks were planned and funded by Iran, the rulership in Iran must be destroyed and replaced by a humanitarian government. All members of Hamas (and Hezbollah) need to be executed for their crimes against humanity. As some of the people of Palestine had to know something was about to occur, and they did not even clandestinely inform Israeli authorities of such, they should be relocated away from Israel for the security of Israel and its people. In doing so, we should remember the words of the Civil War Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's Letter to Atlanta in our reasoning for doing so, as well as some other of his wisdom on war:

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster." - William Tecumseh Sherman

"We can make war so terrible and make them so sick of war that generations pass away before they again appeal to it." - William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman

As for the vocal supporters of these evil acts, they should be branded as enablers and be shunned by all decent law-abiding and peaceful persons. They have the freedom of speech to articulate their opinions, but decent people have the freedom of speech to condemn these enablers and the freedom to not associate with these enablers. Any group or organization that enables these evildoers should in no way receive any government funding, nor should any elected or appointed official that enables these evildoers be permitted to retain their office.

“Never Again” should mean never again, and we should wage war against these evildoers and censure their enables to ensure that it will never happen again. For those who are fearful of the possible terrible consequences that may be incurred from taking these actions, or those who believe that this evil has no direct consequences on America, I would remind them of the following words of warning:

10/17/23 Out of Their Senses

In their infinite wisdom, the Continental Congress sent John Adams over to France to assist Benjamin Franklin with his diplomacy in obtaining French assistance and an alliance with France for them to engage in a war with Britain. They did this because they had heard of the unorthodox diplomacy of Franklin, and they were impatient with the pace of diplomacy. This did not turn out well, as the King of France, the French Aristocracy, and French society did not care for Adam’s or his style of diplomacy. After a short time in France, Adam’s was reassigned to Holland to obtain their assistance (which also did not work out well for other reasons).

Upon reflection, Franklin wrote:

“I am persuaded however that he [John Adams] means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his Senses.” - Benjamin Franklin

I feel the same as Franklin on Adams when I consider the words and deeds of Global Climate Change activists. I believe that they are honest and sincere in their beliefs and mean well, but in most things, they are out of their senses. Out of their senses as they often do not utilize proper facts and proper reasoning, do not account for the economics of their solutions, and often depend on a change in human nature to obtain their goals. They operate in a blind faith mode in their dedication to their objectives, and they brook no dissent in their ranks or contrary viewpoints outside their ranks. This is also occurring within the ranks of Climate Change scientists, as:

“To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.” - Patrick T. Brown, Climate Change Scientist

Consequently, it is dogma that drives Climate Change activists rather than provable facts. As such, they are not rational, and they behave vindictively to those that disagree with them. Thus, they are out of their senses, and rational and reasonable people should pay no heed to senseless people.

10/16/23 We Are Past That Point

There has never been any large-scale technological development that has been without risks. Economic, Political, Social, and Engineering risks are inherent in major technological developments, especially in their gestation and early life. So, it has been for Nuclear Power Generation. As Nuclear Power Generation was born out of the development of the atomic bomb, there were fears among the general public that a Nuclear Power plant could blow up (impossible for the reactor but possible for the surrounding container and building) or the nuclear reactor could melt down (which is possible but unlikely with proper safety engineering). There were also concerns about the safety of spent nuclear fuel disposal. People were also concerned about the possible increased exposure to radioactivity from the use of Nuclear Power Generation. Consequently, Nuclear Power Generation became untenable to the American public.

Just as Hydroelectric and Fossil Fuel electrical generation plants have had accidents and disasters, there have been accidents, but only one disaster, with Nuclear Power Generation. The Three Mile Island Accident was an engineering flaw that began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a flaw in the primary system that allowed large amounts of water to escape from the pressurized isolated coolant loop. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The Fukushima nuclear accident was because of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a mediocre nuclear reactor design, defective safety engineering, and poor emergency responses as a result of the Soviet Union’s haste to achieve Nuclear Power Generation at a low cost. We are also beginning to see the ecological impacts of Wind and Solar electrical power in their mining, manufacturing, and end-of-life disposal, as well as the harm to wildlife in their operation.

However, most of the design and safety engineering, as well as the emergency responses, have been improved to the point that these fears are unjustifiable and, thus, we are past that point where we should reflexively reject Nuclear Power Generation. It is time to rethink using Nuclear Power Generation properly, assess the risks, and determine the cost/benefits of utilizing Nuclear Power Generation.

For those who are willing to consider using Nuclear Power Generation, I would direct you to a TEDxBerlin video by Michael Shellenberger, “Why I changed my mind about nuclear power”, that examines this issue. For those who continue to reject Nuclear Power Generation, I would ask you to think about the negative risks and consequences of using other electrical generation technologies (which are many), and I would suggest that you view the same video to obtain the facts and truths about Nuclear Power Generation before making up your mind. I would also ask you to remember some prescient words of wisdom:

“If we’re going to tackle Global Warming, Nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power.” - Sting, Dec 2016

I would also ask all to remember that:

"The best way to overcome irrational fear is with proper facts and proper reasoning." - Mark Dawson

10/15/23 Rational and Reasonable Contrariness on Climate Change

Most Global Climate Change activists like to claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and that the science is settled. As I have written in my article on Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, no science is settled, as new scientific thought often replaces old scientific thought. Also, scientific consensus is often wrong as new observations and experiments contradict the consensus. Thus, “consensus science” is an oxymoron, as the following quote succinctly points out:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton

Those that disagree with the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science are often labeled as “Science Deniers”. As I have written in my Chirp on "08/03/23 Climate Science Denial", Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus and settledness of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. Three leading scientists and two knowledgeable and intelligent person on climate science have spoken of their doubts about the consensus and settledness of Climate Change science in the following videos:

Dr. Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology

Dr. Richard Lindzen on Climate Alarmism

Dr. Judith Curry: "Relax, there is no climate emergency!"

Bjorn Lomborg - Is there a Climate Crisis?

Michael Shellenberger: Climate Change Is Real, But It's Not the End of the World

It would behoove all to view these videos before they reach a conclusion on the consensus or settledness of Global Climate Change science. To not do so is to have forgotten the adage:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism

10/14/23 The Economics of Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

In a NY Post article by Jonathan Lesser, “Why wind and solar power are running out of juice”, he points out that:

“Wind turbine manufacturers like Siemens and General Electric have reported huge losses for the first half of this year, almost $5 billion for the former and $1 billion for the latter. Among other problems, turbine quality control has suffered, forcing manufacturers such as Siemens and Vestas to incur costly warranty repairs. In Europe, offshore wind output has been less than promised, while operating costs have been much higher than advertised. Offshore wind developers in Europe and the US are canceling projects because of higher materials and construction costs.”

Other reports have pointed out the economic and ecological impacts of Wind turbine failures that sow debris under the fields on which they stand and decimate birds of prey and the hefty costs of disposal and recycling when a wind turbine reaches its end of life. These economic and ecological impacts also hold true for Solar panels, but as they are a newer technology, the economic and ecological impacts are not yet fully known.

It is also true that Wind turbines and Solar panels are heavily dependent on government subsidies and tax credits, which camouflage the economics of these technologies. These government subsidies and tax credits are also a cost-shifting from the companies to the taxpayers that shift the economic risks of these technologies onto the public. Alas, this may make for good politics, but it is not good economics. It is not the function of government to provide subsidies and tax credits to companies or individuals, as it puts them in the position of choosing winners and losers, which a government is ill-suited to accomplish. It also allows politicians to reward and enrich political friends while encumbering political opponents, all at taxpayers’ expense.

Thus, in all economic forecasts and projections of Wind turbines and Solar panels, the costs/benefits are skewered and should not be accepted as reality.

10/13/23 Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Two prominent climate scientists, physicist Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), submitted a response for comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation. In this response, they argue that the regulations will have “disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, and the United States if fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are reduced to ‘Net Zero’”.

As Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen have also stated, “The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule.” and “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

They also noted that Professor Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, incisively explained the scientific method:

“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

Thus, the scientific method is very simple and very profound: Does theory work with observations? If not, it is rejected and not used. Since theories are tested with observations, fabricating data, falsifying data, and omitting contradictory facts to make a theory work is an egregious violation of the scientific method.

Richard Feynman stated this fundamental principle of the scientific method:

“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”

In Albert Einstein’s words: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen commented that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth, as well as commenting on the Unscientific Method Commonly Used by the EPA and Studies. The entire response of Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen can be downloaded here, and I would encourage all to read this response.

Additionally, Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message, “there is no climate emergency”. Dr. Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, with the first being Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on Solid-state physics. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly and is now over 1600 people.

Their response, and the Clintel World Climate Declaration, only reinforces what I have written in my articles on The Problems with Modern Science, Orthodoxy in Science, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, and Climate Change. For those that would claim that Drs. Happer and Lindzen are climate science deniers, I would recommend that you read my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial” to this assertion.

10/12/23 Net Zero CO2

The Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) was a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400. Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if they were planted but that they could not set fruit there. The Winter of 536 AD was the most severe and protracted episode of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years and initiated the Late Antique Little Ice Age, which lasted from 536 to 560 AD. The medieval scholar Michael McCormick wrote that 536 was the worst year in history to be alive: "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year.” In addition, a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (about 850–1250 A.D.), Greenland supported Norse farmers who grew crops such as barley, which cannot be grown there now because of the cold. There followed the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1250–1850 A.D., and glaciers have been retreating ever since then.

None of these fluctuations, far more dramatic than anything predicted by Global Climate Change studies, were caused by or had any correlation with, changing CO2 levels. All these severe weather changes were regional, not global, and were abated by natural forces unrelated to CO2 levels. Hence, there is reason to doubt that CO2 levels are directly related to weather changes and that other factors are more impactful to the weather on a regional basis.

In addition, Global Climate Change studies grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that CO2 and fossils fuels provide enormous social benefits for the poor, the United States, people worldwide, and future generations; that reduction of CO2 to Net Zero would be a worldwide disaster; and that there is no significant risk that CO2 and fossils fuels will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather events.

CO2 is the basis for nearly all life on Earth. We owe our very existence to green plants that, through photosynthesis, convert CO2 and water to carbohydrates and oxygen with sunlight. Land plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Other essential nutrients—water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.—come from the soil. In turn, livestock depends on the availability of green plants to consume so that humans can consume the livestock. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, no food, and no human or other life.

Therefore, we should all be wary of claims that Global Climate Change is responsible for weather events, as well as consider the benefits to humanity of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

10/11/23 It’s All About Power and Money

My previous Chirp on “10/09/23 Quotes on Good Science” is especially applicable to Global Climate Change. As I mention in the conclusion of these quotes, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”. As Global Climate Change predictions do not comport to reality, then I can categorically state that Global Climate Change is not science. Although some parts of the science of Global Climate Change are scientific, when aggregated into the whole of Global Climate Change science, they are dubious science.

Additionally, Climate Change activists enrich themselves through the public fear of Global Climate Change, while politicians electioneer on the fear of Global Climate Change, and scientists obtain funding and grants to investigate Global Climate Change based on the public fear of Global Climate Change. Hence, Global Climate Change is more about money and power than science.

Fear, however, is not a good basis for power and money, as when the fear abates, the former fearful often turns to those that engendered fear. It also pits those that are fearful against those that are not fearful, and using fear as a basis for scientific research corrupts science and scientists. Fear also almost always makes for irrational and unreasonable decisions, decisions that can have detrimental repercussions on people, society, and the economy, especially when a government makes these fearful decisions.

Often these government decisions are also made based on the desire for governmental control of society and/or the economy. Thus, these decisions often increase governmental power to the detriment of the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. In the case of international Global Climate Change accords, we see governments not only trying to control their people but also trying to control the people of other nations.

Much of this fear and control is instituted by the attempts to restrict or suppress the freedom of speech of those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science. In these restrictions, the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media are complicit. By labeling all dissent of Global Climate Change science as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation, as well as disparaging and denigrating dissenters as Climate Change Deniers, as in my Chirp on “08/03/23 Climate Science Denial”, they are implicated in the suppression of Freedom of Speech. In this, we should remember the words of wisdom of George Washington:

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

In restricting or suppressing those that would disagree with the Global Climate Change science, they are echoing and repeating only one side of the Global Climate Change issue, which results in:

"When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly." - George Washington

An insensibly that leads people to unquestionably accept Global Climate Change as factual when there are many legitimate questions and doubts about the science of Global Climate Change science.

10/10/23 A Scientist’s Duty

As I have written in my Science Article, “Orthodoxy in Science”, dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. Today, however, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation that is especially prevalent in the science of Climate Change, COVID-19, and now Transgenderism. Most disconcerting is that the Scientific Journals and Science magazines are suppressing this dissent and disputations between their covers. In doing so, they have forgotten the admonishment of one of the greatest scientists of all time:

“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” - Albert Einstein

But conceal is what they do, mostly by not publishing dissent and disputations or constricting what can be said in these articles. This has been pointed out in an article by Patrick T Brown on September 5, 2023, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published”, he relates that “I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.” As he stated in his article:

“This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

He then goes on to explain why this is happening and how it works, ending the article by stating, “What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics—but research that actually helps society.”

When Scientific Journals and Science magazines are not doing this on their own, they often bow to pressure from the government to censor their articles. In an article by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on September 11, 2023, The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won, he relates that “Last week, a federal appeals court confirmed that science cannot function without free speech. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reflects on a victory for himself—and every American.” Dr. Bhattacharya then goes on to explain his background, his experience in challenging the official government position on the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the censorship he encountered when he tried to publish his findings. Using proper facts and proper reasoning to reach his conclusions was no defense against the suppression he encountered in trying to publish his findings. The government put pressure on Scientific Journals and Social Media companies to suppress or defame his conclusions, thus violating his Free Speech Rights and his scientific duty not to conceal any part of what he recognized to be true.

In their doing so, the Scientific Journals and Science magazines, along with the government and Social Media companies, are also forgetful of another of Alber Einstein’s words of wisdom:

"A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be." - Albert Einstein

10/09/23 Quotes on Good Science

The world is awash in scientific studies. Many of these studies are hogwash, as they employ unscientific methods to reach a conclusion that the scientists desire. All scientists, and the public, should remember the following quotes when evaluating scientific studies:

"A man should look for what is, and not what he thinks should be." - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, and widely held to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time.
“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics
"Reality is the real business of physics." - Albert Einstein, 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics

“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, ... compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” - Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics
"Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully." - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
"The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call “techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes." - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
"Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination." - Dr. John F. Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton, American writer, and filmmaker educated as a Medical Doctor at Harvard University (BA, MD)

As for Albert Einstein's quote on reality I would amend it to say, “Reality is the real business of science, and any science that does not comport to reality is not science.”

10/08/23 Historical Events Judgements are Complicated

As I have mentioned in several of my Chirps and Articles, when you make judgments on historical events, you must understand the times in which they occurred. An understanding of what the people were thinking helps you understand their words and deeds. However, understanding their thinking is difficult to accomplish even for historians. Up until the 20th century, historians had only documentary evidence such as letters, pamphlets and books, newspapers, transcriptions of speeches, legal records, proclamations, and other written evidence. With the inventions of sound recordings, movies, radio, television, and videos, the documentary evidence expanded and became more comprehensive. Still, it is but an incomplete and imperfect understanding of their thinking that can be achieved.

In addition, historians often bring their modern sensibilities of morals and ethics to bear on their thinking. A good historian will attempt to constrain the influence of their modern sensibilities in their research and writing to be within the bounds of delineated judgment. However, not all historians are so principled, and quite a few of them write their histories with an agenda in mind. Such historians should be challenged and reputed by principled historians, and they often are, but it is difficult for the public to determine and discriminate against unprincipled historians. In addition, some historical writings are not done by historians but by persons who have an axe to grind for or against a historical event or personage. Therefore, we must all be wary of any historical accounting before accepting it as factual or truthful.

This was again accentuated for me in my reading of the book The Union War by Gary W. Gallagher. In his book, he attempts to eliminate his modern sensibilities to determine what the people who supported the Union cause in the Civil War thought that they were fighting for. However, he does point out the contradictions and hypocrisy of their thinking, as the following passage demonstrates:

“American democracy as practiced in 1860 exhibited glaring weaknesses. Woman, free and enslaved black people, did not partake fully of what most northerners would have defined as liberties and freedoms at the center of their popular republic. But it is important to remember, the global context within which the Civil War generation lived and fought—within which, over the proceeding decades, political and economic opportunity had been on the rise in the United States while privilege, with the failures of the European revolutions of the late 1840’s, had seemed to gain a greater stranglehold on other nations in the western world. Falling far short of perfection (as all other governments and political systems everywhere and always do) the American republic nonetheless followed a trajectory toward expansion of opportunity of its citizenry and functioned as a great magnet for immigrants seeking to improve their economical and political circumstances. Across the Atlantic, the United States stood for possibilities and change. The International Workingmen’s Association congratulated Abraham Lincoln on his reelection of 1864, presenting him with an address drafted in late November. Europe’s laboring men “felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class” and believed “their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in the tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic.”

He also discusses the efforts of many modern historians in the last half century or so to frame the Civil War in terms of race and racism, as well as the preservation of white privilege and white superiority. Despite a lack of documentary evidence and the insertion of personal opinion by these historians, the documentary evidence of the Union supporters’ motivations was for the preservation of the Union. As he states in his book:

“Much recent Civil War scholarship obscures the importance of Union for the wartime generation. Two interpretative threads run through such literature. The first and most prominent suggests that the Union of 1860—1861 scarcely deserved to be defended at the cost of any bloodshed. The second argues that a major shift in war aims occurred when northerners realized that only emancipation made their level of sacrifice worthwhile. In both instances, modern sensibilities distort our view of how participants of a distant era understood the war.”

He also has a companion book, The Confederate War, which examines what people who supported the Confederate cause in the Civil War thought that they were fighting for. Both books are well worth the read to understand the thinking of the American people of the time and to better adjudge the historical events of the Civil War and its impacts on American history.

10/07/23 Historical Personages Judgements are Complicated

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “History is a lot more complicated than City Council’s statue-haters can admit”, he commented on the campaign to get rid of monuments honoring anyone who owned enslaved people or profited from slavery and anyone who “participated in systematic crimes against indigenous people or other crimes against humanity.” In doing so, however, you need to be aware of the full history of a person and the political and cultural environment in which they lived to make a proper judgment on a historical person, as well as the other aspects of their history. As an example, as Professor Dershowitz stated in this article:

“Consider, for example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who has an island named after him.

He did a great many good things, but his failures were monumental and costly.

They include maintaining racial segregation in our armed forces while thousands of young African Americans were sent into battle defending democracy.

He closed the doors to Jewish immigration before and during the Holocaust, deliberately making it difficult for Jewish refugees even to fill the unused “quotas” authorized by law.

He is personally responsible for the deaths of many Jews who could have been saved had Roosevelt simply followed the law rather than pandered to the antisemites in Congress and the State Department.

History is filled with these complexities.

Thomas Jefferson’s views on slavery were complex. Abraham Lincoln’s views on the rights of African Americans were likewise complicated.

Woodrow Wilson was a man of peace but a virulent racist.”

Therefore, making judgments on a historical person based on our current morality and ethics is fraught with difficulties. You should not use our current morality and ethics as a basis of the judgment of what happened in a historical period or location but only use it as a guidepost. You should, therefore, be aware of the morals and ethics of a historical person’s time or location so that you can judge the words and deeds of the people of that time or location. You can then utilize our current morals and ethics for comparison to their morals and ethics to reach a fuller understanding of the people or events that historically occurred, as I have written in my article “Condemned to Repeat It”.

To do otherwise is nothing but "Virtue Signaling" without being virtuous, and as it has been said:

"It is much more difficult to be virtuous than it is to virtue signal." - Unknown

10/06/23 Another Obama for President

With the decline of President Biden in public opinion polls and with questions about his age, honesty, and integrity, the Democrat Party Leaders are searching for an alternative candidate for the 2024 Presidential elections. As they search for a viable candidate that is acceptable to the American public, one name continues to pop up—Michelle Obama. The possibility of her becoming a presidential candidate demonstrates how bereft the Democrat Party is of viable candidates and how the Democratic Party will resort to appearance over substance to obtain and retain power.

Michelle Obama may be an attractive candidate to those on the left, but she is objectionable to those on the right. Her stances on the issues have reflected her extreme progressiveness, and her comments have further provoked "Divisiveness in America", as the following quote illustrates:

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008

I can also hear the wailing of racism and sexism against anyone who would disagree with her or critique or criticize her, which would further divide America. Given that she has no political or governmental experience, nor any business acumen or leadership, her credentials to lead or manage the Federal government are thin too nonexistent.

Thus, if the Democrat Party nominates her as their 2024 Presidential candidate, they are pinning their hopes for winning the election on appearances rather than substance on the issues. They are also demonstrating that they are more interested in rulership rather than leadership, as an unqualified President cannot lead but only rule.

10/05/23 Biden Impeachment Inquiry Simplified

South Carolina’s Representative William Timmons has made the most concise and trenchant statements about the purpose of the current inquiry on the possibility of the Impeachment of President Biden. The big three comments he made are:

“Let me simplify our impeachment inquiry for the American people. We have enormous amounts of evidence of Hunter Biden's nefarious and illegal activity. But the question is... was Joe Biden complicit and did he receive a financial benefit? With a few more subpoenas, we will do the job the DOJ, FBI, and IRS actively avoided.”

“This Congress has a duty to further investigate whether Vice President Joe Biden was an affable, loving father simply taken advantage of by his delinquent son, or a knowing participant who was complicit in the scheme and financially compensated for his role. That is why we are here today, to answer that simple question, to determine if our current president is compromised.”

“Look, this scheme is complicated. You’ve got all these countries and all these different roles different people played. But the plan is simple and repeated often. A foreign client has a problem. The foreign client pays a Biden. The vice president leverages influence to force a favorable outcome for the client. The Biden family earns its fee. That’s the scheme.”

As to whether there is sufficient evidence, at this time, to impeach President Biden, I would agree with the statement before the committee of constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who said that he doesn’t believe the evidence as it currently exists supports impeaching Joe Biden. What he also said, however, was that he also believed the evidence uncovered so far merited the impeachment inquiry, which is precisely as far as the House GOP has gone. Professor Turley added:

“The only way you’ll be able to get that information is to follow this evidence. What I suggest is you do so without any prejudice, you do so without any assumptions. In fact, I hope that the president will be able to show that there is no such nexus. But you won’t get those answers until you ask these questions.”

Consequently, it is important for the committee to uncover all the evidence, connect the dots, and reveal the facts and truths of Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s schemes. Only then can the American people determine whether an Impeachment of Joe Biden is warranted.

10/04/23 I Am Not in Favor of Democracy

If democracy means the violation of the Natural Rights of a person, then I am not in favor of democracy. If democracy means ignoring or circumventing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, then I am not in favor of democracy. If democracy means the imposition of Progressive Ideology and Ideas on America, then I am not in favor of democracy.

Unfortunately, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that the meaning of democracy is that they can implement their policy goals and political agendas without remaining within the boundaries of Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. Through "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, they have bamboozled the American people into believing that they are within these boundaries. To my fellow Americans, I would say do not be hoodwinked by them, as they are not within these boundaries!

Even if they obtain a broad majority of support for their policy goals and political agendas, it is not democracy if it violates the boundaries of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, for the majority may never violate the rights of the minority in a democracy. It is not democracy but majoritarianism if they violate these boundaries and majoritarianism, which can only be enforced by despotism.

Therefore, when Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders speak of “our democracy”, as I have examined in Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", they are not speaking of a real democracy. They are speaking of their majoritarian oligarchy, as Rob Natelson has explained in his article “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. Do not let them gaslight you into believing their pronouncements, but do resist their efforts as I have Chirped on “09/30/23 Resistance Movements in Modern America”.

10/03/23 Who’s to Blame?

America has seen many botches during the Biden Administration. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to a recession, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many botches of the Biden Administration. We have also seen how the Biden Family was involved in corrupt dealings despite their and their supporters’ denials.

The question is who is responsible for these blunders? Many have pointed to specific individuals in the Biden Administration and to President Biden himself as responsible for these blunders. In this, there is much truth, but we should also consider the larger picture which allowed for these blunders.

One of the contributing factors is a belief in Progressivism as a governing philosophy, an unfounded belief, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives". Another contributing factor is the decline of "Modern Journalism" to become advocacy journalism rather than uncovering the facts and truths. An advocacy journalism of Progressive ideology and ideas, and a support of Democrat candidates and politicians in their journalism. Finally, the American people shoulder some of this blame by electing and supporting Progressives and Democrats despite their many blunders.

It is understandable that the American people shoulder some of this blame, for after decades of progressive propaganda and advocacy journalism, they are unknowledgeable of the failures of progressivism and the facts and truths not reported or covered up by modern journalism. The biggest failure of modern journalism was in the 2020 presidential campaign. A failure of modern journalism to draw out candidate Joe Biden from his basement for the American people to make a judgment on his policies and character, the covering up of the Hunter Biden laptop, which revealed his corruption, and the lack of investigative reporting on the irregularities of the 2020 election process. Thus, the American people did not have the information they needed to make a proper judgment in electing Joe Biden.

It should also be noted that the failures of "Public Education" have produced a body politic unfamiliar with our "American Ideals and Ideas" and has degenerated into indoctrination rather than education, as I have written in my article "Indoctrination versus Education".

These larger picture factors, along with the "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" in America, have produced a society that blunders its way from one botch to another. A blundering which, if not corrected, bodes ill for the future of America.

10/02/23 Going Too Far

The book and movie “A Bridge Too Far” was the story of Operation Market Garden, the World War II Allies' attempt, in September 1944, to hasten the end of World War II by driving through Belgium and Holland into Germany to capture several bridges. Faulty intelligence, Allied high command hubris, and stubborn German resistance would ensure that the Arnhem Bridge was a bridge too far, which resulted in the failure of Operation Market Garden to achieve its goals.

In a Podcast, Jordan Peterson at Club Random with Bill Maher, Jordon Peterson related that he has posed an interesting question for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders; “When do you think the left go too far?” He also related that he has never gotten a clear answer to this question to those he posited the question.

So, what is the answer to this question? The answer is that you go too far when you violate the Natural Rights of a person. This includes the words and deeds that you engage in to achieve your goals. The strategy of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", "The Weaponization of Government", the violations of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, and the tactics of Cancel Culture, Doxing, Hate Speech, Herd Mentality, Hyper-Partisanship, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, and Wokeness are all a bridge too far.

Too often, the policies of Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), LGBTQIA+, Equity and Equality, Modern Feminism, Social Engineering, and allegations of Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, or Bigoted are a bridge too far and result in "Divisiveness in America".

In their self-righteousness, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they have the morality to engage in these strategies and tactics for the greater good, as I have written in my article on the Greater Good versus the Common Good. But no greater good can be achieved by violating the Natural Rights of a person. What they will achieve is despotism against those who disagree with them.

Let us hope that by going a bridge too far, the American people will awaken to the harm that they are doing. And, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Resistance Movements", that a resistance will arise in America against these bridges too far.

10/01/23 The Mythologies of Progressivism

As I have noted in my Chirp on "08/25/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History", Progressives rely on the “facts” and “truths” of science and history to buttress their ideology. However, they pick and choose tidbits of facts and truths and surround them with their ideology rather than elucidating all the facts and truths. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history and creating myths of science and history, which they propagate to an unknowing public. This month’s Book It selections examine some of these Progressive myths and repudiate them with facts and truths.

09/30/23 Resistance Movements in Modern America

When Donald Trump won the Presidential election in 2016, the cries of “Resistance” rang through Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. But this resistance was not based upon self-rule and self-determination, nor the preservation of Liberties and Freedoms, but of resistance to preserve their Progressive ideology and ideas. As such, it was not a legitimate and praiseworthy resistance. In this resistance, no strategy or tactic was to be excluded, and nothing was off-limits to their resistance. False accusations, Congressional Hearings with no veracity, corruption of the FBI and the Intelligence community, IRS shenanigans, indictments and lawsuits of his supporters, physical and psychological intimidation, violence on the streets, and a steady drumbeat in the Mainstream Media against Trump and his supporters were all in play. The 2020 Presidential elections were all about covering up the infirmities, lies, and corruption of Joe Biden and his family, while the negative drumbeat against President Trump in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education" was incessant. They even resorted to the suppression of Free Speech, Free Assembly, and the Freedom of the Press to further this resistance. Thus, this was not resistance but repression.

In an article by Victor Davis Hanson, “What the Left Did to Our Country”, he lays out a litany of actions that the Left has taken in the last two decades to “fundamentally transform” America. A transformation not based on our "American Ideals and Ideas" but on the imposition of Progressive ideology and ideas upon America. As such, it is time for resistance to arise in America to reclaim our American Ideals and Ideas. A resistance to reaffirming the ideals of The Declaration of Independence and the ideas of the Constitution of the United States. In such resistance, it should be remembered by the resistors that:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

Without this active resistance and the success thereof, it is quite possible that America will slide into despotism. Let us hope that we can counter this slide with the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box rather than having to resort to the ammo box, as I have written in my Article, “The Four Boxes of Liberty”. But if we cannot successfully resist through the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, the ammo box may be necessary to preserve the last best hope of Liberty and Freedom from perishing from the Earth.

09/29/23 Resistance Movements in Modern World History

Post World War II, there were many resistance movements to oppose established authorities in the hopes of establishing Natural Rights amongst all the people of the world. These resistance movements were primarily against Communism and British and French Colonialism. In the case of British and French Colonialism, the resistance movements were successful in ending colonialism, sometimes peaceably and sometimes not. These colonialist resistance movements were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination of the people of a country. Thus, they were legitimate and praiseworthy resistance movements. Unfortunately, violence often erupted during this resistance, and Natural Rights were often violated during the resistance. In some cases, the end of colonialism did not bring about self-rule and self-determination but tyranny that violated the Natural Rights of the people.

The yearning for Liberty and Freedom in post-World War II Communist countries led to many resistance movements in these countries. Some resistance movements were organized, and some were spontaneous. All were in an effort to establish self-rule, self-determination, and Natural Rights in these countries, and all were opposed by the communist governments. The Gulag in the Soviet Union, the State Police in Eastern Block European Iron Curtain countries, the Cultural Revolution in Red China, and other Crimes against Humanity under Communist Regimes occurred as a result of resistance to Communist authorities. Eventually, Communism collapsed due to economic forces and the mass support for the resistance movements. The few remaining Communist countries adopted economic reforms to forestall economic ruination, but they continued to impose political oppressions and violations of the Natural Rights of their people.

In Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, resistance movements were often targeted against tyrannies and dictatorships. They were often violent and not often successful, and where they were successful, they often replaced one form of tyranny and dictatorship with another form of tyranny and dictatorship. Thus, the peoples of those countries did not achieve self-rule and self-determination, the Natural Rights of their peoples were ignored or suppressed, and the economic condition of the people was not improved and sometimes deteriorated.

Consequently, when evaluating resistance movements, it is necessary to determine if the resistors are attempting to institute self-rule and self-determination and establish the Natural Rights of their people. Too often, a resistance movement has espoused laudatory purposes, but the ends are not commendable, or they become corrupted. Thus, it is even more important to determine if their intended goals are just words rather than deeds. A determination that is often difficult to ascertain and requires constant surveillance of the words and deeds of a resistance movement. For, as one of our Founding Fathers has said:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Any resistance movement that is for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination and the Liberties and Freedoms of its people is legitimate and should be supported by all liberty and freedom-loving persons of the world. Conversely, any resistance movements that are not for these purposes should be opposed by all liberty and freedom-loving persons of the world.

09/28/23 Resistance Movements in World War II

In the warmongering, before and during World War II, it was often downplayed or forgotten that many of the peoples of NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan resisted against their governments. The British and American authorities did not provide any support for these resisters and often engaged in words and deeds that were counterproductive to their efforts. The book The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming details many of the words and deeds that were counterproductive to the resistance and how the Allies could have provided assistance to the resisters.

The German resistance to Nazism was composed of many individuals and groups in Germany that were opposed to the Nazi regime and engaged in resistance, including assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler or by overthrowing his regime. It has been estimated that during the course of World War II 800,000 Germans were arrested by the Gestapo for resistance activities. It has also been estimated that between 15,000 and 77,000 of the Germans were executed by the Nazis. Resistance members were usually tried, mostly in show trials, by Sondergerichte (Special Courts), courts-martial, People's Courts, and the civil justice system. Many of the German resistance had served in government in military or civil positions, which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy.

The Italian resistance movement, Resistenza, is an umbrella term for the Italian resistance groups who fought the occupying forces of Nazi Germany and the fascist collaborationists of the Italian Social Republic during the Second World War in Italy from 1943 to 1945. As a diverse anti-fascist movement and organization, the Resistenza opposed Nazi Germany, as well as Nazi Germany's Italian puppet state regime, the Italian Social Republic, which the Germans created following the Nazi German invasion and military occupation of Italy by the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS from 8 September 1943 until 25 April 1945.

Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan consisted of individual Japanese dissidents against the policies of the Empire of Japan, but there were no formal resistance groups or movements.

What is important for the purposes of this Chirp is that it is crucial to support any resistance group that opposes evil and the violations of Natural Rights. If we had done so in NAZI Germany and Fascist Italy before and during World War II, the history of this war may have been quite different. Therefore, it is important that we remember these resistance movements and learn the lessons of history if we do not support them. Thus, this Chirp is a remembrance of those people and groups in NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan that opposed the forces of evil in their countries. It is also a plea for support for resistance movements of those people who are standing up for self-rule and self-determination and the Liberties and Freedoms of the people of their country in our modern world.

09/27/23 Resistance Movements in American History

America itself was born out of resistance to the authoritarianism of the British government that attempted to suppress self-rule and self-determination and the Natural Rights of the colonists as expressed in the particulars of the Declaration of Independence. In doing so, they formulated a new expression of the purpose of government and basic Natural Rights in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

In this paragraph, they also established the legitimacy of resistance if it were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination and the desire for governmental protection of Liberties and Freedoms that flow from the Natural Rights of the people.

After winning its freedom from England, Americans attempted to enshrine the principles of this new formulation of government in the Constitution of the United States, as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution:

Yet, they were not perfect in these principles, as they violated them by allowing the stain and evil of slavery to exist in America. This led to the second great resistance in America and eventually to the Civil War that ended this stain and evil.

Prior to America’s entrance into World Wars I and II, there was significant resistance in America to our entrance into these wars. Only when these wars were framed in the context of Liberty and Freedom did the resistance to these wars dissipate.

The next great resistance movement in American history was in the form of the Civil Rights movement. This (mostly) non-violent movement, placed in the context of Liberty and Freedom, gained the support of the American people and ended systemic bigotry and discrimination in America.

The next resistance occurred in the protests against the Vietnam War. While initially, many of the resistors were non-violent, as the war dragged on, much resistance turned violent. This violence divided Americans, and these divisions lingered on for many decades.

Thus, American resistance movements were for the purposes of self-rule and self-determination, the reaffirmation of Natural Rights, and the expansion of Liberty and Freedoms for the people. As such, they were legitimate and praiseworthy resistance movements.

09/26/23 You Have to Wonder

When thinking about the career of Senator, Vice President, and now President Joe Biden, you must wonder whether he does or says something because he’s a liar or because he’s genuinely stupid. Now you need to add a third and fourth option: corruption and senility. His entire political career has been about him: his egotism, his nihilism, his self-importance, his expedience in saying anything to advance his career, and his avarice to enrich himself and his family. This bespeaks his being a person without character and principles. His motivations appear to be to obtain and retain power and to enrich himself and his family from that power.

Also, as Robert Gates, former defense secretary in the Obama administration, once put it, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” and as President Obama has stated, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.” This also bespeaks his being limited in knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom.

And wrong and f**k things up has been the story of Joe Biden’s Presidency. America is far the worse by the presence of Joe Biden on our political scene. A nation divided and floundering characterizes his Presidency. The American people have been hoodwinked by his stay-at-home presidential campaign of 2020 and the many cover-ups of his lies, incompetencies, and corruption by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media".

Given Joe Biden’s history, you need not wonder anymore—he is a liar, stupid, corrupt, and now senile. For those who do not believe this, I would remind them of the words of the American Scholar Charles L. Black, " I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers- that of laughter."

09/25/23 Influence Peddling and Lobbying

Influence peddling is the practice of using one's influence in government or connections with authorities to obtain favors or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment. It is also called traffic of influence or trading in influence. Influence peddling per se is not necessarily illegal, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has often used the modified term "undue influence peddling" to refer to illegal acts of lobbying. However, influence peddling is typically associated with corruption and may, therefore, delegitimize democratic politics with the general public.

Lobbying or advocacy in politics is the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies, but also judges of the judiciary. Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations, and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as voters, constituents, or private citizens; it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own business interests; by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector through advocacy groups (interest groups) to fulfill their mission such as requesting humanitarian aid or grantmaking; and by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector. Lobbying or certain practices that share commonalities with lobbying are sometimes referred to as government relations or government affairs, and sometimes legislative relations or legislative affairs.

Influence peddling and lobbying have been part and parcel of governance throughout history and are a result of powerful governments that can enrich or immiserate persons or organizations outside of government. A main difference between influence peddling and lobbying is that influence peddling enriches those in power while lobbying influences those in power to obtain favorable treatment that would enrich those not in power. Consequently, influence peddling satisfies the avariciousness of the politician or bureaucrat, while lobbying satisfies the greed and desires of the non-politician.

The perils of influence peddling and lobbying are that the decisions reached under their influence may have serious (negative) repercussions on the public welfare. The policies of international relationships may be detrimental, the health and safety of the public may be impacted, and the economic impacts may redound negatively to the general good. It is also an unfortunate fact that influence peddling has enriched many a politician, their spouses, families, and friends, as well as their campaign coffers. There is no practical way to eliminate influence peddling and lobbying in government, but when these activities rise to the level of consequential impacts, those involved must be punished either judicially, politically, or economically for their avarice or greed that has brought harm to the general public.

Such is the case of the alleged Biden Family corruption. Not only have they enriched themselves by their influence peddling, but they have corrupted the justice system to deny their wrongdoing. Both actions have wrought great harm to America. While there may be judicial actions that can be utilized to prosecute Joe Biden’s family and friends, the only action that can be taken against Joe Biden while he is the sitting president is Impeachment.

While I am generally against Impeachment, for the reasons that I have written in several articles on The Impeachment of President Trump, the influence peddling of Joe Biden and his family may rise to the level of impeachment. In my article on The Case for the Impeachment of President Biden, I have stated that in evaluating the wisdom of impeachment, you must balance the harm to the functioning of the government and the balance of powers between Congress and the Presidency as a result of an impeachment process, as well as the harm done to the Constitution and America as a result of the Unconstitutional governance by a President. In doing so, you must also keep in mind that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” when you make a judgment to proceed or not to proceed with an impeachment process. Often, you must make a Sophie’s Choice of the lesser of two evils when faced with this dilemma.

I, therefore, believe that President Biden is deserving of impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. However, as Rob Natelson has explained in his article, “Constitution’s Impeachment Rules Require Biden Inquiry to Be Narrowly Focused”, the impeachment inquiry and possible articles of impeachment must be limited to Joe Biden’s role in the Biden Family corruption. I also believe that on balance, and in both the short and long term, the harm he has done by his influence peddling and to the corruption of the judicial system is far greater than the harm that may result from his impeachment.

09/24/23 Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for actions committed by or on behalf of members of their organizational hierarchy. They may do so because of a lack or absence of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. If illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift the blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible (credible), but sometimes, it makes any accusations only unactionable.

Plausible deniability has often been deliberately utilized by politicians to obtain the goals they desire while shirking the responsibility if the goal is unpopular and, if uncovered, could result in electoral harm. In the case of the Biden family corruption, the entire scheme was designed for plausible deniability. Shell companies, secretive bank accounts, overseas bank transfers, pseudonyms and codewords, duplicitous email addresses, and non-reporting of income to the IRS do not speak of above-board actions by those involved. And besides the goal of enriching themselves without honest efforts, it appears that they were trying to isolate Joe Biden from the appearance of direct involvement in their schemes. To believe otherwise calls for, as Hillary Clinton once stated, “… a willing suspension of disbelief.”

The one thing that they have forgotten is that for plausible deniability to succeed, it is necessary that the deniability be plausible. As such, as nobody of intelligence and integrity believes their explanations, rather than plausible deniability, they have resorted to the corruption of the justice system to deny wrongdoing.

A corruption of the justice system by slow-walking investigation until the statute of limitations expires, a corruption of the justice system by not utilizing proper investigative techniques, a corruption of the justice system by attempts to plea deal with future immunities and a corruption of the justice system by covering up the other corruptions. They have also corrupted our governance by refusing to release information, redacting information, withholding witnesses, and sometimes deceit or dissembling testimony to Congressional oversight committees.

In this corruption, they have been assisted by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists commentators, as well as by the Mainstream Media’s lack of accurate and truthful reporting. A corruption of the justice system that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and antithetical to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A corruption of the justice system that, if successful, leads to further corruption in the future by other parties.

09/23/23 Economical or Not

To be economical or not to be economical, that is the question. It is an unfortunate fact that "Progressives/Leftists" and "Activists and Activism" have given little or no consideration of the economic impacts of their words and deeds. Without understanding the economics of their words and deeds, it is not possible to create a policy to deal with their concerns. Indeed, any policy that does not account for economics (or human nature) is doomed to failure. And you cannot counter or ignore the economics of any policy decision, or, to paraphrase one of my quotes:

"To deny economics, or to not acknowledge economics, is foolish. To do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure." - Mark Dawson

The problem with economics is that it is inexact. The very complexity of economics and the interrelationships between the different complexities make it an inexact science. Economics is also bound up in human nature, and the reactions of humans to changes in their economic circumstances make it impossible to predict the economic impacts of a policy. Different economists have different opinions, often contrary to each other, that are often incompatible and unresolvable. This is why predictions in economics are more often wrong than right.

When Activists, Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders make economic statements, they are often based upon rosy assumptions of what they desire it to be, and when the government makes economic statements, they are most often wrong. Alas, this is most especially true of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), as their economic models are constrained by limitations, assumptions, and presumptions imposed by Congressional politicians. Thus, Congress operates on false economic models of their own making that are constrained to provide rosy economic projections of their policies. Anytime you have a model with constraints that contain assumptions and presumptions, it will most likely produce incorrect results (one only has to look at Climate Change models that are consistently incorrect for proof of the assertion). Indeed, it can be said that the greater the complexity and interrelationships of a model and the further it projects into the future, the more likely it is to be wrong.

Consequently, all economic models and projections should be taken with a grain of salt, as they often are wrong and tinged by the desires of those who do the modeling. And always remember:

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie With Statistics" (1954)

And:

"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box, one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century

09/22/23 Truth, Justice, and the American Way

The articulation “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” was a catchphrase of the comic-book character Superman until they went woke in 2021 and changed it to "Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow." Of course, “a Better Tomorrow” is highly subjective and open to interpretation as to what constitutes a better tomorrow. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "The most basic question is not what is a Better Tomorrow, but who shall decide what is a Better Tomorrow?” I do not believe it is wise to allow comic book authors to determine a Better Tomorrow, nor wise to allow any group of people to determine what is a better tomorrow. Each person must have the Liberty and Freedom to determine what is a better tomorrow for them and society through the democratic process to determine what is a better tomorrow for society.

The original phrase is much less subjective, as it is based upon our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our commitment to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Thus, once again, we see Progressives/Leftists sowing doubt and confusion to achieve their political goals. Therefore, have no doubts and do not be confused, as “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is the proper articulation of Americans and America.

09/21/23 Be Careful What You Ask For

In an article by Charles C. W. Cooke, “Why Not Arrest Governor Lujan Grisham?” and an additional commentary article by Andrew C. McCarthy, “Why Not Arrest Governor Lujan Grisham . . . Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law the Biden Justice Department Is Using to Prosecute Donald Trump?”, they both make some interesting points.

As Mr. Cooke points out that:

“More than anything else, the Framers of America’s constitutional order feared executive tyranny. They built a nation of laws not men, of constitutions not caprice, of legislatures not kings.”

As such, no Executive or Executive Officer can act without Legislative approval. When an Executive or Executive Officer arbitrarily acts without Legislative approval, then they are violating the foundations of our governance and leading us into tyranny. As Mr. Cooke has also said in his article:

“A stable and intelligible set of written laws is what separates free nations such as the United States and the tyrannies it was designed to avoid. That law must be seamless in its scope and application. It cannot be applied to some but not others; it cannot be suspended at will; it cannot be subordinated to the subjective judgment of those who swore an oath to uphold it. It exists, or it does not. It remains intact, or it is torn apart. It is universal, or it is obviated.”

Mr. McCarthy points out that the statute being used to prosecute former President Trump by the Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith in the federal election interference case has broader implications if applied to other government officials. Section 241 of the federal penal code is the civil-rights conspiracy statute states:

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same[,] … [t]hey shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both[.]”

He also states that:

“Obviously, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D., N.M.) and her subordinates have conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Americans in New Mexico in the free exercise and enjoyment of their Second Amendment rights. Indeed, her acknowledgment that she expects to be challenged in court underscores both her criminal intent and the fact that the rights she has decided to “suspend” are well established in constitutional law.”

When an Executive Officer does not faithfully execute the laws as passed by the Legislature, they are violating the rights of the people within their jurisdiction. This is also a violation of our republican form of government, where the elected people’s representatives in the Legislature make the laws, while the Executive officers (both elected and appointed) must faithfully execute the laws as passed by the Legislature. It is also a violation of their Oath of Office to uphold the United States Constitution and their State Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws thereof. When the Executive officers disagree with a law, they have the right to request the legislature modify, eliminate, or create laws, but they have no right to ignore or skirt the law. The use of “Prosecutorial Discretion” to justify not faithfully executing the laws does not hold water, as I have discussed in my Chirp on "01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion".

When any elected or appointed official in any of the three branches of government—Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, does not uphold the law or advocates for the ignoring or skirting of the law, they are engaging in an insurrection against the proper authority of our government, and they should be removed from office either by impeachment or prosecution for violating Section 241 of the federal penal code.

This course of action against these transgressors would require that our leaders have the fortitude to stand up for the principle of the Constitution rather than the expediency of “doing something” and/or pandering for votes. Alas, such fortitude seems to be in short supply in modern America. If our leaders cannot do so, then those of us who believe in our "American Ideals and Ideas" need the fortitude to dispose our leaders who cannot or will not stand up for the principles of our Constitution. In this, we should remember the words of wisdom of the 16th President of the United States:

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

09/20/23 Enmities in America

In the book, “A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War” by Thomas Fleming, he illuminates the emotional enmity that arose between the North and the South prior to the start of the Civil War:

“By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper's Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern slavocrats like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South's greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson's cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.”

Such emotional enmities are not uncommon in American history and are with us today. Today, in America, these enmities are often based on falsehoods, as I have written in my article "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". This divide is mainly between the Progressives and the Conservatives in America, and they are exacerbated by the Progressive belief that the ills of America are systemic, while the Conservatives believe the ills are of individuals or small groups of Americans. Much of this belief is rooted in the definition of ‘Systemic’ and the differences between Equity and Equality.

Systemic— affecting an entire system is when a society structures itself in its social, economic, or political practice to achieve a purpose, for either good or ill. In the past, America has had systemic problems, the worst being Slavery, Bigotry, and Discriminations. One of the greatness of America is being able to recognize these problems and correct them. Consequently, these are no longer systemic problems but problems that occur by the words and deeds of individuals or groups or some underlying issues that need correction (e.g., quality public education and economic opportunity).

Too often, Progressives only focus on the outcomes in America and decry the inequities while not examining the causes to determine if there are inequalities. Looking only at the outcomes of these supposed falsehoods can lead you to believe it is a systemic problem, but looking into the causes of these falsehoods can lead you to a different conclusion. Examining the entire process of equalities and equities can assist in correcting the problems of inequalities and inequities. To focus on one or the other to almost the exclusion of the other is a recipe for tragedy, as it will not solve the problems but often create additional problems.

Criticizing society based on inequities presupposed that a utopian society of equalities and equities is possible. While this may be a laudatory goal, it is but a delusion, as it does not account for human nature or economics. While all humans are born with equal Natural Rights, not all humans are born with equal talents or abilities. This is the main cause of inequities, as people of more talent or abilities often rise in American society, while those of lesser talents and abilities remain static, regress, or moderately advance in society. Thus, there will always be inequities in society based on talents and abilities.

Economics also plays a large part in equalities and equities. Some people have better access to capital in the form of cash and loans. Those who can take advantage of this access to economically advance themselves. The question then becomes whether this access is based on systemic or extrinsic forces. America has many laws and regulations to ensure that there are no systemic biases in access to capital. However, laws are imperfect, and when possible systemic inequalities are discovered, the laws and regulations are modified to address these inequalities. To utilize inequities as a basis to adjudge if a problem is systemic does not do justice to economic forces. Thus, all should remember when examining inequalities and inequities that:

This focus on Inequalities, along with The Biggest Falsehoods in America, has much to do with the enmities in America. A focus on inequalities and the correction of such would reduce the inequities that occur and ensure the fair treatment of all persons in America. Focusing on inequities leads to "Divisiveness in America" and a lessening of "A Civil Society" in America. This focus also pits groups of Americans against each other and creates a sense of victimhood in America. This protracted enmity can only lead to civil disunion that bodes ill for America, for such a protracted enmity once led to the American Civil War to resolve this enmity.

09/19/23 Lawfare

In an article by Jeff Davidson, “The DOJ's Insidious Practice of Lawfare, Intimidation, and Coercion”, he defines “Lawfare” as:

“Lawfare is impacting society in horrendous ways, many of which ultimately impact your life and your experiences. What is lawfare? Derived from combining the words "law" and "warfare," it is the employment of legal approaches to delegitimize, damage, or destroy an opposing party or to hinder their ability to employ their own legal rights.”

He also goes on to state that:

“Lawfare was employed against individuals whom the DOJ had targeted, to damage or disparage their character, waste their money and time, or triumph over them for public relations purposes. Today the DOJ persecutes, coerces, badgers, and prosecutes Americans, mainly conservatives, time after time.”

Lawfare is the primary means of the weaponization of government, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". The employment of lawfare is an assault on the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans, as it deters Americans from exercising their liberties and freedom for fear of becoming involved in lawfare actions by the government.

The purpose of lawfare is not so much in the conviction of a criminal act in a court of law, and, indeed, many of the convictions are for Process Crimes rather than actual criminal acts. In many cases, lawfare is utilized to coerce a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than face the time, legal expense, and possible greater sentence in the event of a conviction of the alleged larger crime. Lawfare is also utilized to threaten the spouse, children, and other family members of a defendant with possible lawfare actions if the accused does not plead guilty to some crimes.

As such, lawfare is an aspect of despotism by the government. A despotism that is an assault on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and antithetical to "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

09/18/23 What the Left Did

In a new article by Victor Davis Hanson, “What the Left Did to Our Country”, he lays out a litany of actions that the Left did to “fundamentally transform” America, a transformation for the worse. As he has written:

“In the last 20 years, the Left has boasted that it has gained control of most of America institutions of power and influence—the corporate boardroom, media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the administrative state, academia, foundations, social media, entertainment, professional sports, and Hollywood.

With such support, between 2009-17, Barack Obama was empowered to transform the Democratic Party from its middle-class roots and class concerns into the party of the bicoastal rich and subsidized poor—obsessions with big money, race, a new intolerant green religion, and dividing the country into a binary of oppressors and oppressed.”

He then goes on to list the ways that the Left has “fundamentally transformed” America for the worse and how the Biden administration has accelerated this transformation.

The Left, in doing so, is fulfilling Abraham Lincoln’s prophecy about the destruction of America from within. In Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech of January 27, 1838, he spoke of how America could be destroyed:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

The Left’s actions are an attempt to coax America into committing suicide. In this, they are being assisted by well-meaning but credulous Progressives and duplicitous Democrat Party leaders. Professor Hanson closes this article by stating:

“We could variously characterize their efforts as destroying the nation to save it, or burning it down to start over, or fundamentally transforming America into something never envisioned by the Founders.

Will their upheaval succeed? All the levers of the power and money are on the side of the revolutionaries. The people are not. And they are starting to wake to the notion if they do not stop the madness in their midst they very soon won’t have a country.”

09/17/23 The Ever-present Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was a knowledgeable, intelligent, and wise person well beyond his humble beginnings, education, and years. In three of his speeches, before he became President, he demonstrated all these attributes. These speeches are Lincoln's The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions speech of January 27, 1838, Lincoln's A House Divided speech of June 16, 1858, and Lincoln's Cooper Union Address of February 27, 1860. In these speeches, he demonstrated his command of the troubles of his time and their causes. But these causes go beyond his time to the very nature of the problems of a Republican form of governance. Thus, they ring as true today as they did in Lincoln’s time.

My new Article, “The Ever-present Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln”, reviews these speeches in the context of their applicability to today’s events in America.

09/16/23 Presidential Liars of the 21st Century

In the 21st century, America has suffered a succession of Presidential liars. These are:

Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president. Obama previously served as a U.S. senator representing Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004 and worked as a civil rights lawyer and university lecturer.

Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Joseph Biden (born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Many people would include President George W. Bush as one of the biggest Presidential liars in the 21st century for the statements he made against Saddam Hussein of Iraq. However, President Bush was not lying but mistaken, as he was informed by the intelligence community, the military, and the State Department that his statement was factual. It wasn’t until after the Iraq War that they learned that Saddam Hussein had engaged in a massive deception to mislead America as to its capabilities and intentions. Thus, President Bush was mistaken and not a liar, as I have written in my chirps on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”.

While there is not yet a scholarly examination of these lies, there has been much political commentary on the lies. Any objective observer of the American political scene knows of these lies and, untainted from political considerations, knows that these lies have had an impact (sometimes positive and sometimes negative) on American governance, politics, and society.

All these Presidential lies of the 20th century and 21st century have seeped into the American psyche, and lying is now expected of Presidents and politicians. Thus, the character of the American people has been corrupted, and we have become more cynical and accepting of lies by Presidents and politicians. As such, we have become infected in our souls, as explained by Plato:

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." – Plato

09/15/23 Presidential Liars of the 20th Century

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." – Plato

Lying seems to be a political trait, and the history of America is littered with lies by Presidents and politicians. These lies are of two varieties: personal lies and policy lies. Personal lies are often done to enhance their biographies and make them more appealing to the electorate, while policy lies are to advance a political agenda that they believe is best for America. Personal lies reflect upon their insecurities about themselves or the concealment of unpleasant truths of their lives. Policy lies are a deception to institute an agenda that the American people may not be supportive of or to cloak aspects of a policy that may be disagreeable to the American people. In either case, this lying is often injurious to society and the American people.

In the 20th century, this lying was elevated to a new level to institute fundamental changes to our governance and our domestic and foreign policies. In many cases, the Civil Rights of their opponents were violated to suppress the opposition to these changes and to cover up these lies. The three biggest Presidential liars of the 20th century are:

Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was an American politician and academic who served as the 28th president of the United States from 1913 to 1921. A member of the Democratic Party, Wilson served as the president of Princeton University and as the governor of New Jersey before winning the 1912 presidential election. As president, Wilson changed the nation's economic policies and led the United States into World War I in 1917. He was the leading architect of the League of Nations, and his progressive stance on foreign policy came to be known as Wilsonianism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), commonly known as FDR, was an American statesman and politician who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. Roosevelt directed the federal government during most of the Great Depression, implementing the New Deal in response to the worst economic crisis in American history. He also built the New Deal coalition, realigning American politics into the Fifth Party System and defining American liberalism throughout the middle third of the 20th century. His third and fourth terms were dominated by World War II.

Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to by his initials LBJ, was an American politician who served as the 36th president of the United States from 1963 to 1969. He became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, under whom he had served as vice president from 1961 to 1963. A Democrat from Texas, Johnson also served as a U.S. representative and senator.

The books The Illusion of Victory: America In World War I by Thomas Fleming and The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II again by Thomas Fleming document these lies by Wilson and Roosevelt, while the Pentagon Papers document the lies of Johnson.

While Wilson has been criticized for his lies, and LBJ has been disparaged for his lies, FDR is still held in esteem by many, as the full extent of his lies is not well known. This is regrettable, as the extent of FDR's lies has been detrimental to America. The repercussions of all the Presidential lies on the international stage embroiled America in wars with dreadful consequences, and the repercussions of their lies on the domestic stage changed the character and economics of America. Repercussions that are still being negatively felt in today’s America and the world.

09/14/23 Media Lies and Cover-ups

From the Presidential campaign through the administration of President Trump in 2015 to 2019, we were inundated 24/7 with media lies like "Russian Collusion," "Putin's Puppet," "Election Rigging," and the "Steele Dossier." When all such "evidence" was proven to be a complete fraud fabricated through Hillary Clinton's surreptitious hiring of and collusion with a discredited ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, and a Russian fabulist at the Brookings Institution, Igor "Iggy" Danchenko, and a Clinton toady in Moscow, Olga Galkina, as examined in the NY Post article “Inside the Clinton dossier and the con behind the Russiagate scandal”. Their reporting on the two Impeachments of President Trump and the “Insurrection” of 2021 was so one-sided that a majority of the American people reacted with antipathy to their reporting. They also responded to allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election by denials or cover-ups without any investigative reporting. In any of this, did the media apologize for the disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation that they spread? Were any of the Pulitzer Prizes or other news media awards rescinded for these lies and cover-ups?

In the Presidential campaign of 2020 and throughout his administration, Joe Biden repeatedly lied when he claimed he knew nothing of his son Hunter's influence-peddling businesses. The president further prevaricated that he was not involved in Hunter's various shake-down schemes. Had journalists just been honest and independent and reported the facts, then-candidate Joe Biden might have lost a presidential debate and even the 2020 election. The public would have learned from Hunter's business associates and his laptop contents, which the media claimed was Russian disinformation but was proved to be true, that Joe was deeply involved in his son's illicit businesses. As the NY Post article “Media’s long con to bury Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal”, the media has been an active supporter of the Hunter Biden laptop lies and cover-ups. As Victor Davis Hanson has written in his article “From One Unapologetic Media Hoax to the Next”, they continue to lie or cover up the truth of the Biden family corruption to this day.

For the last eight years, the discredited media has never expressed remorse for any of the damage they did to the country. And they will not apologize again when the latest indictments against former President Trump are eventually exposed as duplicity. No one has ever been fired or apologized for perpetuating journalistic fraud on the masses of fake news stories that are believed by the core of liberal America. But given liberals’ penchant for self-righteousness and insufferable condescension, it’s not shocking that we’ll never get an apology. They can’t admit that they’re wrong because they’re too arrogant and dismiss those who were correct about this story because they view them as inferior. And that is why the media is distrusted and will never learn from their mistakes.

Alas, "Modern Journalism" ethics have sunk so low that they have become the propaganda arm of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and they are now a Fifth Column rather than the Fourth Estate in America. This bodes ill for America, as without proper facts and proper reasoning, the American people cannot make proper decisions about the future course of America. And proper facts and proper reasoning to arrive at truths is what proper journalism should be about, for:

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning." - Mark Dawson

09/13/23 Mistakes, Lies, or Truths?

In the recent indictments of former President Trump, the question of whether he was mistaken or lying, or perhaps telling the truth, has been raised. As I have pointed out in my chirp on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”, if President Trump was mistaken or was telling the truth, then the indictments are without merit on these points and need to be dismissed in a court of law. If he was lying, then the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution that these were knowing lies with the intent to commit criminal acts.

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when evaluating an assertion .

In American jurisprudence, the prosecution always bears the burden of proof (i.e., Innocent until proven guilty). Consequently, the prosecution must prove that President Trump knowingly lied for criminal intent purposes. If the prosecution cannot meet this burden of proof, then these trials are nothing but Show Trials to tarnish President Trump and to sway the electorate against President Trump. If it is the latter, then the prosecution is engaging in election interference, and if it is the former, the prosecution is engaging in smear tactics. In either the former or latter, the prosecution is perverting justice by not engaging in "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". There is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, both legal and others, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and Presidential advisors’ communications confidentiality. They are also not considering the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, then these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. We should also keep in mind the following dialog:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!” Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!” ― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

Thus, the prosecutors in the Trump indictments are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They are, therefore, violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

09/12/23 Doubt and Confusion

Through the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, progressives seem intent on sowing doubt and confusion in the minds of the American people. Doubt and confusion that is used as a paralysis for the words and deeds of those Americans who may not agree with them, thus allowing them to institute their political goals and policy agendas while uncertainty reigns in the minds of the American public.

They often use inane platitudes and assertions without evidence that, with further examination, turn out to be falsehoods. Many of these platitudes have a feel-good aspect that, upon examination, has no foundation and many times does not lead to doing good, and many of their assertions are based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America". They often present these platitudes and assertions as statements of facts that are unchallengeable, as they have been successful at ingraining these falsehoods into the American public’s perceptions. However, perceptions often are not reality, and perceptions without reality often lead to bad decisions with negative repercussions.

They, themselves, often believe that these falsehoods are truths, as they rarely encounter challenges to these falsehoods. When they are challenged, they often require their opponent to prove the correctness of their challenge, while at the same time, they offer no proof of the correctness of their platitudes and assertions. This portrays an attitude of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right”, which is a logical fallacy and which is obviously an untrue statement. In doing so, they are not following the philosophical Burden of proof of the Holder of the Burden, Shifting the Burden of proof, and Proving a negative, as well as utilizing Evidence of absence to prove their assertions. They are also violating the philosophical standards of Hitchens's Razor and the Sagan Standard, as well as making empirical claims not subject to Falsifiability, often through the utilization of Russell's Teapot claims. The most insidious aspect of their platitudes and assertions is that they are often making an Argument from ignorance, as they have not made an effort to verify their facts and not constructing "A Philosophical Approach" to their "Reasoning". Many Progressives will claim that they are interpreting the facts as they see proper, but interpreting the facts by not applying proper facts and proper reasoning leads to falsehood as "There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning" as I have examined in my Chirp on “08/11/23 Proper Reasoning”.

While they may not be technically lying to the American public, as I have examined in my Chirp on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”, their platitudes and assertions are the equivalent of lies, as they have not properly ascertained the truths of their statements. Perpetuating a lie through repeating a lie does not absolve them from the moral and ethical responsibility of lying, as they are maintaining the lies. As an old Proverb states, "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on" it is consequently difficult to counter lies and their impacts. A lie is easy to construct, but the truth is more difficult to ascertain and requires thoughtful consideration to discover the truth. Thus, the Doubt and Confusion they are sowing is based upon lies, and we should pay no heed to liars.

09/11/23 Truth as a Defense

John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German printer and journalist in New York City. Zenger printed The New York Weekly Journal, and he was accused of libel in 1734 by William Cosby, the royal governor of New York. However, the jury acquitted Zenger, who became a symbol of freedom of the press.

In 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal, which voiced opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby. On November 17, 1734, on Cosby's orders, the sheriff arrested Zenger. After a grand jury refused to indict him, the Attorney General Richard Bradley charged him with libel in August 1735. Zenger's lawyers, Andrew Hamilton and William Smith, Sr., successfully argued that truth is a defense against charges of libel.

But truth is a defense against more than libel. When someone speaks the truth, they are immune from all legal proceedings. The only question is if they have spoken the truth. Truth, however, is often difficult to prove, while lies are easier to prove. Truth is based on facts and proper reasoning of the facts, but facts and reasoning may not lead to the truth.

As I have explained in my Chirp on “08/11/23 Proper Reasoning” and my article on "Reasoning", reasoning is fraught with difficulties and complications. Incorrect, incomplete, or omitted facts, even with proper reasoning, will not lead to the truth. In reasoning, "Formal and Informal Logic" may be faulty, Cognitive Biases" and "Logical Fallacies" may occur, and the Burden of Proof may not be present, which leads to an improper conclusion. Thus, truth can be elusive and difficult to ascertain.

When someone speaks to what they believe to be the truth but is in error, they are not lying but mistaken. It is only when someone speaks to what they know are not the facts or truths that they are lying. When someone is mistaken, and the errors are illuminated, then they need to apologize and correct their statement. When someone is lying, they bear the moral responsibility and perhaps the legal ramifications of their lying.

If we prosecute those who speak what they believe to be the truth when they are mistaken, then we have the suppression of the Freedom of Speech and the Press. The proper response to mistakes is the correction of the mistakes by the Freedom of Speech and the Press, and not by prosecution. If individual harm is done by mistakes, then individual legal recourse should be available to those so harmed. Lies, however, should be prosecuted as they are often negligent and malicious in purpose and meant to inflict damage.

When prosecuting these lies, we should always seek justice and ensure that the two kinds of justice, substantive and procedural, are instituted. As Alan Dershowitz has written in his article, “Justice Requires Fair Procedures”, without substantive and procedural justice, there is no justice. No matter what your opinion is of the person who is mistaken or lying, we all need to insist that substantive and procedural justice be accorded to those accused of mistakes or lies. To do otherwise is to institute Kangaroo courts and pervert justice.

09/10/23 A Contributor, a Differentiator, or a Despoiler

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” - Henry David Thoreau

“This sentence, which appears in the first chapter, “Economy,” is perhaps the most famous quotation from Walden. It sums up the prophetic side of Thoreau that many people forget about; he was not just an experimenter living in isolation on Walden Pond, but also a deeply social and morally inspired writer with an ardent message for the masses. His use of the word “desperation” instead of a milder reference to discontentment or unhappiness shows the grimness of his vision of the mainstream American lifestyle. He believes that the monomaniacal pursuit of success and wealth has paradoxically cheapened the lives of those engaged in it, making them unable to appreciate the simpler pleasures enumerated in Walden. But the unpleasantness of American life, according to Thoreau, is more than simply financial or economic, despite the title of his first chapter. “Desperation” is also a word with deep religious connotations, the “lack of hope” that, according to Dante (one of Thoreau’s favorite writers), was inscribed on the gates at hell’s entrance. The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan’s Protestant spiritual classic and a bestseller in the New England of Thoreau’s day, features a hero who passes through a bleak lowland called the Slough of Despair on his way to meet God. By asserting that most humans have gotten stuck in despair, Thoreau is implying that they are unable to continue farther on their pilgrimage toward true redemption.” - from Sparknotes.com

While I do not agree with Thoreau on desperation, I would agree with him if he had used discontentment. Their discontentment is in the longing for something better than their present situation and unhappiness that they have not achieved all that they had hoped to achieve. Such is the lot of most people while some other people are happy and satisfied with what they have achieved, and other people are disappointed, dissatisfied, or despondent with their lives.

I would personally label these groups of people as Contributors, Differentiators, or Despoilers. A Contributor is a person who has a positive influence on their family and friends, their community, and their coworkers and employer, while a Differentiator is one who changes things for the better in these arenas of life. If you are not a Contributor or a Differentiator, then you are a Despoiler of others.

It is unfortunate that in modern America, the ranks of the Differentiators have decreased while the ranks of the Despoilers have increased. Whether it be social, economic, religious, or governance that has driven this change, it is a change for the worse in America. A change that I believe is being driven by "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms" in America. The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders in modern America seem to be unhappy people who believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society over which they have no control. But control over others is illusionary, as the only control that you have is over yourself.

As I have entered the end stages of my life, I can look back on my life and say that I was a Differentiator in my career, a Contributor in my personal life, and I could have easily become a Despoiler in my career or personal life if I had not taken control of my life, and proactively made decisions or changes to my life.

To all the Contributors in our society, I would say thank you for your contributions, as the world cannot function without contributors. You should also be comforted that if you could not be a Differentiator, you were at least not a Despoiler. For the Despoilers, I would say that it is not too late to become a Contributor, but you must not view yourself as a victim but take control of your life to become a Contributor.

09/09/23 We Are All Different

One of my pet peeves is when people say things such as “If I can do it, so can you” or “It’s easy or it’s hard”, they are not taking into account that all people are different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, skills and abilities, and physical and mental capacities. We are all born equal in our Natural Rights, but we are all born unequal in our capabilities and capacities. Much of the drama and comedy of life is about these inequalities, and the paths our lives take are often driven by these inequalities. Our life experiences also add to our uniqueness. We should all consider these inequalities and uniqueness in our dealings with others, and we should all not deign nor exalt another person based on these inequalities and uniqueness. Nevertheless, we should recognize these inequalities and uniqueness and adjust our expectations of another person based on their uniqueness. We should also take into account our own uniqueness whenever we undertake any task and not expect that we are capable of doing anything that we desire.

We should all recognize that some of these differences are sexually based, as men and women are different mentally and physiologically. These male/female differences are often subtle but sometimes significant, and the accumulation of these differences in a man or woman makes for unique differences between a male and female. As in all generalities, specific instances of individual men or women may not reveal a significant difference between the two, but as a whole, men and women are, to a degree or extent, somewhat different. Often, these differences are the basis of marital discord and/or the war between the sexes.

With this in mind, it is helpful to examine these differences to understand the basis for the differences. In the article Scientific Facts About Differences Between Men and Women on Factinate.com (created by trivia nerds who have a passion for learning and sharing information), they point out that there are some genuine differences in the biology, chemistry, and mental make-up of men in comparison to women, and vice-versa. They list off 45 of them in the hopes that the next time you're tempted to make an assumption about the opposite sex, you stop and take some time to consider the facts. Do not be misled by the titles of these differences, as the content may not be what you expect. I, therefore, recommend that you read this article as a basis for understanding some of the differences between men and women.

Equal Intelligence
Goodnight, baby
Unfriendly Faces
Tunnel Vision
Longer Lifespan
Thin Skinned
Loose Ligaments
Bigger Hearts
The Big Sniffer
Sniffing Out Adultery
Both Sides vs. One Side
The Incredible Shrinking Brain
A Neater Hand
Linguistically Inclined
Multitaskers
Not as Sad as You Think
Water in the Blood
Cold Feet
Physical vs. Verbal
No Sleep? No Problem.
1000 Gene Difference
Consonants and Vowels
Neurological Disorders
Processing Emotion
Colour Detection
Conflict and Competition
Finger Length
Better Spatial Sense
He’s Not Just Ignoring You
Chronic Worrywarts
Feel More Pain
Store Fat Differently
Brow Bossing
Hears Like a Bat
Honey, Have You Seen My Keys?
Popped Up Veins
A Spare Chromosome
Mathematical Mind
Faces & Moving Objects
3-Dimensional Thinking
Cool as a Cucumber
Formed Before Birth
Right Minded
Seeing Things Differently
Acoustic Size Judgement

09/08/23 The Big Three

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem to have an attitude toward black conservatives that they should be consigned to purgatory for eternity. They will not listen to or consider what they have to say and, indeed, use the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" when confronted by their thoughts, ideas, and arguments. They also have this attitude when confronted with female or Latino conservatives’ comments or arguments. This goes along with their belief that anyone that opposes their ideology must be unintelligent, bigoted, or wicked.

This is most troubling for America, as all erudite and sagacious thoughts and opinions should be considered when considering societal issues and concerns. It is also counterfactual, as exhibited in the thoughts and opinions of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and economists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. In my opinion, the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of these big three should always be seriously considered by all people of all political persuasions whenever consideration is given to the topics of which they have written or spoken.

Clarence Thomas is an American lawyer and jurist who is as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since his confirmation in 1991. During his years on the Court, Thomas has pursued an original general meaning approach to constitutional interpretation; he has been unswayed by claims of precedent—by the gradual build-up of interpretations that, to his mind, come to distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question, leading to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions. A close reading of Thomas's hundreds of well-crafted and passionately argued majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions illuminates how Justice Thomas applies this original meaning approach to questions of constitutional structure as they relate to federalism; substantive rights found in the First Amendment's religion and free speech and press clauses, the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, the Fifth Amendment's restrictions on the taking of private property, and the Fourteenth Amendment regarding abortion rights; and various criminal procedural provisions found in the Ex Post Facto Clauses and the Bill of Rights.

He has written an autobiography, “My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir”, revealing his poor southern upbringing and the pieces of his life he holds dear and detailing the suffering and injustices he has overcome. A few books have also been written about him and his Constitutional opinions.

Dr. Thomas Sowell is an American economist and social theorist who spent the last several decades as a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Dr. Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago.

Dr. Thomas Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He writes from a libertarian conservative perspective, and he has written more than thirty books (a number of which have been reprinted in revised editions), and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

Walter Edward Williams, who passed away on December 2, 2020, was an American economist, commentator, and academic. As a black man raised in the ghetto of Philadelphia, PA, he provided keen insights into the political and economic issues confronting minorities in America. He was the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader’s Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He authored eleven books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary “Good Intentions,” All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People’s Economist Speaks, More Liberty Means Less Government, Liberty vs. the Tyranny of Socialism, Up From The Projects: An Autobiography, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed On Discrimination? and American Contempt for Liberty, and A Cure Worse Than The Disease: Fighting Discrimination Through Government Control.

In my opinion, these are the big three black persons in conservative thought in America, but there are many others, such as Allen West, Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Charles Payne, Condoleeza Rice, Deroy Murdock, Harris Faulkner, Larry Elder, Lawrence Jones, Shelby Steele, and Tim Scott. All of these people have achieved wisdom, as I have written in my article "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom". These wise persons, and all other wise conservatives, deserve thoughtful consideration of their opinions and not the disparaging or disdain that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem to direct to anyone who would disagree with them.

09/07/23 Why I Do Not Go into Politics

Given my great concern about the future of America, many would ask why I do not go into politics to effect a change to what I believe are the issues and concerns impacting the future of America. My response is that I do not believe that I would be an effective politician. Some of the reasons that I do not believe that I would be an effective politician are:

I have the unfortunate habit of telling people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.
I do not suffer fools gladly.
I am also one who does not play well with others.

These are not the traits of a politician but of a philosopher. Also, I believe I am a poor debater, as I lack the ability to quickly recall facts and figures and what I have previously written or said on a topic. As my pronunciation of words is often humorous, it would detract from what I have to say. I also have an aversion to modern political debates, as I have Chirped on “09/07/19 Form Over Substance”. Consequently, I do not believe that I would be an effective politician.

Thus, I have constricted myself to writing my Chirps and Articles in the hopes that I can effect a change in America through my writings.

09/06/23 Keep In Mind

Presented, without comment, are some of my own quotes that I try to keep in mind whenever I write or speak:

Knowledge and Understanding

"I refuse to talk before I have thought." - Mark Dawson

"Know whereof you speak or write before you speak or write." - Mark Dawson

"Knowing why is often more important than knowing how." - Mark Dawson

“Nobody really knows politics, economics, and sociology, as those topics are often tied to human nature and the unpredictable reactions of people to circumstances.” - Mark Dawson

"Those that do not know history should not speak of history." - Mark Dawson

"Those that do not know science should not speak of science." - Mark Dawson

"To understand well you must read; and read well, often, and on subjects on which you are unfamiliar." - Mark Dawson

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils." - Mark Dawson

Facts and Truths

"Educated Guesses always have the inherent questions as to the quality of the education and the accuracy of the guess." - Mark Dawson

"I would rather be factually correct than politically correct." - Mark Dawson

“If an argument is not intellectually rational and reasonable then it cannot reach a sound conclusion, except by accident.” - Mark Dawson

"Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true or false doesn't make it true or false." - Mark Dawson

"Reasons are often not Reasoning, as reasons are generally emotionally based while reasoning is intellectually based" - Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish." - Mark Dawson

"The Burden of Proof must be based upon reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion." - Mark Dawson

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning." - Mark Dawson

"There is no such thing as 'my truth' or 'their truth', as there is only 'the truth'." - Mark Dawson

Finally, I always try to keep in mind:

"You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room." - Mark Dawson

09/05/23 Rating Presidents

Many historians and other organizations like to rank the presidents, but rarely are these rankings based upon the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of the President, as I have Chirped on, "04/11/22 A Successful President". This chirp outlines the thoughts of Rob Natelson in his article Using the Constitution to Re-Rank the Presidents. He has written a follow-on article, Is Biden the Worst President Ever? A Historical Assessment, in which he has ranked President Biden using constitutional criteria, in which he states, “Admittedly, it is risky to compare the performance of modern presidents against their predecessors. Because it is hard to place current events in historical context, snap judgments can prove embarrassing later.” He also capsulizes the reasons why these surveys are deeply flawed for two reasons: the questions and the answers:

“First, the questions are largely disconnected from the president’s job description as it appears in the Constitution. Most questions do not address constitutional duties such as general law enforcement and serving as military commander-in-chief. Instead, they reflect liberal obsession with factors like “vision” and “economic management.” And while the framers designed the presidency as a check on Congress, the surveys give presidents better scores if they go along with Congress.

Second, the answers are skewed by liberal bias. For instance, in the 2021 C-SPAN survey, academic historians listed Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) third among presidents for “economic management,” while ranking Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 15th. But history shows that FDR’s conflicting economic policies failed to pull the economy out of the doldrums after years of trying, while Reagan’s policies quickly converted a recession into an economic boom.”

In this article, he rates President Biden on the following factors.

Scandal
Enforcing the Law
“Equal Justice”
Foreign Policy
Economic Management
Abuse of Power
Moral Leadership v. Demagogy
Cognitive Impairment
Military Policy

In his conclusion, he states, “Of course, a full historical assessment of the Biden presidency will have to await completion of his term. At this point, however, he seems headed for a ranking among the very worst of American presidents.”

I would encourage all to read this article, as it puts President Biden and his administration into the perspective of his performance of his Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

09/01/23 American Progressivism Reader

American Progressivism started in the late 19th century and flowered at the beginning of the 20th century. The Presidential Administration of Woodrow Wilson was when it began to be incorporated into American governance. After a brief pause in the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression in the United States brought forth even greater Progressivism under the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). It was under the FDR Administration that Progressivism became entrenched in the American government. After a World War II pause Progressivism came back to the forefront in The Great Society of President Lyndon Johnson. To this day, we have Progressivism baked into American governance.

Yet, the administrations of President Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson had a dismal record on the Civil Rights of dissidents. They also operated on a reinterpretation or ignoring of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and they attempted to indoctrinate Americans into a Progressive ideology of governance and societal culture. This month’s Book It selections are the books that examine the history of the Wilson and Roosevelt Administration regarding Progressivism and the Civil Rights of Americans during their administrations.

08/31/23 The Twists and Turns of Theodore Roosevelt

The history of Theodore Roosevelt, who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909, had many twists and turns as to his political thoughts and principles. At the beginning of his political career, he was somewhat Progressive in his attempts to weed out the graft and corruption of the political bosses and party machines of his day. During his Presidency, he was mildly progressive in extending government involvement in domestic affairs while trying to remain within, but often stretching Constitutional bounds. However, unlike the Progressives of his day, he was internationally imperialistic in his desire to make America a world power. After he left the Presidency, he became very Progressive on domestic affairs while remaining committed to making America into a world power, often at odds with progressives that wanted America to concentrate on domestic affairs.

Consequently, it is difficult to characterize the political thoughts and principles of Theodore Roosevelt. Much of the popular view on Theodore Roosevelt is formed by his words after leaving the Presidency, but this cannot be a full measure of a historical person as they should be adjudged of their entire life. Therefore, when we think of Theodore Roosevelt, we should remember the entirety of his life and not focus on one period of his life.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please note that the below series of Chips on Progressivism and Progressives have been combined into my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", that are in the proper order in which they should be read. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

08/30/23 Progressivism and A Tale of Two Cities

Along with these collected Chirps on Progressivism and Progressives, I would refer you to my collected Chirps on the "A Tale of Two Cities", as Progressivism has divided America into two cities—Progressives and non-Progressives. Two cities that are in opposition to each other in their basic governing philosophy, as I have examined in my article “A Republic versus a Democracy”. Two cities that have a different interpretations of the Constitution, as I have examined in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". As a result, the two cities have disagreed on our "American Ideals and Ideas" and what constitutes "A Just Government and a Just Society". One city, the Progressive city, has engaged in acrimonious and venomous disputations against the other city that has undermined "A Civil Society" in America.

Until one city prevails in America, this acrimony will continue. The resolution of this conflict will have profound repercussions on "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", as well as our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Thus, it is important that this conflict be resolved, and during this resolution, we should remember the advice of Abraham Lincoln:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." - Abraham Lincoln

08/29/23 The Failures of Progressivism

While some Progressive ideals and ideas have been beneficial to America and Americans, their record of failure far exceeds their successes. The problem with Progressivism is its ideology. It is an ideology that is based on their belief that they can mold human nature to fit Progressivism, on a lack of understanding of economics, and their presumption of the deference of the individual to society's goals.

In the past, there have been many despots, dictators, monarchs, totalitarians, and tyrants that believed that they could mold human nature. None of these attempts have ever succeeded, and none can ever succeed. As human nature has been molded by over six million years of evolution, a few years or decades of molding cannot undo these millions of years of evolution. Any attempts to do so have resulted in human misery and suffering, as well as the suppression of Natural Rights. Thus, all attempts to mold human nature are doomed to failure.

Progressives also believe that they can direct an economy to progressive ends. Once again, history has shown that any attempts to direct an economy are fruitless and often end with the collapse of an economy. Something as large and interrelated as an economy is impossible to direct, as it requires a knowledge of economics that is unknown and may even be unknowable.

They also have a zeal in their pursuit of Progressive goals to ignore the individual. They believe that the individual needs to be subservient to society, that rights are bestowed by society onto an individual, and that government is for the purpose of the betterment of society. As such, they have little or no respect for Natural Rights, and that “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, and especially of property, is constricted to what they believe are acceptable parameters. In this, they do not recognize that history has demonstrated that people all over the world have chaffed at these restrictions and often rebelled against their rulers when so constricted.

Modern Progressivism has metamorphosized and become intoxicated with Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Herd Mentality, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and "Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance (ESG)", in the belief that these goals are Progressive goals. In doing so, they have forgotten the purpose of Progressivism was to improve the social and economic status of ordinary Americans.

In their past and current attempts to implement Progressivism, they often resorted to Despotism against those that would disagree with them. This can be demonstrated in my collected Chirps on "Despotism in America" and "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, they corrupt the meaning of "A Just Government and a Just Society" and infringe upon the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in pursuit of their Progressive goals. This is why modern America is in such dire straits. After more than a century of Progressivism, it has resulted in more divisiveness, more disruptions to our society, and more and bigger government unresponsive to the issues and concerns of ordinary Americans and, indeed, seems contrary to the exigencies of ordinary Americans.

These, then, are the biggest failures of Progressivism and why Progressivism needs to be defeated in America, for to do so or not do so:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth." - Abraham Lincoln

08/28/23 Progressive Celebrations of America

When we celebrate national holidays and important persons in our American history, we would all do well to remember the ideals and ideas of America and the personal thoughts and viewpoints of these historical persons. However, in today’s America, we can see a pattern that Progressives employ when celebrating the key events and figures of America’s political tradition: their celebrations are almost exclusively historical and biographical and carefully avoid any reference to—or commemoration of—their ideas or principles. We also see a pattern of dismissal or disparaging of The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as not important nor relevant to modern America, and a focus on the wrongs that have occurred in American history, without a corresponding noticing on the good within American history.

There is no discussion of the "American Ideals and Ideas" of these documents or key figures in these celebrations, as these ideals and ideas often contradict Progressive ideals and ideas. They also try to pervert The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to comport to Progressive ideals and ideas, as I have written in my Chirp on "07/22/21 The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution". We should also remember that for the vast majority of his life President Wilson, one of the originators of American Progressivism, had grounded his thinking about government in open hostility to the Declaration of Independence. We need only recall his 1911 address, where Wilson proclaimed: “If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.” Do not repeat, in other words, the very part of the Declaration with all the universalistic language about self-government.

However, we should all remember the ideals of The Declaration of Independence:

We should also remember the ideas of the Constitution as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution:

The ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and the ideas of the Constitution on the best ways to institute our ideals, are the bedrock of American governance and the foundation of our society. It is important not only to understand the words of the Declaration and the Constitution but to understand the ideals and ideas that went into their creation. And the best way to accomplish this is to understand the thoughts and words of our Founding Fathers, as well as other great Americans and other great thinkers’ thoughts and words on these documents. It is just as important to not be led astray of their true meaning as Progressives are in the habit of doing.

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten or do not agree with our American ideals and ideas. The American ideals and ideas of "A Just Government and a Just Society" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are, therefore, in danger of being forgotten or discarded. It is important that we remember our past and the events surrounding our past, as well as the ideals and ideas that shaped our history, for as Edmund Burke has stated, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

08/27/23 Narcissistic Personality Disorder of Progressives

The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also have grandiose fantasies and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

People with NPD often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way, which can enhance their own self-esteem. They tend to seek excessive admiration and attention and have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat. Individuals with NPD can be easily stung by criticism or defeat and may react with disdain or anger. Humble, self-deprecating humor is often lacking in a person with NPD, as they believe that they must always be taken seriously. Politicians and activists often reflexively react to criticism by employing "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against those that would criticize them.

This definition sounds applicable to many politicians and "Activists and Activism", and it is often characteristic of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. As I have often said, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons, as demonstrated by their usage of pejoratives, as I have written about in my Article "Divisiveness in America". As such, this attitude can be considered a trait of a person with NPD.

From Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barach Obama, to now Joe Biden, to a host of other politicians and activists with a Progressive disposition, NPD seems to run rampant amongst them. They brook no criticisms of themselves and their policies, and they are often averse to compromise with their opponents.

Most NPD persons are often difficult to work with or for, as they tend to be authoritarian in their approach to interacting with other persons. In politicians, NPD persons are often predisposed to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Thus, we should all recognize the signs of an NPD person and be very wary of them. Their NPD impulses are not in the best interest of others, but they are only interested in themselves despite their pretenses otherwise.

08/26/23 The Manifest Destiny of Progressivism

Manifest Destiny was a cultural belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand across North America. There were three basic tenets to the concept:

The special virtues of the American people and their institutions.
The mission of the United States is to redeem and remake the West in the image of the agrarian East.
An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty.

This Manifest Destiny was accomplished by the end of the 19th century by the hard work and efforts of Americans, but it was not foreordained. After this was achieved, America and Americans began to search for another Manifest Destiny. Americans are often idealistic and need a greater purpose for their lives and destinies. Given the social-economic problems of the late 19th and early 20th century, they began an idealistic search for solutions to these problems. From religion to politics to economics, they began an examination of possible solutions to these problems. One of these proposed solutions was Progressivism.

The originators and supporters of Progressivism attempted to take on the mantel of Manifest Destiny for their ideals and ideas. In doing so, they adopted many attitudes that their ideals and ideas were the only future course of history and that they are on the ‘Right Side of History’. However, the right side of history is an oxymoron; as there is no right or wrong side of history, history is just what has occurred in the past. Progressives believe in historical trends while ignoring that history has often diverged from a trend by circumstances and/or the actions of powerful or influential people or scientific or technological discoveries and innovations. After all, except by hindsight, who could have foreseen a historical trend that led to the Industrial Revolution or the Information Age, or the fall of civilizations that changed history, or leaders that changed history?

The fall of the Roman Empire led to the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, which reversed the historical trends of Europe and the Middle East. The same could be said for the fall of other civilizations that have occurred throughout history. Leaders such as Alexander the Great, Constantine, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, and many others have changed history. If Muhammad or Napoleon had never been born, or if Hitler had died in the gas attack he suffered in World War I, then the history of Europe and the Middle East and humanity would have been significantly different.

There is also no historical accounting for great scientists and artists such as Newton and Einstein, Beethoven and Da Vinci, and many others that changed history within their domains. Individual business leaders arose, such as Andrew Carnegie (steel), Andrew Mellon (finance, oil), Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads), J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), Henry Ford (automobiles), and Howard Hughes (multiple industries) that changed American society in the past, and modern Americans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs, and Warren Buffett that changed how society operates today.

Progressives might respond that if these persons had not come about, then other persons would have done so. However, there is no way to ascertain this as a fact, and there is no way to determine when and what the impacts of these other persons would have been. Our history would have been quite different without these persons, which shatters the claims of historical trends. This claim of historical trends also assumes that history is linear with an upward slope of human progress. But history is not linear nor upward in human progress. It ebbs and flows, with ups and downs in human progress, and all that can be said of historical trends is that they are malleable, changeable, and unpredictable.

Therefore, historical trends are more in the backward eye of the beholder than they are foreordained. Consequently, it is safe to ignore and challenge these claims of historical trends and the Manifest Destiny of Progressivism, for if history has taught us anything, it is that history is not foreordained.

08/25/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History

In my Chirp on “08/16/23 American Progressivism”, I note that Progressivism relies on the “facts” and “truths” of science and history to buttress their ideology. However, they pick and choose tidbits of facts and truths and surround them with their ideology rather than elucidating all the facts and truths. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history and creating myths of science and history, which they propagate to an unknowing public.

These scientific mythologies abound in "Activists and Activism", and almost all activism that relies on scientific truths is mostly scientific mythology. Many of these same activists also use their scientific mythology in a grandiloquent manner:

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.” - W.C. Fields

They also propose government actions with far-reaching consequences and have forgotten the aphorism:

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” - Alexander Pope

Thus, their scientific mythology is fraught with danger if it is believed to be scientific truths.

This is most especially true in Environmentalism and Climate Freezing, then Climate Warming to Climate Change activists. These activists have not only selectively used science, but in some cases, they have fabricated science based on their interpretation of the science, not to mention that their predictions have always been wrong. They have also confused Scientific Consensus and Settled Science with scientific truths, which all good scientists know is no substitute for scientific proof. They have also tried to institute an Orthodoxy in Science, which is anathema to the progress of science. They are also basing their scientific myths on computer modeling and/or statistics, without consideration of the problems of computer modeling or statistics, as I have written about in my Article Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. In doing so, they are creating scientific myths that they use as a foundation for their activism.

The Progressive's history of America is also mythology, with the facts, truths, and meaning of American history being selective, reinterpreted, and convoluted to fit their ideology. They have created entire historical bailiwicks dedicated to their mythology. Bailiwicks such as Critical Race Theory, Equity Theory, Intersectionality, and The 1619 Project which are not only factually and historically incorrect, but the holders of these beliefs attempt to justify these beliefs to institute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) (a Progressive ideal) rather than Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All (an American ideal), the comparisons of the two ideologies that I have Chirped on "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". Many Academics and Scholars in America (and in the world) have been gripped by the lofty ideals of Progressivism. Thus, the entire history of Progressivism in the 20th century has been rewritten or ignored by Progressives and many Historians to paper over Progressivism failures and the negative repercussions of their agenda. In doing so, they are creating historical myths that they use to advance their Progressive agendas.

Alas, Progressive Myths of Science and History are doing great harm to American society and governance. If you believe these myths, then you are making ill-informed decisions that can only negatively impact American society and governance. Decisions as to which politician to vote for, which policy issues to support, and which advocacy organizations to financial support are poor decisions if you base them on mythology. Consequently, you must sort out the facts and truths of science and history, ignore the mythology, and use your head rather than your heart when making these decisions. Otherwise, the future of America bodes ill, as a belief in mythology only leads to poor or calamitous decisions.

08/24/23 Progressives and Education

The American people have always believed in the importance of education, and schooling for children is part and parcel of our society. Indeed, America was one of the most literate countries in the world throughout most of its history. Education, until the Progressive era, was often provided privately by communities or by religious groups, which often discriminated against its student body by race and/or religion. Gradually, public education became a Local and State government prerogative as nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. This is because our Founders believed that this was a State, local government, or community issue that was delegated to them by the Tenth Amendment. This is the way it was until the latter part of the 20th century when the Federal government became alarmed about the quality of education across States and local jurisdictions, as well as the inequity of racial discrimination in public schooling resources.

Progressives were concerned about education from their beginnings and supported public education and public funding for all children. John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer. He was one of the most prominent American Progressives in the first half of the twentieth century and a leader for progressive public education. Indeed, much of modern public education was founded upon his ideas about public education.

As much as the progressives were concerned about the quality and universality of public education, they also foresaw that public education was a means to propagate their Progressive ideology and ideas on children and, thus, future voters. In all of this, they began to reform the ways and means of public education and the principles and methods of instruction (pedagogy) of teaching. College curriculums for prospective teachers were instituted, and State licensing of teachers became a legal requirement to teach. Much of these college curriculums incorporated Progressive ideology and ideas in the education of prospective teachers, with the repercussions of many teachers including progressive pedagogies in their teaching of students.

Because of Constitutional issues, these reforms occurred at a State and local government level and remained so until the latter part of the 20th century. In the latter part of the 20th century, the Federal government became concerned about the Civil Rights of public education for black and poor students in America, then began to become more involved in public education to redress the Civil Rights inequalities of public education in America. Thus, the era of Modern Education began in America.

Despite increased federal involvement in the funding and statutes for public education since then, the quality of Public Education has not improved much, and in many cases, it has become worse. My article on "Public Education" discusses many of the issues and concerns regarding public education in today’s America, while my other article, "Indoctrination versus Education", addresses the issues of the manipulation of public education for Progressivism goals.

Many of the problems in modern public education can be traced back to the implementation of progressive ideas in education. As more Federal government involvement in modern education occurred, the focus of Modern Education became more on the indoctrination of Progressive ideas and ideology and less on the dissemination of knowledge, truths, and rational thinking, along with the skills and abilities to function in modern society. Thus, modern public education has deteriorated the quality of the education that a student receives to the detriment of the students.

Thus, modern education fails to provide a good education for its students, it fails to provide a good environment for its students, it fails to prepare its students to become productive and contributing adults, they fail the parents of the students, and they fail the taxpayers who fund these schools. And these failures are the consequences of implementing Progressive ideologies and ideas in public education.

08/23/23 Progressives and Fearmongering and Demonization

Since the time of the founding of the modern Democrat Party in Andrew Jackson’s time, they have engaged in "Identity Politics" and disdainful rhetoric in order to win elections to obtain and retain power. Disdainful rhetoric is nothing new in politics and has occurred throughout American history. Identity Politics has also occurred throughout American history, but it was usually based on nationality, religion, or race. Most of the time, the disdainful rhetoric occurred during the election cycle and cooled off (but never went away) between elections. However, with the rise of Progressivism, this changed.

Progressive started to differentiate on the basis of political ideology (with an attitude of Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong, etc.) and turned to fearmongering and demonization rather than disdainful rhetoric. They also extended their attacks into the personal realm; in that they not only attacked the politics of their opponents, but they also attacked the personhood of their opponents. Reputational, financial, and judicial harm to their opponents was not only a goal to drive them from politics but as a warning to others that opposed them that they would personally harm them if they exercised their Freedom of Speech and Assembly in opposing progressives.

In doing so, they often utilized the tentacles of government in these attacks that violated the Civil Rights of their opponents. Indeed, many historians and lawyers have commented that the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was the greatest assault on Civil Rights since the post-Civil War. The administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt also engaged in Civil Rights violations but in a more clandestine manner. President Lyndon Banes Johnson’s administration also engaged in Civil Rights abuses, but often in a ham-handed way that the American people looked down on.

As fearmongering and demonization became effective in advancing Progressivism, they became part and parcel of Progressive tactics. And, as Progressives obtained dominance in the Democrat Party, it became part and parcel of Democrat Party electioneering and governance, as I have examined in my Chirps on "03/27/21 Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself" and "02/06/21 How Does Temporary Becomes Permanent?". We have also seen a dramatic increase in the weaponization of government (a form of Civil Rights abuse) by the Democratic Party to obtain and retain power for the furtherance of Progressivism, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, we have entered into an era of "Divisiveness in America" and a loss of "A Civil Society" in America through the utilization of fearmongering and demonization by Progressives.

Many Progressives proclaim that both sides do it. Of course, both sides do it, as in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention they pay to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism or Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, Left versus Right, etc. What we should be asking is, 'Are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side doing it?’. When you see one side or the other paying more heed to the extreme of their side or engaging in extreme deeds or words of their own, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to not only make a determination of the number of words and misdeed incidents but also the tone of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase 'Both Sides Do It' is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme deeds or words by the one side engaged in these extreme words or deeds.

Rather than convincing the American public as to the rightness of their ideas, Progressives have used fearmongering and demonization of their opponents to stampede the American public into accepting their Progressivism. A stampede that is driven by the forces of Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, LGBTQIA+, Modern Feminism, Wokeness, and Hyper-Partisanship, in an attempt to institute a Herd Mentality in support of Progressivism. Such a stampede impacts our "American Ideals and Ideas" and has negative repercussions on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

08/22/23 Progressives and Systematic Lies

The three great progressive Presidents of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, systematically lied to the American public, especially when it came to war. The extent of their lying is revealed in two books and an official government report. These are:

The Illusion of Victory: America In World War I by Thomas Fleming The political history of the American experience in World War I is a story of conflict and bungled intentions that begins in an era dedicated to progressive social reform and ends in the Red Scare and Prohibition. Thomas Fleming tells this story through the complex figure of Woodrow Wilson, the contradictory president who wept after declaring war, devastated because he knew it would destroy the tolerance of the American people, but who then suppressed freedom of speech and used propaganda to excite America into a Hun-hating mob.

The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming Acclaimed historian Thomas Fleming brings to life the flawed and troubled FDR, who struggled to manage WWII. Starting with the leak to the press of Roosevelt's famous Rainbow Plan, then spiraling back to FDR's inept prewar diplomacy with Japan and his various attempts to lure Japan into an attack on the U.S. Fleet in the Pacific, Fleming takes the reader inside the incredibly fractious struggles and debates that went on in Washington, the nation, and the world as the New Dealers, led by FDR, strove to impose their will on the conduct of the War.

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that Lyndon B. Johnson's administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."

These systematic lies were done to maneuver the American public into accepting a war in which there was much public sentiment against these wars. During the course of these lies and the cover-ups of these lies, they often violated the Civil Rights of the Americans who opposed the wars. They also engaged in vituperative rhetoric against their opponents, and many times persecutions and prosecutions against their opponents. In doing so, they whipped up mob passion against their opponents and warmongering against the nations that they wanted to wage war against.

These systematic lies betray an attitude amongst progressives in which they do not trust the American public to make a wise decision. They believe it is acceptable to engage in these systematic lies if it is for the good of America and Americans. As Progressives believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, it is acceptable to them to engage in systematic lies to implement what they believe is best for America and Americans. In this, they have forgotten or did not know:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?" - Thomas Sowell

In the Progressive mindset, they believe that only they know what is best, and they should be the only persons to decide what is best. As such, systematic lies are acceptable if it is for the best for Americans and America.

Alas, these systematic lies of Progressives are not limited to war, for once you adopt this mindset, it is acceptable to engage in systematic lies in all agendas and policies that you believe are best for Americans and America. Thus, their mindset also applies to domestic and international affairs, and so it is acceptable for them to engage in systematic lies in all arenas to implement their Progressive ideology and ideas upon America.

08/21/23 The Administrative State and Constitutional Issues

The Administrative State is built on three main pillars, each of which clashes with core constitutional principles. As Ronald J. Pestritto has stated in his book America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, these are:

“The first pillar was the congressional delegation of discretionary and regulatory power to the executive—especially to an enlarged national administrative apparatus which, it was contended, would operate under the advantages inherent in expertise and specialization. The second pillar was the combination of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—into single entities within the administrative apparatus, thus benefitting from the efficiency of centralizing all core agency functions in the same set of hands. The third pillar was the insulation of administration from political control.”

Previous too, and during the first term of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Supreme Court resisted such pillars and often declared them, or parts of them, unconstitutional. However, by the appointment of new Supreme Court Justices and intense political pressure on the Supreme Court, President Roosevelt, in his second term, was able to sway the Supreme Court to his view of a Progressive government. Since that time, the Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of the Administrative State and its authorities, duties, and responsibilities. However, in recent times we have seen some pushback by the Supreme Court on the pillars and excesses of the Administrative State.

This pushback is why in today’s America, the appointment of Justices and Judges have become such a contentious affair. The Progressives realize that if the pillars of the Administrative State are constricted or dismantled by Supreme Court decisions, then the governmental concepts of Progressivism will come tumbling down.

But it is not only the Supreme Court decisions that have enabled the rise of the Administrative State but also Congress’s supine acceptance of the Administrative State. In an effort for expediency and to avoid controversial decisions that could impact elections, Congress has often delegated powers to the Administrative State that are Constitutionally delegated to the Legislative Branch of government. Thus, we have seen a breakdown of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that were built into the Constitution to ensure the proper roles of the branches of government. This breakdown has also had a nefarious impact on Americans' "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

There is no doubt that the Constitutional principles of government, as espoused by our Founding Fathers, conflict with the governing principles of Progressivism, especially in the concept of an Administrative State.

The issues and concerns of an Administrative State on the limitations of knowledge, the principles of government, practical difficulties, and constitutional issues are why an Administrative State is not possible nor desirable. Consequently, a means must be found to reign in the Administrative State and have it operate within our Constitutional principles.

08/20/23 The Administrative State and Practical Difficulties

The previous chip on “08/19/23 The Administrative State of Experts – Part I” dealt with issues of the principles of government in an administrative state, but there are also practical difficulties that occur in an administrative state. The practical difficulties in an administrative state are the conduct of the people within the administration. The largest difficulties are Regulatory Capture, Consent Decrees, and Bureaucratic Inertia and Arrogance.

Regulatory Capture explains how governmental regulatory agencies actually operate in the real world, rather than how they were supposed to operate when they were authorized:

“Regulatory Capture is an economic theory that says regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating. The result is that an agency, charged with acting in the public interest, instead acts in ways that benefit incumbent firms in the industry it is supposed to be regulating.”

“Regulated industries devote large budgets to influencing regulators at federal, state, and local levels. By contrast, individual citizens spend only limited resources to advocate for their own rights. This is an extension of the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of regulation, public policy, and collective action in general, described by economist Mancur Olsen.”

“In many cases, the regulators themselves come from the pool of industry experts and employees, in part due to the complex and specialized knowledge needed to regulate an industry, and may also then return to work in the industry after their government service. This is known as the revolving door between government and special interests. In some cases, industry leaders trade the promise of future jobs for regulatory consideration, making revolving doors criminally corrupt.”

“Regulatory agencies that come to be controlled by the industries they are charged with regulating are known as captured agencies, and agency capture occurs when that governmental body operates essentially as an advocate for the industries it regulates. Such cases may not be directly corrupt, as there is no quid pro quo; rather, the regulators simply begin thinking like the industries they regulate, due to heavy lobbying.”

- From the article Regulatory Capture at Investopedia.com

Consent Decrees are an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refer to such a type of settlement in the United States. The plaintiff and the defendant ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties. It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, or consent judgment. Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation. There are many advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree, as outlined in the Wikipedia section on ‘Effects’ of a Consent Decree.

The core issue is the scope of the consent decree. Does a consent decree require Congressional approval if its scope falls outside of the delegated powers of the Executive or Judicial branches of government? Many consent decrees require actions by the government and the other parties to the consent decree that seem to be the prerogatives of Congress to be legitimate under the Constitution.

As important and as useful as the tool as consent decrees are, they can also be abused in the hands of governmental bureaucrats. They are often utilized to advance a government policy not instituted by Congress, most often when an activist group sues the Federal government. Many times, governmental regulatory agencies utilize a consent decree to advance their own agenda outside the bounds assigned to them by Congress. And many times, Congress takes no action, and the Executive Officers approve of these consent decrees, as they can hide behind the contentious policies of consent decrees rather than directly vote upon or implement these policies. And when this occurs, the result is often more Federal powers over the people of America without their consent. Sometimes these consent decrees fund activists’ groups as part of the financial settlement of the consent decree, which often begets more lawsuits and consent decrees.

Bureaucratic Inertia and Arrogance are a problem in all governments, but in an administrative state, it is a larger problem. A larger problem because in an administrative state, the management and personnel of government agencies are immune to corrective actions, or removal, by forces outside of the agency. When you are an authority unto yourself, you create and enforce your own procedures and conduct yourself as you see fit and at a pace that is of your own choosing. Those outside of your agency that you become involved with must be submissive to your conduct if they require your services. As a result, this is not, as President Lincoln so eloquently put it, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, but “government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats”.

08/19/23 The Administrative State and Principles of Governance

The previous chip on “08/18/23 The Administrative State of Experts – Part I” dealt with issues of a general nature about the administrative state. However, there are issues with the principles of government in an administrative state.

The key principle at work in the development of the administrative state is the destruction of the separation-of-powers constitutionalism and its replacement by the separation of politics and administration. Additionally, Progressives believe that the administrative state should operate quasi-independently, with only nominal oversight by Congress and the Judiciary. Presidential authority should only be for the nominations of the management of the agency, but there is no authority for the President or Congress to remove the management or personnel within an agency.

Progressives also believe that for an agency to operate with maximum efficiency in its regulation of an industry for the purpose of the well-being and general welfare of America, it is necessary for rulemaking, investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers to be combined and at its disposal. Thus, the entire enterprise of the modern administrative state owes its existence to the abandonment of the separation of powers as an operative constitutional principle and its replacement by a system separating politics and administration.

This destruction of the tenant of the separation of powers—the prohibition of combining the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government—has resulted in the modern administrative state. Administrative agencies routinely combine all three governmental functions in the same body and even in the same people within that body. Thus, we have a government within the government. Professor of Law Gary Lawson at Boston University School of Law has given an example of this in the functioning of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):

“The Commission promulgates substantive rules of conduct. The Commission then considers whether to authorize investigations into whether the Commission’s rules have been violated. If the Commission authorizes an investigation, the investigation is conducted by the Commission, which reports its findings to the Commission. If the Commission thinks that the Commission’s findings warrant an enforcement action, the Commission issues a complaint. The Commission’s complaint that a Commission rule has been violated is then prosecuted by the Commission and adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission adjudication can either take place before the full Commission or before a semi-autonomous administrative law judge. If the Commission chooses to adjudicate before an administrative law judge rather than before the Commission, and the decision is adverse to the Commission, the Commission can appeal to the Commission.”

This, of course, makes the Commission an independent authority unto itself, with no appeal outside of the Commission as to its actions. Consequently, they are a government within a government unresponsive to any outside authority.

08/18/23 The Administrative State and Limitations of Knowledge

Many Progressive politicians (since the start of American Progressivism) have called for an administrative state to be administered by experts free from politics. Such an administrative state is an impossibility, as for an administrative state to function properly, it requires that the administrators (i.e., “Experts”) have a thorough and complete understanding of diverse subjects.

The first is that they need to understand the limits of knowledge (i.e., a). That we know what we know, b). That we know what we don't know, and c). That we don't know that we don't know). It is not possible for anyone, or any group of people, to fully know a) as what they know may be incorrect, or b) as what we think we don’t know may be incomplete, and c) is an impossibility because we don’t know of what is not known.

The next is to understand economics, as money makes the world go round. However, nobody thoroughly understands economics, including economists, as economics is not a precise nor fully developed science. Without an understanding of economics, it is impossible to predict the economic impacts of a governmental decision, which leads to the final point.

Finally, how can anyone account for the "The Law of Unintended Consequences", as they are unintended and therefore unknowable beforehand? Unintended consequences always occur from any administrative action, and these consequences can be neutral, positive, or negative and may have serious repercussions of an unexpected benefit, an unexpected drawback, or a perverse result on society.

The lack of understanding of these subjects will always lead to improper decisions by the administrators. Their decisions, at best, are a guestimate of the impacts of their decisions and rarely does the best occur.

As for politics, it cannot be separated from administration, as politics is bound to human nature, and there is no accounting for human nature. They also cannot predict the response of the populace to their administrative actions, which reinforces The Law of Unintended Consequences. These administrators often have an ideology or the ideas of Progressivism, which is political by the very nature of Progressivism. Thus, administrators are always political and make decisions based on their political viewpoints.

The claim that these administrators will act in the best interests of the people begs the question:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?" - Thomas Sowell

Even the most noble or virtuous administrator does not have the knowledge or wisdom to make such decisions on what is best, and people often disagree on what is best. Also, having someone decide what is best often requires despotism to enforce what they believe is best, or at the very minimum, requires silencing those that would disagree with their decisions. Thus, an administrative state violates the Natural Rights of the people.

This is why an administrative state of experts determining public policy is not possible or desirable.

08/17/23 Grandiloquent Statements of Progressives

Grandiloquent statements, lofty in style and puffed up with vanity, are a staple of politicians, commentators, and activists. The Grandiloquent statements by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are often appeals to fundamentally transform America to what they perceive for the better, while the grandiloquent statements by Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders are often appeals to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the preservation of their "American Ideals and Ideas". Thus, there is a dichotomy between these grandiloquent statements.

However, Progressive grandiloquent statements are often an attempt to propagandize and spur their supporters into action, and these statements are often bereft of practical goals or ends that are achievable, as often they require a change of human nature or based on an ignorance of economics. In addition, these grandiloquent statements by Progressives often provoke bitter disputations that divide Americans, and they often have an attitude of intellectual and moral superiority that postures their opponents as intellectually deficient or morally injudicious.

My new Article, “Grandiloquent Statements”, examines grandiloquent statements and their impacts and repercussions on society and government. In the past and present, we have seen Progressive grandiloquent statements in abundance to fundamentally transform American society and governance. Regrettably, what we can all learn from history is that Progressive grandiloquent statements rarely achieve their intent, and often they often wreak havoc on America and the world. Thus, we all should beware of Progressive grandiloquent statements and look for The Devil is in the Details of all grandiloquent statements.

08/16/23 American Progressivism

As I mentioned in my Chirp on “08/14/23 The Ideology is the Same”, Progressivism is an ideology that runs counter to our Founding Father's American Ideals and Ideas, and that is an infringement on our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. An ideology that, as President-elect Barack Obama once stated, desires to “fundamentally transform” America. However, Progressives are often opaque in defining the ideology of Progressivism, and they often cloak their ideology in expressions of high-sounding morals or pithy statements that lack little substance of what their ideology entails. There is also little taking into account the consequences or repercussions to society of instituting their ideology, as they believe that the lofty goal of Progressivism is a sufficient reason to institute their ideology. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what are the basic tenets of Progressivism.

A book by Ronald J. Pestritto, America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, examines the tenets and history of Progressivism and its impacts on American governance and society. As the publisher states about this book:

“The America of the modern administrative state is not the America of the original Constitution. This transformation comes not only from the ordinary course of historical change and development, but also from a radical, new philosophy of government that was imported into the American political tradition by the Progressives of the late nineteenth century. The new thinking about the principles of government-and open hostility to the American Constitution-led to a host of concrete changes in American political institutions. Our government today reflects these original Progressive innovations, even if they are often unrecognized as such because they have become ingrained in American political culture. This book shows the nature of these changes, both in principles and in the nuts and bolts of governing. It also shows how progressivism was often at the root of critical developments subsequent to the Progressive Era in more recent American political history - how it was different than the New Deal, the liberalism of the 1960s, and today’s liberalism, but also how these subsequent developments could not have transpired without the ground laid by the original Progressives.”

Once you have read this book, you will understand the core ideology of Progressivism and the reasons for their support of various political agendas and policy goals.

Progressivism also relies on the facts and truths of science and history to buttress its arguments. Rather than state all the facts and truths, they pick and choose tidbits of “facts” and “truths”, then surround them with their ideology. In doing so, they are corrupting science and history to buttress their ideology and creating Myths of Science and History, which they propagate. It is many of these Myths of Science and History that I have written about in my Chirps and Articles, and is the subject of my Chirp on “08/19/23 The Progressive Myths of Science and History”.

08/15/23 The Ideology is the Same

The 20th century in America saw the rise of Progressivism that morphed into modern Liberalism and then once again became Progressivism. However, the core ideology of Progressivism and Liberalism is the same ideology. This ideology was based upon the ideas of President Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century regarding his concept of government. A concept that was antithetical to the Founding Fathers' concept of government (which President Wilson admitted in his many speeches and writings). Unfortunately, much of this ideology is baked into modern governance in America. This has been poignantly pointed out in an article by Ronald Pestritto, “Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism”, which illuminates the Progressive/Liberal ideology of governance.

This tactic of renaming an ideology when it has become unpopular, without changing the ideology, is often utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. In doing so, they often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to achieve this renaming. A renaming in which they try to cloak the shortcomings or failures of their ideology and also hope to dupe the American public into believing they have changed for the better.

It is not for the better that they do this renaming but for the continuation and furtherance of their ideology. An ideology that runs counter to our Founding Father's American Ideals and Ideas. An ideology that is an infringement on our Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. An ideology that would transform our Constitution from a republic to a democratic political theory of governance, as I have written in my Article, A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution. An ideology that often relies on bribery, intimidation, or despotism upon the American people to achieve its goals. Therefore, it is an ideology that needs to be opposed and overturned in our governance to ensure our American Liberties and Freedoms.

08/14/23 What is Progressivism?

In a book by Ronald J. Pestritto, America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism, he examines this question at the beginning of Chapter One, ‘A Primer on Progressivism and the Progressive Era’:

“What is progressivism? The chapters in this book will lay out its characteristics in detail, but to begin we can think of it as an argument to move beyond the political principles of the American founding. It is an argument to enlarge vastly the scope of the national government for the purpose of responding to a set of economic and social conditions which, progressives contend, could not have been envisioned at the founding and for which the founder’s limited, constitutional government is inadequate. Whereas the founders posited what they held to be a permanent understanding of just government, based upon a permanent account of human nature, progressives have countered that then ends and scope of government are to be defined anew in each historic epoch. They have coupled this belief in historical contingency with a deep faith in historical progress, suggesting that, due to historical evolution, government was becoming less a danger to the governed and more capable of solving the great array of problems besetting the human race. Historically, these ideas formed a common thread among the most important American thinkers from the 1880s into the 1920s and beyond, manifesting themselves in the writings and speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, John Dewey, Robert La Follette, and several others.”

He further states in Chapter One:

“Wilson, in reflecting what it meant to be a progressive, wrote of government as a “living thing” which was to be understood according to” the theory of organic life”. This “living” notion of a constitution, Wilson contended, was far superior to the founders’ model, which had considered government a kind of “machine” which could be constantly limited through checks and balances. As a living entity, the progressives reasoned, government had to evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances. While early conceptions of national government had carefully circumscribed its power to the perceived threat to individual liberties, progressives argued that history had brought an improvement in the human condition, such that the will of the people was no longer in danger of becoming factious. Citing a whole new host of social and economic ills that called out for a government remedy, progressives took this doctrine of progress and translated it into a call for a sharp increase in the scope of government power.”

Thus, Progressives believe that the powers of the national government, and especially those of the president, are plenary (full in all respects), not enumerated (specify individually)—as defined by the Constitution.

Dr. Pestritto also points out that a plenary power requires an administrative state “whereby a large, unelected bureaucracy is empowered with significant governing authority.” Such an administrative state would be run by administrative experts who are appointed and which are drawn from the educated classes. To be effective, such administrative experts would need to share a common ideology and ideas of the Progressive goals of the government. These administrative experts would combine aspects of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial functions of government in the creation and administration of regulations to govern almost all the functioning of society.

This, then, is the core ideology and ideas of Progressivism, which is antithetical to our Founding Fathers' ideology of the Declaration of Independence and the ideas of the Constitution of the United States, which the Founding Fathers regarded as necessary to preserve our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". In our Founding Fathers' ideology and ideas, our rights supersede government, while in the Progressives' ideology and ideas, our rights derive from the government, and these rights can evolve and adapt and be created or discarded as necessary in solving what they believe is the great array of problems besetting the human race.

08/13/23 Repeating History

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

American Progressivism started in the late 19th century and flowered at the beginning of the 20th century. The Presidential Administration of Woodrow Wilson was when it began to be incorporated into American governance. After a brief pause in the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression in the United States brought forth even greater Progressivism under the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). It was under the FDR Administration that Progressivism became entrenched in the American government. To this day, we have Progressivism baked into American governance.

Yet, the administrations of President Wilson and Roosevelt had a dismal record on Civil Rights. Using a Democratic interpretation of the Constitution (as I have written in my article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution"), and sometimes just ignoring or dismissing our American ideals and ideas as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Progressives began a campaign to indoctrinate Americans into a Progressive ideology of governance and societal culture. A history of their efforts during the Wilson Administration is examined in the books:

Over Here: The First World War and American Society 25th Anniversary Edition by David M. Kennedy
The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I by Thomas Fleming

Using grandiloquent statements and the Progressive Myths of History while at the same time using economic fears and World War I war-mongering, President Wilson and his Administration trampled upon Americans' Civil Rights to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. Thus, a campaign of fear and intimidation ensued, in which they violated the right to Freedom of Speech and the Press, along with the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Many people were imprisoned for dissenting from the administration's opinions, and many more were intimidated into silence for fear of imprisonment. Those that they could not imprison were smeared and demonized with innuendo and rumors of being unpatriotic and even un-American. They whipped up the American public to support and even assist them with their efforts. Thus, a dark period of Civil Rights abuses descended upon America. It was only after World War I when the American people were war-weary and no longer in economic fear, did the American public repudiate these efforts and elected a series of Republican presidents to bring back “normalcy”.

Alas, we have forgotten this history, and a little over 100 years later, we are repeating it in the fears of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the warmongering of the Ukrainian-Russian war. Much of what President Wilson’s Administration's Civil Rights abuses entailed are being attempted by President Biden’s Administration. It is chilling to read this history of the Wilson Administration and realize that the same tactics they utilized are being utilized by the Biden Administration. It is, therefore, imperative the American public repudiate these Civil Rights abuses of the Biden Administration and return to “normalcy”. A “normalcy” that should also repudiate the Progressive ideology of governance, as the Progressive ideology is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Thus, my next several Chirps will be about Progressivism and Progressives. Hopefully, my readers will have a better understanding of this political movement and can make better judgments about this ideology and its political agendas and policy goals.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Please note that the above series of Chips on Progressivism and Progressives have been combined into my collected Chirps on "Progressivism and Progressives", that are in the proper order in which they should be read. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

08/12/23 Modern Governance

The history of the modern forms of government has revealed several types of governance based on structure and political principles. The structure of a government can be divided into Unitary States or Federal States, while the political principles of states are of several different types. My new article, “Modern Governance”, examines the structure and political principles of modern forms of government.

08/11/23 Proper Reasoning

People have many reasons for what they think or believe, but they often do not have proper reasoning to arrive at the proper conclusions of their thinking and beliefs. In many of my Chirps and Articles, I mention proper reasoning as important to reach a proper conclusion. To reason properly requires that you take a "A Philosophical Approach" to your "Reasoning" and apply the Rules of Reasoning as I have Chirped on "06/07/23 Rules of Reason".

Reasoning philosophically is the most effective way of thinking and is the best method to reach a sound conclusion. Thinking philosophically focuses and organizes your thoughts in a manner that helps you properly reason. In using Reasoning, you need to understand the Structure of Reasoning, Formal and Informal Logic, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive Biases, and Common Sense. These must always be ascertained and incorporated for proper reasoning. You must also be aware of how to utilize "Common Sense" appropriately. In applying the Rules of Reason, you will be better able to adjudge the veracity of your own and others' claims and make a judgment on the truthfulness of a claim. The more you apply these rules of reason to a claim, the more you will realize the nonsense of much reasoning, and the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of the myriad of claims that surrounds us.

In evaluating your or another person’s reasoning, it is often not possible to determine if you or they have properly reasoned. However, whenever you or someone else uses "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” in reasoning, you can be fairly certain that they have not utilized proper reasoning.

Being able to express your proper reasoning clearly, concisely, completely, confidently, and understandably helps others to understand your proper reasoning and convince them of the soundness of your conclusions. In my Chirps and Articles, I consciously try to be clear, concise, complete, confident, and understandable. Also, in my Chirps, I have often expressed my conclusions without fully explaining my proper reasoning, which is why I have written Articles that do explain my proper reasoning. Consequently, whenever I hyperlink to an Article in my Chirp, it is for the purpose of fully explaining my proper reasoning. Thus, I would recommend reading my previously mentioned Articles to understand proper reasoning.

08/10/23 Inanity and Mockery

Vice President Kamala Harris is notorious for her inane word salad statements that talk down to the American public. She recently suffered another inane word salad, this time on banks while speaking to reporters at the Sycamore & Oak retail village in D.C.:

"And so for years, we have worked to expand investment in community banks because, you see, community banks specialize in providing loans and financial assistance to small business owners, in particular those in overlooked and underserved communities, and as the name suggests, community banks are in the community."

To which a Twitter user so aptly rephrased as:

“Water is wet … because it's water! Mkay? When we think about water's wetness, we must think in terms of how that wetness affects us all. Only then can we appreciate just how wet water truly is …”

I am old enough to remember Vice President Dan Quayle being mocked by the mainstream media for some of the things he said. Compared to Vice President Kamala Harris, Vice President Dan Quayle would seem to be an intellectual.

But there will be no mockery from the Mainstream Media of today, as they only mock Conservatives and Republicans and cover up or make excuses for Progressives and Democrats. Alas, this is but another example of the bias in the Mainstream Media that permeates Modern Journalism.

08/09/23 Perception Is Not Reality

Facts and figures don’t lie, except they do if they are misused, as I have written in my article on "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". However, the biggest factual lies are factual misperceptions. We may think that we know the facts, but often we do not really know the facts. My newest article, “Perception Is Not Reality”, examines some of these misperceptions and their repercussions.

These misperceptions are bad for the body politic, as making a decision based on perceptions always leads to a bad decision. Misperceptions that lead to divisiveness in America and bad decisions that have negative repercussions for our society. Consequently, before making any decision, it is important that you determine the facts and disregard the misperceptions.

08/07/23 Notable American Historians

Having read quite a bit of American history, I have been able to develop an informed opinion as to whom I regard as excellent American historians. While many other historians have written quality works, I have found the following historians to be consistently excellent:

More information and hyperlinks to these historians and their books can be reviewed in my new article “Notable American Historians”. The books by these historians are well worth a read. But as always, the reader should beware, for while they may be excellent books, that does not imply that they provide a complete or unbiased view of history. That is why I often read at least three books on a historical topic to ensure that I have multiple views on a historical topic.

08/05/23 Cat’s Cradle

Cat's Cradle: A Novel by Kurt Vonnegut was, according to its publisher, “a satirical commentary on modern man and his madness. An apocalyptic tale of this planet’s ultimate fate, it features a midget as the protagonist, a complete, original theology created by a calypso singer, and a vision of the future that is at once blackly fatalistic and hilariously funny. A book that left an indelible mark on an entire generation of readers, Cat’s Cradle is one of the twentieth century’s most important works—and Vonnegut at his very best.” The Wikipedia article on this novel describes Cat's Cradle as “a satirical postmodern novel, with science fiction elements, by American writer Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's fourth novel, it was first published in 1963, exploring and satirizing issues of science, technology, the purpose of religion, and the arms race, often through the use of morbid humor.” While the article is an interesting synopsis of this novel, it is no substitute for reading the novel.

Upon reading this novel, I discovered that little did Vonnegut know that Cat’s Cradle was more than satire but it was a prediction on modern American society. Told with deadpan humor and bitter irony, Kurt Vonnegut's cult tale of global destruction preys on our deepest fears of witnessing Armageddon and, worse still, surviving it ... In Kurt Vonnegut’s time, the fear of global destruction was of atomic war; today, the fear of global destruction is of Global Climate Change.

The semi-humorous religion of Bokononism in the novel is analogous to today’s Wokeism, except Wokeism is not semi-humorous—it is inanity. The absurdities of Bokononism match the absurdities of Wokeism, and the vacuousness of Bokononism locutions are equivalent to the vacuousness of Wokeism locutions. The characters in Cat’s Cradle are as daft as today’s Progressives and are cut from the same cloth.

In Chapter 28 of Cat’s Cradle, ‘Tyranny with a Difference’, he recites a “Calypsos” of the Bokonon religion:

“I wanted all things, To seem to make some sense, So we could all be happy, yes, Instead of tense. And I made up lies So that they all fit nice, And I made this sad world A par-a-dise.”

And so, it is with Wokeism. They make up lies that all fit nicely so we all can be happy. I also suspect that they would not be unhappy with a tyranny if it were the tyranny of the woke. As, after all, if we were all woke, then the world would be a par-a-dise.

Alas, if we proceed down the path of Wokeness, it will not be Global Climate Change that will end civilization, but it will be Wokeism that leads to the end of our civilization.

08/03/23 Climate Science Denial

Climate Science Denial is not a denial of science if the denials are based on scientific reasoning. Climate Science Deniers do not deny science, but the scientific consensus of Climate Change advocates and the scientists that support these activists. As I have written in my articles Climate Change, Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, Orthodoxy in Science, and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, there is much science that is disputable about Climate Change. In discussing Climate Change, it is important to remember the words of wisdom of Rabbi Elijah Schochet "We can disagree without being disagreeable." However, the advocates of Climate Change have become disagreeable in that anyone who would disagree with their scientific “facts” or “reasoning” is tarnished with the labels of Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers. They have also engaged in "Cancel Culture" for any scientist who would dispute their claims. This is dangerous for the advancement of science, as most advancement of science springs from disputes about scientific facts and reasoning.

Many of the advocates for Climate Change have little scientific background or scientific knowledge, and their scientific knowledge of Climate Change is obtained by examining only the science with which they agree. In this, they have forgotten the adage:

To drink deep in science requires that you examine the scientific reasoning of those scientists that disagree with the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates. To this end, I would suggest the following websites that challenge the scientific “facts” or “reasoning” behind Climate Change advocates with other scientific “facts” or “reasoning”:

Along with these websites, I would recommend the following books that examine the facts, impacts, and repercussions of implementing the policies of Climate Change advocates:

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjorn Lomborg
Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything by Patrick J. Michaels
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin

In reviewing these websites and books, you should remember the following words of wisdom:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility." - Benjamin Franklin

And:

Therefore, consider that you may have been wrong, and do not be afraid to change your opinion in consideration of any new information that you have encountered in reviewing these websites and books. You should also never use the terms Climate Change Denial or Science Deniers for those persons who base their denials on sound science and scientific reasoning. To do otherwise is to make you a denier of science and an impediment to the advancement of science.

08/01/23 Good Science

Dr. John F. Clauser, born 1942, is an American theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics. Clauser was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.”

Dr. Clauser spoke in July at the event Quantum Korea 2023. What follows is a transcript of his remarks that prompted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cancel his appearance this week, and began a predictable trajectory of broader cancellation. In this speech he made some astute observations of today’s science, which is probably why he is being canceled:

“Good science is always based on good experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Sloppy experiments, on the other hand, are frequently counterproductive and provide scientific disinformation. That is why good scientists repeat each other’s experiments carefully.

For inspiration to young scientists, I would suggest that today is an opportune moment for careful observations of nature. Why? The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call “techno-cons.” Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes.

Non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation. Sometimes they participate in its origination. The purpose is to try to inspire you as young scientists to observe nature directly so that you too can determine real truth. Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation, and techno-cons.

Well-educated scientists can help solve the world’s problems by acting as scientific fact-checkers. A fact-checker’s most common problem, unfortunately, is determining what is true and what is not. The world is awash with someone else’s perception of truth as an alternative to real truth.

Perception of truth frequently differs significantly from real truth. Moreover, given sufficient promotion and advertising, perception of truth becomes truth. Its promotion by commercial enterprise Is called marketing, commonly used in the furtherance of political, commercial, or various opportunistic ends by its promoters. When promotion is done by government or political groups, it’s called spin or propaganda.

To such a promoter, perception of truth is truth. If you can sell it, it must be true. If you can’t sell it, it must be false. Perception of truth is also malleable. If you can sell it, if you want to sell it, and you can’t sell it, that’s easy. You change it. You can change truth. You can claim false observations if necessary.”

Some other astute observations from this speech are:

“Real truth is not malleable. It can only be found by making careful observations. Well-tested laws of physics and observational data are important guides to allow you to distinguish truth from perception of truth.”

“Real truth could be found if and only if you learn to recognize and use good science. It’s especially true when real truth is politically incorrect and does not reflect political, business aims, or desires of leaders. Even the scientific community can sometimes become diluted by pseudoscience.”

The entire speech can be reviewed at “The Crisis of Pseudoscience, by John F. Clauser”. These comments are closely aligned with my Chirp on, "08/02/22 The Corruption of Modern Science", and further my belief that modern science has been corrupted by politics.

07/30/23 Honor Thy Father and Mother

The Fifth Commandment that God gave to humankind states:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Many people misconstrue the meaning of this commandment to mean you should obey your parents and adopt their viewpoints on life and living life. However, God gave every person a mind and the intelligence to utilize their mind and the free will to make their own decisions on life and living life. Therefore, the true meaning of this commandment is to be polite and respect your parents and consider their opinions when you make your own decisions. God only expects that you will obey the Ten Commandments; otherwise, you are free to use your own mind and intelligence to make your own decisions.

This includes voting for a candidate and support for or against a governmental policy decision. Too often, a decision on support for a political party candidate or a governmental policy issue is reflexive to the political party affiliation of your parents. Rather than deciding based on their own thoughts and beliefs, many people reflexively support the policies and candidates of their parents.

It should be remembered that political parties often change their character and policies. If your character and policies are not in accordance with the current political party candidate or a governmental policy issue, then you should consider changing your vote or support for a political party. This is often difficult to do, especially if you should discuss your change with your parents or children (and your other family and friends). Such discussions often result in bitter disputes and a parting of ways. During such discussions, we should remember the words of advice of Rabbi Elijah Schochet “We can disagree without being disagreeable.”, and that you should Always Be Polite and Respectful is such discussions. Under no circumstances should this disagreement lead to the fracturing of the love between parents and their children, nor the honoring of a child for a parent. Simply agree to disagree and retain your love and continue to honor your parents.

Alas, in today’s polarized and politically charged hyperpartisan environment, this is often not the case. Parents and their children have often separated and not spoken to each other for years and even decades. Grandchildren are not permitted to have any interaction with their grandparents, and families have split into camps where each camp has little or no interactions with the other camp. This is deleterious to society, as strong family bonding is essential to a strong society. When this occurs between a parent and child, it is also a violation of the Fifth Commandment of God.

07/29/23 I Declare

In today’s political rhetoric, there are too many opinions masquerading as declaratives. A declarative is a grammatically unmarked statement that represents an act or state as an objective fact, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. Thus, there is confusion among the reader or viewer of what are facts versus opinions, a confusion that also often exists in the speaker or writer’s mind. Thus, it is important for all parties to be aware of the difference between opinions and declarations and to distinguish between them when communicating. Otherwise, a false declaration will be assumed to be factual and lead to a false conclusion.

Most politicians and political commentators make declarations without supporting facts, which is, therefore, an opinion, and they do so without stating their declarations as opinions. They consciously, but mostly unconsciously, do this as a means of justifying their opinions as factually based. When this is done consciously, it is an attempt to mislead the public, and when this is done unconsciously, it demonstrates a lack of proper reasoning on their part. In either case, the public should beware of all statements from them, as it can safely be assumed that their conclusions are flawed.

Alas, we cannot expect politicians and political commentators to change their modus operandi, and therefore, the public needs to consciously differentiate between declarations and opinions when reading or listening to their pronouncements.

07/28/23 What the Heck Is This QAnon?

In viewing news and commentary, you may have heard or read the term “QAnon”, which has no formal meaning and seems to have no rhyme or reason in its application. The columnist Jeffrey A. Tucker has written about his examination of the history, meaning, and purpose of this term in his article “What the Heck Is This QAnon?”. His conclusion is the term was fabricated by the New York Times (NYT) and that:

“QAnon for the NYT is just a curse word, a thing they attach to something they are really against and really want their readers to be against too. In the parlance of the NYT, there is a gradient of bad guys. To be a “conservative” is to be clueless, stupid, and easily led. To be “right-wing” is to be malicious, hateful, and probably very dangerous. But to be QAnon, that is beyond the pale, utterly hopeless and grotesque, deluded and insane, and certainly a gravely destructive person who should never be allowed any platform, much less professional success.”

A conclusion with which I agree based on my observations of the usage of this term. A conclusion in which these gradients can be used as pejoratives to classify conservatives as disreputable, right-wingers as deplorable, and QAnon as despicable. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders also have a gradient of ‘MAGA Republicans’ that spans the edges between conservatism and right-wingers for any American that would consider supporting Donald Trump. In doing so, any pejorative gradient is dividing Americans into good and evil Americans and sowing "Divisiveness in America".

Historically, this pejorative gradient of a people has been used by despots, dictators, and tyrants to oppress their people and conduct wars against other peoples, often with tragic consequences to those people who were so perjured. QAnon is also a signal to the "Wokeness" mob to engage in "Virtue Signaling" and "Cancel Culture" against the person or entity they declare to be QAnon, again with tragic consequences to those so labeled, as I have mentioned in my Chirp on “07/22/23 To Tell the Truth”.

As QAnon has no definite meaning, it can be assigned any meaning by anyone that would utilize the term. Thus, we have a situation much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's ‘Through the Looking Glass’:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.' 'the question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'the question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ' that's all.'

And any attempt to respond to the allegation of being a QAnon is analogous to Miguel de Cervantes's Spanish epic novel ‘Don Quixote’, in which Don Quixote attacks some windmills which he believes to be ferocious giants—to no avail.

The only solution to this problem is a return to "A Civil Society". Alas, in the hyper-partisanship and intense fervor of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, this does not seem likely. The normal human inhibitions of shame or benevolence of concern for another person seem to play no part in the words and deeds of those who would utilize pejoratives against those with whom they disagree. Thus, they are tearing apart Americans in order to achieve their political agendas and policy goals.

07/27/23 10 Things Black Students Don’t Need in Schools

Author and pastor John Amanchukwu’s vocal opposition to a proposed California school curriculum at a Temecula Valley Unified School Board meeting he attended on Tuesday, July 18, 2023, included a “10 Things Black Students Don’t Need in Schools” list:

“Number one, we don’t need affirmative action,

Number two, we don’t need equity,

Number three, we don’t need to be pandered to,

Number four, we don’t need you to dumb-down test scores in order for us to thrive,

Number five, we don’t need the school system to be promoting victim mentality,

Number six, we don’t need the soft bigotry of low expectations as we have heard from other people,

Number seven, we don’t need critical race theory or intersectionality,

Number eight, we don’t need reparations or any more welfare state,

Number nine, we don’t need to be propped up as the darlings of the LGBTQ community,

Number ten, we don’t need white liberals telling us that they know what’s best for us.”

The only thing that all students need from their public education is the skills and abilities to become functional adults; the Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom about different areas of knowledge, as I have written in my article, "Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom"; and the ability to use "Reasoning" and "Rationality" to make a decision. All other education of a student is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, or those they would entrust to impart this other education.

07/26/23 Bidenomics

President Biden and his Administration are pushing the term “Bidenomics” to obfuscate the reality of the current American economy. In a new article by Miranda Devine, “The real scoop on Bidenomics: Corruption, tax evasion and Hunter”, she examines what Bidenomics means to the Biden family:

“Joe Biden has been trying in vain to mainstream a concept he calls “Bidenomics.”

The mystifying slogan appears to be an effort to turn around negative public perceptions of his economic agenda, since polls show only one in three Americans approves of his handling of the economy.

The problem is that nobody seems to have a clue what Bidenomics means.

But the definition has become much clearer over the past week, after the first son’s sweetheart plea deal fell apart in Delaware, two IRS whistleblowers testified to Congress about the DOJ’s obstruction of the criminal investigation into Hunter and Sen. Chuck Grassley released an explosive FBI document alleging that Joe and Hunter received $10 million in bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch.

So here is a handy reckoner for Americans to decipher the president’s new catchphrase.”

I would urge everyone to read this article as it is very revealing of the corruption of the Biden family.

07/25/23 A Weapon of Mass Corruption

It remains true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the guardrails of due process and impartiality are discarded, the power wielded by the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies becomes a weapon of mass corruption. Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas are corrupting the United States Constitution. This should come as no surprise as President Joe Biden is also corrupting the Constitution.

They are corrupting the Constitution by their undertaking "The Weaponization of Government" and engagement in "Despotism in America", as well as obstructing Congressional Oversight (see also Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute Overview of Investigation and Oversight Power of Congress) and their involvement in Judicial intimidation and/or attempts to circumvent Supreme Court rulings as I have Chirped on "07/24/23 The Circumvention of Supreme Court Rulings". In this, they are becoming a thug government, as Andrew C. McCarthy has written in a National Review article.

In this corruption are being assisted by Democrat Party Leaders, as I have written in my article "J'accuse!". They are corrupting our "American Ideals and Ideas" through the allegations and usage of Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, and Equity and Equality. In this, they are attempting to destroy America so that they can fundamentally transform America to their ideology, as I have Chirped on “07/06/23 Destroyed From Within”.

They often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their words and deeds as what is best for America, and consentaneous with the Soul of America. But make no mistake, their assaults on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" is not the best nor consentaneous with our American Ideals and Ideas.

Consequently, the Biden Administration is corrupting the Constitution in order to obtain its political agenda or policy goals. If they are successful in these efforts, then future administrations will also engage in this corruption. A corruption that, if allowed to continue, bodes ill for the future of America and the Liberties and Freedoms of its people.

07/24/23 The Circumvention of Supreme Court Rulings

The circumvention of Supreme Court rulings has become modus operandi in the Biden Administration. Whenever a court ruling overturns an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulations, they look for ways to circumvent the court ruling. This is most pernicious when regarding Supreme Court Rulings, of which many of the Supreme Court rulings on Executive Orders or bureaucratic regulations rescinded these orders or regulations of the Biden Administration. They look to the letter of the ruling to determine how to circumvent the ruling and pay no heed to the spirit of the ruling. They then create another Executive Order or bureaucratic regulations to achieve their desires. They do this by using "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify their new Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation.

This is not to mention that many of their Executive Orders or bureaucratic regulations go beyond the scope of Legislation. They, therefore, are a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers of the branches of government and, thus, an encroachment on Congressional or Judicial powers, duties, and responsibilities.

It is quick and easy to write an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation, while it is slow and laborious to legally challenge an Executive Order or bureaucratic regulation. The Constitution was not created for quick and easy and, indeed, was created to slow down the process. Our Founding Fathers were well aware that the passions of the people could lead to governmental actions that infringed upon the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. They, therefore, created the Constitution with a separation of powers, duties, responsibilities, and checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government that slowed down the process of ameliorating passions to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of the people.

Thus, the Biden Administration is corrupting the Constitution in order to obtain its political agenda or policy goals. A corruption that gnaws at our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

07/23/23 Historical Context

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” - Hamlet.

Academics and scholars have often debated what Shakespeare meant when he used philosophy in this dialog. Throughout the millennia, the word Philosophy meant the obtainment of knowledge inclusive of many subfields such as morality and ethics, religion and theology, law, science, engineering, etc... The term Natural Philosophy was utilized for what we now term science, but there was no set convention that discriminated between the usage of Philosophy and Natural Philosophy, and people often were inclusive of Natural Philosophy when they used the term Philosophy. It was not until the mid-19th century that the term Science was utilized to discriminate between Philosophy and Natural Philosophy. Thus, we cannot know if Shakespeare was using Philosophy in its all-inclusive meaning or if he was excluding Natural Philosophy.

I prefer the all-inclusive meaning in this quote, as it illuminates a truth in the search for knowledge—"that which we know that we know, that which we know that we don't know, and that which we don't know what we don't know” and makes this quote more meaningful. The debate about the meaning of Philosophy in this quote highlights the importance of knowing the historical context of what a word or term meant to the person who spoke or wrote the word or term. Too often today, we assign the modern meaning of a word with a historical statement that is not appropriate to what was originally meant in its historical context. In doing so, we are doing a disservice to the author of the original meaning that was intended.

07/22/23 Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, and Science

Throughout history, the terms Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, and Science were indefinite in their meaning and usage. This led to confusion whenever a person used these words and often misunderstandings of what a person meant when they used these words. Today, they have a more definitive meaning and less misunderstanding in their usage. Today’s meanings of these words are as follows:

Philosophy is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge, and ethics, which throughout the millennia meant the obtainment of knowledge inclusive of many subfields, including Natural Philosophy.

Philosophy (from the Greek: love of wisdom) is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those concerning existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality; epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief; ethics, which is concerned with moral value; and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from true premises. The history of philosophy is itself a philosophical undertaking. Other notable subfields include philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind.

Natural Philosophy was the science of matter and energy and their interactions, which began to branch off from Philosophy to have its own meaning and was eventually superseded by the word Science.

Natural Philosophy or philosophy of nature is the philosophical study of physics, that is, nature and the physical universe. It was dominant before the development of modern science. From the ancient world (at least since Aristotle) until the 19th century, natural philosophy was the common term for the study of physics (nature), a broad term that included botany, zoology, anthropology, and chemistry, as well as what we now call physics. It was in the mid-19th century that the concept of science received its modern shape, with different subjects within science emerging.

The term natural philosophy preceded the current usage of natural science (i.e., empirical science). Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural history, in that natural philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and, after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas natural history was essentially qualitative and descriptive.

Science, the study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation, supplemented the term Natural Philosophy in the mid-19th century to distinguish it from the other branches of Philosophy.

Science is a neutral, rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules. There is disagreement about whether the formal sciences are science disciplines because they do not rely on empirical evidence. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies, and companies. The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and Climate Change.

07/21/23 Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom

What is Knowledge and a Knowledgeable Person? Is knowledge everything that is known, the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning, the factual information that a person knows, or the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something? Is a knowledgeable person one who is highly educated, has extensive information or understanding, an alert and fully informed mind, or a person who is thoroughly acquainted with knowledge through study or experience? It is my belief that Knowledge is everything that is known, while a knowledgeable person is one who has accumulated much Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom about different areas of knowledge.

With this in mind I have done an extensive update to my article on “Knowledgeable � From Information to Wisdom” to include the topics of Information, Understanding, Intelligence, Experience, and Wisdom. Thus, the new title for this updated article is “"Knowledgeable – From Information to Wisdom".

07/20/23 To Tell the Truth

Telling the truth is not easy—it is difficult and has consequences and repercussions. But the immediate consequences and repercussions of telling the truth are far less than the long-term consequences and repercussions of remaining silent, acquiescing or telling a lie. Therefore, you need to tell yourself and others the truth rather than what you think you or others want to hear.

I have had a lifelong habit of not telling people what they wanted to hear but rather telling them what they needed to hear. This habit often had negative repercussions for my career, as I was not very diplomatic in telling the truth, but after I learned how to diplomatically tell the truth, it had positive consequences for my career.

When I undiplomatically told the truth, I was often not paid attention to or shunted aside and sometimes scorned. I was also not promoted, and I often had to find other employment to advance my career. Once I learned how to diplomatically tell the truth, my career blossomed, as my coworkers and management learned that I could be trusted to provide all the unvarnished information they needed to make a good decision. My computer consulting clients were also appreciative of my honesty, as they knew that they would have all the information that they needed to make an informed decision.

In my article “Stories from an Examined Professional Life”, I relate the story of The Retail Furniture Store, where I told a potential client what he needed to hear and not what he wanted to hear. As a result, he did not hire me but instead hired another computer consultant who told him what he wanted to hear. I later discovered, from a mutual friend, that he had regrets about hiring the other computer consultant, as it turned out that what he needed to hear was the truth about his computer needs. As a result, he spent more money and time correcting what he wanted to hear than if he had listened to what I told him what he needed to hear.

In today’s America, the biggest obstacle to telling the truth is "Wokeness" and "Cancel Culture". Wokeness is an attempt to get someone not to speak or to lie about what they really believe to be the truth, while Cancel Culture is an injustice at the hands of a vengeful mob. Wokeness and Cancel Culture are brutal to those that it is directed against, with terrible repercussions to both the persons and the society which tolerates them. It is also true that much "Virtue Signaling" is a reinforcement of Wokeness. Wokeness and Cancel Culture is also a means to impose despotism upon a people. Thus, Wokeness, Cancel Culture, and Virtue Signaling must be opposed by those that value Truth and Justice, as well as Liberty and Freedom.

The accumulation of remaining silent, acquiescing, or telling a lie takes a toll on a person’s life, as it often demeans the meaning of their life. It also has the consequence of:

“A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

A YouTube video by Jordan B Peterson, “You Must Stand Up Against Woke Ideologies”, explains how Wokeness and Cancel Culture arise, how it is implemented, and its dire consequences, as well as the necessity of standing up against Wokeness and Cancel Culture.

07/19/23 How to Fix Climate Change

In Bjorn Lomborg's book “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” Section 4 is given over to “How to Fix Climate Change”, in which he discusses the best means to alleviate Climate Change. While I have only a few problems with the chapters on Innovation, Adaptation, and Prosperity, I do have serious problems with the chapters on Carbon Tax and Geoengineering.

Bjorn Lomborg is a big believer in Carbon Taxes to reduce carbon emissions that impact Climate Change. While he acknowledges the problem with a Carbon Tax, he believes that it can still be helpful even if not properly and comprehensively implemented. I have no such belief. With Carbon Taxes, we are talking about much money and political power. Whenever large amounts of taxes are in play, the political lobbying for different tax rates and/or tax exemptions would be extensive, and the results are often inequitable and would blunt the positive impacts of Carbon Taxes on Climate Change. The political power to control the economy and impact the lives of the population increases, often to the benefit or detriment of various groups of people. Carbon Taxes are also a very Regressive Tax that imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich. He also makes no mention of how the tax revenues would be expended. With such large revenues as Carbon Taxes generate, there would be much factiousness engendered. Many politicians would suggest that we provide subsidies to the poor to ameliorate the regressive nature of the Carbon Tax. However, this is just an elaborate means of Redistribution of Income And Wealth, a redistribution that would unduly burden the middle class and have minimal impact on the upper class. There would also be the tendency for politicians and carbon emitters to implement Emissions trading (i.e., Cap and Trade), which I believe is one of the worst ideas ever proposed to combat Climate Change, and that would enrich the traders at the expense of the consumers.

Geoengineering, the deliberate modification of the climate to suit human needs, is a science and technology that Bjorn Lomborg believes should be allocated more funds for Research and Development (R&D). While he does acknowledge the possible negative impacts of applying this science and technology, I believe he woefully underestimates the possible perverse unintended consequences of applying this science and technology. For the reasons I have written about in my Science Article, “Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing”, I believe that we should never attempt to implement this science and technology. I do believe, however, that research on Geoengineering should be increased, as this will contribute to our scientific knowledge and understanding of climate. I also believe that all the nations of the world should ban any attempt by any nation, entities, or individuals to perform any large-scale testing or implementation of this science and technology.

After all, in regard to any Climate Change policies that we pursue, we should remember that “Fools rush in where Angles fear to tread”, and most Climate Change alarmists tend to be fools, as I have Chirped on “07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change”.

07/18/23 The Myths of Climate Change

Whenever I read or view the claims of Climate Change alarmists, I get the urge to exclaim, “Madness, Madness, Madness”. This madness of Climate Change alarmists is best explained in the book, “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” by Bjorn Lomborg. Throughout my reading of this book, I chuckled or shook my head and sometimes exclaimed madness. This book is the most understandable explanation of the madness of Global Climate Change alarmists.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education. This book uncovers the truths that Climate Change alarmists don’t want you to know.

In another reasoned book, “Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything” by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato scholars Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot―it's lukewarm. While that may not sound massive, it does, as the book's subtitle notes, change everything. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated―with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.

These two books constitute my upcoming Book It of “08/01/23 The Mythologies of Climate Change”, and I hope that you will read them to better understand Climate Change. The introduction to both books is a must-read for those interested in the truths of Climate Change, while the conclusion of False Alarm is a warning of the repercussions of trying to “fix” Climate Change based on the myths. Myths and Science are diametric, and to believe in myths will doom any policies based upon the myths and result in much wasteful expenditures of time and monies, as well as bringing untold misery upon the world and its people.

For more information on truthful Climate Change science and untruthful Climate Change alarmism, I would direct you to my Book Its’ of “03/01/21 Apocalypse Never” and “ 08/01/22 Rational and Reasonable Climate Change”, which review the books "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All" by Michael Shellenberger and Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin. For more of my thoughts on Climate Change I would direct to my Science Articles Climate Change and Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing.

07/17/23 Environmentalism and Climate Change

Before there was Climate Change, there was Environmentalism. Over the decades, Environmentalism has been subsumed by Climate Change, in that If you believe in Environmentalism, then you must believe in Climate Change, and if you believe in Climate Change, then you must believe in Environmentalism. But Environmentalism and Climate Change are distinct, and entangling Environmentalism and Climate Change diminishes Environmentalism.

Environmentalism is important, as it is important that we have clean air and water, as well as a rubbish-free environment. It is also important that we have natural lands, streams, rivers, lakes, and ocean preserves. But there has always been a conflict between the environment and the human utilization of the environment. Human progress has always been dependent on the usage of natural resources, and all human endeavors impact the environment. The question of what acceptable impacts on the environment are allowable to sustain human progress and what restrictions are necessary to preserve the environment.

Modern Environmentalism has gone to the extreme of not allowing any impacts on the environment for human progress. While almost no Americans would agree to unrestricted utilization of the environment for human progress, it is the balance between environmentalism and human progress that needs to be considered before implementing any decision on restrictions to human development that impacts the environment. This is analogous to limiting the deaths that occur from automobile accidents. Each year about 45,000 people in America die from traffic accidents. If you ask the experts to determine how to reduce this number to several hundred at maximum, the only answer is to reduce the speed limit to no more than 5 miles per hour. Nobody in their right mind would accept this solution, as the negative repercussions would be far greater than the positive benefits. We, therefore, must strike a balance for society and human progress to flourish. So, it should be for environmental policies.

I am all in favor of striking a balance in environmental policies and protecting the environment as much as the balance warrants. However, I could not say the same for Climate Change policies. As I have written in many Articles and Chirps, the current Climate Change science is very suspect, as I have pointed out in my Science Article, Climate Change, and my new Science Article, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing. I believe in climate change. I believe the climate has changed in the past, the climate is currently changing, and the climate will change in the future. This is a meteorological and geological scientific fact. The question is whether human activity is causing the current climate change. This may be true or may not be true, depending upon your interpretation of scientific facts and beliefs. If you have read my Science Article "On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry", you know that I have a scientific orientation to my thinking, and in this article, I apply that scientific thinking to many of the issues and concerns of climate change. Without good science, it is not possible to determine a good balance between Climate Change and Human Progress.

As such, when Environmentalism and Climate Change merge, and Environmentalism becomes entangled in the political discord on Climate Change, it negatively impacts Environmental actions. In addition, the extremism of modern Environmentalists makes people wary of their claims and solutions. Consequently, environmental protection that is beneficial and necessary is questioned and stalled to the detriment of the environment.

07/16/23 Divorce – American Style

In my article “The Rights of Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide”, I discuss the topic of what marriage is, but I make no mention of a divorce in a marriage. In the book, What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Gergis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, they identify and defend the reasons for this historical consensus and show why redefining civil marriage as something other than the conjugal union of husband and wife is a mistake. In this book, they point out the two views of the meaning of marriage:

“The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law—along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice—of our civilization. It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual view bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing our into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage so understood, the world rests its hopes and finds ultimate renewal.” and “A second, revisionists view has informed the marriage policy reforms of the last several decades. It is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remains as long as they find it.”

In all views of marriage, divorce should be available in cases of abandonment, physical or mental cruelty, infidelity, or bigamy. The question is, what the other grounds for divorce in a marriage are? In a conjugal view of marriage, it is only when one spouse has broken or ceased in their conjugal vows that divorce is warranted. In a revisionist's view of marriage, when one of the spouses ceases to feel emotional or sexual fulfillment, then divorce is permissible.

As we have seen the rise of the revisionist's view of marriage, we have also seen the rise in divorce rates. Some would argue that this divorce rise is not a causality but a correlation in divorce rates (as my article Correlation vs. Causality explains) and that other factors are involved in the rise in the divorce rate. While other factors are indeed involved in the increase in the divorce rate, Common Sense would indicate that causation plays a large part in the rise of divorce rates in a revisionist view of marriage. When marriage is easier to enter and easier to exit, as it is in a revisionist's view of marriage, then divorce becomes more common. Such easier divorce has many different societal impacts, most of them detrimental impacts, as the Wikipedia article discusses. The Heritage Foundation report on The Effects of Divorce on America on children reports, as well as the Forbes report on The Financial Impact Of Divorce, discuss other negative repercussions of divorce.

Thus, we need to include the societal impacts of divorce when discussing marriage; otherwise, we will continue to see an increase in divorce in America to the detriment of America. Along with divorce, America suffers from the problems of Single Parent families that the Hello Motherhood website discusses. As the rise of divorce and single parenthood are very complex problems, and one that I am not qualified to discuss nor recommend solutions, I will keep in mind one of my Pearls of Wisdom, “If You Don’t Have Anything to Say, Say Nothing”, and say no more on these topics.

07/15/23 Destroying an Embryo

I have made my views on abortion well known in my articles "The Abortion Question" and "The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery". In the book, “Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case Against Legalization” by Kevin Yuill, in Section 5—For Abortion, Against Assisted Suicide, the author fails to sufficiently address the humanity of the unborn child. Instead, he asserts without sufficient evidence that “Destroying an embryo is clearly not murdering a person.” This is a loaded, biased statement that has hidden presumptions and assumptions. A more neutral statement would be— “The destruction of an embryo in the womb is not the unjustified taking of a human life.” In making this assertion without sufficient evidence, he has forgotten Hitchens's Philosophical Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

He also defines a viewpoint of life from a sacred perspective rather than a humanistic perspective. A Humanistic perspective rewrite of his Sacred viewpoint would be:

Human life begins at conception and ends at death.
Every human life has value to itself, to others, and to society.
If every human life has value, every human life has a right to life.
We may not violate the right to life simply because someone’s existence is a nuisance, either to themselves or to others.
Therefore, both abortion and assisted suicide are morally wrong.

The only debatable point would be number 1, which is addressed in Chapter One of the book “Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing“ by Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, and that I utilized for my discussion on Abortion Rights. If you believe that from the conception of a one-cell zygote, a multi-cell embryo, a fetus, to a newborn, an infant, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, an adult, a senior, and then death, they are all various stages of a single human life’s growth and development, it is a human life throughout all the various stages of growth and development. If you utilize the above rewrite, the arguments against institutionalizing assisted suicide would be applicable to be utilized against institutionalizing abortion. Unfortunately, the arguments in Kevin Yuill’s chapter are founded on this assertion without sufficient evidence, and as such, they can be dismissed if you disagree with the assertion without sufficient evidence.

He also posits several scenarios to justify this assertion, but he does not posit other scenarios that contravene his assertion. Thus, he does not sufficiently discuss the dichotomy of the choices (presented and unpresented) in the various choices in the scenarios. A dichotomy that I have Chirped about on “06/23/23 Under the Mantle of Civil Rights”.

He also justifies abortion based on “Women’s Equality”, but he does so without discussing the “Equality” of an embryo. He makes no mention of the human rights of an unborn child, and he has, in effect, ignored the question of the humanity of an unborn child by presuming it to not be human. He does this by attempting to separate the definition of human into the categories of “Biological” v. “Biographical” life.

In presuming an unborn child to not be human, he does not address the science of the humanity of an unborn child, but he attempts to redefine humanity away from its scientific basis. If you gave a cell of an unborn child and a cell of its mother to a geneticist, you could ask the geneticist what species these cells are. They would respond that they are homo sapiens. The geneticist can do this because the genome structure of a cell determines the species of the cell, and having a genome structure of a homo sapiens makes you a Human being. If you asked that same geneticist if they were the same human, they would respond that they are not, as each genome structure is unique to each human. The geneticist could also tell you which cell is from the mother and which cell was the child of the mother. Consequently, having a genome structure that is different from another human makes you a unique human. By trying to redefine human away from their scientific basis, you are venturing into metaphysical, philosophical, theological, moral, and ethical questions that cannot resolve the question of the humanity of an unborn child.

The other sections of his book are very good discussions on the topic of Assisted Suicide. I have written this Chirp not to dissuade you from reading this book but only to inform you of the shortcomings of this section of the book.

For a Humanist to not properly address the humanity of an unborn child is not in keeping with their Humanism values, as I have Chirped on “06/24/23 A Humanist”. This is another example of the passion that people feel about the issue of abortion. Humanists and philosophers need to put aside this passion and examine a topic dispassionately and from all viewpoints. It is this dispassion that I try to maintain whenever I Chirp or write an Article, especially on the issues of “Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide Rights”.

07/14/23 Under the Mantle of Civil Rights

In today’s America, many groups of racial, ethnic, sexual, social, or cultural identity persons are claiming “Rights” under the mantle of civil rights. Most of these groups fall within the definition of Identity Politics as practiced by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

However, rights often are at a dichotomy with and between each other’s personal rights. And a dichotomy between individuals’ interests and between social policies. The main question is “What is the practical good versus the possible harm to the individuals involved?” and “What are the societal benefits versus the societal detriments of instituting a policy?”. It is difficult, and often contentious, to resolve these problems of the dichotomy of rights. These issues need to be looked at dispassionately, intelligently, and scientifically. But this is not often the case because people have strong emotional and religious reactions to these topics. Whenever we have a discussion on Civil Rights, we should remember that you have no right to harm yourself, nor to harm another, nor to harm society. It is only within that baseline that we can legitimately discuss Civil Rights.

Unfortunately, in today’s America, it seems that granting a civil right to one group often comes at the cost of the infringement on the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" of other Americans. And once a civil right has been granted to correct a problem within America, it is not revoked when the problem has been corrected. Thus, all Americans continue to have their "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" violated after a problem has been solved. This continued violation is often justified on the basis that the problem or its repercussions have not been completely resolved, but what human problems are ever completely resolved? We live in an imperfect world, and we must learn to deal with these imperfections as they occur. To continue to violate the Natural, Human, and Civil Rights of a person until all the problems have been resolved is to wait for a Utopian world—which can never happen.

This dichotomy has played itself out in the Civil Rights of black Americans. While racism still exists in America (and the rest of the world), we now have laws that make racist actions illegal, and those that engage in them are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No systemic abuses of the Civil Rights of black Americans are condoned nor tolerated in America, and those racist acts that do occur are harshly criticized and condemned by all but a few Americans.

Recently, we have seen the utilization of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to justify infringement on the equal treatment of Americans under the mantle of Civil Rights, as I have Chirped on, "04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)". We have also seen the utilization of the legal concept of Disparate Impact, as I have chirped on “06/19/23 Disparate Impact”, to justify the retention of outdated Civil Rights laws. Today, this dichotomy of rights has come into sharp focus when considering the rights of abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and assisted suicide. My new article, “Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Transgendered, and Assisted Suicide Rights”, examines these rights and their dichotomy between individual and societal rights.

07/13/23 Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing

"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George E. P. Box, one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century

These words of wisdom must be kept in mind whenever you utilize a Computer Model or Statistical Process in decision-making or in its implementation in the real world. The difficulty is determining which Computer Models or Statistical Processes are useful and which are useless. In addition, the above quote is why Computer Models and Statistical Processes cannot be a proof of science. No science is ever confirmed by a computer model, as science is proved by observations and experiments conducted in the real world.

Another problem with Computer Models and Statistical Processes is their utilization by non-scientists to advocate for public policies. Too often, the public believes in a computer model, especially when it confirms their beliefs about the real world, and they accept Computer Models and Statistical Processes as “proof” of their beliefs. And unfortunately, most Activists and Activism and politicians for causes that rely on a scientific foundation (e.g., Climate Change, Environmentalism, COVID-19 Pandemic, etc.) accept these Computer Models and Statistical Processes as proof of the correctness of their claims.

We should all remember that “Figures can lie, and liars can figure” as a warning to beware of all who use Computer Models and Statistical Processes to advance their agenda. This was not an indictment of modelers or statisticians; rather, it is a call to use reason and logic and to ask questions and seek understanding when presented with a conclusion based on Computer Models and Statistical Processes. Knowing what is important, what is unimportant, and what is misleading when reviewing Computer Models and Statistical Processes is crucial to discovering the truth.

My new science article, Beware of Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing, is an examination of the general problems associated with Computer Modeling and Statistical Processing and why you need to be careful when utilizing Computer Models and Statistical Processes when making decisions.

07/12/23 Economist Agree

Economists are some of the most disagreeable people on the Earth. They disagree with each other, and they disagree on the science of economics. This is not a comment on their character but an indictment of economic science. Economic science is an unsettled science, mainly because it is an extremely complex science, with many interrelationships and feedback loops within economic processes that are not well known. It is also dependent on human, societal, and government actions and reactions, which are unknowable and unpredictable. In addition, it is not possible to experiment on economic science, as any such experiments will not and should not be accepted by the public, and any such experiments will have major repercussions on people, society, and government. These experiments would also be highly susceptible to "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and subject to many unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks, and perverse results.

This is best expressed by the phrase, “That which we know that we know, that which we know that we don't know, and that which we don't know what we don't know”. In economics, that which we know is small compared to that which we know that we do not know, and that which we don't know what we don't know is probably very large.

Consequently, when some says that economist agree, or a variation of this term, we can know that the person who utters this term does not understand economic science, and we should not give heed to anything they may say about economics.

07/11/23 Rules for Conservatives

In an article by Rob Natelson, “Here’s Why It Seems Trump is Always in Trouble”, he reflects on the ‘Rules for Conservatives’ he has learned in his public career. He prefaces these rules by stating:

“For several decades, America has had a definable ruling class—essentially a large oligarchy. It consists of federal bureaucracies, a few career federal politicians from “safe” districts, the managers of certain large businesses, major universities and foundations, and the dominant media. Its members enjoy privileged access to the levers of federal power. So they campaign unceasingly, and often at taxpayer expense, to increase federal power.

The natural adversaries of the ruling class are those who want to seek to revive the Constitution’s limits on federal authority and re-empower individuals, families, religious congregations, local and state governments, small businesses, and private associations.”

Here are some of the rules he has learned:

#1: If you are pro-freedom and pro-Constitution, the standards you must meet are far higher than those applied to others. Just because Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden can get away with something, doesn’t mean you can. If you cannot accept this, then politics is not for you.

#2: In the typical media environment, media bias is worth about 10 percent of the vote for ruling-class candidates. You must factor this bias into your plans, just as you consider other aspects of the local political climate.

#3: Most people do not understand how the media manipulates their attitudes. People often have vague negative feelings toward certain candidates without really knowing why. You must find ways to communicate directly with voters, and do so in a disarming manner. (Ronald Reagan was a master of this skill.)

#4: A conservative candidate must give people specific reasons to vote for him and not for his opponent. This includes criticizing an opponent, but doing so in a way the media cannot portray as “mean-spirited.”

#5: Never trust a journalist. The political graveyards are littered with the bones of politicians who said inadvisable things to a reporter they thought they could trust. Even if the reporter wishes you well, his editors or other superiors may not.

#6: Don’t talk too much; know when to shut up. Prioritize what you want to say and—no matter what you are asked—focus on only your top two or three points.

#7: When you do speak, tell the truth. It’s not only ethical, it helps you keep your story straight. Privileged candidates often can get away with lies, but pro-freedom candidates usually cannot.

#8: Assume that any email or witnessed conversation may end up on the front page of the newspaper. Nixon taped private conversations, and the tapes were used to destroy him.

#9: Avoid impulsive decisions, and build a defensive foundation supporting each major decision. I was very good at this. The media would take statements by my opponents on faith, but they always wanted proof from me. I always had that proof available. (DeSantis is very good at this, too.)

#10: Enlist the best talent you can. Mediocrities may mean well, but they can sink you by making mistakes at the very worst time.

#11: Review your principles often.

#12: Once you are in office, concentrate on changes that are both (1) effective and (2) not easily reversed. The only permanent way to weaken the forces of centralization is to defund them.

The entire article is a worthwhile read as he explains how he has learned these rules.

07/10/23 SPLC Despicable and Divisive Slander and Libel

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) often makes slanderous or libelous statements against persons or organizations, and sometimes government agencies and politicians, that disagree with their viewpoints. In this, they have become a despicable and divisive organization rather than an agency for social betterment. Many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists rely on the SPLC to justify their remarks, and many in the Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media report their statements as factual. This is yet another example of destroying ourselves, as I have Chirped on “07/05/23 Destroyed From Within”.

Any criticism of the SPLC is met with charges of "Racism" against those that would criticize the SPLC. This is done in an attempt to silence the critics and to shield the SPLC against any lawsuits of slander and libel. This has the consequence of allowing them to continue their slanderous or libelous statements. As a result, they are ruining the reputations of respectable persons and organizations and increasing the "Divisiveness in America".

These slanderous or libelous statements by the SPLC must end to bring about civil and honest discussions about the issues and concerns of the SPLC. And unfortunately, this can only be accomplished by those so defamed by the SPLC to institute lawsuits of slander and libel, as the SPLC has shown no interest in changing its tactics.

Too often, in today’s America, the counter charges of Racism against those that would criticize the orthodoxy of Progressives are utilized in an attempt to silence the critics. Almost all such counter-charges of Racism are without foundation and therefore are despicable and divisive, and need to end for us to have an honest discussion when actual racism rears its head.

07/09/23 The Perversion of the English Language

In my "Dialog & Debate" article, I discuss The Perversion of the English Language, which I have updated to state:

The perversion of the English language is one of the ways in which to confuse an issue. This English language perversion is accomplished by inventing new words and terms, assigning new meanings to current words and terms, and conflating the meanings of two words and terms. Language is the way we communicate our thoughts and feelings, and perverting language leads to less understanding and more misinterpretation.

Protologism (freshly coined) and neologism (new word) are important parts of the development of the English language. However, protologism words need time to develop a firm meaning and acceptance before they become a neologism. In political dialog and debate, most often, a protologism is a pejorative that has been created to defame a person involved in a discussion, dialog, or debate.

The adding of a new meaning to a word is often done to take an innocuous or positive connotative word or term to insert a contentious meaning to the word or term so that the contentious meaning is more acceptable. Consequently, anyone who would dispute the more contentious meaning of the word or term appears to be disputing the innocuous or positive connotative of the word or term, which puts them at a perceived disadvantage in any discussion, dialog, or debate.

The conflation of words and terms is often done to ameliorate a disputable word or term with an unequivocal word or term. Often these words or terms are antithetic to each other. By conflating these words or terms, they have taken the positive emotional appeal of a word or term to attribute this positive emotional appeal to the contentiousness of the other word or term.

When this abuse of language is being deliberately done, it is often being done for the purpose of obtaining power through sophistry (a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone). A sophistry that has been utilized throughout history and first examined by Plato. A great philosopher of the 20th century, Josef Pieper, reflects in his book, Abuse Of Language Abuse Of Power, on the way language has been abused so that, instead of being a means of communicating the truth and entering more deeply into it, and of the acquisition of wisdom, it is being used to control people and manipulate them to achieve political and practical ends.

In today's America, this perversion of the English language is a technique utilized by Progressives/Leftists, Big Tech, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media to manipulate the American public into accepting their policy goals and political agendas. Policy goals and political agendas that, if they were clearly stated, the American public would not be acceptable of these policies and agendas.

Much of this abuse of language is done in the name of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Hate Speech, Identity Politics, Racist, Wokeness, Hyper-Partisanship, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, Social Engineering, and to institute a Herd Mentality as I have written in my "Terminology" webpage.

Reality becomes intelligible through words. Man speaks so that through naming things, what is real may become intelligible. This mediating character of language, however, is being increasingly corrupted. Despotism, propaganda, and mass media destroy and distort words. They offer us apparent realities whose fictive character threatens to become opaque.

Much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's ‘Through the Looking Glass’, those that pervert the English language have adopted an attitude of:

“'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master' that's all.'”

And people who pervert the English language to advance their policy goals and political agendas are simply trying to be your masters.

07/08/23 Courage of Our Convictions

We all applaud physical courage such as that exhibited by our armed forces, police, firefighters, and ordinary citizens coming to the aid of others at risk to their own lives and safety. However, there is another type of courage that needs applauding—Moral courage. When you stand up for the courage of your convictions in the face of personal disparagement, economic repercussions, and possible danger to your person or property, you deserve to be applauded.

The only caveat is that your convictions need to be founded on sound morals and have an ethical basis. A private moral and ethical basis that treats everyone with politeness, respect, and dignity, and a public moral and ethical basis based upon "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", that institutes "A Civil Society". Moral courage is when you stand up and speak out whenever you encounter anyone or any situation that is contrary to your moral and ethical basis. The practice of Virtue, the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong, requires that you have the courage of your convictions in the face of personal disparagement, economic repercussions, and possible danger to your person or property.

Virtue requires that you report any wrongdoing or possible unlawful actions to the proper authorities for investigation, and it requires that you make known any wrongdoing or possible unlawful actions by the proper authorities. And virtue is not restricted to lawful actions as "The Law is Not All". Virtue requires that when you encounter possible wrongdoing in your business or professional life, you report this wrongdoing to your superiors for corrective action, and if no such corrective action is undertaken, then you must report these possible wrongdoings to lawful authorities (a.k.a. Whistleblowing). The virtue of government employees requires that any possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions of government be reported to superiors, and if no corrective actions are undertaken to your satisfaction, then you must report these possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions to Congress for investigations (a.k.a. Whistleblowing). The virtue of elected officials requires that they investigate these possible wrongdoings to determine their veracity and when so, determine to be truthful that corrective actions are undertaken regardless of political affiliation or political considerations.

The only caveat is that a whistleblower must be sincere in their convictions that possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions have occurred; otherwise, they are acting in a petulant or vindictive manner. When a whistleblower does blow the whistle for the proper reasons, they are acting in a virtuous manner, and they should be applauded and not vilified. All precautions to protect the virtuous whistleblowers’ reputation, economic impacts, and possible dangers to their person or property must be undertaken. When negative repercussions are encountered by a virtuous whistleblower, then we need to find a way to compensate the virtuous whistleblower for the negative repercussions.

Many people would object that they are but a single person that can have no positive impact on possible wrongdoings or unconstitutional actions, and therefore it is not worth the risk of whistleblowing. However, like a pebble thrown into a pond, the ripples spread throughout the pond and disturb the pond. If enough pebbles are thrown into the pond, it will change the nature of the pond. When you consider whistleblowing, you must also consider injustice and its impacts. And, as Martin Luther King Jr. so eloquently wrote in his “Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’“:

“Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Not acting virtuously exacts a penalty on those that choose to be unvirtuous, as:

Consequently, we must all be virtuous and act on the courage of our convictions to institute a better society.

07/07/23 Scared Leftward

Scared Straight! was a 1978 American documentary narrated by Peter Falk that presented a group of juvenile delinquents during their three-hour session with actual convicts. Filmed at Rahway State Prison, a group of inmates known as the “lifers” berate, scream at, and terrify the young offenders in an attempt to “scare them straight” so that they will avoid prison.

Today, we see this scare tactic being utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders against the American people. Through the utilization of Cancel Culture, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Doxing, Wokeness, and assertions of Sexism, Intolerantism, Xenophobism, Homophobism, Islamophobism, Racism, Bigotism. etc., they are attempting to scare the American people into silence and acquiesce to their political goals and policy agendas.

This is the politics of fear to scare the American people straight, where straight is progressivism. Fear is a despicable tactic in politics, as it often leads to divisiveness and irrational policies, as well as the possibility of despotism. As Bible verses teach us to Be Not Afraid so, therefore, we should not be scared leftward. Instead, we should have the courage of our convictions and oppose those who would scare us leftward. In doing so, we must remember the following:

07/06/23 Destroyed From Within

On Jan. 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions." During that address, he said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

We are now witnessing our destruction from within. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" are being destroyed by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and not being replaced by any better ideas or ideals. As I have discussed in my Chirp on “06/07/23 The Great Silence”, we have many problems in America today that are not being addressed but are being foisted upon us by the actions or inactions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. To reiterate, these are the problems of:

the corruption of the Biden family and other politicians;
the corruption of the FBI, Justice Department, Intelligence, and other government agencies;
the devolution of our major cities into cesspools of homelessness, rubbish, garbage, defecation, drug usage, and the associated public health and safety risks;
the economic, social, health care, and Natural Rights impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic;
the educational failures of our public schools;
the energy production (oil, natural gases, and coal) limitations;
the fentanyl epidemic;
the impacts of crime on the streets;
the impacts of illegal immigration;
the opposing Climate Change viewpoints;
the reformation of government departments and agencies based on "Political Correctness", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Hyper-Partisanship".
The rise of Despotism in America and The Decline of Free Speech in America;
the sluggish economy and its impacts on employment;
the Voting in America problems;
and the Weaponization of Government.

These problems are the result of either accident, stupidity, or malice. I do not believe they are accidental, as they are being thrust upon us. I am a great believer in Hanlon's Philosophic Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”. However, these problems cannot be the result of stupidity, as many voices have warned us about the impacts of these problems. Therefore, it can only be concluded that these problems can only be attributed to malice—the malice of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. They do not love America for its ideals and ideas but only for what they believe they can form and shape it into. But this form and shape cannot be accomplished if they define it beforehand, as most Americans would reject this form and shape. Instead, they attempt to destroy America's current form and shape so that they may reform and reshape America from the ruins they have caused to happen.

Consequently, to preserve our American Ideals and Ideas, it is important that we oppose the actions and inactions of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Otherwise, we will be its author and finisher of America by suicide, and we will have nothing left but the ruins of American Ideals and Ideas.

07/05/23 Colorblind at Last

The Supreme Court, in a recent decision, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., v. University Of North Carolina, Et Al., determined that race-based admittance criteria for colleges and universities were unconstitutional. The vote counts were 6-3 against UNC and 6-2 against Harvard (because of the recusal of Justice Jackson).

A hue and cry arose amongst Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against this decision, with many outrageous claims and historically inaccurate comments permeating their protestations. They are fully aware that the reasoning for this decision is contrary to their "Social Engineering" and "Identity Politics" political agenda, which poses a threat to their electioneering tactics and control of Congress and the Presidency.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on Amendment XIV, Section 1. of the Constitution:

This Amendment was passed shortly after the American Civil War in response to the racist and discriminatory practices that the defeated southern states were instituting. The many discussions and debates prior to the passage of this amendment made it clear that the purpose of this amendment was to establish a colorblind society in government and the law. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings limited the scope of this amendment, and sometimes were contrary to this amendment, but could not change the meaning and purpose of this amendment. The meaning and purpose of this amendment were made clear in the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the notorious “Separate but Equal” doctrine:

“[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” - Justice John Marshall Harlan (dissenting)

This recent Supreme Court decision is more in line with the 14th Amendment's original meaning and purpose of the amendment, and the decision should be applauded for its constitutionalism and affirmation that all Americans should be treated equally. In a concurring opinion to this decision, Justice Thomas Concurring Opinion on Affirmative Action lays out a fine history of legal racism and discrimination in American history that should be read and understood by all. In their final statement of the majority opinion in this ruling, they state:

“A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

For over fifty years, we have had Affirmative action in the United States, which was not colorblind, and we have started down the road of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", which discriminates against groups of Americans. These policies are also contrary to the original meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment. In doing so, we have forgotten that America was founded on the basis of “Equality” and not “Equity”, as in my definition of "Equity and Equality".

The societal impacts of using racial criteria for any selection process has a pernicious effect on all members of society. Any criteria for selection must be based on individual meritocracy and life experiences, for:

"Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything, good or bad, that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism." - Justice Thomas

Therefore, our Constitution must be colorblind, for:

“We cannot be guided by those who would desire less in our Constitution, or by those who would desire more. The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” - Justice Thomas

Thus, it is time to put an end to Affirmative Action and put a stop to and reverse Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion based on the 14th Amendment. It is time that we had de facto equality rather than de jure equality. In doing so, the long road to racial equality under the law will be affirmed by America becoming Colorblind at Last.

07/04/23 The Relevance of The Declaration of Independence

Almost 100 years ago, on July 5th, 1926, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, President Calvin Coolidge gave a speech on the 150th anniversary of the American Revolution. In this speech, he reflected on the importance of The Declaration of Independence to history and its applicability to his modern times. This speech still rings true for the applicability of The Declaration of Independence to our modern times.

“It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event.”

Of the Declaration, Coolidge stated:

“It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.”

On the endurant principles of the Declaration, he declared:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

Of his trust in our Founding documents, he said:

“It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.”

On this day, the normally “Silent Cal” Coolidge spoke volumes on the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States to Liberty and Freedom. We would do well to remember his words of wisdom and to keep the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution intact in our governance.

* * * * *

For more about the importance of Independence Day, I would direct you to the Hillsdale College web page “15 Great Speeches to Remind America what Independence Day is About”. I would also direct you to my webpage on “Documents, Letters, and Speeches” which, in my opinion” are the most important letters, documents, and speeches from American history that I have found to be very wise and inspiring. I believe all Americans should read and ponder these letters and speeches and take them to heart.

07/03/23 Forms of Governance

Throughout my Chirps and Articles, I refer to the different forms of governance that I utilize. Therefore, I have compiled a shortlist of the different types of governance, and I have added this list to my "Terminology" webpage.

Absolutism - The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
Aristocratic & Aristocracy - Government by an aristocratic class; a state with such a government.
Authoritarian & Authoritarianism - A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition, etc.).
Autocracy & Autarchy - A political system governed by a group or a single individual.
Democratic & Democracy - A political system ruled by the people through majority rule.
Despotic & Despotism - Dominance through the threat of punishment and violence.
Dictatorial & Dictatorialness - Expecting unquestioning obedience.
Majoritarianism & Majoritarian - Governed by the majority; believing in majority rule.
Meritocracy - The belief that rulers should be chosen for their superior abilities and not because of their wealth or birth.
Minoritarianism & Minoritarian - A political structure or process in which a minority segment of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that entity's decision-making.
Monarch & Monarchy - An autocracy governed by a monarch (usually a King or Emperor) who usually inherits the authority.
Ochlocracy - A political system in which a mob is the source of control; government by the masses.
Oligarchy & Oligarchic - A political system governed by a few people.
Serfdom - The state of a serf in which a person is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord.
Totalitarian & Totalitarianism - Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life. The principle of complete and unrestricted power in government.
Tyranny & Tyrannic & Tyrannical - Characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty.
Republic & Republicanism - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

07/02/23 The American Cultural Revolution

The Cultural Revolution in China was a sociopolitical movement in the People's Republic of China (PRC) launched by Mao Zedong in 1966 and lasting until his death in 1976. Its stated goal was to preserve Chinese communism by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society. The Cultural Revolution brought forth one of the bloodiest eras in Chinese history, along with social, economic, and political disruptions, disturbances, and dislocations in Chinese society.

The Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (DEI), and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and More (LGBTQIA+) agendas are unfathomable acronyms to Middle America and thus mostly ignored. The Abortion, Marriage, and Transgendered Rights movement has also not been fully understood by the American people but has swept across America. Added to this mix is the discord of Critical Race Theory, The 1619 Project, ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, and Defund the Police. The above issues, along with the American Inquisition, as I have written in my Chirp on “07/01/23 The American Inquisition”, are an American Cultural Revolution. This American Cultural Revolution is bringing forth social, economic, and political disruptions and disturbances in American society. This American Cultural Revolution is also antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and afterward does not portend well for our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

An American Cultural Revolution based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and the utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify its actions. An American Cultural Revolution with the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" against its opponents that begets "Divisiveness in America". An American Cultural Revolution fomented by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and supported by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education", to advance their social, economic, and political policies and political agendas.

This American Cultural Revolution is being implemented not by persuading the American people as to its rightness or desirability, but it is being imposed without the informed consent of the American people. This American Cultural Revolution has often been instituted by Executive Orders or Regulations, or Judicial Rulings, while Congress has been made mute by contending factions. As such, this American Cultural Revolution is not by the will of the American people as expressed through Congressional legislation. Thus, it is not occurring through Constitutional processes. Indeed, it is being imposed by despotic actions by its supporters. Consequently, this American Cultural Revolution needs to be opposed by all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas.

07/01/23 The American Inquisition

The Inquisition was a former tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church (1232-1820) created to discover and suppress heresy— any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position. For the last several decades in America, we have seen an informal Inquisition based upon "Political Correctness" and "Wokeness" that is now becoming formal based on the government actions against dissidents by the Biden Administration.

While nobody is being physically tortured in this American Inquisition, they are being psychologically tortured by fear and loathing. This psychological torture is of the fear of government persecution or prosecution by "The Weaponization of Government", the fear of losing your business or employment through "Cancel Culture" and "Doxing", and the fear of being labeled with personal pejoratives as I have written in my article "Divisiveness in America". This fear and loathing is an assault on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all Americans. This American Inquisition is not only being instituted by the government, but is being supported by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education".

This fear and loathing were the tactics of NAZI Germany to obtain and retain power and to justify the elimination of the Jews and other groups in Germany that opposed the Nazis. While it is hard to imagine the horrors of NAZI Germany occurring in America, most pre-NAZI Germans did not imagine the horrors of NAZI Germany until it was too late to stop them, and many Germans supported the Nazis without knowing the horrors they instituted.

The history of the world has shown that authoritarian governments eventually resort to despotism to obtain and retain more power and impose their will upon their people, to the detriment of the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of their people. It is a slippery slope that starts with minor infractions that are justified for the good of the people but eventually slides down the slope for the good of those who are in power. Thus, to avoid this slippery slope, you must oppose these minor infractions before they become major violations of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Too often, the history of the world has shown that the end result of authoritarian governments is a civil war or the collapse of civilization by warfare with its neighbors or internal strife. Consequently, the best course for a society veering down the slippery slope is the right the course of the ship of state before it sinks. To right the course of the ship of state in America is to turn out of power those forces that are stoking fear and loathing. Those forces stoking fear and loathing in America are the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, and in the 2024 elections, the American people must turn them out of power to right the course of the ship of state of America before it sinks.

06/30/23 Shouting Us Down

In reading an article by Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Should a Real Expert Debate or Not?”, I was struck by the following statement:

“I’ve become suspicious of people who believe that their best strategy for winning an argument is to interrupt, shout, spit, fling clever rhetoric at ever higher decimal levels, and hurl insults. These people are also good at yelling out technical details in great rapidity so that they cannot be checked in real time.”

“A person with a real command of facts, theories, and real experience can patiently listen to contrary views and answer them with calm reason. There is no grounds to interrupt. On the contrary, all such a person needs is a bit of quiet and some willingness to listen. That person will win the debate against the most belligerent opponent.”

- Jeffrey A. Tucker

Alas, it is an unfortunate fact that most Progressives/Leftists believe that the free speech of their opponents needs to be silenced or shouted down. I also find it insidious that they often resort to platitudes and unsupported “facts” to counter their opponents’ points. Their platitudes and facts are often only beliefs, not supported by "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and are unaccompanied by the Burden of Proof that is incumbent upon them. When they do this, they believe that their assertions should be accepted as axioms that cannot be challenged. When this occurs, I am also reminded of Hitchens's Philosophical razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thus, whenever I observe this type of behavior, I can conclude that the disrupter's viewpoints are without substance and can be ignored and dismissed.

06/29/23 Thoughts of Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton was an American author and filmmaker with extensive scientific education and background who, before he died in 2008, gave some speeches which examined Consensus Science, Environmentalism, and Global Warming (before it became Climate Change). I have posted his thoughts on these topics in my new Science article, Thoughts of Michael Crichton, that I believe is well worth your time and effort to read and consider.

06/28/23 Orthodoxy in Science

Dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. When such dissents and disputations occur, it is acceptable to critique the science, but it is unacceptable to criticize the scientists, as I have explained in my article “Criticism vs. Critique”. This is an attitude of tolerance for dissenting and disputing scientific claims and the scientists who assert the claims. This tolerance for dissent and disputations, when based upon the scientific evidence or scientific methodology employed (or that lack thereof), is healthy for the advancement of science and for the betterment of humankind.

However, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation in modern Science. There has been much criticism and condemnation of scientists who speak out against Scientific Consensus and Settled Science, which bespeak of an Orthodoxy in Science resembling Religious Orthodoxy. My new Science article, Orthodoxy in Science, examines this issue.

06/27/23 Consensus and Settled Science

I have updated my Science Article “Consensus and Settled Science” to include a quote that I recently came across that succinctly points out the oxymoron of consensus science:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton was an American author and filmmaker. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and over a dozen have been adapted into films. His literary works heavily feature technology and are usually within the science fiction, techno-thriller, and medical fiction genres. His novels often explore technology and failures of human interaction with it, especially resulting in catastrophes with biotechnology. Many of his novels have medical or scientific underpinnings, reflecting his medical training and scientific background.

06/26/23 When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts

It is an unfortunate fact that in today’s world, we too often rely on fact-checkers to help determine the truth. But fact-checking is subjective rather than objective and susceptible to the Cognitive Biases of the fact-checkers and the predilections of the fact-checking organization. This results in improper labeling of asserted “facts” as true or false. Thus, determining facts is vulnerable to human interpretation of the facts as I have Chirped on, "10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts". The four biggest problems in the process of fact-checking are Narratives, Statistics, Science, and Economics, which I examine in my new article “When Fact Checkers Don’t Understand Facts”.

06/25/23 A Lesson in Facts and Truths

With the recent testimony of Special Counsel John Durham on the Russian collusion investigation and the personal attacks that he faced from the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, the Democratic members showed their disdain for facts and truths. Without challenging a single fact in the report as untrue, members heaped personal attacks on one of the most respected prosecutors at the Justice Department.

The Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have shown this disdain for anyone who would challenge their beliefs and narratives, regardless of the facts and truths. In this, they are like inquisitors of the Medieval Catholic Church Inquisition. Inquisitors who would not listen to facts and truths but who would impose torture, cruel and unusual punishments, and even death for those that would not conform to their beliefs. The finest example of this was in the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei.

In 1633, after facing the Inquisition, Galileo was forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than the converse. He abjured, sworn, promised, and obliged himself to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it, to abandon completely the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing. It was reported (although unconfirmed) that Galileo mumbled, "And yet it moves.” as he was leaving the Inquisition.

As Durham responded to these attacks upon his reputation, “My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, my family, and my Lord, and I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir.” he has taught us all a lesson. A lesson in reputation and a lesson in courage to stand by your facts and truths in the face of harsh criticism. For facts and truths will win out in the end, as they are undeniable but can be obscured or hidden in the near term. As to John Durham’s inquisitors and their supporters, I think that the best response to them should be, “And yet it moves.”

06/24/23 A Humanist

Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. It is independent of the moral dimension, which is called moral agency.

In the book, “Humanism: A Very Short Introduction” by Stephen Law, he defines Humanists as:

First, humanists believe science, and reason more generally, are invaluable tools we can and should apply to all aspects of life.
Second, humanists are either atheists or at least agnostic.
Third, humanists believe that this life is the only life we have.
Fourth, humanism involves a commitment to the existence and importance of moral value.
Fifth, humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy.
Sixth, humanists believe our lives can have meaning without it being bestowed from above by God.
Seventh, humanists are secularists, in the sense that they favor an open, democratic society in which the state takes a neutral position with respect to religion, protecting the freedom of individuals to follow and espouse, or reject and criticized, both religions and atheists’ beliefs.

There are several other views that sometimes are associated with humanists, but a humanist need not be utopian, believe that only human’s matter, be utilitarian, embrace those brands of naturalism that say that the physical universe is the only reality there is, and embrace scientism that believes that every genuine question can in principle be answered by science.

In the following chapters of his book, he explores these concepts in detail:

The humanist tradition
The case for God
The case against God
Humanism and morality
The value and meaning of life
Humanist education and upbringing
Humanist ceremonies
The secular society

In this, Humanists are very similar to the 17th and 18th centuries Age of Enlightenment viewpoints. As the Enlightenment was ending, Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment because it disregarded the bonds of history, myth, faith, and tradition that were necessary to hold society together. These Romantic philosophers’ concerns are also applicable to the Humanists.

In social theory and philosophy, antihumanism or anti-humanism is a theory that is critical of traditional humanism, traditional ideas about humanity, and the human condition. Central to antihumanism is the view that philosophical anthropology and its concepts of "human nature", "man", or "humanity" should be rejected as historically relative, ideological, or metaphysical.

Humanism has the appearance of being beneficial and wholesome, but like all philosophical approaches to life, it can be applied in a manner contrarywise to its intentions. Therefore, like all philosophical discussions on the nature of humankind, be wary of the assumptions and presumptions, the construct of "Structure", "Formal and Informal Logic", "Logical Fallacies", and "Cognitive Biases" of the Reasoning, and the conclusions of Humanists, but do consider their arguments as they are often intelligent and rational.

06/23/23 Should We Do It?

“Technology creates an imperative: ‘If we can do it, we will do it.’ Ethics asks: ‘We can do it, but should we do it?’”. - Peter Singer - Australian Moral Philosopher

The philosophical field of Bioethics was formed to address this issue in the field of medicine. We are now at a stage where computer technology advances need to address this issue in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

At the dawn of the computer age, there was an acronym that was frequently used— ‘GIGO’: Garbage In -> Garbage Out. It referred to the situation that if your inputs were incorrect, your outputs would be incorrect. It left unspoken that if your processing instructions (computer program) were incorrect, anything it would produce would result in incorrect outputs. The correct acronym should have been GIGPGO (Garbage In -> Garbage Processing -> Garbage Out), not pronounceable, and an admittance that computer programs contained mistakes. As computer programs became more complex, GIGPGO became more pronounced.

AI programs are the most complex programs we have created in computer technology, and GIGPGO is a very important concern in utilizing AI. We must also remember that AI programs were developed by humans, and humans can and do make mistakes. A human mistake in AI processing will produce garbage out. In addition, AI programs require information in to produce information out, and if the quality of the information in is not excellent or unbiased, then the information out will be highly suspect. And the more that we rely on AI for decision making, the more susceptible to GIGPGO we become, resulting in erroneous AI results and incorrect decision making.

There is also the possibility that the more we rely on AI, the more we will not fully utilize our own thinking. We see the start of this when students utilize AI to produce papers and reports for their assignments. We are also seeing this in our utilization of AI to find and digest information on the Internet. Too often, this digestion is not accompanied by thoughtful consideration of the AI results and often a blind acceptance of the AI results.

Attempts to make AI creative in the Arts and Sciences have met with limited and unsatisfactory results, as they often simply meld human artistic efforts in a new manner. Thus, new and unique artistic creations seem to be beyond the reach of AI. As AI is not emotional but intellectual, such a world would be entirely intellectual-based. The emotions of love and hate, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, ambition and apathy, and curiosity and indifference, would play no part in an AI world, making the AI world uninspired, as I have Chirped on "05/31/23 A Sterile World".

AI cannot be utilized to answer all questions. In the field of Physics, the Theory of Special Relativity is irreconcilable with the Theory of Quantum Entanglement, as I have examined in my science article on The Big Questions. If we ask AI to resolve this irreconcilability, it cannot do so, for it requires a human mind to conceive of a new theory to resolve this irreconcilability. Such conception is beyond the capability of AI, as this reconciliation will require inspiration, new ideas, new information, and new thinking to be resolved.

The rhetorical question is, then, could AI ever produce anything such as the works of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Picasso, or Einstein? And if it could do so, would it no longer be “Artificial” but have become “Sentient” Intelligence?

These problems are exacerbated by the unwillingness of the AI program developers to open their AI programs to scrutiny. Under the guise of intellectual property rights, they have placed a curtain of secrecy around their AI efforts. In normal circumstances, intellectual property rights need to be respected, but when AI results are being utilized for important decision-making, this curtain of secrecy can have dire consequences for society.

It now appears that we can do AI, but the question remains should we do it? This answer needs to be explored with another philosophical field to address this issue, and intellectual property rights need to be examined so that we can determine the quality of the AI technology. Otherwise, the utilization of AI for decision-making may result in calamitous consequences.

06/22/23 Actions and Reactions

In Physics, Isaac Newton's classical mechanics basic laws of motion describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. The third law can be stated as “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. In human behavior, it can be stated that every action provokes a reaction, and the actions and reactions could be good, bad, or indifferent.

Many Progressives/Leftists believe that if their intentions are good, the consequences of their actions will be good. What they don’t consider is that. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” and my pithy saying:

They also do not consider the items that I have written in my article “Good Intentions”. To them, they consider a positive emotional response to being more important than an intelligent consideration based on "Rationality" and "Reasoning". They also rely on the positive nature of human nature while taking little account of the negative side of human nature. To them, if they feel good about their intentions, it is sufficient for them to institute "Change and/or New". In this, they have forgotten the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

For my own part, I do not give a wit for good intentions, but I care very deeply for good results. Good intentions without knowledge, intelligence, experience, and wisdom are often nothing but folly, and I am not interested in paying heed to fools. Much of their foolishness is a result of denying or misunderstanding the true nature of human nature or their attempts to mold human nature to what they desire it to be. They believe people to be as they want them to be rather than as they are. To the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders who act upon this false belief of human nature, I would respond:

"To deny human nature, or to not acknowledge human nature, is foolish. To not do so will result in much effort, time, and monies being spent on a task that is doomed to failure." - Mark Dawson

06/21/23 A Standard of Normalcy

A Standard of Normalcy is required to function in our world, with Normalcy being defined as being within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning or expectedness as a consequence of being usual, regular or common. It is when things become abnormal that we become confused, disoriented, or disturbed. Thus, a Standard of Normalcy is needed for us to function properly and maintain optimal mental health.

As Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D., a pediatrician and Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), as well as a Past President of ACPeds, explains how a standard of normalcy applies to mental health:

“One of the chief functions of the brain is to perceive physical reality. Thoughts that are in accordance with physical reality are normal. Thought that deviate from physical reality is abnormal—as well as potentially harmful to the individual or to others. This is true whether or not the individual possesses the abnormal thoughts feels distress. A person's belief that he is something or someone he is not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking, at worst, it is a delusion. Just because a person thinks or feels something does not make it so.”

As Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., a political philosopher and President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, puts it:

“Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us to the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts that disguise or distort reality are misguided. When thought and feelings are utterly disconnected from reality, persistently false or unfounded, and idiosyncratic (i.e., not socially or culturally promoted), they can take us from confused to delusional.”

Perhaps this explains the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, LGBTQIA+ militants (especially Transgendered militants), Climate Change Activism and Activists, proponents of Adjective Justice, and the believers of The Biggest Falsehoods in America say and do—they have no connection to reality and thus lack A Standard of Normalcy. This may also be why it is almost impossible to have intellectual Reasoning with these people—their perception of reality is distorted to the point that they cannot perceive the outside world as it is but only as how they want it to be.

06/20/23 Identity Theft

In today’s modern world, identity theft not only steals your purse but can lead to financial and reputational harm and ruin. Identity theft also leads to emotional distress and mental health problems for the victims of identity theft. It also consumes much time and effort of multiple parties to correct the impacts of identity theft.

This is why identity theft should be investigated, prosecuted, and face stiff fines and long imprisonment if found guilty. We need to send a message to those that engage in identity theft that it will not be tolerated, and if they are found guilty of identity theft, then they will face financial ruin and long-term imprisonment. Only by doing so can we reduce the incidents of identity theft.

In the age of the Internet, identity theft crosses national boundaries. Therefore, identity theft in all nations needs to be investigated, prosecuted, and face stiff fines and imprisonment if found guilty. Those nations that do not cooperate in doing so need to be considered piranha in the modern world, and the other nations need to take actions that will force them into doing so. Otherwise, it will not be possible to reduce the incidents of identity theft nor the damage that they inflict.

06/19/23 Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact (also “adverse impact”) commonly refers to an unintentional discriminatory practice, whereas disparate treatment (also “adverse treatment”) refers to intentional discriminatory practice. A Disparate Impact policy or rule is one that seems neutral but often has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.

As Professor Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law. B.A., Northwestern University, 1978; J.D., University of Chicago, 1981. has stated in her article Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal in the New York University Journal of Law and Liberty:

“In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Supreme Court, against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, interpreted Title VII to prohibit not just conscious and unconscious discrimination but also Disparate Impact, subject to an affirmative defense of business necessity. One problem is that, if Disparate Impact based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin is not universal, it is nearly so. It is difficult to come up with a job qualification that has been actually used to select one job applicant over another that does not have a Disparate Impact on some group.”

Unfortunately, the concept of Disparate Impact, which was originally limited to employment practices, has spread to nearly all aspects of the law that deal with decisions by private entities or government activities that impact groups of persons. This intrusion into the decision-making of entities skewers the selection process that often infringes upon the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of an individual.

The question is, how do you legally define Disparate Impact, then determine if a Disparate Impact has occurred? This brings up the same issues of how you legally define Pornography, then determine if something is pornographic. The answer to these questions is that it is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ to determine if something is Disparate Impact or Pornographic.

Many have asserted that Disparate Impact can be determined by the use of statistical methods. But statistical methods have many inherent problems, as I have discussed in my article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". We should also remember that ‘Figures can lie, and liars can figure’ when claims of Disparate Impact are made. Even King Solomon would have much difficulty in determining the motherhood of the baby if he utilized statistical methods to determine the motherhood of the baby. Consequently, when someone makes an assertion of Disparate Impact, we all should be wary of the assertion and carefully review the means that they arrived at the assertion. Often these means are arrived at by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”, which make the assertion of Disparate Impact less credible if not an outright fabrication for the purposes of a political agenda or policy decision.

Judicial rulings on Disparate Impact are also highly susceptible to "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and have serious repercussions on the functioning of society. Such repercussions are better examined and resolved by Congress, where they can craft legislation to resolve specific Disparate Impacts with a specific legal definition that requires legal actions.

The infringements upon an individual person’s "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" by the utilization of Disparate Impact is no justification for such infringements. The harm done by such infringements far outweighs the benefits to be gained, and other means should be utilized to determine if and when possible disparate impacts occur and what corrective actions should be undertaken to correct these disparate impacts.

06/18/23 Transgenderism

Facts and Truths must be based on reality; otherwise, we will live in a fantasy land that can change according to anyone’s discretion. Ignoring scientific facts leads you astray and to untruths. Science informs us that male and female bodies differ in their sex chromosomes of XX and XY and their psychological organization for reproduction, but also, on average, in size, shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs, including the brain. These secondary sex differences are not what define us as male or female; organization for reproduction is what does that. If you are bodily structured to inseminate, then you are male, and if you are bodily structured to gestate, then you are female. After the reproductive organs, the brain is possibly the most “sexed” organ in a human being. This is not to say that there are male brains and female brains, but that, on average, there are differences in the brains of males and females that tend to make a difference in how men and women experience emotion and pain, how they see and hear, and how they remember and navigate. When we step back from contentious political debates, we can see scientists acknowledging what might be otherwise an unpopular truth: that there are biological differences between men and women, and they are consequential.

The Institute of Medicine at the Nation Academy of Sciences published a report in 2001 titled Exploring the Biological Contributions to Hum Health: Does Sex Matter?, in which the chapter titles of the report sum up basic truths of our bodily nature: “Every Cell has a Sex”, “Sex Begins in the Womb”, “Sex Affects Behavior and Perception”, and “Sex Affects Health”. These are the scientific facts and truths that the Transgendered Rights activists would have you ignore, or they obfuscate with terms such as “Gender Identity”, “Gender Fluidity”, ”Gender Affirmation”, “Gender Confirmation”, “Sex Assigned at Birth”, and other terms to lead you astray.

The Transgendered Rights activists would also have you believe, as Shakespeare put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question” on a transgendered sex transition. But this is the wrong question. Claiming that a question is wrong may sound odd. Surely, answers can be wrong. Likewise, suppositions, views, claims, and assertions can be wrong. But can the questions be wrong? The answer to this question is given in the Psychology Today article, “To Be or Not to Be": Is That Really the Question? Hamlet's famous question is limited and misleading” by Iddo Landau, Ph.D...

The question is not to be one sex or another, but what is the best method of dealing with transgender dysphoria? Is it to be by sex transition, or is it to be by mental health therapy? The Transgendered Rights activists would have you believe that the only means of dealing with transgender is to physically transition to the other sex. The scientific facts and truths say otherwise. No one can fully transition to another sex, and many transitioned transgender persons experience physical and mental problems during and after the transition. Many transgender dysphoria persons can be helped by mental health therapy rather than transitioning, but most do not receive the proper mental health therapy for their dysphoria. In today’s America, there is too much rush to transition a transgender person and insufficient consideration of mental health therapy.

This viewpoint does not constitute hate for the transgender, but it does constitute a concern for the physical and mental well-being of persons suffering from transgender dysphoria. They need assistance in dealing with their transgender dysphoria, but this assistance should consider all options for treatment. To do otherwise is to potentially harm a transgendered person rather than help them with their dysphoria. When thinking about Transgendered Rights, we must always remember the scientific facts and truths; otherwise, we will make ill-informed or uninformed decisions on how to treat a transgendered person.

06/17/23 Hate Speech and Racist

Hate Speech is a term utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to suppress our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech, the Free Exercise of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, and the Freedom of the Press against any person, group, or organization that oppose their political, social, and economic policies and political agendas.

They often used this term under the rhubarb of Hate Speech incites violence. Direct incitement to violence is not protected speech, but Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are often speaking of indirect incitement to violence, which is very difficult to define and legally prosecute. As such, they are demagoguing rather than explaining.

Racist has a very specific derogatory meaning. However, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have convoluted the meaning of this word to apply it to any person, group, or organization that opposes their political, social, and economic policies and political agendas. They utilize the word Racist in an attempt to silence any opposition to their viewpoints, which is a violation of our First Amendment Rights. As such, they are demagoguing rather than explaining.

Alas, when utilizing “Hate Speech” and “Racist” Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" to try to silence those that do not agree with them. I have, therefore, decided to add Hate Speech and Racist to my "Terminology" webpage to better explain what they and I mean by “Hate Speech” and “Racist”.

06/16/23 Quotes on the Majority

“I have no interest in being in the majority. I am only interested in speaking the truth. The truth that is determined by the evidence and the facts. A truth driven by Rationality and Reasoning.” - Mark Dawson

The majority’s opinions or beliefs hold no weight for me, as it is often formed by ignorance or biases. As a result, I often find myself in the minority of opinion or belief. So be it! When I find myself in the minority, I often comfort myself by remembering the Quotes on the Majority on my new webpage. And when I find myself in the majority, I remember the words of wisdom of Samuel Clemens:

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain

06/15/23 The Greatest Challenge

In a world filled with many challenges, we often ask ourselves what are the greatest challenges that need to be addressed. Is it Bigotry, Racism, Sexism, Intolerance, Poverty, Health, Addiction, Climate Change, Environment, Energy Production, Gun Control, etc., etc., etc.? The answer is none of these, as the following quote illuminates.

“I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.” - Michael Crichton

If we cannot face and overcome this challenge, then we will not be able to face and overcome any other challenge. It is only by coming to grips with reality and truth we can overcome all the other challenges of humankind. This is one of the main reasons that I have written my Articles and Chirps—to assist others in overcoming this challenge by unveiling reality and truth.

06/14/23 To Obtain and Retain Power

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to obtain and retain power. Any other concerns are secondary or tertiary. Our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are to be circumvented, circumscribed, or ignored to obtain their policy goals and political agendas. Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists believe we have the liberty to do with what they agree with and the freedom to act within what they believe is acceptable. Consequently, all Liberties and Freedoms must be subsumed within these constraints.

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party are motivated to do what is best for them rather than what is best for all Americans. All of this starts with their attempts to win elections, as I have examined in my articles "Voting in America" and “Voting Responsibilities".

In a new article by Ben Weingarten, “The million-dollar question for 2024 contenders is: How will you win the general election under the present voting system?” he examines this problem and provides some solutions. He concludes that “Only by competing and winning under a rotten system rewarding the kind of organizing and action historically anathema to conservatives will there ever be an opportunity to dismantle that system.”

As I concluded in my article on Voting in America, Election fraud is still with us and will always be with us, as elections are important. Partisan people desire their candidates to be elected, and politicians desire to be elected and reelected, and sometimes both parties satisfy this desire by engaging in election fraud.

Many of these voting problems occur in urban areas of the country rather than the suburban and rural areas. As urban areas have a denser population, it is easier and more effective to engage in election fraud in urban areas. It is also more probable that urban election fraud can swing an election not only for local candidates but also for statewide candidates. As most urban areas are controlled by Democrat Party election officials, the benefits of election fraud are often Democrat Party candidates.

Many cries that this is not a significant problem or there is no ‘proof” of irregularities or illegalities ring hollow. Without knowing the extent of the problem, it is not possible to determine its significance. As to ‘proof’, if you do not investigate the allegations that have veracity, you can never find proof of irregularities or illegalities. And just because you have not heard nor seen these problems in the past does not mean that these problems did not exist or were minor in the past, nor is it currently existent or will not arise in the future. If it becomes easier to commit election fraud, the cheaters amongst us will take advantage of this situation. An advantage that could decide an election, and we do not want our elections to be decided by election fraud.

06/13/23 The Great Silence

Today, in America, we are experiencing a great silence filled with massive babble. The silence of "Rationality" and "Reasoning" in dialog and discussions, and the babble of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", and "Social Media". Such a babble keeps us uninformed, and when it occasionally rises to information, it is ill-informed information. Such babble increases the likes and clicks of Social Media and the ratings for Mainstream Media and Mainstream Cultural Media but does nothing for the betterment of society.

The guiltiest party to this silence and babble is the Mainstream Media. The primary responsibility of the Mainstream Media is to provide us with pertinent news and factual information for Americans to make an informed decision as to the future direction of our country. In this responsibility, they have miserably failed in the last several decades, as I have written in my article, "Modern Journalism". If the news and facts do not fit their predilections, they simply do not report the news or facts. Any news or facts that support their predilections is hyped and distorted to fit their predilections. Thus, Americans cannot obtain pertinent news and factual information to make informed decisions.

Predilection in the media exists - but it has always existed and will continue to exist in the future. In America's past, there have been British vs. Colonialist, Constitution vs. Anti-Constitution, Federalism vs. State's Rights, Agrarian vs. Industrialist, Abolitionist vs. Anti-Abolitionist, North vs. South, Eastern Interests vs. Western Interests, Republican vs. Democrat, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Pro-War vs. Anti-War, etc., etc., etc. reporting in journalism. You could always find groups of journalism in support of one thing and other groups of journalism in support of the opposite thing. Both sides have had an equal opportunity to espouse their views in journalism. This is how it should be for the American people to hear both sides of an issue and make up their minds about where they stand on an issue. Journalism of this type also helps with the checks and balances of our political system, and it provides an outlet for all sides to express their views on an issue so that a consensus can be reached.

But something began to happen in the late 20th century and continues today. The balance of journalism shifted in that most of the media began to be predisposed in one direction on many of the issues. There were fewer and fewer media outlets that were reporting the conservative positions, while a majority of media outlets were reporting the progressive positions. The conservative positions began to get less representation in the journalist ranks and fewer media attention and coverage of their positions. Indeed, the conservative positions began to be covered in a negative light by the predisposed media. Today we have nothing but silence or disdain for the conservative positions on:

the corruption of the Biden family and other politicians;
the corruption of the FBI, Justice Department, Intelligence, and other government agencies;
the devolution of our major cities into cesspools of homelessness, rubbish, garbage, defecation, drug usage, and the associated public health and safety risks;
the economic, social, health care, and Natural Rights impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic;
the educational failures of our public schools;
the energy production (oil, natural gases, and coal) limitations;
the fentanyl epidemic;
the impacts of crime on the streets;
the impacts of illegal immigration;
the opposing Climate Change viewpoints;
the reformation of government departments and agencies based on "Political Correctness", "Virtue Signaling", "Wokeness", "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)", and "Hyper-Partisanship".
The rise of Despotism in America and The Decline of Free Speech in America;
the sluggish economy and its impacts on employment;
the Voting in America problems;
and the Weaponization of Government.

These predilections of the Mainstream Media are to perpetuate "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and to support the political agendas of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. As such, the American people are uninformed or ill-informed about the alternatives to their political agenda, and most especially to the Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders political agenda. Such uninformed or ill-informed news reporting is a disservice to America and to the journalism profession. They have forgotten that:

“It is our professional duty as journalists to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable—by exposing the faults of the rich and powerful while acting as the voice of the impoverished and disenfranchised.” - Humorist Finley Peter Dunne as the fictional character "Mr. Dooley."

Today it seems the professional duty as journalists are to support and proclaim the Progressives and Democrats while remaining silent or besmirching the Conservatives and Republicans. As such, they have become a fifth column in America rather than a bulwark for Freedom and Liberty. A fifth column not in attune with our "American Ideals and Ideas" nor interested in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A fifth column that imposes a great silence on those that disagree with it and a massive babble to mask their predilections.

06/12/23 A Standard of Normalcy

As Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., a political philosopher and President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, puts it:

06/11/23 Forest Fires Happen

Forest fires happen, as it is the nature of forests fires will occur. They have occurred throughout the past, they are presently occurring, and they will occur in the future. They are known scientifically as “Wildfires”, and they are studied scientifically as “Pyrogeography”. A wildfire, forest fire, bushfire, wildland fire, or rural fire is an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unpredictable fire in an area of combustible vegetation. Depending on the type of vegetation present, a wildfire may be more specifically identified as a bushfire (in Australia), brush fire, desert fire, grass fire, hill fire, peat fire, prairie fire, vegetation fire, or veld fire. Some natural forest ecosystems depend on wildfire. Wildfires are distinct from beneficial human usage of wildland fire, called controlled or prescribed burning, although controlled burns can turn into wildfires. Pyrogeography is the study of the past, present, and projected distribution of wildfire. Wildland fire occurs under certain conditions of climate, vegetation, topography, and sources of ignition, such that it has its own biogeography, or pattern in space and time. They have been recorded in the last two hundred years, which can be reviewed in the “List of Wildfires”.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is responsible for “Forest management” in America. Forest management is a branch of forestry concerned with overall administrative, legal, economic, and social aspects, as well as scientific and technical aspects, such as silviculture, protection, and forest regulation. This includes management for timber, aesthetics, recreation, urban values, water, wildlife, inland and nearshore fisheries, wood products, plant genetic resources, and other forest resource values. Management objectives can be for conservation, utilization, or a mixture of the two. Techniques include timber extraction, planting and replanting of different species, building and maintenance of roads and pathways through forests, and preventing fire.

Federal forest management dates to 1876, when Congress created the office of Special Agent in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assess the quality and conditions of forests in the United States. In 1881 the Department expanded the office into the Division of Forestry. A decade later, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, authorizing the President to designate public lands in the West into what was then called “forest reserves.” Responsibility for these reserves fell under the Department of the Interior until 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt transferred their care to the Department of Agriculture’s new U.S. Forest Service.

Many Global Climate Change Activists have claimed that Climate Change is responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires (a claim that is disputable). However, before such a claim can be made, the question should be how much of current wildfires are due to inadequate or improper forest management policies. Environmental Activists have for several decades opposed many forest management policies as being harmful to nature, and the Forest Service has curtailed or eliminated some of these forest management policies. Therefore, you must determine if current forest management policies are responsible for an increase and the severity of wildfires before you can attribute this increase or severity to Climate Change.

Consequently, those who make the claim that Climate Change is responsible for an increase or severity of wildfires are being unscientific. The science of Pyrogeography must be utilized on individual wildfires to determine the causes of the wildfire before any claims about the cause can be made. Such Pyrogeography studies often take many months, if not years, to determine the actual cause of a wildfire.

06/09/23 Evidence

Evidence is the only way to determine facts and truths. Without evidence, you cannot determine the facts that lead you to the truth. Yet evidence can be deceiving—deceiving in of itself and deceiving in your understanding of the evidence. One of the common deceptions is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but sometimes an absence of evidence does mean absence. For example, we have no evidence of glaciers in the Sarah Desert, but we should not assume that glaciers could exist in the Sarah Desert. Another common deception is how to adjudge the evidence or the presenter of the evidence, as I have examined in my article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave".

Evidence can generally be categorized into three types in order of importance:

Evidence (also known as Direct Evidence) for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.
Circumstantial Evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without the need for any additional evidence or inference.
Anecdotal Evidence is evidence-based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.

Direct Evidence is difficult (but possible) to refute, circumstantial Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, while Anecdotal Evidence often leads you astray as it often has "Cognitive Biases" and "Logical Fallacies". In all categories of evidence, "Formal and Informal Logic" must be utilized, and the Burden of Proof" for the evidence must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If the Burden of Proof is shifted away from those making an assertion then you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to Prove a Negative, which is almost impossible to do. We should also remember the words of Christopher Hitchens who had often said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Evidence is most sorely lacking, contradictory, or deceptive when examining the political, social, or economic issues in today’s America. Truths are impossible to determine if the evidence is presented with "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language”. Much of this evidence is presented by “Experts”, but what we have all forgotten is that experts can be, and often are, wrong, as I examined in my Chirp on "06/03/20 Experts ought to be on tap and not on top". There is also confusion about “Experts” and “Evidence”. An expert opinion is not evidence, it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not a proof of the evidence, as consensus often changes as new or changed evidence comes to light, or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty.

Thus, beware of the evidence, facts, and truths provided by experts, commentators, or news presenters, as they often base their words on false or faulty evidence.

06/07/23 Rules of Reason

I have just finished reading the book, Rules of Reason: Making and Evaluating Claims by Bo Bennett, Ph.D., which succinctly summarizes how to apply reason to claims made by yourself and others. Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims or "strong" claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

While I have some issues with this book, the rules he outlines are important to analyze both your and others' claims. These rules of reason are:

Acknowledge the Limits of Your Knowledge Regarding the Claim. Understand that there is much you likely don’t know on the topic and realize that even sources that are frequently wrong are sometimes right.
Explore Your Biases Related to the Claim. Explore Your biases and realize that they might be affecting your judgement.
Isolate the Actual Claim Isolate the claim by finding out what is exactly meant by the claim. This will often uncover an implicit claim.
Clearly and Precisely Define Each Relevant Term. Words have multiple meanings, and people use them differently. Don’t guess the meaning if you have any opportunity to get clarification. Clearly and precisely define each relevant term in the claim.
Use Terms That Reflect the Scope of the Claim Accuracy. To avoid ambiguity, specify the scope of the claim. Use words like “all”, “none”, “a few”, “some”, and “many”. When possible, be even more specific by providing numbers or percentages.
Operationalize Terms When Possible. For terms that can be measured, ask how they can be measured so the claim can be investigated using one or more reasonable standards.
Make the Claim Falsifiable When Possible. Do your best to modify the claim so that it is possible to be demonstrated to be false. Otherwise, it will likely be a weak claim.
Express an Accurate and Meaningful Level of Confidence. Make sure claims reflect an accurate, clear, and meaningful level of confidence.
Covert Causes to Contributing Factors When Appropriate. Causality is a complex area that is virtually always better expressed in terms of causal factors than “the cause”, “the reason”, “the key” or other terms that indicate a binary distinction.
Make Strong Analogies and Call Out Weak Ones. Analogies are claims that fall into the continuum from strong to weak. Stronger analogies are specific about how what is being compared is similar, and weaker analogies make claims of similarity where the differences are far greater.
Filter All Relevant Assumptions Through These Same Rules. Realize that claims often contain several other implied claims, many of which should also be run through the rules of reason.

In applying these rules of reason, you will be better able to adjudge the veracity of your own and others' claims and make a judgment on the truthfulness of a claim. The more you apply these rules of reason to a claim, the more you will realize the nonsense of many claims, and the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of the myriad of claims that surrounds us.

06/05/23 My Out-of-Body Experience

In my Chirp on “06/04/23 Is There Life After Death?” I note that the first common element of Near-Death-Experience (NDE) is an Out-of-Body Experience (OBE). I believe in Out-of-Body Experiences, as I once had an Out-of-Body Experience of my own.

As a young lad of about thirteen years old, I went to my Boy Scout troop meeting after school. As it was a cool sunny spring day, the troop decided to play dodgeball in the yard outside of the church where the meeting was held. After forty minutes of strenuous dodgeball, the troop was dismissed, and I walked a quarter mile to my house. Upon arriving home, I immediately went upstairs to my bedroom and took off my glasses, then laid down flat on my back with my arms crossed over my chest. After about a minute, I felt a lightness, and I could not feel my heart beating nor my lungs breathing. Indeed, I could not feel anything except lightness. I opened my eyes and looked down at my motionless body from the ceiling of my bedroom. I looked around my bed area, and everything was crystal clear and in its place. This was extraordinary, given my extreme nearsightedness and other vision problems. I then looked out of my bedroom window and clearly saw what was happening in the yard and street below my bedroom window. I did not hear anything, as there was no sound to hear even before I lay down. After looking back at my body, I felt extremely anxious that if I did not return to my body, I would never return. I remember clawing back to my body, and when I touched it, I was back in my body. I opened my eyes, felt my heartbeat and breathing, then sat up on the edge of my bed, feeling normal. After about five minutes, I then went back to normal sleep. I knew this OBE was no dream due to the reality of my observations when I was out of body, and I have never had a dream before or since that was this starkly real.

Five years later, I discovered that I had been born with a heart murmur, which my doctor informed me meant that I had marked limitations of physical activity. I would be comfortable at rest, but more than ordinary activity causes fatigue, palpitations, or shortness of breath. I had always wondered why after about twenty minutes of arduous physical activity, I could not keep up with the rest of the guys—and this was the answer. After I had learned about my heart murmur, I began to wonder if the arduous dodgeball and walking home physical activities had any bearing on my OBE. Perhaps I experienced some form of a cardiac problem that was the start of an NDE. I will never know, but I do know for sure that I had an OBE.

This leads me to believe that NDEs have a basis in reality, which also leads me to believe in an afterlife.

06/04/23 Is There Life After Death?

For time immemorial humans have asked the question, “Is there life after death?”. No one knows the answer to this question, nor can anyone know the answer to this question. All we have is our faith and the experiences of those that were near or clinically dead but revived from their near or clinical death. No science can definitively determine if there is life after death. However, there is some science that can lead to the conclusion that life after death is a strong possibility. This science is explored in the book, “Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences” by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry as they stated:

“There is currently more scientific evidence to the reality of near death experience (NDE) than there is for how to effectively treat certain forms of cancer,” states radiation oncologist Dr. Jeffrey Long is his groundbreaking new book Evidence of the Afterlife. In 1998 Dr. Long and his wife, Jody, began the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NEDRF) with the goal of creating a forum for near death “experiencers” to share their stories. Grounded in first-hand evidence culled from over 1,600 verified NDE accounts, Evidence of the Afterlife presents the strongest argument yet for the underlying truth of those who have died and returned to share their tales.”

Dr. Jeffrey Long, M.D. is one of the few medical or scientific persons who have examined the evidence from the personal stories of people who have experienced a near death experience. As he has stated in his book:

“I am a man of science, and as a result I have examined the data from the NDERF study in a scientific way. At NDERF we explored all of the elements in the NDEs of more than one thousand people, examining consistency among the accounts. In reaching conclusions about the accounts, we followed a basic scientific principle: What is real is consistently seen among many different observations.”

His scientific way is to carefully prepare questionnaires to be answered by people who claim that they have had NDEs, then reject those questionnaires that are inconsistent or contradictory in their responses to the questions. He is then left with testimonies of NDEs that cannot be explained medically, and to those testimonies, he looks for the commonality of NDE experience and applies statistical methods to their testimony. While this is not rigorous science, as it is impossible to do scientific experiments on NDEs without endangering the life of the person being experimented upon. Therefore, his scientific methodology is the best that can be utilized in researching NDEs. From these testimonies, he has culled twelve common elements of NDEs:

Out-of-Body Experience
Heighten Senses
Intense and Generally Positive Emotions or Feelings
Passing Into or Through a Tunnel
Encountering a Mystical or Brilliant Light
Encountering Other Beings, Either Mystical Beings or Deceased Relatives or Friends
A Sense of Alteration of Time or Space
Life Review
Encountering Unworldly (“Heavenly”) Realms
Encountering or Learning Special Knowledge
Encountering a Boundary or Barrier
A Return to the Body, Either Voluntary or Involuntary

From this research, he has concluded that NDEs are real and prove that there is life after death. His nine proofs that support his conclusion are:

Lucid Death
Out of Body
Blind Sight
Impossibly Conscious
Perfect Playback
Family Reunion
From the Mouth of Babes
Worldwide Consistency
Changed Lives

In his conclusion of this book, Dr. Long states:

“This book has important implications for religion. The great religions have always spoken to the belief in God and an afterlife. The evidence of near-death-experiences points to an afterlife and a universe governed by a vastly loving intelligence. Near-death-experiences consistently reveal that death is not an end but rather a transition to an afterlife. This is a profoundly inspiring thought us all and our loved ones.”

His efforts were the first NDE research to be based on a large-scale database of testimonies, but other researchers have also compiled testimonies of NDEs. All this research on NDEs should give pause to everyone to consider the very real possibility that there is life after death. It should also give comfort to those that are contemplating or approaching their death or those contemplating or experiencing the death of a loved one, that death is not the end of life but the beginning of a new, better, loving, joyful, and beautiful existence.

06/02/23 A Tweet of Importance

While I am a Chirper rather than a Tweeter, a recent tweet has caught some national attention. Trevor Williams is a 31-year-old pitcher for the Washington Nationals who happens to be Catholic. He decided to use his platform to speak out about the Dodgers and Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence controversy in a statement on Twitter:

This sentiment should be adopted by all sports and entertainment events as they are public events meant for the enjoyment of all the spectators and audience. To offend the spectators and audience is not only disrespectful to them but also a bad business decision, as you risk losing the patronage of the spectators and audience.

Alas, this is but another example of the arrogance of "Wokeness" and "Political Correctness" and an example of "Virtue Signaling" without being virtuous. It is also an example of the religious intolerance that permeates today’s America in the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". To be woken and politically correct appears to be intolerant of other viewpoints and to thrust your wokeness and political correctness upon all, thus disturbing "A Civil Society".

We would all do well, including businesses and commercial activities, to remember one of my Pearls of Wisdom to Always Be Polite and Respectful, as that is the only proper way to conduct yourself both publicly and privately.

05/31/23 A Sterile World

The possible harm to society caused by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a recent topic of discussion. Having a computer technology background, I can attest to the concerns being expressed about the improper utilization of AI. But like all technologies of the modern technological era (1775-present), it cannot be turned back, but it can be channeled if we should decide to do so. This channeling will not be easy and is fraught with difficult decisions. Decisions that need to be discussed, deliberated, and implemented in the light of day. Much AI technology is proprietary to the companies that are developing it, but such proprietariness should not be a cover for secrecy. Secrecy often begets improper utilization of science and technology with harmful consequences to society. AI is no different, but AI can have more extensive negative consequences than other past technologies if utilized improperly.

Rather than discuss these negative consequences (which I am not fully knowledgeable nor cognizant of), I would utilize this Chirp to discuss a world with only AI present. AI is not emotional but intellectual, so such a world would be entirely intellectual-based. The emotions of love and hate, goodness and evil, beauty and ugliness, ambition and apathy, and curiosity and indifference would play no part in an AI world. This raises the question of what the purpose of an AI world would be. Would an AI world be interested in the creation of fine arts (such as painting, sculpture, or music), literature, filmmaking, or architecture? Would an AI world be interested in philosophical musings? Would an AI world be interested in the advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Would an AI world be creative and motivated to improve itself, or have a sense of aesthetics concerned with the study of AI in relation to the sense of beauty? Could AI ask itself questions that have not been thought of and find unique ways to answer the questions? Could AI see its world and the universe in a different light without unique inspiration and/or creativity? Such capabilities may be mimicked by AI, but they would be constrained by the lack of new and unique inspiration and/or creativity.

Could an AI world have an Annus mirabilis that would change its world? In 1905, a second-class patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland, who had a doctorate in physics but could not find employment in the physics field due to his peculiar nature, published five papers (with a sixth being published at the beginning of 1906) in a physics journal that were ignored. Two years later, they could not be ignored, as they dealt with the existence of atoms, the relationship between space and time, and the photoelectric effect that answered many perplexing questions of Classical Physics. So much so that 1905 is considered the demarcation year between Classical and Modern Physics. This patent clerk, Albert Einstein, thought of the universe in a completely different manner and went on to redefine the nature of the universe with his theory of General Relativity. Could an AI world be capable of the original thoughts that Albert Einstein provided?

The scientific field of Quantum mechanics also provides an example of the capabilities of AI. In 1926 Werner Heisenberg created his matrix formulation of quantum mechanics. In 1926 Erwin Schrödinger developed fundamental results in quantum theory: the Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. In 1930, Paul Dirac incorporated the previous work of Werner Heisenberg on matrix mechanics and of Erwin Schrödinger on wave mechanics into a single mathematical formalism known as The Dirac equation. Could an AI world be capable of coming up with matrix formulation or wave functions? Could an AI world be capable of examining matrix formulation and wave functions to derive The Dirac equation?

The genius of Isaac Newton is another example of the possible limits to AI in that his brilliance may not be possible for AI to create. There are many other examples in different scientific fields that also illuminate this AI issue. This issue of AI creative capabilities is not limited to just the scientific fields. The history of music demonstrates that the genius of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Ravel, Rachmaninov, and Stravinsky may not be possible for AI to create. Could an AI world create great works of literature such as Austen, Brontë, Cervantes, Chaucer, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Homer, Joyce, Milton, Proust, Shakespeare, or Tolstoy? Can the beautiful art of Cézanne, Degas, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Picasso, Raphael, Rembrandt, Renoir, Van Gogh, or Vermeer be created in an AI world? The other fine arts, mathematics, and the musings of philosophers also have many examples of the brilliance of individuals that an AI world may not be able to create.

An AI world would be a world devoid of meaning and purpose. It would be a sterile world. It is the human experience that provides meaning and purpose to the world. This human experience cannot be supplied by an AI world, and it is this human experience that must be considered in our discussions, deliberations, and implementations of AI in our world. AI should never be allowed to dominate the world nor replace the human element in the functioning of our world. AI should only be a tool to enhance human experience and not displace human experience. If we do not channel AI for this purpose, then we shall become a sterile world.

05/30/23 The Interest of The Government

In the course of the 20th century Supreme Court justices enormously increased the authority of Congress. For example, they transformed Congress’s power to regulate Commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) into an authority to oversee the entire national economy. They changed Congress’s power to tax (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) into a license to spend for almost any purpose. These and other changes rendered the federal government supreme in American life. Not only did the Supreme Court permit Congress to exercise almost unlimited power, but it also permitted Congress to delegate it to unelected Executive administrative agencies. Congress may (and frequently does) pass a statute creating or extending an Executive agency and telling it to regulate some broad swathe of activities, and—voilá!—Americans are saddled with a new or extended set of bureaucratic masters.

One of their rulings, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference". The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue in question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

The effect of the Chevron Doctrine was that Executive Agencies could create rules and regulations that impacted the Freedoms and Liberties of Americans and that the American people who legally challenged these rules and regulations would find a very high hurdle to overcome to institute a legal challenge. Criticisms of the Chevron Doctrine include:

The doctrine makes an agency a judge in its own cause, thereby violating the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law;
it encourages agencies to expand their power;
administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, so allowing them to make legislative or judicial decisions violates the separation of powers; and
the Chevron decision was not well considered, and over time the Supreme Court has had to carve out exceptions.

In effect, the Chevron Doctrine put the interest of the government above the rights of the individual to challenge government intrusion into their lives, resulting in the denudation of the American people's Freedoms and Liberties. In an article by Rob Natelson, “The Supreme Court Might Curb the ‘Deep State’ by Overruling the Chevron Case”, he explains the background of the Chevron case and the effort to overturn the Chevron ruling.

Let us hope that the Chevron Doctrine is overturned, or at least severely constricted so that the American people have more opportunity to challenge the overreaching of government rules and regulations.

05/29/23 Emergency Edicts Follow-On

In my Chirp on “05/28/23 Emergency Edicts”, I quoted a recent legal opinion by Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch about the dubious constitutionality of emergency edits by the Presidents, Governors, and local officials. While I agree with Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, I would ask him, and the other Supreme Court Justices, what they are going to do about this problem. All three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) and all levels of government (Federal, State, and Local) have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. This requires them not to engage in any unconstitutional actions and to oppose unconstitutional actions by any other branch or level of government.

The final line of defense of the Constitution is the Judicial Branch, with the Federal and State Supreme Courts the last bastion of defense of the Constitution. Rather than be a bastion, the Federal and State Supreme Courts have been supine regarding government edicts. Although they occasionally overturn government edicts, they often ignore the core issue of the constitutionality of edicts and overturn the edicts on the particulars of the edict. It is also true that they utilize normal court processes of trials, appeals, then Supreme Court decisions in the legal review of these edicts. This process often takes many months, if not years, to reach a legal conclusion. Sometimes the edict expires, and the issue becomes legally mute, and no legal conclusion is reached about the constitutionality of the edicts. In the meantime, the edict (or parts thereof) is often allowed to be effective. This effectivity often infringes upon the Freedoms and Liberties of the American people and causes social and economic disruptions to America. By operating in this manner, they are not addressing the core issue, and it can be said that all they are doing is rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

It is past time for the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of government edicts and to place constraints on government edicts that infringe on the Freedoms and Liberties of the American people. The normal judicial process has been shown to not be conducive to this legal review, and the Supreme Court must find a means to quickly resolve this constitutionality review of edicts. It is time for the Supreme Court to take a firm stance on the constitutionality of executive edicts and reign in these edicts. Otherwise, they are in dereliction of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, and the American people are defenseless against the encroachment on their Freedoms and Liberties by these edicts.

05/28/23 Emergency Edicts

On May 18, 2023, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES reached a decision in ARIZONA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. This decision dealt with Title 42 restrictions on immigration. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch issued a separate statement that laid out the history of “Title 42 orders” in the first seven paragraphs of his statement, and then in the last seven paragraphs of his statement he stated:

“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking by-litigation.

Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.

But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process. Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.

In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed. At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.

Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level. At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

Justice Gorsuch’s statement is the civil liberty concerns that I have expressed in my Coronavirus Pandemic Chirps. All Americans should read this statement, and consider the negative impacts of emergency edicts on our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights", then take corrective actions as needed.

05/27/23 Whistleblowers Redefined

In the hearings in the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on government weaponization, what was evident to everyone watching is that for today's Progressives/Leftists, whistleblowers are only those who parrot and advance their ideological agenda. It was appalling to see the line of questions (i.e., “attacks”) levied by Democrat Party Leaders against these honorable FBI agents who presented facts and personal experiences.

A whistleblower is an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it, regardless of the whistleblower’s personal reasons or political agendas. The Democrat Party Leaders' attacks on the whistleblowers are an attempt to bully into silence anyone who would expose wrongdoing by Democrats. As such, these attacks are an assault on government accountability and another example of despotism by the Democrats.

The FBI has lost its way and is not honoring the rule of law but enabling despotism through coercion, intimidation, threats, and acts of retribution against their agents who would be whistleblowers. It is an agency that utterly needs restructuring and reform. Yet, it is not the only one. The same is true for the IRS, DOJ, DOD, Homeland Security, ATF, and the State Department.

Allen West has written an article, “When a Whistleblower Ain't a Whistleblower”, that examines these attacks and lets the facts speak for themselves. He had also written a previous article, “The American Stasi State”, examining how we got to where we are. Both articles are well worth the read and consideration.

05/26/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Cinq

In my previous Chirps on A Tale of Two Cities, I have pointed out that America has become two cities—a City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats, where London represents the City of Conservatives and Republicans and Paris represents the city of Progressives and Democrats. And, as in the book, the City of Paris is doomed to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror due to the disregard for the Natural Rights of the people of France by the revolutionaries. Without a commitment to the Natural Rights of the people, all civil revolutions are doomed to anarchy and the rise of some form of totalitarian government. The only civil revolution in history that has had long-term success in assuring the Freedoms and Liberties of its people and establishing a stable government was the American Revolution.

Because America was and is not perfect and does not meet the utopian ideal of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, they wish to “Fundamentally Transform” America to achieve their Ideals and Ideas. To transform America, they are attempting to demolish America as the first step to achieve this transformation. In this, they are being aided and abetted by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education".

All voices of dissent are to be suppressed or not permitted, and they have corrupted the government to establish a Two-Tiered System of Justice and the Weaponization of Government to enforce this suppression. They have also corrupted the civil service to establish a government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats to enforce their political agenda upon Americans. If we do not correct this situation, then we cannot have “A Just Government and a Just Society” and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America", and we will become a nation ruled by men rather than the rule of law.

Such a demolishment can only lead to the end of a "A Civil Society" and the disintegration of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". A demolishment that can only lead to "Despotism in America" and to the imposition of a subservient or subjugated people subject to the proclivities of the government and those in power.

But this need not be if the American people can awaken from their slumber and recognize the danger of continuing upon this path of demolishment. If the American people can right the course of America, then the closing lines of A Tale of Two Cities are also prophetic:

“I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance, the Juryman, the Judge, long ranks of the new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long long to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.

I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man, so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward.

I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both.

I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, foremost of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place- then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement- and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”

05/25/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Quatre

In my previous Chirps on A Tale of Two Cities, I have pointed out that America has become two cities—a City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats. Both cities claim to be based upon "American Ideals and Ideas", but each city has different beliefs about our ideals and ideas. The City of Conservatives and Republicans believes in traditional American Ideals and Ideas, while the City of Progressives and Democrats have redefined these American Ideals and Ideas to suit their political agenda and to obtain and retain political power. In my article "J'accuse!" I point out that the Modern Democrat Party has become:

The Party of A Living Constitution
The Party of the Rich and Powerful
The Party of Double Standards
The Party of Divisiveness
The Party of Racism
The Party of Anti-Americanism
The Party of Anti-Economics
The Party of Anti-Capitalism and Pro-Socialistic
The Party of Power
The Party of The Decline of Free Speech in America
The Party of The Weaponization of Government
The Party of Problems with Voting in America
The Party Hostile to The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights

As such, they no longer represent the traditional American Ideals and Ideas that America was founded upon, but upon ideals and ideas that suit their political agenda and their desire to obtain and retain political power.

Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists like to claim that their American Ideals and Ideas are the true American Ideals and Ideas while at the same time claiming that the Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives do not represent true American Ideals and Ideas. They also claim that those who would disagree with them are Un-American in their Ideals and Ideas. It is only by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” that the Progressives and Democrats can make this claim and represent themselves as true Americans.

Therefore, Progressives and Democrats who make this claim are only paying lip service to traditional American Ideals and Ideas while they attempt to redefine in the American mind what it means to be an American. In this, they are again pitting one group of Americans against another group of Americans to institute their political agenda and to obtain and retain political power. A pitting accomplished by sowing "Divisiveness in America" through the tactics of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate".

05/24/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Trois

In my previous Chirps on “05/22/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Un” and “05/23/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Deux”, I point out how America has morphed into Two Cities. A City of Conservatives and Republicans and the city of Progressives and Democrats. This morphing is a result of the loss of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the consequent redefinition of the Constitution into a Democracy rather than a Republic, as I have examined in my Article "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution".

Our American Ideals and Ideas is that The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals. To not understand and live these American Ideals and Ideas is to have a society without foundation and constant political discord without hope of consensus-based upon a foundation that all sides can agree upon. Without this foundation, we will be talking past each other rather than trying to reach an agreement on how to best achieve our American Ideals and Ideas.

A Republican Constitution entails that Legislators may not create “Irrational and Arbitrary Laws” based on who has political powers. Executives must ensure that all Laws are “Equally Enforced” regardless of political affiliation and that the Judicial Review of the Constitutionality of a Law starts with “A Presumption of Freedom and Liberty” for the individual. A Democratic Constitution entails that Legislators may create laws that they determine are proper for the good of the majority, Executives may decide which laws are to be or not to be enforced based on the perceived good or bad of the law's effects, and that Judicial Reviews of Laws starts with a presumption that the Legislators or Executives are acting properly within the bounds of their authorities.

Until this issue of a Republic or a Democracy is resolved, we will continue to be a Tale of Two Cities, for we cannot be a Republic and a Democracy, but we can be a Democratic republic which is what our Founding Fathers envisioned. The Democrat part is the election of the Republic members of Congress, and the Republic part is in the passage of laws and regulations regarding the governance of America based upon a Republican Constitution. Until this issue of our American Ideals and Ideas is resolved, we run the risk of a societal collapse and:

"We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth." - Abraham Lincoln

05/23/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Deux

In my previous Chirp on “05/22/23 A Tale of Two Cities – Part Un”, I point out the difference between the handling of President Trump's allegations and the Biden Family corruption. This tale of two cities is further illuminated by the recent release of Special Counsel John Durham's highly anticipated report surrounding the investigation into Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. This report reveals that there was no basis for the Russia Collusion allegations and no predicate for any government involvement in these allegations. No Justice Department, FBI, or Intelligence Agencies, and most certainly no Congressional investigations were warranted based on these unsubstantiated and indeed fabricated allegations. Yet, for over two and a half years government was tied up, President Trump’s Administration was hobbled, and the American people were bamboozled by these false and malicious allegations, and much government monies were expended on investigations of these untrue accusations.

The worse impact of the Durham investigation is that there will be no repercussions for those that knowingly engaged in these investigations. The Durham report states that no criminal laws were violated (a point that I would dispute, as lying to a Court or Congress is a violation of the law), and consequently, no criminal prosecutions will be forthcoming. Therefore, no changes to personnel or procedures within government will be instituted unless instituted by Congress (and the Democrats in Congress have little incentive to do so). Thus, there will be no inhibitions nor deterrence for future misdeeds by government personnel or agencies.

This report gives truth to the points that I have made in my Article, “Religion, Morality, Ethics, 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:

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:

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:

The belief of Americans in these Psychological Epidemics bespeaks of an affluent and narcissistic society that has lost its Religion, Morality, Ethics, 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

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:

“Mark it on your calendar; today is the day of the real insurrection, April 4, 2023.
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.
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.
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,
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" when evaluating an assertion. 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, Ethics, Character, and Virtue in America, which I have written about in my Article “Religion, Morality, Ethics, 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

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:

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.

The Establishment Is the Revolution
Macintosh Becomes MacBeth
Big Money, Big Woke”

He notes that the Left of the 1960s has now become the establishment as:

“It now controls the very institutions of America that it once mocked and attacked—corporate boardrooms, Wall Street, state and local prosecuting attorneys, most big-city governments, the media, the Pentagon, network and most of cable news, professional sports, Hollywood, music, television, K-12 education, and academia.

In other words, the greatest levers of influence and power—money, education, entertainment, government, the news, and popular culture—are in the hands of the Left.”

He concludes this article by stating:

“The common denominator to the anarchy? The hardcore Left is your FBI, CIA, and Justice Department all in one. It is Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is our era’s J. P. Morgan.

No wonder we are confused by the establishment anarchists and the anarchy they produce.”

My own Article, “1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook”, examines the dystopian novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell, which was meant to be a precautionary tale against modern tyranny. Instead, the establishment and the Democrat Party seem to want to make it into a handbook for the social order and governance of America, and they are succeeding!

The only way that they can fully succeed is if we let them succeed or they establish a despotism in America. Therefore, all Liberty and Freedom loving Americans need to wake up and resist their efforts by not accepting the leftist’s cultural norms and opposing their despotic actions.

A good start to changing the leftist’s cultural norms is for all Americans to challenge "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" whenever they are uttered by anyone, and you should always remember that when doing so ‘The truth will set you free.’ It will also (eventually) set the other person free when you tell them the truth. Opposing their despotic actions will require the courage to stand up against these forces, as they are determined to destroy anyone who is opposed to their beliefs. Therefore, as the Bible has often declared, ‘Be not afraid’, and remember that ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’. Courage to do the right thing may be dangerous to your person, but cowardice in the face of intimidation will be dangerous to your psyche.

02/08/23 The Tangential Causes of Tyre Nichols Murder

Another reason for the murder of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the Memphis, TN, police is that most police officers feel beleaguered, besieged, and unappreciated by hostile police forces that make their jobs much more difficult. The actions of the hostile police forces, as I have Chirped on "06/09/20 Defund the Police Movement" and “01/17/23 Prosecutorial Discretion,” is a main factor in their beliefs. A Siege mentality has thus developed amongst many police officers because of these hostile police forces.

This siege mentality of a shared feeling of victimization and defensiveness is a collective state of mind in which a group of people believes themselves to be constantly attacked, oppressed, or isolated in the face of the negative intentions of the rest of the world. Although a group phenomenon, the term describes both the emotions and thoughts of the group and of individuals. The result is a state of being overly fearful of surrounding people and an intractable defensive attitude. In such a siege mentality, any actions by themselves to protect themselves seem justified.

This siege mentality needs to be broken not only by disciplinary actions against improper police actions but by an outpouring of understanding and support by the public for reasonable police actions when they confront a suspect with hostile or violent intentions or actions. A condemnation of the hostile or violent actions or verbal abuses by suspects needs to be articulated by our leaders to the public, while a reproach and proper disciplinary actions for improper police actions should be forthcoming when appropriate. Of course, any policeman who egregiously violates the Constitutional and Civil Rights of any person in America needs to be prosecuted when warranted, especially when it results in injury or death to someone in America.

Alas, much of these hostile police forces are a result of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders using improper police actions to galvanize their supporters for electoral advantage. The political rhetoric by these persons not only galvanizes their supporters but, in some cases, provokes some people to engage in violent actions to protest these improper police actions. The reporting by the "Mainstream Media" is also not helpful, as they often focus on the sensational aspects of the story before the facts are revealed, as I have Chirped on “01/23/23 Report the Narrative”. This only reinforces the siege mentality of police officers and makes the consequences of improper police actions much worse.

Until this political rhetoric and these hostile police force’s words and deeds cease, it will be very difficult to surcease this siege mentality amongst police officers. Let us coolly and calmly address improper police actions to correct the problems of policing and to put an end to both the siege mentality of police officers and the hostile police force's words and deeds.

02/07/23 The Repercussions of Tyre Nichols Murder

In my Chirp on “02/06/23 The Facts of Tyre Nichols Murder”, I stated my opinion that the death of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the Memphis, TN police was a murder. There will be, and should be, repercussions from this murder by police officers. However, we should be careful to ensure that the repercussion is appropriate and address the actual problems this murder exhibited.

Many would claim that we need better police procedure training of police officers to prevent these kinds of actions. But police procedure training is not the issue, as no police department trains their officers to commit these acts. Indeed, most, if not all, police departments train their officers on how to restrain themselves in confrontations with the public and especially with suspects of criminal actions. The answer is not better police procedure training but a better quality of character of police recruits. Psychological profiling of police recruits, and periodic psychological profiling of police officers, to determine potential aberrant behavioral tendencies of police officers should be mandatory. The rejection of a police recruit who has potential aberrant behavioral tendencies should occur, and the counseling or dismissal of active police officers who have potential aberrant behavioral tendencies should be mandatory. Instruction on the "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" of all persons should be part and parcel of police officers' training and periodically reinforced by regular workplace instructional sessions throughout a police officer’s career.

Police officers themselves should monitor other police officers’ words and deeds and provide personal guidance to their fellow police officers that they believe may be exhibiting potential aberrant behavioral tendencies. They should not rationalize nor excuse fellow police officers' words and deeds that exhibit potential aberrant behavioral tendencies. They should, if such words and deeds continue, report to their sergeants any police officer that they believe is exhibiting potential aberrant behavior. The sergeants would then be responsible for taking corrective actions as appropriate to the behavior. There should also be a procedure to ensure that the police sergeants themselves do not engage in potential aberrant behavior and that they are enforcing proper police procedures and monitoring police officers' conduct to correct potential aberrant behavior. They should do this not only to help their fellow officer but to preserve the integrity of their police department, which they rely upon in the performance of their duties and responsibilities.

The above suggestions may be very difficult and expensive to accomplish, and often such instruction does not take into account the realities of street policing. This is why it would be better for current or former police officers to conduct this instruction and counseling. Such police officers that provide this instruction and counseling should be educated and certified to provide this instruction and counseling. Indeed, it may be wise for police sergeants and police recruit trainers to obtain this certification to apply this knowledge in their duties.

As I have stated in my Chirp on "04/21/21 Compliance to Police Officers Instructions", the most effective and best way to reduce improper police actions is also the easiest way. Americans, when they are confronted by the police, should be compliant with the police officers' instructions. If you have a beef with the police officer, then you calmly and rationally talk to the police officer after you are compliant with their instructions. If such calm and rational discussions do not resolve your dispute, then you should take it to court, but do not try to resolve it on the street. If you are not compliant with the police officer's instructions, then you will come out second best in the argument. You may not always get what you want from the police officer by being compliant, but you will not be injured or killed by the police officer if you are compliant.

02/06/23 The Facts of Tyre Nichols Murder

I have delayed writing about Tyre Nichols death at the hands of the Memphis, TN, police. I did so as I wanted to obtain more complete information that was fact-based rather than sensational-based. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the case of Tyre Nichols, we have been told the middle and most of the end of the story, but little has been revealed of the beginning of the story.

The unrevealed beginning of the story is what were the circumstances of Tyre Nichols's initial encounter with the police, and what were the initial actions and reactions of both Tyre Nichols and the police officers? No dashcam or bodycam footage was released (and some have claimed that they do not exist), nor has any official statement been made detailing the initial encounter. The unknown end of the story is that Tyre Nichols’s official autopsy and toxicology report have not been released, but an independent autopsy commissioned by the family has been released. Without knowing these details, it is difficult to make a judgment on the full story.

However, much is known of the middle of the story due to the release of the dashcam and bodycam footage. After reviewing the known facts, I can confidently state that this was a totally unwarranted and unneeded action by police officers in the middle of the story, and thus it was a horrendous and unjustified killing of Tyre Nichols by the policemen involved in his killing, and, indeed, it was a murder. The facts are that the actions of these police officers were cruel, barbarous, savage, and appalling. The total inhumanity exhibited by these policemen is unconscionable and unfathomable to any person with a shred of decency.

The particulars of what these police officers did wrong are lengthy, and it appears that almost all their actions were improper police procedures. Not being knowledgeable about police procedures, I shall leave it to others more knowledgeable about proper police procedures to explain their wrongful actions. However, one of the many dismaying things about this killing is that not one of the policemen involved in this murder took action to prevent this murder. Surely, at least one of these police officers should have known better and acted against the other policemen to prevent this murder. Not only did they take the life of Tyre Nichols, but they also violated the Constitutional and Civil Rights of Tyre Nichols. In doing so, they were assaulting the Constitutional and Civil Rights of all persons in America. Such assaults on Constitutional and Civil Rights by all police persons against any person need to be vigorously opposed and fully prosecuted. Otherwise, no one is safe from criminal police actions.

Consequently, those policemen involved in this murder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and if convicted, they should serve extended prison sentences, if not life imprisonment. So, it should be for any policeman who egregiously violates the Constitutional and Civil Rights of any person in America, especially when it results in injury or death to someone in America.

02/05/23 Truth

Truth is objective (not based on personal opinion), truth is timeless (not subject to the changing tides of culture), and the truth is unifying (as people will rally around truths), and as it has been said, ‘The Truth Will Set You Free’.

It is an unfortunate fact that many people speak of ‘My Truth’ of ‘Their Truth”, but as I have Chirped on "05/10/20 My Truth", this is a fallacious catch phrase as:

"There is no such thing as 'my truth' or 'their truth', as there is only 'the truth'." - Mark Dawson

Truth must be buttressed by the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, for truth cannot be obtained by anything other than the facts. To be a seeker of the truth is one of the noblest pursuits that a person can undertake.

In my Chirps and Articles, I always attempt to ascertain the truth buttressed by facts. I may not always be right, but I try to pursue the truth. So, it should be with your own life. Always gather the facts and pursue the truth, for ‘The Truth Will Set You Free’.

02/04/23 Prevarications

Prevarications: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth; intentionally vague or ambiguous; the deliberate act of deviating from the truth, have become de facto in today’s society, especially in the political arena and in the Mainstream Media and the Mainstream Cultural Media.

Alas, Integrity (Moral soundness) and Virtue (The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong), along with good Character (The inherent complex of attributes that determines a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions), play little part in our political intercourse. Yet, integrity, virtue, and good character are personal attributes that will not allow for prevarication. Consequently, those that prevaricate are displaying their lack of integrity, virtue, and good character.

This is amply demonstrated in the last three Presidents and their Administrations. Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden and their Administrations often prevaricated during their terms of office. Some prevarications are to be expected in politics, but a steady stream of prevarications is deceptions foisted upon the American public. These prevarications make it very difficult for the American people to discern the facts and truths to determine the best course for America. Bad decisions are made based on these prevarications, and the problems that beset America are not resolved because of these prevarications.

In the past, such prevarications by politicians were illuminated by the press, and the American public was better able to discern the prevarications. Today, however, the Mainstream Media had no compunction in attacking President Trump and his administration for their prevarications but has shown no such predilection in attacking President Obama and Biden and their administrations for their prevarications. Indeed, they have often supported President Obama and Biden’s prevarications through their supine acceptance of these prevarications and their reporting on the narrative rather than the facts, as I have Chirped on “01/23/23 Report the Narrative”. This is driven by the Mainstream Media's predilections for Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders social policies and political agendas. In addition, the Mainstream Media have departed from objective reporting into advocacy reporting, as Jonathan Turley has written in his article “Objectivity Has Got To Go: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”, along with other issues of journalism that I have examined in my Article, "Modern Journalism".

These political prevarications and advocacy journalism divide the American people and exacerbate the bitter partisanship that exists in America today. Until such political prevarications and advocacy journalism is dispensed with, it will be difficult for the American people to make wise decisions to fix the problems besetting America. The best way to resolve these problems is for integrity, virtue, and good character to be elevated in importance in American society and for politicians and reporters to put into practice integrity and virtue and to conduct themselves with good character. The American people can facilitate this change by not supporting and electing politicians who lack integrity, virtue, and good character and not consuming the news reporting of advocacy journalism.

02/03/23 Removal of Justices and Judges

In my Article, "Judges, Not Lords", I address the problem of Justices and Judges who rule beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law. It is an unfortunate fact that in today's judicial system, judges often go beyond the scope of their responsibilities. When a judge issues a ruling utilizing convoluted reasoning or stretching the law in which it was never intended to do, they are corrupting the Constitutional and the democratic process. A judge is responsible for making sure that the law is equally applied to all who come before them. Their holdings, rulings, and decisions should be based primarily on the law as it is written or the intentions of the lawgivers as expressed during the legislative process. Laws are created to ensure a civil society. If a law, or judicial rulings and decisions, is convoluted or distorted, it cannot be followed by the members of the society.

As in my Chirp on "02/02/23 Removal of Executive Officers", the only way to remove a Justice or Judge is by the impeachment process, and the impeachment process does not allow for the removal of a Justice or Judge who rules beyond the boundaries of the Constitution or the Law.

Under the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice must take the following Oath of Office:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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, Ethics, 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, Ethics, 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:

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.
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.
Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.
Public health is about comparative risk evaluations, risk reduction, and reducing uncertainties using the best available evidence, since risk usually cannot be entirely eliminated.
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.
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.
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.
Public health scientists and practitioners should avoid conflicts of interest, and any unavoidable conflicts of interest must be clearly stated.
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.
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:

Ukraine keeps the war from spreading
Ukraine is degrading a hostile Russia
Ukrainian success helps restore economic vitality
A victorious Ukraine helps the U.S. competition with China
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, Ethics, Character, and Virtue Within Government and Society”, Morality, Ethics, 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, Ethics, 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:

Amendment XVII:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

This Republicanism can only be achieved with the integrity of the vote by free and fair elections. Otherwise, our elected leaders are not chosen by the people but are manipulated into leadership positions. Consequently, the integrity of elections is a prerequisite for a republican form of government. The last two elections (2020 & 2022) have been a challenge to the integrity of elections. As I have written in my Article, "Voting in America", we have had many issues concerning the integrity of the vote in these elections. A large percentage of the people do not believe that these were free and fair elections but were manipulated to achieve the desired result by the people responsible for ensuring the integrity of the vote. As such, the question becomes do we have a republican form of government if these (alleged) manipulations occurred? The answer is that we will never know if these manipulations occurred, as the people who certify the election are the same people alleged to have manipulated the vote.

Legislative investigations and Judicial actions into these elections need to be instituted, not only for the purposes of exposing voting irregularities and punishing the offenders but for the primary purpose of correcting these problems in future elections. Until we can ensure the integrity of the vote with free and fair elections, we cannot be assured that we have a Republican Form of Government that is responsive to the will of the people. If not, we will have the semblance of a Republican Form of Government whose substance is oligarchical by the manipulators of an election. It is, therefore, critical that we address election reforms that ensure the integrity of the vote to ensure that we have a Republican Form of Government as the Constitution requires.

12/16/22 Reality Bites

The Green New Deal and its dependence on Green Energy has been wholeheartedly supported in most European countries. While the goal may be laudable (and the risks understated), there are practicable consequences to dependence on Green Energy, especially in an industrial economy. A new article by Stephen Moore, “The Night the Lights Went Out in Europe”, examines the consequences of Europe’s rush to Green Energy. These consequences do not bode well for the European people who depend on Green Energy to supply their energy needs. Euroland has been thrust into an epic energy crisis with electricity rationing, power outages, $10 a gallon gas, and citizens encouraged by governments to use candles for lights and burning wood for heating purposes. We, in America, need to learn from these European consequences and proceed cautiously in our own attempts to convert to Green Energy sources. Otherwise, we will face the same consequences that the European people now face.

12/15/22 The Ultimate End of Tax and Spend

Regarding government taxing and spending, it can be said:

One of the most astute observations in politics on taxing is:

“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!” - Russell B. Long

However, what follows this on spending is often:

“Spend on me, spend on you, don’t spend on that fellow behind the tree!” - Mark Dawson

However, As Taxing and Spending always lead to debts and deficits, and ultimately inflation and/or recession for me, you, and the other fellow, the truth is:

It also pits those that pay the taxes against those that receive the spending. And as there are fewer taxpayers and more spending receivers, it skewers elections in favor of those politicians that advocate increased taxing and spending.

This is a vicious cycle that feeds the growth of government and reduces the independence of the people. More government, more taxes, and more spending equate to less Liberty and Freedom for the individual. This is what our Founding Fathers wished to curtail—an increase of government at the expense of the individual. They attempted to accomplish this by restricting the government to limited enumerated powers. Today, however, the government feels that it can do whatever it deems necessary for the good of the people. The politicians that support this increase in taxing and spending have forgotten that the greatest necessity for the people is for Liberty and Freedom. Consequently, anything the government does that is outside of its limited enumerated powers is an encroachment on the Liberty and Freedoms of all Americans.

The utilization of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and “The Perversion of the English Language” to justify these taxes and spending as within their limited enumerated powers is an affront to "Rationality" and "Reasoning". It is also an attempt by elected officials to usurp power unto themselves that properly belongs to the people.

In the past, our best bulwark against these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms from the Legislative and Executive Branches of government was the Supreme Court. Alas, the Supreme Court has become less Constitutional and more political in its rulings since the time of the New Deal (1933–39) and the Great Society (1964–65). In our zeal to improve American society, we relegated Liberty and Freedom as secondary to the primacy of welfare and security. The Supreme Court acquiesced to this desire if there were no gross violations of the Constitution. However, the spirit of our "American Ideals and Ideas" was violated by these Supreme Court rulings.

This spirit of our American Ideals and Ideas needs to be restored; otherwise, we are a society without foundation except for materialism and avarice. In history, such societies have always faltered and collapsed, leaving their people into destitution and despotism, and often tyranny.

12/14/22 Government Interference in Free Speech

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents government involvement in the Natural Free Speech Rights of Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not solicit nor be involved in any private party’s actions in the exercise of any Constitutional Rights of a person (i.e., the legal doctrine that private entities cannot do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself). As such, the recent revelations that the government and Twitter cooperated with each other in restricting Twitter users' Free Speech rights is an assault on our Constitutional Rights by these government actors. All government actors have an affirmative duty to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of a person are protected and that any infringement of these rights is subject to criminal and civil prosecutions for the violations of these rights.

This assault that if it is not stopped, and the offenders punished for these actions, bodes ill for our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. The American people's seeming unconcern about these actions of the government in Free Speech is a poor reflection of the state of proper civic education in America. Worse, as they should know better, is the Mainstream Media’s lack of coverage and outrage about these government actions. But then again, the Mainstream Media has been cooperating for many decades with Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists in their coverage of Republican Party Leaders and Conservatives, which in itself is despicable as an independent Free Press is essential to our societal checks and balances against government overreach that is essential in retaining our Liberties and Freedoms. And even far worse is the Democrat Party Leader's lack of condemnation of these government actions, as all office holders take an Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and their lack of condemnation demonstrates that they do not take their oath seriously.

The problem with bringing to justice those government actors who have assaulted our Constitutional Rights is that the very people who assaulted our rights are responsible for bringing criminal and civil prosecutions. Thus, we have the legal problem of Nemo judex in causa sua, a dictum that translates to “no one should be a judge in his/her own cause”, which is widely considered a pre-requisite to a reliable, trustworthy judicial system. This principle is meant not merely to prevent a potential wrong-doer from condoning his errors by judging the validity of his actions but also, more importantly, to preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of the judiciary.

The appointment of a Special Prosecutor to peruse this matter is insufficient to assure justice, as the person appointed would be appointed by the person who may be investigated (i.e., the Attorney General of the United States), and this special prosecutor would be under the influence of the Attorney General. Congress may appoint, through appropriate legislation, a Special Prosecutor, but given the bitter partisanship of Congress and the partisanship of the allegations, I do not expect this to happen. We are, therefore, left with the conundrum of how to protect our rights when the Legislative and Executive Branches can not nor will not do so.

The answer is that the Supreme Court must take an extra ordinary step and become directly involved to resolve this conundrum. Under their Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, they must appoint a Special Prosecutor when the Legislative or Executive Branches are unable, unwilling, or cannot preserve public confidence in the sanctity and independence of a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Legislative or Executive Branches. This Special Prosecutor would only answer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preserve their independence and to ensure they are operating within the boundaries of the law. Otherwise, the government may freely trample upon the Constitutional Rights of the people if this conundrum is not resolved.

12/13/22 A Public or Private Carrier

In response to the release of the ‘Twitter Files’, which revealed Twitter-Government cooperation to censor tweets, many commentators have retorted that Twitter is a private business and may choose what or what not is to be allowed within their private business. For most private businesses, this is very true, but Twitter is more than a private business—it is a Public Carrier business.

A Common Carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a Public Carrier in some civil law systems) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under a license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers, telecommunications providers, cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. In the United States, telecommunications carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

A Private Carrier is a company that transports only its own goods, and the carrier's primary business is not transportation. Private carriers may refuse to sell their services at their own discretion, but common carriers must treat all customers equally. Some corporations mix both systems, using common carriers and private carriage in what is called a blended operation.

As such, Twitter is a Public Carrier and must treat all customers equally except to restrict content that is forbidden as defined by 47 USC 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. Therefore, as a Public Carrier, they have no right to censor any content except as above in 47 USC 230. Much as phone companies must treat all their customers equally, Twitter must treat all its users equally. A phone company may not listen to its customer's conversations and censor any conversation that they deem harmful, nor can it suspend or terminate a phone number without just cause, such as non-payment for services rendered. If Twitter wishes to claim that they are a Private Carrier, then it cannot be afforded the legal protections that 47 USC 230 provides. Thus, Twitter would be subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content posted on Twitter, as newspapers and magazines are subject to slander, libel, and other publishing laws for the content that they publish.

Twitter has also become a public forum where its users can express their thoughts and opinions, as well as obtain information to formulate their thoughts and opinions. Consequently, they have a duty and responsibility as a public forum to protect the Free Speech rights of their users. They also have a duty and responsibility to not interfere in the political processes, especially elections, in any manner whatsoever. The same could also be said about Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others in their public forum actions.

The recent efforts that Elon Musk has undertaken to reform Twitter are a good first step but must be vigorously pursued by Mr. Musk to ensure Twitter operates as a Public Carrier. These efforts should also be undertaken by Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other Public Carries of user-posted comments to ensure that they operate under the rules and regulations of a Public Carrier.

12/12/22 Reform the House of Representatives

Congress is a mess. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. They are no longer legislating but imposing new laws. The leadership of Congress has eviscerated the role of the rank-and-file congresspersons to be involved in the legislative process. The leadership has authoritative control of the workings of Congress that need not be responsive to the will of the people through their duly elected representatives in Congress. The House Freedom Caucus (HFC) is proposing new House rules to reassert that Members of Congress “must have the ability to participate in making laws”. These rule changes are outlined in their proposal “Restoring the People’s Voice In Congress”, and as they have stated in this proposal:

Between now and January, the House Freedom Caucus will work with likeminded colleagues to demand aggressive reforms to return the People’s House back to the American people and make it function again.

The leaders of both political parties have consolidated so much power that most Members of Congress have no meaningful role in the legislative process beyond voting up or down.
The result is that the “People’s House” is serving everyone in Washington except the American people: politicians, connected lobbyists, and entrenched bureaucrats.
Republicans ran to fix Washington so we should not continue the same system that broke it. It’s time to restore real republican government and give elected representatives back their rightful role in lawmaking to implement the will of their voters.

The reforms that they are proposing are:

Reform The House Republican Conference: Reclaim Legislative Impact for The People’s Representatives

Enact a “Majority of the Majority” Rule.
Restore the Independence of Committees
Diversify the Steering Committee
Open the Legislative Process
Enforce Responsibility in Spending

Reform House Rules: Level the Playing Field For The American People

Reset the House Rules.
Hold Bureaucrats Accountable.
End Secret Deals Behind Closed Doors
Institute a Ban on Earmarks

I wholeheartedly support these reforms, and I do not believe that the Republicans should vote for the Speaker of the House until these reforms are instituted.

12/11/22 The Lack of Shame and Our Own Infallibility

Shame—A painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt—has all but disappeared from American culture. In its stead, we have seen a boatload of excuses for shameful behavior. Excuses such as being true to oneself, marching to the beat of a different drummer, and doing your own thing have replaced shame. The concept of Virtue in America—The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong— has no place in modern American society, as I have written in my Chirp on "12/18/22 Legislating Virtue".

Shame, however, is a very important emotion as, upon reflection on our shame, it allows us to correct our words and deeds for the betterment of ourselves and society. In my own early adult life, I did several shameful things which I regretted. However, I learned from this shame and vowed never to do these things again (a vow which I have kept). Without shame, it is not possible to acknowledge your misdeeds and take corrective actions.

Another modern American trait is the inability to admit mistakes and apologize for these mistakes. Instead, we offer a variety of excuses as to why they were not mistakes or errors in judgment. But we should remember the words of a founder of the American Bar Association:

“The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.” - Edward John Phelps

Mistakes are a natural part of being human, and we all make mistakes. It is what we do about these mistakes that define our character. To apologize and rectify your mistakes is a true test of character. How we deal with the mistakes of others is also a test of our character, as I have written in one of my Pearls of Wisdom, "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine". One of the ways we can reduce our mistakes is to remember, before we speak or act, the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility." - Benjamin Franklin

This lack of shame, along with our inability to admit mistakes, is plaguing modern America. A plague that has infected our elected leaders and activists of all stripes. We would all do much better if we learned from our shame and admitted our mistakes, as well as be wary of those who exhibit no shame or are unable to admit their mistakes.

12/10/22 The Real Existential Threat

For many months we have been harangued about the existential threat to our democracy posed by former President Trump and his MAGA supporters. Although they claim that these people are an existential threat, they give no existential reasons for their threat other than they are opponents of the political policies and agendas of Democrats and Progressives. These people pose no threat to our Constitutional government nor to our Constitutional Rights, but they do pose a threat to the Democrat's and Progressive's constitutional interpretation of a democratic constitution (the primacy of the collective people), as opposed to a republican constitution (the primacy of the individual person) interpretation, as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". This difference in interpretation is not an existential threat but a robust disagreement. The only thing existential about this disagreement is that the loser of this argument may become politically irrelevant and be forced to change their political policies and agendas to be competitive in elections.

However, with the release of the ‘Twitter Files’ by Elon Musk, we now know who the real existential threat to our democracy is—Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, the Bureaucratic Swamp, and Big Tech, aided and assisted by the Mainstream Media. The (successful) efforts by Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists to suppress within Big Tech the free speech rights of their opponents to influence the outcome of an election is an existential threat to our democracy. With the aid and assistance of the mainstream media in not uncovering nor covering this suppression of the free speech rights of dissidents or opponents to the political policies and agendas of Democrat Party Leaders, Democrat Candidates, and Progressives/Leftists, the Mainstream Media has become a part of this existential threat to our democracy.

It is an existential threat as these actions strike at the heart of the First Amendment and suppress the Free Speech Rights of those so targeted and, consequently, the Free Speech Rights of all Americans, as there must be free speech for all, or there will be no free speech for anyone. Free Speech of which there is no compromise, no excuses, and no exceptions to Free Speech, for to restrict Free Speech is to have no Free Speech (the exceptions are few, narrow, and far between that deal with the directed physical harm to persons or the destruction of personal property, as well as in social media the assisting in criminal activities and dissemination of pornography).

We have also seen a concerted effort by these same parties to strip the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is antithetical to the intent of the Founding Fathers in ensuring that this Natural Right is sacrosanct in our society and protected against governmental interference. This effort along with their support for other violations of The Bill of Rights, too numerous and complex to discuss in this Chirp, demonstrates that these same parties pose an existential threat to our democracy.

The American people need to wake up from their slumber and recognize and oppose these existential threats to our society, or we shall continue down the slippery slope in the erosion of our Natural and Constitutional Rights and eventually into despotism.

12/09/22 The Evils of Big Tech

Can a company be evil? The horrors of WWI and WWII show that they can be evil by supporting and supplying goods and services to an evil government in the pursuit of profits. The question is, are Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft becoming evil in support of China and the interference with the Natural Rights of Americans? The answer is, unfortunately, that if evil is defined as the suppression of the Natural Rights of a people, then they are treading down the path to evil.

American companies are outsourcing their manufacturing to China, where slave labor and the suppression of the Natural Rights of the Chinese people are common and are often used to supply the labor for this outsourced manufacturing. The suppression of religion and the right of the Chinese people to freely speak, assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances also bespeaks of the evilness of the Chinese government. These evil actions by China, with the support of Big Tech, demonstrate that Big Tech is supporting evil and thus becoming evil.

Big Tech has also been involved in suppressing the Natural Rights of Americans by the recent revelations of Twitter interfering in elections by censoring the free speech of dissidents and suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. The fact that Apple restricted AirDrop file-sharing in China is an assault on the free speech rights of the Chinese people, and Big Tech’s allowance of TikTok and other spying apps used by the Chinese Communist Party for duplicitous spying on Americans is an assault on the privacy rights of Americans. The veracity of allegations that the other Big Tech companies are engaging in these activities has shown that Big Tech is becoming evil. Big Tech’s cooperation with the Democrat Party, Democrat candidates, and the Democrat-led American government in suppressing free speech is an assault on our First Amendment rights. In this, the Democrat Party, Democrat candidates, and the Democrat-led American government is also engaging in evil.

An American company has the moral responsibility to uphold the American ideals of the Natural Rights of the people, irrespective of profits. They must not do business with evil countries nor engage in any activities that contravene or suppress the Natural Rights of individuals in any country. The American people, and Congress, must take Constitutional actions that will constrict the evil doings of Big Tech, otherwise:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

12/08/22 Nationalism is Both Liberal and Illiberal

Nationalism has often been disparaged and vilified in our modern times because of the horrific events of the twentieth century. Nationalistic governments arose that plunged the world into wars, slaughtered millions of people, subjugated their peoples, and invaded and conquered the people of other nations. People began to associate Nationalism with evil and tried to shed Nationalism. What has been forgotten is that there are two sides to Nationalism: A Liberal Nationalism and Illiberal Nationalism.

Liberal Nationalism is the belief that the individual is loyal to a nation if the nation allows the national people to govern themselves, under laws created by themselves, for the benefit of all their people, and to institute Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All for the people of a nation. Liberal Nationalism is inclusive of all people that share these ideals, and Liberal Nationalism believes that their nation is superior to other nations that do not share these ideals. Liberal Nationalism believes that governmental powers originate from the people and that democratically elected leaders are responsible to the people.

Illiberal Nationalism is the belief in the supreme loyalty of an individual to his nation and that the nation is ethnically determined based on common race, language, culture, and heritage. Illiberal Nationalism is exclusory of all people that are not ethnically the same and often have the belief that their nation is superior to other nations and that their nation should dominate other nations. Illiberal Nationalism believes that governmental powers are vested in a strong leader who determines what is best for the people and who often governs through despotism.

Consequently, Liberal Nationalism is beneficial to humankind, while Illiberal Nationalism is detrimental to humankind. Therefore, let us all take Nationalistic pride in America, for we are a nation dedicated to Liberal Nationalism.

12/07/22 The Greater Good

In many of my Chirps and Articles, I discuss the concept of the Greater Good. The Greater Good is often utilized by politicians and activists to rationalize their political agendas and social policies. But it should always be remembered that:

“The Greater Good is the great fiction that all despots engage in to justify their actions.” - Mark Dawson

Whenever the Greater Good infringes on the Natural Rights of a person, it often does harm rather than good and often leads to despotism to enforce the Greater Good. We should also remember, to paraphrase the great economist Thomas Sowell, that:

"The most basic question is not what is the greater good, but who shall decide what is the greater good?"

The greater good is always that which promotes the Liberties and Freedoms of a person, consistent with an orderly society that preserves the Natural Rights of all the people in the society. Otherwise, the invocation of the Greater Good is often a call to despotism.

12/06/22 Lessons of Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is the ultimate statement of the ideal of individual freedom, which is at the core of the liberal tradition of liberty and freedom. It is a controversial idea that raises fundamental issues of individual rights and duties versus the necessity of an orderly society. The liberal tradition is of liberty and freedom for the members of society, while the illiberal tradition is one of obedience of individuals to society, as I discussed in my Chirp, "12/08/22 Nationalism is Both Liberal and Illiberal".

Henry David Thoreau was a leading proponent of Disobedience to an unjust state, as his essay "Civil Disobedience" establishes, and that forcible confrontation was sometimes necessary for rectifying injustice, as his support for the abolitionist John Brown demonstrates. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were disciples of Thoreau and believed that non-violent Civil Disobedience was the best means of Civil Disobedience.

The question is, are forcible confrontation or non-violence the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience? The answer is, as usual, it depends on the situation. When a government is to be challenged by Civil Disobedience, the first question is whether the government is one of a Liberal or Illiberal nature. A liberal government respects the rights of the challenger, while an illiberal government has little or no concern for a challenger. In a liberal government, the challenger has the opportunity to have their voice heard and effectuate change, while in an illiberal government, the challenger will be suppressed and silenced with little hope of effectuating change. Consequently, non-violent Civil Disobedience can be effective in a liberal government, while forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience in an illiberal government may be the only means to institute change.

Many admirers of Gandhi point to his effectiveness of non-violent Civil Disobedience to institute the change he desired while forgetting that he was confronting a liberal government in the British Empire. If Gandhi was confronting the illiberal government of the Soviet Union, he would have been sent to a prison camp or executed, thus, effectuating no change in the Soviet Union. Therefore, the proper and effective means of Civil Disobedience depends upon the Liberal or Illiberal nature of the government to be confronted. In simpler terms, it is whether you are confronting basically good or an inherently evil government.

In the case of Thoreau’s support for John Brown’s forcible confrontation against slavery, the institution of slavery was an evil that existed within a basically good government. Many of the American people did not understand or chose to ignore the evil of slavery, while some Americans did not believe slavery was evil. Consequently, forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience was necessary to shock the American people into confronting this evil and putting an end to slavery.

In the case of non-violent Civil Disobedience by Martin Luther King Jr., to confront the injustice of bigotry and discrimination against black Americans, non-violent Civil Disobedience was sufficient to awaken the American people into confronting this injustice and putting an end to bigotry and discrimination in America.

In the case of the Civil Disobedience against the Vietnam War, the use of non-violent Civil Disobedience at the start of these protests was insufficient to awaken the American people to the injustices of this war, and thus forcible confrontation Civil Disobedience became necessary. The only question was the extent of the forcible confrontation that was needed to awaken the American people.

We can, therefore, conclude that the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience are dependent upon the liberality or illiberality of the governments being confronted or the evil that is being confronted. There is no easy answer to what the proper and effective methods of Civil Disobedience are, but all that engage in Civil Disobedience must ponder this question, and all those who support or adjudge Civil Disobedience must consider this question.

12/05/22 Aspects of Freedom

The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in an address on January 6, 1941. In this address, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “Everywhere In The World” ought to enjoy: Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Worship, Freedom From Want, and Freedom From Fear.

My Article, “The Four Freedoms”, discusses these Freedoms and their implications for the governance of a people. Regrettably, I believe that these Four Freedoms are an insufficient aspect of freedom, as, by themselves, they do not assure the Liberties and Freedoms of the people. The question is, then, what are the core freedoms that allow for Liberty and Freedom for all? Professor J. Rufus Fears, in his Great Course, “A History of Freedom”, concludes this course with a summary of what constitutes core freedoms. These constituents are:

National Freedom
Individual Freedom
Economic Freedom
Scientific Freedom
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:

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.
Individual Freedom to choose how to live your life so long as you do not harm another nor infringe upon the freedoms of others.
Economic Freedom of a free-market economy and the economic opportunity to participate in the free market.
Scientific Freedom to seek out the scientific facts and determine the truths of our universe, often to the benefit of all mankind.
Spiritual Freedom to practice your religion and worship God, as well as the freedom to follow your own conscience.

Our Country was founded on these ideals of freedom, and while we have not always met these ideals, nor have we currently achieved these ideals, we have, throughout our history, strived to meet these ideals. This Thanksgiving, we should all be thankful that we have these Freedoms in America. We should also dedicate ourselves to preserving and extending these freedoms in the future so that on future Thanksgiving days, we can give thanks for our freedoms.

11/23/22 Campaign Financing and Media Bias

The 2022 mid-term elections saw a tremendous amount of money being fed into the troughs of candidates in close or contested Congressional districts and Senate races. In many cases, one candidate often had two to three times or higher as much money as their opponent, and in all cases, it is the Democrat candidate that has the money edge. Much of this money edge is through Out-of-State Money fundraising from wealthy donors and special interest groups. This raises the issues and concerns that I have written about in my Article “Campaign Financing and Independent Expenditures”.

The predilections and biases of the "Mainstream Media", "Social Media", and "Big Tech", were also on full display with consistent negative coverage of Republican candidates and favored coverage of Democrat candidates, as I have examined in my Articles "Modern Journalism" and "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression".

With such thumbs on the scale by these actors in favor of Democrat candidates, it is no wonder why Republican candidates had a difficult time getting their message across and must allocate much of their resources to defending themselves rather than espousing their positions on the issues. This one-sidedness bodes ill for free and fair elections in which both sides have an equal opportunity to present their case to the American electorate. It has also contributed to a loss of faith in our elected representatives and our democratic institutions, as many Americans are cynical that elections are being purchased and propagandized for Democrat candidates. Until we address the issues of Campaign Financing and Media Bias, the cynicism of the American electorate is justifiable.

The question is, however, what can be done about this? The answer is, unfortunately, that there is little that can be done about this. Our First Amendment Rights of freedom of speech and the press allow for this situation to occur, as it should be to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms. The danger is that a cynical electorate results in the crumbling of our foundations of democracy and is injurious to the health and welfare of our democracy. A crumbling that could result in the collapse of our society and the loss of our “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” and is antithetical to our ideals as expressed by President Abraham Lincoln that “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

11/22/22 A Republic of Party Affiliation

A friend of mine commented that the recent 2022 mid-term elections were an affirmation of party over policy and that the fear of change overrode the concern about the issues in this election. To his comments, I responded that self-interest was a contributing factor, as I will next Chirp on "11/25/22 A Recipe for Election Tragedy".

But there is much truth in what he had to say, as it seems that reflexive voting for a party candidate has taken the place of thoughtful consideration of a candidate’s policy positions and political agenda. The recent example of the election of John Fetterman as Senator from Pennsylvania is an example of this. Much early voting, before Mr. Fetterman’s physical condition and policy stances became known, was based on party affiliation. His candidacy was based on hiding his physical condition and subterfuge on his policy positions. As a result, much of the early voting was party based rather than his fitness and his stances on the issues. When the full extent of physical condition and policies became known, it was not possible for the early voters to change their minds and cast their ballots differently. In a close election, such as this one, this may have affected the ultimate outcome of the election. The same could be said of the election of Joe Biden in the 2020 Presidential election. Joe Biden’s mental acuity was never evidenced, and he was portrayed as a moderating influence on the leftist wing of his party and as a uniter of Americans, all of which was a subterfuge.

This is yet another problem with early voting, as well as the lack of debates, as I have examined in my Chirp on "10/18/22 To Debate, or Not to Debate, That is the Question", and the other issues of voting that I have written about in my Article "Voting in America". The other problem is that a Republic of Party begets a Republic of Oligarchy, which is not a Democracy, as I have Chirped on, "01/11/22 Our Democracy". As such, our Democratic republic is dissolving into a Political Party Oligarchy based on party affiliation, with such party affiliation based on underlying factors not related to the best interests of all Americans but the interests of those Americans affiliated with a party.

11/21/22 Winning Primaries and Losing General Elections

Many commentators and politicians have critiqued that in the recent 2022 mid-term elections, one of the factors for the Republican Party's minimal gains was that the Republicans had candidates that could win Primaries rather than General Elections. While this may be true, it is not germane to the reason for a political party unless the main reason for a political party is to win general elections. Such a reason is founded on the premise that the primary goal of a party is to obtain and retain political power rather than illuminate the differences between the parties and allow the electorate to choose between policy agendas and political agendas. While a political party must win general elections to implement its policy goals and political agendas, if it does so while losing its soul and reason for its existence, then it is a hollow victory without sustenance.

If a political party attempts to disguise its policy goals and political agendas from the electorate to win general elections thru the techniques of "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", “The Perversion of the English Language”, and saying one thing but doing another, then it is a party in a masquerade that attempts to simply obtain and retain political power. Such a party is dedicated to rulership rather than leadership, which I have examined in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

Alas, such masquerading has been the tactic of the Democrat Party for the last several decades. Since the candidacy and election of Bill Clinton, the Democrat Party has been more interested in subterfuge than candor to obtain political power. This has led the American electorate to make unwise decisions that are contrary to the best interests of America. Unwise decisions, as the American electorate has not been fully informed about the policy goals and political agendas of the Democrat Party and the consequences of their policy goals and political agendas. Instead, they have been swayed by emotionally charged rhetoric rather than intellectually based rationality. The American electorate has also been swayed by several underlying factors that have not been illuminated by the political parties nor by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", and "Modern Education". Indeed, these underlying factors have been ignored for the purpose of electing (mostly Democrat) candidates that support the predilections of the aforementioned interest groups.

This is why it is important for the Republican Party, in the Primaries, to nominate candidates of candor so that they can illuminate the differences between their party and their candidates. This allows the electorate in the General election to choose between different policy goals and political agendas and elect candidates they think will implement these goals and agendas. Otherwise, we will continue to be unknowledgeable and confused about the issues and problems facing America, and we will continue to make uninformed and usually poor choices with bad consequences in the General election as to the solutions to our problems.

My next several Chirps will examine, for your consideration, these underlying factors that need to be illuminated for the electorate to make informed choices.

11/20/22 The Death of Investigative Journalism

The Mainstream Media has lost the concept of Investigate Journalism, and it has, instead, become Narrative Journalism. Rather than spending the time to investigate and then report on a story, it has become instant reporting on a story that fits its political proclivities narrative. In this, they have been supported by Social Media, as I have written in my Articles “Modern Journalism” and "Social Media and Free Speech".

A brief list of recent Narrative Journalism in which they got it completely wrong due to a lack of Investigative Journalism includes:

Andrew Cuomo's COVID-19 leadership was worthy of praise.
Defaming Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington Catholic Students.
Haitian migrants were ‘whipped’ at the border.
The Hunter Biden Laptop.
The Jussie Smollett incident.
The Kyle Rittenhouse shooting and trial.
The Wuhan lab leak theory was ‘fringe’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’.
Trump Russian collusion and the Steele dossier.

Additionally, the lack of investigative journalism on the 2020 Presidential election irregularities, Joe Biden’s and John Fetterman’s Mental Fitness to hold office, and the Influence peddling by the Biden Family are a result of Narrative Journalism rather than Investigative Journalism—i.e., if it doesn’t fit the narrative than it is unworthy of investigation. Thus, they are not ‘comforting the allected and afflicting the comfortable’ but are, indeed, supporting the comfortable and powerful that share their political proclivities.

This Narrative Journalism has extended to not only not investing but slandering or suppressing any Free Speech of those that do not support their narrative, even those who are also journalists. This is an assault on the Free Speech rights of All American and is incongruous with a Free Press. They also have, along with Social Media, been in collusion with the Biden Administration in suppressing reporting of stories unfavorable to the Biden Administration.

Consequently, they are no longer ‘Journalists’ but Propagandists’. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the role of a Free Press to help guard against government overreach and to assure our Liberties and Freedoms, which is why they incorporated the Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Modern Journalism is failing in its duties and responsibilities to fully inform the American public of all the facts and, therefore, the truths of what is occurring in America.

This failure has dire consequences for America’s future as the American electorate cannot make fully informed decisions on whom they should vote for and what public policies they should support. The good news is that the American public is recognizing these failures of Modern Journalism and turning to alternative sources for news and information. If this trend continues, then Modern Journalism will be relegated to a slideshow, which is where they belong due to their Narrative Journalism.

11/19/22 No COVID Amnesty

On Monday, November 91, 2922, Brown University economist Emily Oster had an essay published by The Atlantic in which she begged, “Let's declare a pandemic amnesty because we need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

However, forgiveness should only be given to those who repent and ask for forgiveness, and in the case of criminal actions, only if they have paid the penalty for their crimes. In the case of the COVID-19 virus, we can segregate forgiveness into those persons that could not have known, those persons that should have known, those persons that did know and did not speak up, and those persons that knew and spoke and acted foolhardy, harmfully, or maliciously.

The harm that was done to our society, economy, the educational and social development of our children, and our Liberties and Freedoms are destructive and incalculable. Alas, much harm was done, some of which was not avoidable, but some of which could have been avoided if more deliberative and rational thought had been applied rather than a rush to ‘do something’. Therefore, forgiveness should be allocated to each group based on their culpability.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 virus, little was known, and excessive precautions were justifiable. As soon as we discovered the size and airborne transmission of the COVID-19 virus, anybody with a knowledge of medicine and physics (especially fluid dynamics and gases) would have known that masking and social distancing were ineffective in preventing the transmission and reception of the COVID-19 virus. As we learned more about the COVID-19 virus, we understood that its impacts were on our senior citizens and those adults that had comorbid complications, while most adults and children were minorly impacted by the COVID-19 virus. It was when this knowledge became known that we can adjudge persons for the forgiveness of their words and deeds.

As to those persons that could not have known, which includes most Americans, forgiveness is fully warranted. Those persons that should have known but did not examine the facts nor speak up should be forgiven but chastised for not finding out and speaking up. Those persons that did know and did not speak up should not be forgiven and reprimanded for failing to do the right thing. Those persons that knew and spoke and acted foolhardy, harmfully, or maliciously should not be forgiven and should face possible civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions for their actions.

What should not be forgiven is those people and organizations that attempted to silence or suppress information and warnings about the harmful actions that were undertaken in response to the COVID-19 virus. The people and organizations that raised the alarms about the COVID-19 virus responses should be lauded and indemnified for speaking out. It is those people and organizations that spoke out that the American people should pay heed to and support in the future, and those that silenced or suppressed their speech should not be forgiven and punished to ensure that this never happens again.

Consequently, it's time for COVID-19 virus responses accountability, not amnesty, as Spencer Brown has written in his article “There Should Be No Covid Amnesty” and Michael Brendan Dougherty article “A ‘Pandemic Amnesty’? Hell, No.” Blanket amnesty is not warranted and is, indeed, harmful to the future of our society. A harm to our society in that if the unforgivable persons and organizations are forgiven and go unpunished, then they will continue in their harmful ways without fear of punishment and in the hope for forgiveness for their future actions.

11/18/22 The Military-Industrialization Complex

The expression Military Industrialization Complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest that influences public policy. In the context of the United States, the appellation is sometimes extended to the Military–Industrial–Congressional Complex (MICC), adding the U.S. Congress to form a three-sided relationship termed an "iron triangle". Its three legs include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry; or, more broadly, the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, private military contractors, the Pentagon, Congress, and the Executive Branch.

I have no problem with the Military Industries making a profit on military expenditures, as this is the capitalistic way of life in America. My problem is that the Congressional and Executive Branch are making military decisions not based upon our national security needs but upon the needs of the Military Industry making profits and their own election and reelection coffers and vote garnering. As I have written in my Chirp on “11/02/22 A Woke and Atrophied Military”, many military observers are concerned that the military is losing focus on its mission to win armed conflicts due to wokism and atrophy. They are also concerned that our military cannot fight a two-front war, which has been our military policy for over half a century, and that we would have difficulty winning a one-front war. This is not only because of wokism and understaffing but also because we have not had the proper funding for the military, nor have they allocated the proper apportionments and resources in the military to the goal of winning a modern armed conflict.

Consequently, the Military Industry is not the problem; it is a problem of proper decision-making by the Congressional and Executive Branches on military funding and apportionments of resources within the military. The only solution to this problem is for the American electorate to vote for politicians that will put national security and military preparedness above their own insular needs. However, determining what is politically insular versus what is militarily needed is very difficult to accomplish for the electorate. The only wise method to accomplish this is to look for virtuous candidates that you believe will do what is best for America rather than what is best for themselves and their narrow constituent’s interests.

11/17/22 ESG – A Pathway to Ruination

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) has become the rage of Progressives/Leftists Governments and Activists and Activism. So, what Is ESG effectuation and investing? Environmental, social, and governance refer to a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by governments to implement national economic and social policies through company regulation and by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments for a company’s adherence to ESG goals. Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change and other environmental goals. Social criteria examine how a company manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.

As Andy Puzder, the former CEO of CKE Restaurants — parent to Hardee's and Carl's Junior — has explained, the basic tenets of ESG are radical environmental policy — the so-called "green" energy transition, progressive social policy — requiring woke principles to be enacted within a company from the top down, and governance policies that see merit-based systems replaced with preferences based on race or sex.

The consequences of ESG, in addition to the forced wokification of massive corporations, include a loss in financial benefit for the shareholders whose money the asset managers are entrusted to a steward. Puzder explained that "ESG policies do not encourage profits" and he goes on to state that, in fact, ESG investing is a negative for profits, it's a negative for investor returns and it's only a positive if you're one of these progressive crusaders who's trying to get these issues through and force them down a countries populations throats without going to the ballot box. These negative consequences on investors, as Sanjai Bhagat the Provost Professor of Finance at the University of Colorado, has written in a Harvard Business Review ar

Table of Contents

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)

It’s Complicated

Stating The Obvious and Common Sense

Arguing from Ignorance

Criticism vs. Critique

My Beliefs

My Approach

To Tweet, to Chirp, or to Sing

Burden of Proof

Terminology and Hyperlinks

Comments, Concerns, Critiques, or Suggestions

02/15/26 Islam

02/14/26 Assaults on Capitalism

02/13/26 The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution

02/12/26 TUPs — Totally Unhinged Progressives

02/11/26 The New Jacobins

02/10/26 The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto and Democratic Socialism

02/09/26 No Special Exemption for the NFL

02/08/26 Scientific Evidence for a Creator

02/07/26 The Problems of Islam and Associated Chirps

02/06/26 Main Differences Between Yahweh And Allah

02/05/26 The State of Nations

02/04/26 Subjugation and Deception

02/03/26 The Lack of Miraculous Evidence

02/02/26 Unequal and Unfair Justice

02/01/25 The Unknowns of Science

01/31/26 A Repeat of History

01/29/26 Oh, Canada - II

01/27/26 A New Diplomatic Style

01/25/26 Simple and Complex Life’s Creation

01/24/26 Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence

01/21/26 A Superficial Appearance

01/19/26 They Are AWFUL

01/18/26 Making Deals With God or the Devil

01/17/26 The Concepts of Justice

01/16/26 Our Democracy Mobocracy

01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress

01/14/26 The Cure for Bonhoeffer Stupidity

01/13/26 Fighting Fire with Fire

01/12/26 The Beloved Europe

01/11/26 An Anger of Their Own Making

01/10/26 Democrat Party Racketeering

01/09/26 Progressive Self-Awareness, Cognitive Dissonance, Hypocrisy, and Stupidity

01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause

01/07/26 Blue City-State Corruption

01/06/26 A Sovereign State and International Law

01/05/26 The Warmth of Collectivism

01/04/26 Progressive Self-flagellation

01/03/26 Progressive Anti-Semitism

01/02/26 Progressive Irrationality and Evilness

01/01/26 A New Year, A New Masthead

12/31/25 The Difference between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism

12/30/25 A True American

12/29/25 Traits of Intelligent People

12/28/25 Protecting National Intelligence

12/27/25 Politicizing Apolitical Organizations

12/26/25 Is It a Human Right?

12/25/25 The Abrahamic Religions

12/24/25 Reasoning and Religiosity

12/23/25 Trump Boom or Democrat Doom

12/22/25 Slogans Without Substance

12/21/25 Words and Terms as Weapons - III

12/20/25 You Should Not Weigh Good and Evil Equally

12/19/25 Muslims and Islamists

12/18/25 Following the Constitution – Part II

12/17/25 Following the Constitution – Part I

12/16/25 Blue Slips

12/15/25 Nuke the Filibuster

12/14/25 Celebrating Hanukkah

12/13/25 Presumptive Immunity

12/12/25 The Free Speech of Trump Protestors

12/11/25 Unconstitutional Judicial Orders

12/10/25 Economic Forces

12/09/25 The Misrepresentation of Affordability

12/08/25 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

12/07/25 Things to Remember

12/06/25 Assimilating the Unassimilable

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).