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.

It’s Complicated

How often have we heard someone state “It’s Complicated” when responding in a political debate? Yes, it can be complicated when dealing with the cause and effect of an issue. But, often, the core issue of the debate is not complicated. It is the core issues that I try to address in these Chirps. When you strip away the Deflections, the “Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors” and the “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” it is often not that complicated. I point out that many who argue a political issue resort to Deflections, Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors as a tactic to obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered and susceptible to accepting their conclusions. It is most often done by inserting oblique facts, nonsequiturs, exceptions to the rule, and the perfect vs. the practical. You should always go to the core issue of the argument and examine its meaning. When engaging in a debate blow away the Deflections, Obfuscations, Smoke, and Mirrors and get to the core issue. Determine the core issue, the facts and truths of the issue, then debate the cause and effect and the actions to be taken.

Stating The Obvious and Common Sense

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

Arguing from Ignorance

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

Criticism vs. Critique

The only acceptable method of public discourse is disagreement - to be of different opinions. If you are in disagreement with someone you should be cognizant that people of good character can and often disagree with each other. The method of their disagreement is very important to achieve civil discourse. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

  • Criticism - Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings.
  • Critique - A serious examination and judgment of something.

Most people, and most commentators have forgotten the difference between Criticism and Critique. This has led to the hyper-partisanship in today's society. In a civil society critiquing a viewpoint or policy position should be encouraged. This will often allow for a fuller consideration of the issues, and perhaps a better viewpoint or policy position without invoking hyper-partisanship. We can expect that partisanship will often occur, as people of good character can and often disagree with each other. Criticizing a viewpoint or policy position will often lead to hostility, rancor, and enmity, which results in the breakdown of civil discourse and hyper-partisanship. It is fine to criticize someone for their bad or destructive behavior, but it is best to critique them for their opinions or words. We would all do better if we remember to critique someone, rather than criticize someone.

My Approach

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

In writing my Articles and Chirps I have attempted to assure that the information I present is factual and accurate. I, therefore, expend time and effort in researching to obtain the facts and achieve accuracy. The process of writing for me is an intellectual, emotional, and physical strain. I have, therefore, written a short Article “The Intellectual and Emotional Strains of Writing” that explains my research efforts, and the intellectual, emotional, and physical strains of writing these Articles and Chirps.

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

As regards to my debating these issues, I would direct you to my Chip on “Form Over Substance” as to my reluctance to engage in debate on these subjects. Essentially, I  believe that I am a poor debater. It is for this reason that I often do not engage in debates. I do, however, engage in discussions in which both sides have ample time to challenge the facts, statistics, and reasoning of their arguments to effectually explain their arguments.

Burden of Proof

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

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

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

Terminology

Throughout these Chirps I often utilize terms and phrases that I believe that should be defined and elucidated. I have, therefore, created a webpage on the "Terminology" (i.e., Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality") that I often utilize.

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.

06/25/22 What a Week in the History of Liberty and Freedom

It has been quite a week in the history of America, as three rulings by the Supreme Court in the past week have reaffirmed the Liberties and Freedoms of the American people. These rulings are:

The first two rulings reaffirmed the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, while the third ruling returned to the people, rather than the courts, the decisions on social policy. The third ruling also put lower courts on notice not to be expansive when ruling on social issues but to defer to the will of the people as expressed in their State Legislatures and Congress. It also shifted the burden of social policy issues from the courts to the politicians, where it properly belongs.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court continues this line of legal reasoning and that future rulings are faithful to the Constitution and a reaffirmation of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

06/24/22 A Deliberative Body No More

The United States Senate used to be called ‘The World's Greatest Deliberative Body’. With the passage of the new gun control bill, it must relinquish this title, for there was no deliberation involved in the Senate’s passage of this bill. There were no hearings, no testimony, and no consideration of Constitutional questions about the bill, but a rush to ‘do something’ based on emotional reactions to recent mass shootings.

It is even possible that this bill will have minimal impact on future mass shootings, as there are so many ambiguities and loopholes as to make it problematic as to its impact. There is also the very real possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may find sections of this bill to be unconstitutional. Unconstitutional in that it may violate the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As such, the Senators who voted for this bill mat have violated their oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Passing a bill without consideration as to its constitutionality is not to “support and defend the Constitution” but an affront to the Constitution. This is what happens when they rush to ‘do something’ rather than be deliberative to do something useful and constitutional. By not being deliberative and rushing to ‘do something’, they are also endangering our democracy by resorting to mob rule. A mob rule that may engulf our institutions and trample upon our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

06/23/22 The Destruction of Civilization

In an article by Charles C. W. Cooke, “Once Again: It Is Not the Supreme Court’s Job to Follow ‘Majority Public Opinion’”, he states:

“The Supreme Court is a court, and its job is to uphold the law — whether statutory or constitutional — as it actually exists. The wishes of “majority public opinion” — or of would-be political assassins — are irrelevant to this endeavor. If a sufficient majority of Americans no longer like the law, they can use their democratic power to change its text. But, until they do so, that text will remain what it is, and the Court will be obliged to interpret it without fear, favor, contrivance, or reference to anything beyond its written terms.”
 - Charles C. W. Cooke

He also points out that the Courts are established to uphold the law and not make the law, as a court is not a legislature, and because its job is not to decide what the law should be but what it is. As such, they are formal institutions that require formal textual law on which to base their decisions. When the courts rule outside the formal textual law, they are encroaching upon the prerogatives of Congress. This raises the issue of legal interpretation, which I have Chirped on, "07/12/21 'Constitutional Originalism' versus 'A Living Constitution'". As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in A Matter of Interpretation, the existence of formal institutions requires the use of formal institutions. This is true even in such cases as their application frustrates the majority, pushes the question to a different branch of government, or delays what observers may believe to be a foregone conclusion:

“Of all the criticisms leveled against textualism, the most mindless is that it is “formalistic.” The answer to that is, of course it’s formalistic! The rule of law is about form. A murderer has been caught with blood on his hands, bending over the body of his victim; a neighbor with a video camera has filmed the crime; and the murderer has confessed in writing and on videotape. We nonetheless insist that before the state can punish this miscreant, it must conduct a full-dress criminal trial that results in a verdict of guilty. Is that not formalism? Long live formalism. It is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men.”
- Antonin Scalia

The law is the law. And, until it is changed, it remains the law, irrespective of what the majority might want, how “charged” the atmosphere might become, and how many people try to intimidate or assassinate those whose job it is to uphold it. That’s not a problem to be fixed or bemoaned; it’s the basis of all civilization.

This is why the protesters outside of Supreme Court Justices' homes are despicable. They are assaulting civilization by trying to institute mob rule in America. And this is why President Biden’s Administration, especially the Department of Justice, is disgraceful and complicit in the mob's actions. To not arrest and prosecute these mob actors is to allow and condone mob actions and to assist in the destruction of civilization.

06/22/22 Injustice Department and the Federal Bureau of Iniquity

The recent history of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Obama and Biden administrations has been dubitable. The selective investigations and prosecutions against political opponents and the non-investigations and lack of prosecutions of political supporters have become notorious. Their words of intimidation, and the ignominious deeds of investigations, have been for the purposes of frightening their political opponents. There appears to be little concern for the Constitutional and Civil Rights of their opponents and the equality of justice for all, as I have written in my Articles "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They have misled or lied to Congress and the American people about their actions on a regular and frequent basis.

Al this bespeaks intolerance for political dissent or opposition to their administrations and a corruption of their leadership duties and responsibilities. Such conduct has become so widespread In the Justice Department and the FBI that many, if not most, Americans believe that we have a two-tiered justice system in America. One tier for the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the other tier for their political opponents. As such, the faith in the justice system has been shaken as well as their faith in the American government to protect our Liberties and Freedoms.

Given the incompetence and lack of self-introspection, and indeed, arrogance, of the Biden Administration, we can not expect this situation to be corrected. It will, therefore, be necessary for the next President to correct this situation. And the only correction will be to fire all the leadership of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and replace them with persons of integrity that understand their duties and responsibilities to Constitutional and Civil Rights and the importance of equal justice for all.

We should also know and remember the following words of warning:

“It didn't start with gas chambers.
It started with one party controlling the media.
It started with one party controlling the message.
It started with one party deciding what is the truth.
It started with one party censoring speech and silencing the opposition.
It started with one party dividing citizens into 'Us' and 'Them'.
It started with one party calling on their supporters to harass 'Them'.
It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.
It ended with concentration camps, slave labor, and gas chambers.”
 - paraphrased from the Holocaust Museum

"First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemöller

06/20/22 Mobs and Social Media

In an article by Rob Natelson, “The Founders and the Twitter Mob”, he begins the commentary by stating:

“Over the past two centuries, our Constitution has done a good job of curbing the menace of mob behavior. Unfortunately, social media have created new challenges by re-empowering political mobs—notably, but not exclusively, the ‘Twitter Mob.’

In this essay, I discuss the risks mobs pose to republican political systems. I explain how the American Founders addressed those risks and how modern social media has re-created some of them.”

He then sections the article into; The Historical Background, The American Founders Recognized the Risk of Mobs, The Founders Addressed How to Curb Mobs, Enter Technology, Addressing the Problems, and Repealing or Enforcing Section 230. These sections illuminate the issue of mob actions on Social Media and their deleterious effects on society.  In other articles by him, he addresses the legal issues of Social Media regulation in the context of a lawsuit by President Trump against Twitter., While this lawsuit has been dismissed, the issues remain. These articles are:

Given Social Media's actions in the last Presidential election of canceling conservative voices, the promotion of disinformation on physically violent mob actions, and suppressing news stories unfavorable to President Biden, we have seen how social media can interfere and change the course of elections in America. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved if we are to have Free Speech and the dissemination of contrary or unpopular ideas in America – which is essential to preserve the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" in America.

06/18/22 What Hath God Wrought

"What hath God wrought" is a Biblical phrase from the Book of Numbers (23:23) to express awe at something that has happened. It is often utilized to express consternation about adverse events. As we look over the history of America in the last several decades, we can all exclaim, ‘What hath God wrought’. The changes in our society, and our societal norms, have been so extensive that our society is unrecognizable to those that lived prior to the 1960s. Some of these changes are for the better, but some have had a deleterious effect on our society.

The bitter partisanship on any political issue, the division of Americans into group identities, the erosion of our "American Ideals and Ideas", the curtailment of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", and the intrusion of government into all aspects of our lives are some of the major deleterious effects on our society. Progressives/Leftists seem to hate anyone who disagrees with them, while "Conservatives" despise Progressives/Leftists. Politeness and "A Civil Society" are a relic of the past, and "Divisiveness in America" is the norm for Progressives/Leftists rhetoric. "Rationality" and "Reasoning" are passé, and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" are the norm for intellectual acuity.

The acceptance of all people, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, and disability within American society has been constructive. The advances in science and technology have bettered the lives of all Americans. Extreme poverty has been eliminated in America, while those that live in poverty are able to obtain the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, clothing), as well as other amenities of life.

I suspect that God had nothing to do with what has happened in America, as most Progressives today are atheists or agnostic about God. And perhaps the absence of God in our daily lives, as well as the decline of morality and ethics in our conduct (as I have Chirped on 06/16/22 Morality and Ethics), are responsible for the deterioration of American society.

06/16/22 Morality and Ethics

It is an unfortunate fact that many people interchangeably utilize ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’. However, they are distinct concepts, as can readily be seen by their definitions:

Ethics require a Morality for them to be beneficial. If your morals are disreputable, then your ethics will be reprehensive. Therefore, we need to distinguish between the morality of a person and their ethical conduct, and Criticism vs. Critique a person based on their morals or on their ethics.

It is also easier for a person to correct ethical lapses if they have good morals, while an immoral person will not change their ethics as they have no basis for a change. We should also not resort to the excuse of legal versus illegal activity to justify immoral or unethical behavior, as I have written in my Article, "The Law is Not All".

This distinguishment between morality and ethics will help us better understand a person’s behavior, and we will know how to adjudge a person and perhaps guide someone to become a better person when they have moral or ethical lapses.

06/14/22 Ah, Youth – Part Deux

In my Chirp on "07/20/20 Ah, Youth", I point out that we know as a scientific fact that the human brain does not fully develop until about 22 to 24 years of age, and the last part of the brain to develop is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is responsible for most "higher-order" or intellectual brain functions such as thinking, reasoning, judging, planning, voluntary movement, and overall behavior.

This raises the question of when a person should be considered an adult. Today we generally consider a person an adult when they reach the age of eighteen. At this age, they are permitted to engage in all activities of an adult – the exercise of Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, service in the armed forces, voting in elections, taking prescription medications, alcohol and drug consumption, marriage, sexual relations, freedom to travel, driving (although some States allow for this prior to 18 years of age), etc... They are also subject to being treated as an adult in our criminal justice system, although some States treat them as adults prior to 18 years of age. There is also some talk of lowering the voting age to sixteen years.

We are now engaged in a societal debate as to when a person may “keep and bear Arms” and when a youth may undergo medical treatments without parental permission (such as abortion, transgender transformation, dispensing prescription medications, etc.). This, as well as what is appropriate public education on a variety of topics (such as social justice, gender identity, sexuality, morality, ethics, and religion), are current topics of debate. This debate highlights when a parent or guardian is responsible for a child’s wellbeing and what are the duties and responsibilities of parents and guardians. It also highlights the role of government in child-rearing.

This stratification of adulthood by age is a bipolarism of our indecisiveness as to what constitutes an adult, and it is also an inequality of treatment under the law by age. If we should raise by age the right to keep and bear arms, then we can also raise by age alcohol and drug consumption, as both have deleterious effects on a person and other persons. We could also raise by age the exercise of our First Amendment and other Constitutional rights under this standard of what adult activities are allowed by age. As such, we need to resolve this issue and be consistent in our approach to the duties and responsibilities of both parenthood and adulthood and at what age a person assumes the duties and responsibilities of adulthood.

We also need to clarify what are the duties and responsibilities of parenthood and when these duties and responsibilities of parenthood end, while at the same time, we should also define the rights of children that are to be protected by the government. We also need to resolve what actions are permissible by the State in the raising of children and to assure that the State does not interfere with parental duties and responsibilities. This could be done under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Under this banner, the rights of parenthood and children would be protected, and the limits of governmental actions upon children would be restrained. Until this issue is resolved, there will be tensions between parents, children, and the government as to what is proper and just for both parents and children.

For my own part, I do not foresee any other age than eighteen years as politically practicable, but I believe that twenty-one years is more advisable. The Constitution sets eighteen years for the voting age, twenty-five years for a member of the House of Representatives, thirty years for a Senator, and thirty-five years for President and Vice President, and many state laws set eighteen years as the age of adulthood. Consequently, the only practicable age of adulthood is eighteen years.

06/12/22 A Kangaroo Congressional Committee Hearing

A Kangaroo Court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority that intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations (i.e., a show trial).

On Thursday night, June 9th, 2022, we saw an example of a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing. The deck was stacked against former President Trump in that all the committee members were political opponents of President Trump, no testimony of or for the ‘insurgents’ was allowed, and a predetermined conclusion is inevitable. Counsel for President Trump was not allowed, no evidence in his favor was allowed, and testimony was edited and tailored against President Trump. The words and deeds of President Trump prior to and on January 6th, 2021, were taken out of context and were often misrepresentative or tailored by omission. The actions of President Trump and the inactions of Congressional leaders prior to January 6th, 2021, to prepare for possible riots were ignored.

The hiring of Ex-ABC News executive James Goldston to produce the committee’s primetime hearing is further evidence of a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing, and it may have been illegal on several counts. Mr. Goldston was once responsible for quashing a news story about the Jeffrey Epstein-Bill Clinton connection, which calls into question his ethics and objectivity. Many assertions and allegations were leveled that the words and deeds of President Trump and the ‘insurrectionists’ were an assault on our democracy. As I have written in many Chirps on "01/06/22 Insurrection Day", "10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax", "08/08/21 A True Insurrection", "08/01/21 Justifiable Insurrection", "07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?", "06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?", "06/03/21 Insurrectionists", "04/19/21 Insurrection", "02/15/21 Insurrection and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution", "08/31/20 Insurrection" (which I have combined into a new article “Insurrections Chirps”), this ‘insurrection’ was a tepid and ineffectual ‘insurrection’ if indeed it can be labeled an insurrection at all. This was indeed a show trial for political purposes of damaging President Trump, rather than a Congressional investigation for the purposes of potential legislation to prevent these riots in the future.

As such, this Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing has done more harm to our democracy than anything the ‘insurrections’ did, as it is an assault on "The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings" for the accused (President Trump and the ‘Insurrectionists’). It has turned Congressional Hearings into a Witch-Hunt to persecute political opponents. It is also in violation of the Congressional authorization for this select committee, as the minority Republican Leader was not allowed to appoint members of this select committee as the authorization required. As a result, this select committee is being run as a Kangaroo Congressional Committee hearing. Indeed, they are becoming a form of the House Un-American Activities Committee that plagued America in its past, and the words of the committee members are reminiscent of McCarthyism.

There is a need for a Congressional Hearing to determine the causes and preventive measures that were not undertaken prior to and on January 6th, 2021, for the purposes of preventing these occurrences in the future. However, this Congressional hearing is not structured nor administered to achieve this purpose. Its only purpose appears to be a witch-hunt to persecute President Trump and to deny or stultify any attempt that he may make to run for President in 2024.

If this Kangaroo Congressional Committee is allowed to proceed in this manner and it influences an election, then we can expect other such Kangaroo Congressional Committees in the future. This, more than the actions of President Trump and the ‘Insurrections’ on January 6th, 2021, would be more damaging to our democracy than any of their words and deeds on January 6th, 2021.

06/10/22 Red Flag Laws Redux

In my Articles on "Gun Control" and “Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag“, and my Chirps on “05/29/22 It’s Not the Gun, It’s the Gunman”, "09/01/19 A Red Flag Abuse", and "08/22/19 Gun Control and Red Flag, Yellow Flag, and No Flag", I have noted many issues and concerns regarding Gun Control. One of my biggest concerns is the utilization of Red Flag Laws to control the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

The proposals are for the Federal government to create and maintain a database of those persons not permitted to purchase a firearm, with such a database to be queried before a firearm is purchased. The practicality of the Federal government in creating and maintaining a database of persons not allowed to purchase firearms is insuperable. This would require the cooperation of all Federal, State, and Local governments to assure this database is up-to-date and contains no errors, a task that no government entity has ever been able to achieve with any database (e.g., the voter registration rolls of any State or Locality). If this database is wrong, then you would be denying a person their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and if this database is incomplete, then you would be allowing a person to own arms that should not be permitted to own arms. It also does nothing to stop a person from transferring, borrowing, or stealing arms from a friend, family member, or neighbor. It also has no effect on the illegal purchase or transfer of arms by criminals and gangs in America. Nor does it solve the problem of a person who has become mentally unstable but has not yet been diagnosed and added to the database. Consequently, Red Flag laws are a band-aid to the solution of the problem of preventing the purchase of firearms by those persons not allowed to own firearms or ‘potential’ abusers of firearms.

There is also the question of whom should be allowed to access this database. Which Federal, State, and local government agencies would be allowed to enter, change, or remove information in this database, and who should be allowed to query this database? All gun dealers would need to query this database before selling a firearm, and individuals who suspect their names are on this database would need to query this database to determine and challenge their inclusion in this database. This raises the question of abuse of this database by improper queries by government agencies, gun dealers, and individuals querying this database. How could the government possibly control what is proper and improper utilization of this database, and is it a constitutional invasion of privacy when this database is queried improperly?

Red Flag laws are also prone to abuse of reporting suspicious persons and the due process rights of those so accused. It would be easy for Red Flag laws to be utilized to harass a person with whom you dislike or disagree with their politics. Once accused, a person would have to prove their innocence or the government to prove their guilt before being denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Proof of innocence has never been allowed in America, as the burden of proof of guilt has always constitutionally rested upon the prosecution. Also, in America, no one may be prohibited from exercising their constitutional and civil rights until a conviction for a crime; therefore, confiscation of firearms before conviction of a crime has dubious constitutionality. The due process questions of the accuser being able to confront the accuser, the cross-examining of the witnesses for the prosecution, calling witnesses for the defense, a speedy trial, and a trial by jury must also be resolved. This process would be time-consuming, financially prohibitive for the accused, and a burden on the courts, and it would not resolve the constitutional question of what happens to the firearms between the accusation and the resolution of the court proceedings. There is also the question of the due process for challenging the inclusion of someone in the database and the expeditious removal of them when it is discovered that they were incorrectly entered into the database.

The response to the potential reporting abuse of Red Flag laws is that the accuser would face legal actions for making a false accusation; however, such false accusations may be difficult to prove in a court of law. Given the recent history of the Justice Department in selectively prosecuting or not prosecuting people based on their political affiliation or political views, this is a hollow response.

Consequently, Red Flag Laws are an illusion of doing something while not solving the problem while at the same time violating the constitutional rights of Americans.

06/08/22 Save the Country

The state of "Public Education" and Higher Education (Colleges and Universities) in America is appalling. Indoctrination rather than education is par for the course, as I have written in my Article "Indoctrination versus Education". College degrees that have no basis for a career are far too common. Schools are often more concerned with protecting a student’s feelings rather than providing them with the tools to cope with the vicissitudes of modern life. The costs of Higher Education have become so great that they financially hobble a student for a decade after their graduation. All of this invokes "The Law of Unintended Consequences", which have negative repercussions upon America. As a result, we have a nation of citizens that is unknowledgeable, incapable of "Rationality" and "Reasoning", and are ill-prepared to become functioning and contributing members of society.

The question is, how can we resolve this situation? The answer is not more money for students, as this only exacerbates the situation. We need to make a systemic change to education to fix this problem. The answer may be in a new article by Derek Hunter, “To Save The Country, Destroy The Public Education System”. I believe that America would be a better place if we implemented his solution to this education problem. And America does need to make a change in its Public and Higher Education institutions to preserve our "American Ideals and Ideas".

06/06/22 Progressivisms Throw-Away Slogans and Clichés

In the 20th century, Progressivism found its place in American politics and governance. However, Progressivism (a political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society) without Individualism (a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence) often morphs into Egalitarianism (the doctrine that all people are equal and the desirability of political, economic and social equality). An Egalitarianism that is not based on the equality of opportunity but and equality of outcomes, as I have written in my Chirp on "07/01/20 Equality of Opportunity is Antithetical to Equality of Outcome". To accomplish this Egalitarianism, they categorized Americans into groups, with one group or another receiving special treatment or disfavor by the government.

Progressivism is also fond of asserting slogans and clichés that are to be accepted as truths without challenge. These slogans and clichés are sprinkled throughout their talking points in such profusion as to be difficult to challenge. When their assertions are challenged, the Progressive often adopts an attitude that they are correct, and they must be proven wrong or else they are right (which is a logical absurdity). Much of the proof by the challenger would require that they ‘Prove a Negative’ (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

As such, whenever a Progressive utilizes a throw-away slogan or cliché, they should immediately be challenged and not allowed to shift the burden of proof upon the challenger. And the Progressives' response should be limited to "Rationality" and "Reasoning" based on facts and not suppositions. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and, as I have often stated, "Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn't make it true."

In these throw-away slogans or clichés, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Macbeth when he says, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A new book, Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism by Lawrence W. Reed, examines many of these slogans and clichés of Progressives, and is an excellent handbook to refute these slogans and clichés as the back cover states:

“There's little truly "progressive" about Progressivism. True progress happens when humans are free, yet the Progressive agenda substantially diminishes freedom while promising the unachievable. Excuse Me, Professor provides a handy reference for anyone actively engaged in advancing liberty, with essential essays debunking more than 50 Progressive clichés.

Does the free market truly ignore the poor? Are humans really destroying the Earth? Is the government truly the first best source to relieve distress?”

Compiled and edited by Lawrence W. Reed in collaboration with the Foundation for Economic Education and Young America's Foundation, this anthology is an indispensable addition to every freedom lover's arsenal of intellectual ammunition.”

The Foundation for Economic Freedom, which Lawrence W. Reed is president emeritus, has also posted the essays in the book which can be read here.

06/03/22 No They Don’t

Democrat Party Leaders and their supporters often claim that Republican Party Leaders don’t have a plan and need to present one to the American people before the next election to win the next election. They also like to misrepresent and demagogue Florida Senator Rick Scott’s plan, which has no support amongst other Republican Senators, as the Republicans plan. This last point is why they want a Republican plan – so that they can misrepresent and demagogue a Republican plan.

The Democrat Party Leaders only wish to install outrage and fear of Republicans in the electorate in hopes of blunting Republican gains in the 2022 elections, as outrage and fear of Republicans is their only hope of blunting Republican gains in the 2022 elections. This tactic of outrage and fear of Republicans is and has been, for the last several decades, their playbook. A playbook that divides Americans into groups then pits groups of Americans against each other in the hope that their groups will be energized and outnumber the other groups.

The only Republican plan that needs to be presented to the American electorate is to blunt as many of the Biden Administrations' initiatives as possible. A blunting to stave off the disastrous course that Americans have endured since the Democrats have been in power and control of the Congress and Presidency since the 2021 election. It should also be remembered that in the 2020 Presidential election, candidate Biden presented no plan to Americans but only promised to fix perceived problems and to change course from the Trump Administration's agenda.

Therefore, the only Republican plan should be that they will oppose the Biden Administrations' initiatives as much as possible, and they will introduce legislation to constrict the Biden Administrations' initiatives. As President Biden has a veto pen, this legislation cannot be expected to be implemented. However, with the election of a Republican Congress, the power of the purse and Congressional oversight of the Biden Administrations' initiatives will illuminate their disastrous policies and energize Americans to oppose the Biden Administrations’ initiatives.

Consequently, the Republicans need not present a plan in the 2022 election but only highlight that the 2022 elections are a choice between the current course of America and a blunting of the current course. It is up to the 2024 Presidential elections to change the course of America for the better, and it is in this election that the Republican Party needs to present a plan to the American electorate.

06/01/22 Dystopia

Given the political and social events of the last few decades in America, Canada, Europe, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, I decided to reread the three great dystopian novels of the first half of the 20th century - Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Brave New World. These three books are often quoted but rarely read and not fully understood by those that are knowledgeable of these books. The last time I read these novels, I was in my teens, and I thought with all the knowledge and wisdom I have gained in the intervening years that I may have a different perspective on these novels in my seventies. In this, I discovered that, indeed, my perspective of these novels has changed and deepened. When you compare current political and social events to the contents of these novels, you will be even more concerned for the future of America and Europe. It appears that we are on a slippery slope downward into dystopia. Until we understand why we are on this slippery slope and the possible consequences of this slippery slope, it is difficult to change the course of this slippery slope.

In rereading these three dystopian novels, I have been able to detect elements in all of them that are applicable to our current society and may portend the future direction of our society. I have no intention nor desire to oppose social progress for the betterment of humankind or to be a Luddite (an opponent of technological progress), but I have every intention and desire to assure that we do not glide down the slippery slope into Dystopia as we appear to be doing today. Until we understand how it is possible to become a dystopian society, we cannot take proactive measures to prevent gliding down the slippery slope path into dystopia. A slippery slope path into dystopia that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders seem intent on taking America.

My new Article, “Dystopia”, examines these three novels in consideration of these current events.

05/30/22 Embrace History

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

Given the deficiencies of "Public Education", the last two generations of Americans are woefully lacking in their historical knowledge or have been improperly educated in history, especially American history. History to most Americans is what happened last month or last year. What little historical knowledge that they have is often distorted by political correctness or political agendas rather than fact-based and intellectual reasoning.

To discover a person's knowledge of American History, I often ask them a question that is illuminative of their knowledge. I ask them what the history, purpose, and reasoning behind the 3/5 slave counting clause and the skirting of the issue of slavery in the creation of the U.S. Constitution is? If they give me a satisfactory explanation, I then ask them why the extinction of slavery did not occur as the Founding Fathers expected? I will finally ask them why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves? Most people do not have a good answer to these questions, as they are unknowledgeable about American history. For the answer to these questions I would direct you to my Articles “The Constitutional Founding Fathers Goals” and “Slavery in the United States Constitution”.

Many Progressives, and most Leftists, give an answer that is bereft of historical knowledge and is often irrational. Their explanation often reeks of Political Correctness and Political Agendas rather than knowledgeable intellectual reasoning. This Political Correctness and Political Agendas that distort history often lead to bad policies in the present. People are swayed by emotional responses to incorrect historical facts rather than rational responses about our history and base their policy agendas on this emotional response.

The proper knowledge of history allows you to understand the causes and effects of historical events. This will lead you to learn the lessons from history and, hopefully, the wisdom to guide you in not making the same mistakes of history. I, therefore, say to all Americans that you should embrace history, learn the lessons of history, and vow to not repeat the mistakes of history. For if you do not, then:

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

05/29/22 It’s Not the Gun, It’s the Gunman

Once again, in the wake of the senseless mass shooting of school children and teachers in Uvalde, TX, the usual cries of gun control by the usual suspects, with the usual retorts by the usual suspects, the usual evasion of the actual problem is unminded.  The actual problem is not the gun; it’s the gunman. If no guns were available to a deranged mind that would commit mass murder, they would find other means to commit their mass murder.

Since the European discovery and settlement of North America, we have been a land of gun ownership. Gun ownership that was instrumental in the Revolutionary War and the expansion of our country from sea to shining sea. For over three centuries in America, we did not have a problem with mass senseless shootings, and it has only been the last several decades that this problem has arisen. As gun ownership has not changed, there must have been a change in our society that has led to these senseless shootings. This is the problem that must be discovered and addressed to prevent these senseless shootings.

We can start by looking a the Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems in America, but to insist that gun control is a solution is to ignore the realities and practicalities of gun control in America. In my February 2021 Article on "Gun Control", I examined the realities and practicalities of Gun Control in America. I conclude this article with the words that Dr. Ben Carson said after the tragedy of the mass murder of the black church members of Charleston, SC, in June of 2015:

"I think we have to start is going to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart. The heart and soul of people. You know, this young man didn't wake up yesterday and suddenly turn into a maniac. Clearly there have been things in his background, in his upbringing that led to the type of mentality that would allow him to do something like this. And one of the things that I think that we really need to start concentrating on in this country is once again instilling the right kinds of values particularly in our young people. You know, we're so busy giving away all of our values and principles for the sake of political correctness that we have people floating around out there with no solid foundation or beliefs. "

To which I say - Amen!

05/26/22 We Are All Victims

Victimhood is rampant in America. But victimhood is rampant throughout the world and throughout history. There have been suppressors and oppressors, tyrants, bullies, (hard) taskmasters, slavedrivers, despots, dictators, persecutors, tormentors, torturers, intimidators, bigots, and discriminators in every society throughout history. A society should not only be defined by its victims and oppressors but by the possibilities of the victims to overcome their suppressors and oppressors.

In America, we are fortunate to have a society that allows victims to overcome their suppressors and oppressors. Our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" allow for everybody to succeed in America. It is not often easy and often difficult to succeed in America, but it is possible to succeed in America. As such, cries of victimhood are not a reason, but an excuse, for not succeeding in America. In America, one of the reasons our democratic republic government was established was to provide equal treatment of all people by the government and an equal opportunity for all Americans to succeed. While we have not always been perfect in achieving this goal, we have always strived to achieve this goal.

Capitalism in America has allowed a multitude of people to rise above the circumstances of their birth and achieve their dreams. Capitalism may not be a perfect economic system, but it is the best economic system yet invented by humankind to allow people to succeed. Capitalism's primary thrust is to provide as many goods and services in an expedient and economical manner as possible while rewarding those who provide the goods and services that other people want. No other economic system except Capitalism has succeeded in bringing the people the goods and services they want at a price they can afford or in a timely manner than Capitalism. It has provided growth and innovation that benefits all. Capitalism has also been instrumental in the advancement of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, as Capitalism requires the Rule of Law in contracts and property to flourish. Therefore, Capitalists are not suppressors and oppressors but liberators of people.

Our democratic republic government and capitalistic economic system have reduced victimhood to manageable proportions, and whenever suppressors and oppressors rear their ugly heads in America, we attempt to reign them in with laws that outlaw their actions. Consequently, victimhood in America is not a systemic problem but one of individual infringements. And often, it is not an infringement but happenstance, as:

"Shit happens. Sometimes you shit on yourself, sometimes others shit on you,
and other times shit just happens.
It doesn't matter how shit happens, it only matters how you deal with the shit.
You can either clean yourself up and smell the roses,
Or you can wallow in the shit and everything stinks.
And remember; It's just as important to learn from the shit,
as it is to clean yourself up from the shit!"
  - Mark Dawson

We, therefore, need to distinguish between infringements and shit in our lives, place the blame where it properly belongs, and stop utilizing victimhood as an excuse for the lack of success. We should also remember that:

“The more that the government intervenes to correct a social problem, the worse the social problem becomes.”
 - Mark Dawson

05/24/22 Information Shapers

In a recent article by Sharyl Attkisson, “10 Ways Info Shapers Have Infiltrated Our Institutions”, she points out:

“Few matters are so important as the integrity of the information we receive and the recent degradation in its reliability.

The recent leak of a Supreme Court draft related to the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case underscores how corrupted so many of our important institutions have become by those dedicated to shaping public opinion in a sometimes-dishonest way.

Nearly every facet of our American institutions has been infiltrated by activists, corporate and political propagandists, and even criminals.

Here are 10 key institutions that have been successfully infiltrated by information-shapers:”

I would encourage all to read this article to see how perverse and widespread information shapers are in American society.

05/21/22 What Are They Good At?

The Biden Administration and its supporters have tried to point out the accomplishments of the Biden Administration. They are silent, except to play the excuse or blame game on the debacles they have overseen. On the International stage; the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, and on the National stage; the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues they only have excuses or blame. Excuses and blame on the COVID-19 Pandemic, on Putin, on Republican obstructionism, and now ultra-MAGA supporters, but they have never addressed their own shortcomings.

They have, however, excelled in one area – finding people to fill Biden administrative positions that are diverse in appearance but lack the competence or commitment to excel in their duties and responsibilities. The Biden administrative people have also excelled at being bitterly partisan, Leftist in their politics, and congenital liars (as I have written in Chirp on "08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving"). These people have also exhibited that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". These people also view the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a controlling rule to the governance of America.

They have also been very good a uniting America, as President Biden promised at his inauguration. The latest polls have revealed that 75% of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track. When three-quarters of Americans agree on something, you can safely say that Americans are united on that topic.

As a result, America now finds itself being led by incompetent persons and would-be despots who have no conception of "American Ideals and Ideas". They do, however, believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans regardless of the consequences to America and Americans. Such egotism and arrogance of these people are dangerous for America, and they should be opposed by all Americans who believe in Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All, as well as The Rule of Law as I have Chirped on “05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women”.

05/19/22 The Lawless Party

The “rioters” of 2020 and the ‘Insurrectionists” of January 6, 2021, have been treated quite differently by the law and by the words and deeds of the Democrat Party Leaders. Equality under the law requires that:

“No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.”
 - President Theodore Roosevelt

This different treatment of the “rioters” and the “insurrectionist” is but one example of a two-tiered system of justice by the Biden Administration. Attorney General Merrick Garland of the Department of Justice and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security has consistently ignored laws that they disagree with and only enforced laws against their opponents but have not enforced laws against their supporters. Their inactions in enforcing immigration laws on our southern border are the most egregious example of their ignoring laws that they do not support. Ignoring a law that you disagree with or ignoring the law until you can change the law to something you agree with is not enforcement of duly enacted laws but a subterfuge to justify lawlessness. Selectively enforcing laws is not the Rule of Law but rather the Rule by Men and Women. In this, they have exhibited that they wish to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

The most recent example is the Biden Administration's inactions against the protesters of the draft opinion of the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. A current law, 18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading, is very clear on what is acceptable protests against judicial officials:

“Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The inactions of the Biden Administration in enforcing this law are a telling example of their two-tiered system of justice. Legal inactions for their supporters, and legal actions against their opponents, are modus operandi for the Biden Administration. Thus, we have a two-tiered system of justice under the Biden Administration, and Prosecutorial Discretion is not a valid excuse for inaction, as I have Chirped on "03/29/22 Prosecutorial Discretion".

This is no aberration, as the Democrat Party in the last several decades has resorted to "Divisiveness in America" and verbal support of mob actions. Consequently, The Democrat Party has become the party of rulership, threats, intimidations, mob rule, and ignoring the law, and hence the party of lawlessness in America.

05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women

In America, since our founding, we have been committed to the Rule of Law. The law is above all persons, and all persons must obey the law. No special disposition is given to the rich or powerful, nor to the poor or powerless. All persons must obey the law. Yet, today in America, we see a special disposition for selective groups of Americans or selective persons in America. This special disposition comes in many guises - Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, funding for special interest groups, tax breaks for companies or groups of people, and various other government programs that target groups of Americans. We have also seen that politicians often have rules for thee but not for me or my supporters, especially during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Most insidious is selectively enforcing laws or going outside Constitutional bounds to institute policies, as this is not The Rule of Law but The Rule by Men and Women.

This breakdown of The Rule of Law leads to a dissolution of American society, as people and groups scramble for special dispositions for themselves. It pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans and leads to greater disharmony in America. It leads to politicians pandering to groups of Americans that will support and vote for them. Other groups of Americans can become marginalized, and their concerns need not be addressed by politicians. People become self-centered and no longer concerned about other Americans and what is best for America and all Americans.

All of this is a result of The Rule by Men and Woman rather than The Rule of Law. Until we return to The Rule of Law, we will continue to see the dissolution of American society. A dissolution that will end our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

05/15/22 One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All

Having entered the seventh decade of my life today, I have witnessed and experienced many changes in America. As a child of the fifties, an adolescent of the sixties, and a young adult of the seventies, I have lived through tumultuous times. The tumultuous times of the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Stagflation of the late seventies shaped my youth, while the bitter partisan divides of the 21st century have molded my perspective. From the patriotic nationalism and national economy of the fifties and sixties to the internationalistic viewpoint and global economy of this century, America has been transformed.

One of the greatest and quietest transformations has been the religiosity of Americans. As America entered the middle of the 20th century, it became less Protestant Christian religious and more secular. Other religions, such as Catholic Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, became more acceptable and mainstream in America. Belief in science and technology increased, often accompanied by a decrease in religiosity. In many ways, this was good for America and Americans, but in other ways, it has presented problems.

My new Article, “ One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All” examines this transformation and its repercussions.

05/13/22 Useful and Malicious Idiots

Much ado has been made about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) sometimes outrageous comments. The Democrats in Georgia have even tried (unsuccessfully) to bar her from running from Congress because of these comments and her verbal support for the January 6th, 2021 “insurrectionists”, as I have Chirped on "01/06/22 Insurrection Day". There is no doubt that Rep. Greene has some outlandish opinions and represents a small faction of the Republican Party.

In comparison, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-MY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Maxine Watters (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) have outlandish opinions, and they represent a large faction of the Democratic Party. In addition, Democrat House leadership often makes outlandish statements against their opponents.

In the Senate, outlandish opinions and statements by Republicans are rare but commonplace by Democrats. Led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and many of the prominent Democrat Senators, outlandish statements against Republicans, Conservatives, and Trump supporters are de rigueur.

This ratio, 10 to 1, is not far off from the ratio of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists who express themselves outlandishly in comparison to "Republican Party Leaders" and Conservatives. It is often claimed by Democrats and their supporters that both sides do it, but there is a difference in the Democrats doing it. Of course, both sides do it, as in the human experience, both sides do everything. That is the nature of humankind. Whenever there is an issue confronting our society, the extremes of both sides of the issue will often use the same methodologies and techniques to attack the other side. So therefore, the statement that both sides do it is irrelevant. The question is whether the mainstream and/or leadership of each side of the issue both do it and how much attention is paid to the extremes. In my experience, this is most obvious when dealing with Conservatism versus Progressivism/Leftism, Republican versus Democrat, left versus right, etc. What we should be asking is, “are the mainstream and/or the leadership of each side doing it?”. When you see one side or the other paying more heed or engaging in extreme deeds or words, you need to weigh the balance. In weighing this balance, you need to make not only a determination of the number of words and misdeeds incidents but also the severity of the deeds or words. If the balance is heavily tilted to one side, then the phrase ‘Both Sides Do It’ is not an equalizer but an excuse to continue the extreme words or deeds by the one side engaged in these words or deeds. You must also carefully examine the words that are utilized by each side to determine if they are adjectives or pejoratives.  Adjectives, when used properly, are not outrageous comments, but pejoratives are usually utilized for egregious purposes, as I have written in my Article, "Divisiveness in America".

The question then is, are these Congresspersons Useful or Malicious Idiots? In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders. The term was originally used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and manipulation. The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution has not been substantiated. Malicious Idiots can be defined as those who know their statements are outlandish but utter them for political gain in motivating their base for voting purposes, or for political contributions, or to advance their political agenda. Often these malicious statements are made to "Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage (The Three D's)" their opponents to silence or marginalize them so that the uninformed public will not pay heed to what they are saying.

In my opinion, I believe that the Democrat House leadership and Senators are being malicious, while the Democrat House members are useful idiots. Both the useful and malicious idiots in the Democrat Party are much more likely to use pejoratives than adjectives when commenting on their opponents. This is because, in general, Republican believe their opponents are wrong while Democrats believe that their opponents are evil and pejoratives are justified in the face of evil. In all cases, it is not good for the body politic for Democrats to engage in this outlandish rhetoric. It divides the country and pits one group of Americans against another group. Also, in my opinion, the only way to stop this rhetoric is to make it ineffective by voting out of office those politicians who engage in this outlandish rhetoric. It would also be helpful if "Modern Journalism" called them out for this outlandish rhetoric, but, alas, as Modern Journalism is in the pocket of the Democrat Party, I do not expect that this will happen.  Until voters remove these politicians from office, we can expect that bitter partisanship will continue in America. A red tidal wave election in 2022 would be a good first step in resolving this outlandish rhetoric problem in America. Here’s hoping!

05/11/22 Progressivism and Leftism Is Becoming Totalitarianism

With the recent uproar over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, the Disinformation Governance Board, and the draft opinion of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it has become even more apparent that Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have a wide and deep totalitarian steak embedded within their psyche. While Leftism has always been totalitarian, Progressivism has drifted toward totalitarianism as they have seen their political power reduced. The election of George Bush to President in 2000 started this drift, while the election of Donald Trump as President in 2016 accelerated and solidified this drift.

They wish to control the free flow of information and impose their policies by government fiat or court rulings. They have often attempted to justify their actions as preserving “our democracy”. But as I have written in my Chirp on "01/11/22 Our Democracy", their meaning of this term is “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”. And Oligarchs often resort to despotism to enforce their rule and often slide into tyranny if their despotism does not succeed.

As I have written in my Chirp on, "02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential", Freedom of Speech is essential to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, for free speech staves off the encroachments of would-be despots, dictators, and tyrants. Their attempts to control speech, under any guise, are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas". Any speech protected under our 1st Amendment right is allowable and should in no way be restricted, even on "Social Media" and in "Modern Big Business". We should also remember that:

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

Judges are not meant to legislate the law but only to adjudicate the law. The courts are not intended to legislate, execute, craft, or decide policy. They are meant to provide citizens an avenue for recourse to reconcile wrongs for which they have causes of action. They are meant to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislators and signed by the President. Judicial independence consists of the intellectual honesty and dedication to [the] enforcement of the rule of law regardless of popular sentiment and the ability to render a decision in the absence of political pressures and personal interests.

Today, Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have resorted to intimidations and threats against Justices and Jurist to sway their opinions and decisions, thus constraining them of their Judicial independence. Peaceful demonstrations in public places are an exercise of your Constitutional Rights. Mob actions of intimidation and threats are not peaceful but terroristic. It is an exercise of raw power, and we should remember the words of caution about power:

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
— George Orwell, 1984

As Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, they believe that their policies are what is best for all Americans. Consequently, they have no compunctions in exercising power, as they are fervently convinced that they know better than the American people what is best for America. We should all remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

And Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that they should decide what is best for America. Decisions that often resort to despotism to enforce their rule and that may slip into tyranny.

05/09/22 1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook

The dystopian novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell was meant to be a precautionary tale against modern tyranny. Instead, the Democrat Party seems to want to make it into a handbook for the governance of America. The newest and most perverse form of implementing their homogeneity is through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), a Ministry of Truth and Propaganda, and a partnership with Big Tech, as I have written in my Chirps on “04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)”, “04/30/22 Ministry of Truth and Propaganda” and “05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship”. My new article, “1984 - A Cautionary Tale, Not A Handbook”, combines these Chirps with additional thoughts on 1984 and our perilous slide toward a 1984 society in America.

05/07/22 Dissemblers of Misinformation

After some online research, I have discovered some of the biggest dissemblers of misinformation in history:

We should all remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

To which I would paraphrase Thomas Sowell on Disinformation:

"The most basic question is not what is disinformation, but who shall decide what is disinformation?"

05/05/22 A Symbiotic Relationship

The Constitution and its Amendments were drafted and implemented to create a Democratic-Republic government of limited and enumerated Federal powers to protect the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. As such, the Federal Government is constrained on the direct actions that it may take against individuals exercising their “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”. Democracy is an unruly form of society with a cacophony of voices, while all governments prefer an orderly society. Consequently, all governments would impose their dictates on society and proscribe which voices are allowed or disallowed. In America, these direct dictates and proscriptions are not permitted under our Constitution.

Given the rise of the regulatory state in the 20th and 21st centuries, the government has become more involved in the affairs of businesses. This has led to businesses becoming more involved in the affairs of government, as they wish to have favorable treatment of governmental laws and regulations. This has also brought forth the concept of Regulatory Capture as I have Chirp on “12/21/21 Regulatory Capture”. This connection between government and business has developed into a symbiotic relationship between the two.

In the 21st century, this symbiotic relationship has morphed into the ability of the government to pressure “Modern Big Business”, and especially “Big Tech”, into taking actions against individuals and groups that would not be permissible for the government to directly undertake. This pressure, along with the acquiescence of “Modern Journalism” in not exposing this business pressure and symbiotic relationship, has led to the suppression of the Natural l Rights of the people and groups that would disagree with governmental actions.

Contacts and communications between business and the Executive branch, along with lobbying and leaks with Congress, are the de rigueur means that are utilized to foster this symbiotic relationship. The Obama and Biden Administrations have turned this cooperation into a de facto means of trying to govern the people of America. This is also made easier by the “Progressives/Leftists” leanings of the owners, managers, and employees in Big Tech and the corruption of Modern Big Business into utilizing “Other People’s Money (OPM)” to support governmental actions.

My Article on “Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?” is an example of this cooperation, while my Chirps on “04/25/22 The Affairs of Companies”, “02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)”, “10/04/20 Big Business Social Advertising and Financial Support” are also illuminative of this cooperation.

This symbiotic relationship has resulted in the lessening of the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans and may be a violation of the Constitution. It is certainly an infringement on our Natural Rights and of our “American Ideals and Ideas”. As the Presidency and Congress have no interest in dissolving this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, and the Supreme Court is reluctant to address this issue (as I have Chirped on “04/15/22 The Supreme Court’s Reluctance”), the American people need to become aware of this symbiotic relationship and demand that it be ended. If not, America will devolve into a Big Brother state governed by Big Government and Big Business.

05/03/22 The Fall of Wikipedia

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias -- out of date by the time we bought them. Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia – Wikipedia. All writing and editing in Wikipedia are done by volunteers. Wales hoped there would be enough diverse political persuasions that biases would be countered by others. But that's not what's happening. I recently learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia's political pages have turned into leftist "propaganda."

The world needs an online encyclopedia that provides factual, accurate, and unbiased information that everybody can rely upon. Knowledge is power, but incorrect, insufficient, or tendentious knowledge corrupts power. I have often relied upon Wikipedia in researching and writing my Articles and Chirps, and I often hyperlink to Wikipedia articles in my Articles and Chirps. I, too, have noticed that Wikipedia has drifted to the left in many of its political, social, and current history articles. 

In my Article on "Reasoning", I point out one of the problems of proper reasoning is "Cognitive Biases", and this problem of Cognitive Biases is imbued within most writings and commentary on political, social, and historical issues. While some of this bias at Wikipedia may be nefarious, I believe that most of this is a result of Myside Cognitive Bias, as I have written In my Article, “Myside Bias”. In the book  Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, by Steven Pinker, he defines Myside Bias as:

“Politically motivated numeracy and other forms of biased evaluations show that people reason their way into or out of a conclusion even when it offers them no personal advantage. It’s enough that the conclusion enhances the correctness or nobility of their political, religious, ethnic, or cultural tribe. It’s called, obviously enough, the Myside bias, and it commandeers every kind of reasoning, even logic. Recall that the validity of a syllogism depends on its form, not its content, but that people let their knowledge seep in and judge an argument valid if it ends in a conclusion they know is true or want to be true.”

I suspect that most of the editors and decision-makers at Wikipedia are Progressives/Leftists in their viewpoints and that they have an unconscious Progressives/Leftists Myside Bias in their editing and decision making. As I have often stated that Progressives/Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct. So it is with the editors and decision-makers at Wikipedia in that they assume that they are always correct. This is the root cause for Wikipedia’s drift leftward.

A course correction at Wikipedia is needed to correct this problem. The problem with a course correction is that most Progressives/Leftists have no interest in countenancing any viewpoint other than their own. As such, it may be necessary for Wikipedia to institute new management and perhaps new ownership dedicated to factual, accurate, and unbiased information on Wikipedia. If not, then Wikipedia may sink to irrelevance, and the world will have lost a valuable resource.

05/01/22 The Charles Krauthammer Award for American Commentary

With the checkered history of the Pulitzer Prize, which many consider the gold standard for journalism awards, perhaps it is time that we establish another prize. This prize would be awarded annually for any published commentary in the previous year that supports our "American Ideals and Ideas" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This prize would be based on the truths of our two founding documents:

“The bedrock of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Constitution. Anything that contravenes this bedrock or foundation is anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated.”
 - Mark Dawson

Any published commentary in the previous year that supports the concepts and ideology of these two documents would be eligible for this prize. I would suggest that three awards be given every year – the Gold Standard Award, the Silver Standard Award, and the Bronze Standard Award. These awards would, hopefully, encourage the general public to read and think about the contents of these columns. I would also propose that we name this prize after one of the most distinguished columnists and political commentators of the late 20th and early 21st century in America - Charles Krauthammer.

Charles Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. Columns of this nature would be the basis for this ‘Charles Krauthammer Award for American Commentary’.

04/30/22 Ministry of Truth and Propaganda

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified on Wednesday, April 27th, 2022, that the Department of Homeland Security has created a "Disinformation Governance Board" to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms. This DHS board will be led by Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers, co-chaired with principal deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskill. The executive director will be Nina Jankowicz, a 33-year-old, highly self-confident young woman who is a known disassembler of misinformation from the left (most particularly that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation).

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by English writer George Orwell, he describes ‘The Ministry of Truth’ (Newspeak: Minitrue) that is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because, in reality, it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania. As well as administering "truth", the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of events. At the time that this book was written, the concern was that the government would become corrupt, coercive, and oppressive to the people. Today, the concern is that the Disinformation Governance Board will act as The Ministry of Truth.

This Disinformation Governance Board also harkens to NAZI Germany, when the lead “truth” teller was Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. His successful lying allowed the Nazis to obtain and retain power and commit some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in human history. Successful lying always leads to bad consequences and often unintended negative consequences, and successful lying by people in power leads to tragic consequences for the Natural and Human rights of individuals within the power of the liars. The Ministry of Propaganda was backed up by the Gestapo, the political police force of the Nazi state that enforced NAZI truths and harshly persecuted anyone who would not conform to NAZI ideas and ideology.

I can also see ghosts of the Inquisition, when the Catholic Church set up courts whose aim was to combat heresy, conducting trials of suspected heretics. Courts whose verdicts were often preordained, and punishments were often severe and sometimes included death by burning. The accused were often imprisoned and tortured before the trial, and they were given little recourse to defend themselves at trial.

In thinking about the role of the Disinformation Governance Board, we should also remember the wisdom of the great economist Thomas Sowell, who once stated:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

To which I would paraphrase Thomas Sowell on the Disinformation Governance Board:

"The most basic question is not what is disinformation, but who shall decide what is disinformation?"

As I have Chirped on "08/24/21 Their Lips are Moving", the Biden Administration are congenital liars, and we can therefore expect that this Disinformation Governance Board will function as the Ministry of Truth and Propaganda. Lying is often a strong word to use, as sometimes they are just mistakes or confusion. However, the sheer number and scope of the Biden Administration's lies demonstrate that they are not mistakes or confusion but deliberate attempts to mislead the American public.

Given that the Department of Homeland Security is a law enforcement agency, and it is the second most heavily armed department behind the Department of Defense, one wonders what actions they will take to address misinformation. Even if they take no direct actions other than words of disapproval or condemnation, the intimidation factor is so large that it will silence Free Speech in America. As I have Chirped on, "03/12/21 Free Speech is Essential", as, without Free Speech, democracy is dead, and despotism is the law of the land. If they do take any actions against the people in America, then they have become the Inquisitors and Gestapo in America.

My revulsion to the idea of a Disinformation Governance Board cannot be overstated. It is an assault on our Liberties and Freedoms and our Constitutional Rights, as I have Chirped on, "09/01/20 The Assault on Our Constitutional Rights". This Disinformation Governance Board needs to be disbanded immediately, and all those government officials who were involved in its creation and administration need to be removed from government service, as they have proven themselves to be antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas. Anyone who countenances or endorses the idea of a government disinformation agency is despicable and not to be trusted with power, as they too are antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas.

04/29/22 Read, Don’t Read Into

In my "Dialog & Debate" article section on "Putting Words into Another's Mouth", I point out that many people do not read or listen to the actual words someone has written or spoken, but read into meanings of the words, then criticize a person based on the reading into words. This putting words into someone’s mouth, then criticizing the words you put into their mouth is another argumentative technique too often utilized in today’s political discussions and debates. This technique is to rephrase or restate what someone has said in the most negative connotation possible or to add negative statements into another’s mouth. The person who puts the words into another’s mouth then goes on to criticize the words they put into someone’s mouth. This is a dishonest and despicable tactic and a wholly inappropriate manner to debate political issues. It is often done to disparage, denigrate, or demonize someone in the hope that the audience will not pay attention to what the other person actually said. It is your responsibility to only speak your own thoughts and reasoning or to quote the words of another person in critiquing another person. After both sides have laid out their reasoning and conclusions, then it is fair to critique the reasoning or conclusions of the other based on what they have stated, not what you have stated for them.

In writing my Chirps and Articles, I am very careful of the words, terms, and expressions I utilize and to say what I mean and mean what I say. An example of being careful of what you say or write is from a sentence I encountered in my recent readings:

“America’s first president (George Washington) never took a college course and still managed to be the most influential person of his time.”

The phrase ‘to be the most’ implies he was more influential than the other Founding Fathers - such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. This assertion about George Washington is highly debatable and unresolvable, for it is impossible to determine who was the most influential of these luminaries. A more historically accurate phrase would be ‘to be one of the most’, and the sentence would have read:

“America’s first president (George Washington) never took a college course and still managed to be one of the most influential persons of his time.”

In writing my Articles and Chirps, I try to avoid assertions without justification, with these justifications being succinct and without ambiguity. If it is not possible to be succinct in a Chirp, I will hyperlink to an article on the topic or to another Chirp that has a lengthier justification. In all my writings, I attempt to be unambiguous so that there can be no misinterpretation of the meaning of what I am asserting.

When reading or listening to another, I keep this in mind and only mentally note questionable assertions and ambiguous justifications. It is only after the person has finished do I critique based on the actual words they have said or written. This is most difficult when reading a book due to the lengthy nature of books. I, therefore, will often pause after reading a chapter and critique the chapter, often rereading certain paragraphs where I have mentally noted an issue that I may have had with a paragraph(s).

If we all kept this in mind, along with my thoughts on "A Civil Society" and “Criticism vs. Critique”, there would be less acrimony and bitter partisanship in our public dialog and debate.

04/28/22 Criticism vs. Critique

The only acceptable method of public discourse is disagreement - to be of different opinions. If you are in disagreement with someone, you should be cognizant that people of good character can and often disagree with each other. The method of their disagreement is very important to achieving civil discourse, as I have written in my Article on “A Civil Society” and my new Article “Criticism vs. Critique”. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

Most people and most commentators have forgotten the difference between Criticism and Critique. This has led to hyper-partisanship in today’s society. In a civil society critiquing a viewpoint or policy position should be encouraged. This will often allow for a fuller consideration of the issues and perhaps a better viewpoint or policy position without invoking hyper-partisanship. We can expect that partisanship will often occur, as people of good character can and often disagree with each other. Criticizing a viewpoint or policy position will often lead to hostility, rancor, and enmity, which results in the breakdown of civil discourse and hyper-partisanship. It is fine to criticize someone for their bad or destructive behavior, but it is best to critique them for their opinions or words. We would all do better if we remembered to critique someone rather than criticize someone.

Please remember that if you disagree with the messenger, it is not acceptable to kill the messenger. You may kill the messenger, but the message will remain.

04/27/22 The Real World

Most Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists do not have real-world solutions but rhetoric that translates into bad policies in the real world. This is evident from the 2020 elections when Democrats ran on rhetoric and then instituted policies that have had disastrous consequences for America. On the International stage, the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the proposed Iran Deal, and the threats of Russia and China, on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues their rhetoric has translated in bad policies for America and Americans.

They put into place an addled President Biden, who exhibits all the signs of dementia, and turned over power to Progressives/Leftists ideologues in his administration. They also put into place a Vice-President who is obviously incompetent on both foreign and domestic issues and is unfit to become President. His Cabinet Secretaries appear to be overwhelmed by their tasks and incapable of exercising their duties and responsibilities. This is not the adults being in charge, as they often claimed in the 2020 elections.

The leftists' members of Congress seem to be running the show in Congress and directing legislative decisions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer have been ineffective, thank God, in fully implementing their bad policies. No attempts were made by Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Schumer to ameliorate the bad policies of the Biden Administration, and indeed, they often supported these bad policies.

The dysfunction of the Democrat Party at all levels of government has led to dysfunction in America. As Victor Davis Hanson has stated in his recent article, “How America Became La La Land”, ‘America these last 14 months resembles a dystopia.’ He concludes ‘First, all of these problems are self-induced. They did not exist until Biden birthed them for ideological or political reasons.’ and ‘The common denominator? Biden knows that he inherited a stable, prosperous America and has nearly ruined it.”

This is a conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree. My hope is that the American people now recognize that Progressive and Leftists ideas and ideals do not work in the real world and are destructive. A destruction that can only be stopped by voting Democrats out of office until they reform themselves and propose real-world solutions to the problems that beset America. The Red Wave that many are predicting in the 2022 elections needs to be a Red Tidal Wave at all levels of government to stop this destruction. Even then, it will take many years and a Republican President to undo the damage that Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists have inflicted upon America.

04/25/22 The Affairs of Companies

In the recent clash between Disney and Florida about the state's recently passed parental rights bill, Colorado’s Governor Polis recently Tweeted that “we don’t meddle in affairs of companies” He also is urging Disney to move to Colorado after the Florida legislature stripped the company of its special exemptions. The invitation is but grandstanding, as Colorado does not have the weather conditions for a year-round amusement park that Disney would require. As to the comment that “we don’t meddle in affairs of companies”, I would ask Governor Polis if Colorado allows companies to meddle in affairs of the State, as Disney was attempting to do in Florida.

As I have Chirped on, "02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)", "11/18/21 Fascist Corporatism", and "10/15/20 Stakeholder Capitalism is a Form of Socialism on a Small Scale" companies meddling in affairs not related to their business has become more common in America today.

In my "Terminology" webpage, I note that "Modern Big Business" has branched out to social activism, rather than constraining themselves to provide products and services in a timely manner that the common man can afford. In doing so, they are taking company monies from their shareholders' profits, increasing customers' prices, or both to spend on their social activism. For a company to spend monies on social activism, for which the other people may not agree, without the permission of the other people, is immoral, as I have written in my Article, “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. In the advertising of their social activism, they are also skewering the political and social environment to fit their vision of good social policy, as they do not present a balanced viewpoint of this social activism. And most of this social activism by companies has a decidedly Progressive/Leftists orientation.

The reactions of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists to the clash between Disney and Florida are also illuminative. When a company such as Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby expresses conservative values, they are often aghast and condemnable of the company. However, for any company that expresses Progressives/Leftists values, they are supportive and encouraging of their efforts. This reveals that they are not concerned about the interactions between companies and government but only concerned with expanding their political agenda.

Disney’s words and deeds in Florida thrust them into the political arena. When you enter the political arena, you must be prepared for political repercussions. Disney is now suffering these political repercussions, as they should have expected. This should be a lesson for any company that enters the political arena that there is no free lunch, and political actions by companies will have political repercussions upon companies.

For my own part, I believe that companies should only be involved in government actions that impact the operations of their company. Any government actions outside of impacts on a business are no business of a company. And no "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" and "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" by companies to justify their non-business interactions with the government should be acceptable.

04/23/22 Mankind Was My Business

As I have Chirped on, "03/31/22 A Global Economy", for the last several decades, we have seen businesspersons and politicians tote the advantages of a ‘Global Economy’. Businesspersons for the purposes of expanding their market share in foreign countries and for the purpose of manufacturing goods at a lower cost in countries with lower labor costs. Politicians for the purpose of bringing less free countries into the political sphere in the hopes that they would become freer and more supportive of America. One of the main beneficiaries of this Global Economy has been China, and the main failure of this Global Economy is China.

China has thrived economically while, at the same time, it has remained belligerent to the ideals of Liberty and Freedom and rarely supportive of America. Indeed, as America has become more dependent on inexpensive Chinese goods, China has been pressing against American interests. We have also seen negative impacts on American jobs and manufacturing as more businesses outsource their manufacturing to China. This has been especially hard on middle America and middle-class Americans. At the same time, the business management of multi-national companies has become more compliant with China’s interests and propensities as they have become more entangled in China.

These propensities of China include the gross violations of the human rights of its citizens for the purposes of political power. The actions and inactions of China in the origination and the contagion of the Covid-19 pandemic were reprehensible and impacted the entire world due to China’s inclusion in the Global Economy. China’s recent gross human rights violations of its own citizens in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Xinjiang, along with its actions in Tibet, and its attempts to suppress Falun Gong in both China and the rest of the world, demonstrate that the Chinese government has no regard for human rights or the opinions of the rest of the world. The usage of forced or slave labor occurs throughout China and sometimes in the manufacture of goods for multi-national companies. In all of these Chinese actions, the multi-national companies turned a blind eye or rationalized China’s actions. After all, it is good business for them as it increases their profit margins or reduces their costs of doing business.

In this multi-national business amenableness to China, I am reminded of a passage from Charles Dicken's story ‘A Christmas Carol’. When Scrooge is confronted by the suffering ghost of Marley, all draped in chains and locks because of his actions in life, Scrooge exclaims:

“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,' faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

“’Business!' cried Marley’s Ghost, wringing its hands again. ‘Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!’”
 - Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

And so, it is, for these business people who are amenable to China’s human rights violations. But the suffering, chains, and locks they are imposing are not occurring in the next life but in the current lives of the Chinese people and all humankind. And we in America are complicit in this suffering, chains, and locks, as we allow these businesspeople to be amenable to China’s actions. We in America bear some of this responsibility due to our dependency on imported goods from China, our desire for inexpensive goods despite the human costs, and often ignorance of the full extent of China’s Human Rights violations. By allowing these businesspersons to be amenable to China’s human rights violations, we are creating our own suffering, chains, and locks in the next life. But like Scrooge, we have the possibility of freeing ourselves from an afterlife of suffering, chains, and locks due to our inactions or complacency. This can only happen if we insist that the multi-national businesspersons stop being amenable to China’s human rights violations and insist that China reform itself if they wish to be involved in the Global Economy.

May God have mercy on America, and our own souls, if we do not take the moral, ethical, and proper actions to help China reform itself and end these gross human rights violations.

04/21/22 The Real Hate Speech

No rational person likes hate speech, but a rational person also understands that preserving free speech entails the toleration of hate speech. As I have Chirped on, "02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential". The best means to counter hate speech is more free speech in opposition to hate speech. It is also an unfortunate fact that many assertions of hate speech are often based on policy disagreements rather than ‘hate’, and they are often lodged in an attempt to silence the opposition.

There is also a category of hate speech that is often not acknowledged in modern America, as it is subtle hate speech, but it has far-reaching consequences. This is a hate speech that attempts to demonize America or individuals or groups of Americans. Some of the common terms for this form of hate speech are: ‘White Supremacist, ‘White Privilege’, ‘Racist’, and ‘Systemic Racism’. These terms are often utilized to foster hate that is often not justified but done for political purposes. America has had these problems in our past, as all societies and nations have and have these problems in their past and present history. Some of these problems still exist in America, but they are not as widespread or as rooted as those who utilize these terms would have you believe. These problems, when they occur in America, are often swiftly addressed to correct them to ensure a just society in America. This is one of the greatness of America, as Americans are willing to acknowledge and correct problems in our society. These hate speech terms are most often utilized for sowing political divisions and garnering votes by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and not to correct these problems when they are encountered.

Rather than addressing the real ills in America of "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems", they continue to utilize these terms, along with espousing other hateful terms associated with "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", to obtain and retain political power. The utilization of these terms also fosters a victim mentality in many Americans, which often leads to improper rationalisms to justify violent mob actions and criminal activities of the supposed victims. This victim mentality often leads to mental health problems in the supposed victims that prevent them from living a healthy and productive life. Depression, anger, and hate are not healthy and often lead to actions or inactions that do not improve your life. They also lead to making improper political decisions as to the solutions to the ills that beset America.

The statistics of ‘White Supremacist, ‘White Privilege’, ‘Racist’, and ‘Systemic Racism’ in America do not bear out these hate speech terms and often contradict these assertions. Consequently, the people who utilize these terms are either ignorant or demagoguing. Either way, they are people who do not love and wish to improve America, but they wish to transform America into some utopian ideal, as I have Chirp on, "11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?". Such people should not be heeded, nor should they have any power in America, for their attempts to transform America will only bring about the destruction of America.

04/19/22 The Take Over of America

America is in the process of being taken over by political policies and agendas that are antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". This takeover is being accomplished by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, with the assistance of Modern Big Business, and most especially by Big Tech and Modern Journalism.

This takeover is succeeding because of an appalling lack of proper history and civics education in our Public Education system. Due to this lack of education, the American people have little basis for understanding the societal impacts of these political policies and agendas. Therefore, they often fall prey to ideas that sound good but have negative repercussions on our society.

This takeover was foreshadowed by some that wished to change, or preserve, America. The former is encapsulated in the words of Alexander Trachtenberg, speaking at the National Convention of Communist Parties in Madison Square Garden in 1994:

“When we get ready to take the United States we will not take you under the label of Communism, we will not take you under the label of Socialism. . .We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under Liberalism, under Progressivism, under Democracy. But take it we will.”

If he had known about the future of Big Tech, he might have added, “We will take it under the banner of ‘community standards’, ‘disinformation and misinformation’, and the ‘hate speech’ algorithms of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.”

It is, therefore, imperative that Elon Musk is successful in his takeover of Twitter, as he is a stalwart supporter of Free Speech. If he can instill Free Speech on Twitter, he may institute a course correction in the other Big Tech firms. A course correction that is desperately needed to preserve America as a society dedicated to Liberties and Freedoms.

04/17/22 The Slippery Slope

When discussing a politician’s stance on a thorny political issue, many people in opposition to the politician’s stance respond that they can ‘work with that’ or they are ‘a realist’ to seek accommodation or bipartisanship for a solution to the thorny political issue. Rarely, however, is the politician interested in accommodation or bipartisanship when it comes to thorny political issues, but only interested in advancing their political agenda.

There is also the problem that thorny political issues often involve a conflict of the nature of our society, and this invokes issues and concerns of Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. To seek accommodation or bipartisanship often involves infringements on our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights or allows for the continuation or expansion of infringements to our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights.

The classic example of this in modern American history is when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested in Birmingham, AL, for leading a peaceful civil disobedience to protest against the Natural, Human, and Civil Rights violations of blacks that were common in the South (and other parts of America) at the time. Many clergy and civil leaders encouraged him to be a ‘realist’ and ‘work with’ them and others to change the laws. Dr. King wrote a letter from his jail cell, "Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’", which eloquently explained that you could not work with or be a realist when there are violations of Natural, Human, or Civil Rights. As I have Chirp on "02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws" and "10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience", you must oppose unjust laws, and you should oppose unjust lawgivers; otherwise, you will end up living in an unjust society.

Therefore, you cannot be ‘a realist’ or ‘work with that’ when faced with infringements to our Natural, Human, or Civil Rights. A small degree of being a realist or working with, in a series of small realisms and small working with, adds up to a large degree of injustice and despotism to enforce the injustice. Consequently, the problem with being ‘a realist’ or ‘work with that’ is that it allows for the slippery slope of a glide down into despotism.

04/15/22 The Supreme Court's Reluctance

My new Article, “The Supreme Court's Reluctance”, examines the issues that the Supreme Court appears to be reluctant to address forthrightly. But these issues must be fully and forthrightly resolved to assure the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans in the future. These issues are:

A hornet’s nest of legal implications and ramifications for the Supreme Court to address, but a hornet’s nest for society if they cannot, or will not, address this hornet’s nest. Without the preservation of our Natural Rights, our society will degenerate into subservience and subjugation to the will of governmental and non-governmental actors. Liberty and Freedom will become abstract concepts that are virtually nonexistent in the functioning of our society. This will rip our society apart, and as President Abraham Lincoln said - ‘the last best hope of earth’ will be relegated to the dustbin of history. The Supreme Court, and all of us, should also remember the words of wisdom from the Irish-born British statesman, economist, and philosopher - Edmund Burke:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
 - Edmund Burke

04/13/22 Presumption of Innocence

The Presumption of Innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In the United States, the Presumption of Innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases, prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. In America, the Presumption of Innocence is inherent in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

In the court of public opinion, the Presumption of Innocence is not required, but it is advisable, especially when a person is accused of criminal activities. For if you do not presume innocence, then the accused stands to lose their reputation, employment, wealth, future opportunities, and even family and friends based on unproven allegations or assertions. These items should not be lightly taken from anyone without proof of wrongdoing, and the proof being credible, verifiable, and substantiated. The question is, then, how can you judge an allegation or assertion of wrongdoing? The answer to this question is in another article I have written: “Who are you to Judge?”. I would encourage you to review this article at your convenience.

Today, in America, we have forgotten or have chosen to ignore this Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion. From a political zeal to discredit an opponent to disparage someone with whom we disagree, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven is commonplace. For someone to have to prove their innocence is equivalent to Proving a Negative (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. Today, in the court of public opinion, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven has led to an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society".

From the very beginning (and even before) the administration of President Trump, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media made little pretense of the Presumption of Innocence of President Trump and his associates. Statements by these parties and the pervasive news coverage were practically all based on rumors and innuendo that presumed guilt. To not keep an open mind and the Presumption of Innocence is an attempt to preordain an outcome, an outcome not based on evidence. It also led these parties to make many outrageous statements that were proved by the Special Prosecutor to be false in the Russian Collusion Delusion. Indeed, all of their presumptions of guilt of President Trump and his associates have been shown to be false presumptions of guilt.

Today, the Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion is being played out in the case of Hunter Biden’s activities in the last two decades. Assertions and allegations of pay to play, influence peddling, money laundering, and other criminal actions are being asserted against President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as President Biden’s brothers Frank and James. Per an article in ProPublica, the brothers have become rich because of the ties to then-Senator, then Vice-President, and now President Biden. The veracity of these allegations is high, as we have had the public disclosure of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a computer repair shop. He is entitled to a Presumption of Innocence in any judicial proceeding that he may face, and the public should be concerned about his actions but be wary of any allegations and assertions of guilt in the court of public opinion.

My concern is that the very people that are asserting Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion are the very people who asserted the guilt of President Trump and his associates in the court of public opinion. Their protestations of Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence bespeak of rank hypocrisy and political gamesmanship considering their assertions of their Presumption of Guilt of President Trump and his associates in the recent past. Such people are not to be trusted nor heeded, as they are not interested in the concepts of the Presumption of Innocence but are only interested in politics. And when it comes to the questions of a person’s Presumption of Innocence, politics should never be a consideration.

04/11/22 A Successful President

The President of the United States has a job description. It appears in the specific document that creates the position: the Constitution of the United States. A successful president does the following things well:

Many historians and other organizations like to rank the presidents, but rarely are these rankings based upon the above criteria. A recent article by Rob Natelson, “Using the Constitution to Re-Rank the Presidents”, explains the above criteria and why ranking by historians and other organizations is often improper as:

“I think there are two primary reasons for these anomalies. First, when you limit participation to academics, your pool is overwhelmingly left-of-center. Liberals and leftists value big government, and naturally they like presidents who share their agenda. Second, these surveys generally ask respondents to judge presidents by criteria that do not measure presidential performance well. They include questions such as whether a president ‘made a difference’ (changed America in some way), ‘achieved his goals,’ or had ‘vision’.”

These historians and the other organizations' criteria for ranking a president are very subjective and open to debate. However, if you conduct such a debate based on improper criteria, you will obtain improper rankings. Therefore, such rankings are often misleading, and are ideological preferences and not objectively based on the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of a President. As they are often done for political considerations and to sway popular political opinion, Americans should, therefore, disregard these rankings. Americans should also insist that the President abide by their job description and not exceed their duties and responsibilities.

04/09/22 A Diplomatic Solution

In my chirp on, “03/25/22 In War There is No Substitute for Victory”, I discuss the importance of victory in a war. As the war in Ukraine rages on and atrocities against civilians mount, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the war and restore peace in Ukraine. For those that are desirous of peace, I would remind you of the words of a great philosopher:

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

Will a peaceful diplomatic solution in Ukraine restore justice to Ukraine or instill a benevolent state of mind in Russia toward Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to turn over to an international court those persons accused of war crimes in Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to the Ukrainian people who suffered death, injury, and property losses as a result of Russia’s actions during the war? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to Ukraine for the destruction of its infrastructure and economy by its Crime of Aggression in the invasion of Ukraine?

I do not expect any of the above to happen in a peaceful diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian war. Therefore, there will be no ‘peaceful’ solution in Ukraine, only a cessation of hostilities without justice in Ukraine. There will also be no deterrence against Russia engaging in future Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine or any other country that they may target in the future. It also sends a signal to other countries that they could engage in Crimes of Aggression and suffer little consequences if they negotiate a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the wars that they started.

A peaceful diplomatic solution is only possible before an aggressive war begins. Any peaceful diplomatic solution to end any war requires “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice" to restore peace. Otherwise, it is just a cessation of hostilities that can lead to future hostilities and not ‘Peace’.

04/07/22 Who is Responsible for Inflation?

A new San Francisco Federal Reserve study that was recently released contains a chart showing that U.S. inflation spiked in early 2021 at almost precisely the same moment that President Biden signed his massive $1.9 trillion Covid 'relief' bill. This study, titled 'Why Is U.S. Inflation Higher than in Other Countries?' compares inflation in the U.S. to inflation in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries across a group of OECD economies: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In this study, they relied on core inflation measures, which removed the more volatile food and energy prices that would have increased inflation for both the U.S. and OECD countries in the study. A simple chart that they produced is worth a thousand words:

President Biden started out denying inflation was long-term or claiming it only impacted wealthy persons, then swiveled to blaming unforeseeable circumstances and greedy companies for the rise in inflation, and he has now pivoted to blaming Putin and the War in Ukraine for inflation. If the latter was the case, why has inflation spiked before the War in Ukraine, and why is inflation spiking greater in the United States than in the OECD countries. Although the War in Ukraine has contributed to inflation, the main cause of inflation is the economic policies of the Biden administration. Don’t be fooled by President Biden’s rhetoric, but carefully consider the inflationary impacts of the economic policies of the Biden administration.

04/05/22 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Governments and  Modern Big Business have begun to create Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments within their agencies or companies. A common description of DEI is that Diversity is the characteristics and experiences, both seen and unseen, that make everyone unique. Equity is ensuring fair access to opportunities and resources, while taking into consideration individual’s barriers or privileges and eliminating systemic barriers and privileges. While Inclusion is the actions taken to understand, embrace, and leverage the unique identities and perspectives of all individuals so that all feel welcomed, valued, and supported.

While the ideals of DEI are lofty, they are often very difficult to quantify in legal terms. And while the objective of DEI is noble, the means to achieve them are often ignoble. DEI has often been implemented by the suppression of workplace speech within their agencies or companies and the limiting of employment and promotions to those persons who fit within their DEI criteria. As always, whenever you are trying to determine what is best, the question is:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

As most DEI departments are staffed by "Progressives/Leftists", their decisions have a conscience or unconscious bias on which persons fit within their DEI criteria and the policies that will be utilized to implement DEI. And much of the time, they decide in a manner that excludes conservative or traditional values. As I have often stated - ‘Progressives believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct.’ They, therefore, believe that their DEI policies are what is best for their agencies or companies and need not consider ideas and opinions of differing viewpoints.

The real-world reality of DEI is that it is ERC (Exclusion, Redistribution, and Conformity), for the following reasons.

Diversity is Exclusion of non-diverse persons, as it is a form of discrimination where all people that are not considered diverse can be discriminated against.

Equity is Redistribution of Resources as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services, which is the goal of Equity.

Inclusion is Conformity of Thought, as they have no interest in any person being included who would differ from their thoughts.

A better acronym than DEI is DIE, for that is what will happen to American society if DEI is normalized in America. It is also true that many of the DEI policies and decisions are an assault on the Free Speech and other Natural Rights of their workforce. In this, they are in violation of our Constitutional Rights and Non-Discriminatory Civil Rights laws, rules, and regulations. As such, DEI has promoted more harm than good in American society and needs to be discontinued in all arenas in which it exists.

04/03/22 The Wars You Don’t Fight

No one should want to fight a war, especially a war that has no direct impact on yourself. However, not only should you consider fighting a war that has a direct impact, but you should also consider fighting a war that does not have a direct impact but may eventually engulf yourself. Such indirect wars are hard to justify but even harder to determine if there could be a justification.

I have extracted my previous Chirps on this topic into a new Article, “The Wars You Don’t Fight” that examines the issue of to fight, or to not fight, a war. As I further chirp on the this topic I will be adding these Chirps to this article as to have a running commentary on this subject of war and peace.

04/01/22 Three Years of Chirping

It was three years ago today that I began to write and post my Chirps and Article about subjects that have piqued my interest or curiosity, or my ire or indignation, as well as the knowledge that I have gained. In this, I have tried to impart the knowledge and wisdom that I have garnered over several decades. I have endeavored to do this in an intelligent manner, utilizing "Rationality" and "Reasoning" rather than in an emotional outburst.

I hope that you have enjoyed or at least considered my thoughts on the topics that I have written about.  In many of my Chirps and Articles, I have written about my personal experiences that have led me to my thoughts and conclusions. I have related the stories of my life to many of my personal friends, and several of these friends have commented that I should write down these stories. I, therefore, have decided to do so. However, the effort required to do so will be time-consuming and detract from my writing Chirps and Articles. Therefore, over the next several months, you may notice a decrease in my Chirps and Articles as I expend more of my time writing the stories of my life.

Most people have many stories from their lives that have impacted their lives, both positively and negatively. The important question is if they have learned the lessons of these stories and utilized these lessons to improve their lives. These stories from my life will be both about the good and bad and the bitter and the sweet occurrences in my life. Many will be about the bad and bitter, as I have often said:

"True Wisdom Most Often Comes from Bitter Experience... Considered!"
  - Mark Dawson

Many people utilize the stories from their lives as an excuse for their current situation in life rather than a reason to improve their lives. I, however, for as long as I can remember, have examined the stories of my life and the lessons learned from these stories to try to improve myself and become a better person, as I have written in my Article "Be the Better Person". Many of these stories have led me to my Pearls of Wisdom, which I have utilized to guide my life. I hope that these stories will help you in examining your own life, learn the lessons from your own stories, and become a better person based on your own life experiences.

When I have finished writing these ‘Stories from an Examined Life’, I shall create a webpage of these stories. I do this in the hopes that these stories will help you understand why I believe what I believe, why I have reached the conclusions in my Chirps and Articles, and how I obtained my wisdom by examining and learning the lessons from these stories of my life.

03/31/22 A Global Economy

For the last several decades, we have seen businesspersons and politicians tote the advantages of a ‘Global Economy’. Businesspersons for the purposes of expanding their market share in foreign countries and for the purpose of manufacturing goods at a lower cost in countries with lower labor costs. Politicians for the purpose of bringing less free countries into the political sphere in the hopes that they would become freer and more supportive of America. The question is, have they achieved these goals after several decades of a Global Economy?

It is true that businesses have increased their markets overseas and lowered the cost of their goods to Americans. But this has also come at a cost that has impacted America. Manufacturing and its supporting jobs have been lost in America and impacted the well-being of many Americans. America has become more dependent on other countries for the essential goods needed in our society. Businesses have also become more dependent on foreign governments to sustain their growth. This dependence has made them more concerned with foreign government's interests and more subservient to foreign government's policies and dictates than with America and American interests. These multi-national businesses have become international in their standpoints and less concerned about what is best for America and Americans. Indeed, they will work to the detriment of America if it is to the benefit or advantage of the foreign countries with which they have economic ties.

Many foreign countries have been exploitive of their labor force and, in some cases, have utilized forced labor in manufacturing. The workplace conditions for their labor force are often appalling, and the health and safety of the labor force are often neglected. The prosperity of their labor force often comes at the expense of the humane, health, and safety of the individual workers, and often their Liberties and Freedoms.

It is not true that these foreign countries have become much freer and more supportive of America. They have often become more aggressive in opposition to America as they have gained more economic influence upon America. And they have not reformed themselves to become more supportive of the Liberties and Freedoms of their citizens. Whatever gains their citizens have made in Liberty and Freedom have been for the purposes of making them more economically competitive and not for the benefit of political Freedom and Liberty. The Natural Rights of their citizens are not recognized and often suppressed to retain and maintain the power of their illegitimate and corrupt governments. For no government can be legitimate if, as the Declaration of Independent states:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is past time that we ended this type of Global Economy and replaced it with a Global Economy of Liberty and Freedom-loving countries (Favored Nations) versus those countries not supportive of Liberty and Freedom (Unfavored Nations). Imports and exports between Favored Nations would have few restrictions, while Imports and exports to and from Unfavored Nations would be highly regulated. Until these Unfavored Nations reform themselves to be supportive of the Liberties and Freedoms of their citizens, they should have minimal economic ties to Favored Nations. Multi-national businesses need to have standpoints in support of Liberties and Freedoms, and American multi-national businesses should not be allowed to operate to the detriment of America and Americans. And it is not up to the multi-national businesses in America to determine what is or is not to the detriment of America and Americans, as that is the prerogative of Congress under the regulation of foreign commerce in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

While it may be difficult to bring about this change to the Global Economy, it is imperative that we do so if we wish to save our Liberties and Freedoms while maintaining a healthy and robust economy in America. This would, of course, require legislators who recognize this situation and be supportive of a change to the Global Economy and not tied to the special interests of multi-national businesses. This would also require that Americans vote for legislators who support this change and turn out of office those legislators who do not support this change. It is, therefore, up to the American voters to bring about this change to the Global Economy.

03/29/22 Prosecutorial Discretion

In my Chirp on "06/16/21 Crime and Punishment", I discuss the impacts on society when a prosecutor uses their discretion to not prosecute criminals. There is also the flip side of Prosecutorial Discretion, in which a prosecutor will use their discretion to target someone or some entity for prosecution. In doing so, many prosecutors have forgotten that they investigate and prosecute criminal acts and not persons. In their attempts to demonize persons or politicians that they disagree with, they often initiate prosecutorial investigations and indictments against such persons without much veracity of the evidence of criminal actions, as I have written in my Article, “The Criminalization of Politics”. This, too, has a deleterious effect on society as well as being a corruption of governmental powers.

Robert Jackson, in 1940 when he was attorney general before going on to be a Supreme Court justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, famously warned about this abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion:

“There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn’t blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints. If the Department of Justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, ten times its present staff will be inadequate. We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning. What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm — in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

True in 1940 and even more true today. Today, we have seen a slew of prosecutorial actions against Republican politicians and Conservative voices in an effort to silence them. Not only is this improper Prosecutorial Discretion, but it is an assault on the Freedom of Speech. In some cases, these prosecutorial actions are targeting independent conservative journalists, which is an assault on the Freedom of the Press. Such prosecutors are not dedicated to "Justice and The Rule of Law in America“ but are motivated by partisan political interests. Such prosecutors need to be stopped and removed from office to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

As Americans, we have the Constitutional right to have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. As such, a prosecutor is required to remain silent about all investigatory matters until an indictment is presented. Prior to an indictment, a prosecutor can submit court filings that can assert facts of the case for judicial review as to the appropriateness of the investigation, but they can make no assertion of guilt in these court filings. If no indictment is presented, or no trial is to be convened, then the prosecutor can make no assertion nor innuendo of guilt, as the accused person would have no ability to defend themselves in a court of law. A prosecutor is never allowed to assert guilt until after a person has been found guilty in a court of law, but they may assert that they intended to prove guilt once an indictment is presented and during a trial. Consequently, before a guilty verdict or after a not guilty verdict, they may not make an assertion or innuendo of guilt as that would violate a person’s presumption of innocence. Any prosecutor who does make an assertion or innuendo of guilt without a guilty verdict is liable to have their Law License revoked as it would be a violation of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. Therefore, prosecutors who speak of the guilt of a person without a guilty verdict are anathema to justice, and they need to be removed from office and have their law license revoked to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

These improper prosecutorial actions have become much too common today, and they are often done for purely political reasons. Politics of this sort has no place in a judicial setting, and politics of this sort often leads to bitter acrimony between the parties involved and, indeed, within society itself. Such bitter acrimony divides the country and makes it much more difficult to achieve consensus as to the solutions required to address the issues and concerns of Americans. These improper prosecutorial actions must end forthwith to retain the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans.

03/27/22 The Wrong Person

The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the upcoming vacant seat on the Supreme Court is going worse than I expected as I Chirped on “03/08/22 Supreme Court Justices”.

Her reply to the request by a Senator for her to provide a definition of a woman was that she could not, as she was not a biologist, was absurd. I may not be a veterinarian, but if you hand me a dog or cat, I could tell if they are a male or a female. You can tell the differences by a visual examination of their genitals, and you don’t need to be a scientist to know the difference between a male and a females’ genitals. You do need to be a scientist to understand the physiological differences between a man and a woman, but this is not germane to knowing the general difference between a man and a woman.

The definition of a woman is a female, adult, human. Female as they have an XX chromosome type, an adult as their brain has matured to its full capacity, and human as they have a homo-sapiens DNA structure. Any other definition is an absurdity brought forth through the use of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" and arrived at by "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning".

One wonders what she would reply if asked for the definition of a black person as the race of a person is difficult to determine, as the scientific definition of race provides little help as there is broad consensus across the biological sciences that race is a social construct, not an accurate representation of human genetic variation. What would be her definition of the social construct that determines race as there is no help from science on a racial definition?

As America has many laws that prohibit discrimination, especially racial and sexual discrimination, a Supreme Court Justice would need an unambiguous definition of sex or race to rule on matters of sexual and racial discrimination. As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has no concept of what these terms actually mean, she would be unable to rule on these matters properly.

Her explanation of the lenient sentencing she has melted out for child pornographers reveals that she believes that a judge can ignore the law if they believe that the law is improper, outdated, or just plain wrong-headed.

In America, the Separation of Powers in the Constitution is a foundation for preserving our Liberties and Freedoms. Each branch of government, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches, have their own duties, responsibilities, and powers. Each branch of government is equal to the other branches, and each branch may not assume nor delegate the duties, responsibilities, and powers of the other branches.

In her explanation of her reasoning for the lenient sentencing that she imposed, she evidenced that she believes that a Judge can assume the powers of the Legislative branch in the adoption, modification, and annulment of laws. She also evidenced that she believes that the Judicial branch is supreme over the Legislative and Executive branches. Thus, she is destroying the balance of powers in our Constitution, and, in this, she also believes that Judges are Lords, as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

When any judge does so, we should be reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton:

"Liberty can have nothing to fear' from judges who apply the law, but liberty 'has everything to fear' if judges try to legislate."
 - Alexander Hamilton

Many claim that we should not oppose her nomination as it does not change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is not meant to be ideologically balanced, as the Supreme Court is for the purpose of enforcing the Constitution and assuring Equal Justice for All. Ideological balance is not required on the Supreme Court, but a commitment to the principles of and the integrity to the Constitution and the Rule of Law is required, as their first and second Oath of Office states.

The First Oath that all elected persons and officers of the government take is:

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The Second Oath is for appointees to the Supreme Court Bench, and they must not only take the first oath listed above but a second oath. This second oath is called The Judicial Oath, and it is mandatory for Supreme Court Justices to begin serving. The text of this Second Oath is:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Any Senator who would vote to confirm any judicial nominee based on ‘balance’ or any other reasons other than their Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament, and their commitment to the principles of, and integrity to, the Constitution and the Rule of Law are demonstrating their own lack of commitment and integrity to our Constitution and to the Rule of Law.

In Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s answers to her questioning, she is either being disingenuous, deceptive, deceitful, or being deeply political. This attitude demonstrates that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers or authorities. I believe that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's history, and her current answers to questions at her hearing, have shown that her Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament are not suitable for being a Supreme Court Justice, nor even for being a Judge. The Senate should, therefore, not confirm her nomination as a Supreme Court Justice and President Biden should find someone who is committed to our Constitutional principles and to the Rule of Law to fill this seat on the Supreme Court.

03/25/22 In War There is No Substitute for Victory

With the war in Ukraine raging on, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to the conflict. But in war, there is no substitute for victory, as anything short of victory in the face of unprovoked aggression or evil conduct will often reward the aggressor or evildoer.

We did not pursue a peaceful diplomatic solution to the aggression and evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WW II, but we did pursue and achieve victory to end their actions and punish the aggressors and evildoers. Since WW II, we have often entered into conflicts without the goal of victory but for the purposes of obtaining a peaceful diplomatic solution to conflicts. This has led to more aggression and evil-doing throughout the world, as aggressors and evildoers know that they will suffer little or no punishments for their actions.

This cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions has led to more conflict and more death and injuries to civilians, and to the destruction of infrastructure, buildings, property, and the economies in the affected countries. A cycle that cannot be broken by peaceful diplomatic solutions but requires victory and the punishment of the aggressors and evildoers. Then, and only with victory and punishment can we hope to end this cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions.

03/23/22 Absurdities and Atrocities

Absurdities and Atrocities are like Love and Marriage, first comes one, then comes the other. There are many citations about absurdities and atrocities (often misattributed to Voltaire). Some of the most famous are:

(1) Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

(2) People will continue to commit atrocities if they continue to believe absurdities.

(3) If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.

These citations can be translated into some truisms about justice:

Translation 01: Certainly, whoever has the right to make you absurd has the right to make you unjust.

Translation 02: Truly, whoever can make you look absurd can make you act unjustly.

Translation 03: Certainly, anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

In America, we have become the Theatre of the Absurd in which logical thought and argument give way to irrational and illogical speech and to the ultimate deeds—atrocities being committed. The absurdities, as I have written in my "Terminology" webpage, of Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and a Herd Mentality. Absurdities promulgated by  Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders for the purposes of obtaining or retaining power and to fundamentally transform America. The current atrocities being committed from these absurdities are the violations of our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights".

If we continue down this path, we will begin to commit greater atrocities. These greater atrocities will be in the form of physical constraints and physical harm to Americans, and potentially greater atrocities against other peoples of the world. We, therefore, must reject these absurdities and think rationality to assure Liberty and Freedom for all.

03/21/22 They Owe Us an Apology

In a new article by Dr. Marty Makary, “10 biggest COVID mistakes – Americans deserve an apology from the medical experts”, he discusses the biggest mistake our “experts’ made about the COVID-19 virus. Sometimes mistakes are made through ignorance, sometimes by willful blindness, and sometimes by pernicious considerations. Unfortunately, many of the mistakes about COVID-19 were made by willful blindness or pernicious considerations. This was especially true after science determined the physical characteristics and transmission method (size and aerosol) of the COVID-19 virus, which was determined early on in the Pandemic.

His list of the biggest mistakes that our experts made is:

Unfortunately, these mistakes have had, and are continuing to have, far-reaching negative consequences in both the short and long term that have impacted all Americans and the nature of our society. The negative impacts on our economy for all persons, businesses, and the government itself will be felt for the next decade or more. Society has fractured along the lines of those that embraced the edicts of masking, social distancing, and vaccinations and those that disputed the need for such edicts. Government at all levels took greater control over the lives of Americans, and in this control, they often violated the Natural and Constitutional Rights of Americans. Americans have become more dependent upon government largess in providing for their needs and, therefore, less self-reliant. This government largess has plunged America into deeper and deeper debt, which burdens future generations of Americans to pay off this debt.  Americans have also become more inured to government intervention in our lives, and many political leaders feel emboldened to continue this government intrusion into our lives.

It is for these mistakes that the American people deserve a forthright and candid apology from those persons who perpetrated these mistakes. Public health officials and politicians alike need to apologize for these mistakes and to make amends, if possible, for these mistakes.

Given the facts and truths that are now surfacing about these mistakes, many Americans have become disillusioned about science, scientists, and government and government officials who perpetrated these mistakes. The cynicism and distrust of government have grown to the point where many Americans no longer believe that government has the best interest of Americans at heart but are only interested in the best interests of politicians, bureaucrats, and businesses that support and benefit from the government actions in this pandemic.

This disillusionment, cynicism, and distrust, along with the erosion of our Natural and Constitutional Rights, has led to a lessening of our "American Ideals and Ideas". A lessening that may end the American experiment, as President Lincoln so nobly said in his Gettysburg Address; “… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

03/20/22 Yiddish Proverbs

Yiddish Proverbs are famous for their wit and wisdom. Yiddish is known as being its own rich linguistic culture. Born out of Hebrew and German, Yiddish has many unique words and phrases that are used to give humor, sarcasm, and joy at the moment as needed. My new article lists some of my favorite Yiddish Proverbs. And for those that are wondering, I am not Yiddish; I am a Pasty Protestant.

03/19/22 Believing Your Own Propaganda

In a recent article by Derek Hunter, “What If Everyone Is Wrong About The Russian Military?” he posits the idea that the Russians believe in an easy victory in Ukraine because they believed that they had a powerful military. They also believed that the Ukrainian people would welcome them and provide little opposition to their invasion. Events in the war in Ukraine have proven that the Russian military is not as powerful as they presupposed, and that the Ukrainian people were defiant of their invasion, and as a result, the invasion of Ukraine has not gone as well or swiftly as they had presumed. This appears to be a case of the disastrous consequences of believing your own propaganda.

The disastrous consequence of believing your own propaganda not only applies to war decisions but to all decision-making. When you believe your own propaganda, you will institute bad policies and have bad priorities for your policies, as I have Chirped on, “03/nn/22 Bad Policies and Bad Priorities”.

This appears to be the case for President Biden and his administration, as well as Democrat Party Leaders, as they appear to be fully committed to the policy goals and political agendas based on believing their own propaganda. Their explanations and justification for their policy goals and political agendas reveal that they believe that their propaganda has the correct facts and proper truths behind them. As President Biden and his administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and they, therefore, believe that their goals and agenda are what is best for all Americans. They will brook no dissent of their facts and truths, and they are dismissive and derisive to anyone who would disagree with their propaganda.

As a result of their believing their own propaganda, they are making decisions that are having disastrous consequences to America. From the International stage of the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the Iran Deal, and to the threats of Russia and China, to the National stage to the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, to climate change positions, and to a host of other issues they are making decisions based on the belief of their own propaganda.

The lesson for all Americans is that "Rationality" and "Reasoning" should be utilized in the formation of all policy goals, and that you should never believe your own propaganda. For to believe in your own propaganda is to invite disastrous consequences upon America, which is the reason that we are in the mess that we are in.

03/18/22 Bad Policies and Bad Priorities

In my previous Chirp on “03/12/22 Who’s to Blame?” I asked and answered this question. However, it is not only a question of ‘Who?’ but of ‘What?’ is to blame for the mess we are in. The answer to this question is policies and priorities. Bad policies carry real-life implications, but the problem extends beyond just policies - it goes to priorities as well.

Policies that are not well thought out, nor examined for intended and unintended consequences, are not policies but wish lists. Wish lists that are more wishful thinking than sensible plans to achieve a goal. They often do not consider human nature or human reactions to change. And they just as often do not take into account the economic impact of the policy. Such policies are bad policies, and if they are implemented, they will result in bad consequences for the American people.

Is it important or not? Does it need to be done right away, or can it be postponed to a later time? Is it a big-ticket or a small ticket item? The rational answer to these questions is what determines the priorities of your actions. Rationality is the critical component to determine priorities, and a rationality as I have written in my articles on "Rationality" and "Reasoning". When policy prioritization is determined by political considerations, rationality is often secondary in importance in determining priorities. When you focus on lesser important policies or prioritize lesser important policies to the level of importance that is unwarranted, you distract attention from what is truly important. The lack of policy prioritization, or the improper prioritization of policies, also contribute to the mess we are in.

Policies that will have a major impact on society, or change the nature of our society, must be considered crucial and must be carefully and rationally examined. They must also be considered as to their constitutionality, and they must have the majority support of Americans. As such, the American people must be to be fully informed as to the correct facts and proper truths that led to the policy and the impacts on the implementation of the policy. Sloganeering, excessive rhetoric, stoking fear, demonization of the opposition, incorrect facts and improper truths, and other nefarious tactics are no substitute for honesty with the American people. Those that would engage in such nefarious tactics have no wish to inform the American public but only to impose what they believe is best on the American public.

Bad Policies and Bad Priorities seem to be the de rigueur for the Biden Administration and Democrat Party leaders. Their attempts to ‘Fundamentally Transform’ and ‘Build Back Better’ America rests upon bad policies and bad priorities and seem to be entirely motivated by political considerations rather than rationality. These bad policies and bad priorities also seem to result in more government control over the lives of Americans and more power for Democrat Party leaders. These bad policies and bad priorities also do not take into account Constitutional limits on government actions. As such, opposition to these Bad Policies and Bad Priorities is the duty and responsibility for all Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans.

03/17/22 Who’s to Blame?

From the International stage of the Afghanistan debacle, the Ukrainian War, the Iran Deal, and to the threats of Russia and China, to the National stage to the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase of crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas price increases, to inflation, and to a host of other issues the question arises as to ‘Who’s is to blame?’

Many would lay the blame to the feet of President Biden and his administration. If so, the question is who is to blame for President Biden and his administration? The answer to this question is multi-faceted, but there is a hierarchical order of blame:

    1. Democrat Party Leaders
    2. Modern Journalism
    3. Democrat Party Voters

The machinations of Democrat Party Leaders in assuring the nomination of Joe Biden and their covering-up his deficiencies (both mentally and physically), as well as his modest intellectual competence, ineptitude, and lack of leadership, have led us to where we are.

Modern Journalism support for the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders policies and positions, and their assistance in this Democrat Party Leaders cover-up have also led us to where we are. If Modern Journalism had taken its responsibilities seriously, they would have reported all the facts and uncovered the truths about Joe Biden. This would have allowed the voters to make an informed decision about their vote, and the machinations of the Democrat Party Leaders would have been ineffective.

Ultimately, however, it is those people who voted for Joe Biden that must bear the major responsibility for the mess we are in. For without Democrat voters electing President Biden, the machinations of Democrat Party Leaders and Modern Journalism would be for naught. When Democrat voters look at themselves in the mirror and ask, ‘What Happened?’ the answer is that you happened! You did not do your due diligence when examining candidate Biden and his policies. You did not ask the question of what the intended and unintended consequences of his policies would be. You allowed "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to cloud your judgment. You feel hook, line, and sinker for the machinations of Democrat Party Leaders and Modern Journalism. You are to blame for what happened.

And no equivocations or excuses are acceptable for your vote, as you had the responsibility as a voter to examine and think about your vote before casting your vote. As a result of your vote, we now have the mess we are in, and we will have to endure this mess for the next three years. However, we can blunt but not eradicate this mess by assuring the Democrat Party loses control of both chambers of Congress in the next election.

03/16/22 Twisting and Turning the Constitution's Intent

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders like to claim that our Constitution as a Living, Breathing Document. By this, they mean that they can interpret it in the manner they want and change the meaning of words to suit their ends.

Much like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less.'
'the question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'the question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ' that's all.'

To this, I respond how would you like to play any game in which the rules are living and breathing so that in the middle of the game you or another player can change the rules to give yourself or them an advantage? The Constitution is a rule book in how we organize our society. The Constitution is a living document in that it lives through the process of amending, based upon the will of the people and/or the states, and this change should only be through the Constitutional Amendment process. Until that happens, we should all be playing with the same rulebook (i.e. The Constitution). It is a breathing document in that it has ambiguity built in so that each generation can interpret it as their needs arise (but it should only do so within the bounds of what the founder's purpose was in creating that ambiguity). However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of the American people. Fidelity to the Constitution, as it is intended, is the only way we can assure Peace and Justice in our society.

Torturous logic and reasoning the bend the Constitution to suit your goals is not acceptable. The Constitution was written for the Government of the People, By the People, and For the People, and should be understandable by the people. Anything else takes the Constitution away from the people impinges upon our Liberties and Freedoms.

03/15/22 A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document

Many say that our Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document, and by this, they mean that they can interpret it in the manner they want and change the meaning of words to suit their ends. The Constitution is a living document in that it lives through the process of amending, based upon the will of the people and/or the States, and this change should only be through the Constitutional Amendment process. It is a breathing document in that it has ambiguity built-in so that each generation can interpret it as their needs arise (but it should only do so within the bounds of what the founder's purpose was in creating that ambiguity). However, under no circumstances should the Constitution be interpreted in such a way as to infringe upon the Liberties and Freedoms of the American people. Fidelity to the Constitution, as it is intended, is the only way we can assure Liberty and Freedom in our society, or has been said:

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
  - Abraham Lincoln

My new Article, “A Compact and a Contract - Not A Living, Breathing Document” is an examination of the concept of the Constitution being a Compact and a Contract as opposed to it being a Living, Breathing Document.

03/14/22 Constitutional Terms and Words

There have been fewer Chips for the last two weeks as I have been working on my new Article, “Constitutional Terms and Words”. This article defines the more frequent terms and words in the Constitution, many of which I have utilized in my Articles and Chirps. Many of these terms and words were familiar to the people of the time but are less familiar today. Also, over time some of these terms and words' meanings have changed, as is common in the English language. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of these terms and words in the context of the times in which they were written.

03/13/22 Lessons from the Schoolyard

My Elementary School education had some problems that I outlined in the section “My Own Public School Education” of my Article on "Public Education". However, I did learn three important lessons from the schoolyard of my Elementary School. They are:

Bullies

When I was eleven or twelve years old, at the beginning of the school year, a classmate who was obnoxious the previous year began to bully my other classmates and me. As he had grown larger and more intimidating over the summer recess, we were all fearful of him and did nothing to stop the bullying. One day on the schoolyard field, he began to bully me, and my anger grew larger than my fear. At that point, I began fisticuffs with him, and I soon knocked him to the ground and began to beat on him. Being the coward that he really was, he whimpered and cried and begged me to stop the beating. I quickly did so, but as I arose, I warned him that he continued to bully my classmates and me; he would have to answer to me. He shook his head in assent and never bullied anyone thereafter. My classmates, at this point, placed me on their shoulders and carried me off the field, cheering me all the way off the field.

Finaglers and Cheaters

That same year in the early spring, we had a double recess that we decided to have a sandlot baseball game. I was chosen to be the captain of one of the teams, while another of my classmates was chosen to be the captain of the other team. The captain of the other team was someone who believed that as his father was a successful small businessman, he was deserving of more consideration and leeway than was merited by his own accomplishments. He often finagled or cheated to obtain what he wanted, and he and I intensely disliked each other. As I was the captain of my team, I decided that I would be the pitcher, while he decided that he would be the first batter for his team. One of our male teachers was enlisted to be the Umpire for the game. As I stood to make the first pitch, I noticed that he would position his upper body in the strike zone, something that I had noticed him doing in several previous baseball games we had played. Not wanting to hit him with a pitch, I threw the ball outside the strike zone, to which he stood up before the pitch arrived and the Umpire called a ball. This happened all three times I pitched to him, and as a result, I ended up walking him to first base. When the half-inning ended, I complained to the Umpire about his actions, to which the Umpire explained that any pitch in the strike zone was a strike regardless of what else happened.

When I next faced him as a pitcher, I steadied myself and threw a hard fastball down the center of the strike zone. He was unable to straighten up before the baseball hit him, and he was struck on the left forearm. He yelled at me and started trotting to first base when the Umpire yelled ‘Strike One’. He pivoted to the Umpire and declared that he was a hit batsman and deserving of first base, whereupon the Umpire informed him that the ball was in the strike zone and therefore it was a strike and nothing else mattered. He returned to the batting box and proceeded to employ the same tactic, whereupon I threw another fastball in the strike zone that hit him again, and the Umpire yelled ‘Strike Two’. My next pitch was a fastball into the strike zone, but he did not utilize his cheating tactic, and the Umpire yelled ‘Strike Three – You’re Out’. At the end of the half-inning, I informed all my classmates of his cheating tactic, and he was never able to employ that tactic again. I should also note that these pitches may have been the finest I have ever pitched, and they are certainly the most satisfying pitches I ever threw.

Worthwhile Punishments

Another time, at about the same age, my best friend and I got into an argument on the schoolyard in which we began pushing and shoving each other. The recess teacher intervened and sent us to sit on the step of the adjacent cafeteria entrance. When we sat down, still upset with each other, we discovered that there were several pornographic magazines on the step. Where they came from and how they got there, we do not know, but we began to leaf through them and gawk at the pictures of naked women in various states of undress. All anger was put aside as we were thoroughly enjoying our ‘punishment’. When the teacher returned at the end of the recess, she discovered us enjoying these magazines, much to her consternation. My friend and I agreed that we hoped that we would receive many such punishments in the future.

The lessons that I learned from these incidents is that fear of bullies must be overcome, and bullies must be confronted, oftentimes by physical force, for the bullying to end. That throwing a strike in the strike zone that hits someone is not your problem but the other persons' problem, and that finaglers and cheatwes must be neutralized. And that if someone is to be punished, make sure that the punishment is not more rewarding than the actions that led to the punishment. Whether they be individuals, groups of persons, organizations, businesses, or governments, you cannot allow Bullies or Finaglers and Cheats to get their way, and you must assure that any punishments for their actions are worthwhile punishments.

This is analogous to the current situation of Putin and Ukraine, as Putin is a bully, a finagler, and a cheat whose punishment is more rewarding than his actions. We must stand up to Putin, or the Bullies, Finaglers, and Cheats will control the world, and without worthwhile punishments, they have no incentive to change their actions.

03/12/22 To Be or Not to Be

Not making a decision is making a decision to do nothing. Equivocating on a decision is a decision to do nothing or to not do enough to make a difference. Equivocation in the face of evil allows for evil to triumph. Putin’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate that he is evil, and he needs to be confronted so as to not allow evil to triumph. When we equivocate, I am reminded of the words of the Bard:

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them …”
 - Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

A new article by Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, (ret.),  “Putin wants Ukraine and if we do nothing to stop him our world will never be the same”, he states:

“Doing nothing about the desecration of Ukraine by an international thug is still doing something, much like turning away as someone beats up your neighbor down the street. True, if I rush to rescue him there are risks to me.  However, it’s not enough to just yell harsh words at the criminal and then declare, "I’ve done everything possible." That’s cowardice and inhuman, not a reflection of the America many of us know and love.

There is a better way but it takes moxie that President Joe Biden probably lacks. Real leaders take risks and stand-up against bullies like Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

What’s not in question is that our president has the support of some Americans who insist that the Ukraine war isn’t our fight. I hear their angry protests, "Let the Europeans fight Putin. It’s not worth American blood and treasure.

The same sort of comments were heard before each of the First and Second World Wars by the same kind of people, the elites. They smugly tell us to ignore live television images of more than a million frightened Ukrainians fleeing war, bleeding in the streets and smoke billowing from apartment buildings and hospitals bombed by Putin’s forces.”

He ends his article by asking the question and commenting:

“Will Biden accept the risk and come to the rescue of Ukraine’s civilian population? Unlikely, much as the neighbor and the armchair non-intervention critics, Biden will look away as Ukraine gets beaten up.

And, that my friends, will contribute to the world losing more trust in America and our own sense of morality plummets further.”

Equivocation did not work out well for the Prince of Denmark, nor will it work out well for the people of America and the world in confronting Putin and the actions of Russia in Ukraine. We should all be concerned that any actions we take in Ukraine may lead to a wider war and possible nuclear confrontation. But inaction could also lead us to this possibility. A decision to do nothing in the face of threats of a wider war and possible usage of nuclear weapons by Putin opens us up to doing nothing in the face of threats of a wider war or use of nuclear weapons by other powers that have well-armed forces or nuclear weapons. A world in which well-armed or nuclear bullies would dictate our actions, and a world in which evil could triumph.

03/10/22 The Writ of Habeas Corpus

In Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, a Writ of Habeas Corpus was established that could be issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint (i.e., the Latin term for you should have the body). Since the time of the Magna Carta, a Writ of Habeas Corpus was considered essential to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all persons. The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why you are being held. If there is no good or compelling reason for your being held, then you must be set free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of The Writ of Habeas Corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

As such, what is happening to those arrested for the January 6th, 2020 ‘Insurrection’ is a violation of their Writ of Habeas Corpus right, as it appears that they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor has there been any compelling reason for them being held. The government response that there is a need for secrecy for security purposes does not outweigh the violation of their Writ of Habeas Corpus rights. Nor should secrecy be utilized to shroud these proceedings from public view, as anything that the government does judicially that is shrouded in secrecy is suspect, as it may involve the violation of the rights of Americans. As Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas has said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” We need sunlight on these judicial proceedings against the ‘Insurgents’ to assure that their rights as Americans are not being violated in these proceedings.

Their Fifth Amendment rights to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law are also being violated, as well as their Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial are also being violated along with other Sixth Amendment rights. Their Eight Amendment Right to no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted may have also been violated, given the reporting of the conditions in which they are being held. They are also not being permitted to be set free on reasonable bail while they are awaiting trial. Again, these actions by the government need to be laid bare to determine if the government is violating their rights.

While all these actions by the government may fall within the letter of the law, they certainly fall outside the spirit of the law. Without the spirit of the law, the letter of the law rings hollow, and the letter of the law can be manipulated for nefarious purposes. All Liberty and Freedom-loving Americans need to be alarmed and appalled by these government actions, and all Americans should demand that these actions be open to the disinfectant of sunshine.

It is past time that all Constitutional Scholars dedicated to our Liberties and Freedoms, our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and The Rule of Law arise and condemn these actions by the Government. And these condemnations must not only be of written and verbal commentaries but of a peaceable public protest at the doors of the Supreme Court. Such a peaceable public protest would inform and alert the American public as to the violation of our rights by the government. For them to not publicly protest is for them to remain paper chasers rather than spirited defenders of American rights and privileges, and it would also demonstrate that they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

03/08/22 Supreme Court Justices

With the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the upcoming vacant seat on the Supreme Court, we begin the dog and pony show in which the nominee is praised for their education, legal skills, and empathy for the American people. And none of these matters for a Supreme Court Justice. The only thing that matters is their dedication to the Constitution, along with the wisdom to apply their allegiance to the Constitution.

The hearings on her nomination will be a series of "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness", and "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", to justify her appointment to the Supreme Court. Very few questions or discussions will be about her Judicial Philosophy as I have outlined in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution", Judicial Temperament in the application of our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", as well as a commitment to our "American Ideals and Ideas”. Yet these are the only things that really matter for a Supreme Court Justice, for without these things, our Constitution is but a hollow document with many lofty words and phrases.

It is the duty and responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice to assure that the Constitution is more than lofty words and phrases but a governing document to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of all Americans. The purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is not to achieve a political or social justice goal but to assure that all governmental actions are within the framework of the Constitution. Any nominee that would become a Supreme Court Justice must put aside politics and social justice and only rule based upon the framework of the Constitution.

I believe that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's past history has not shown that her Judicial Philosophy and Judicial Temperament are suitable for being a Supreme Court Justice. We should, therefore, be very wary of appointing her as a Supreme Court Justice.

03/06/22 Democrat and Republican Voters

Many people vote for their party regardless of the candidates’ policies and positions or what the party stands for. Often, as a result, they vote for policies and positions that are not in their best interests nor the best interests of America. When a person votes this way, they are behaving as a lemming does when it marches over a cliff as part of the crowd.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Democrat Party has more lemmings than the Republican Party. The Democrat Party also has a different sort of lemming – an unthoughtful lemming. The Republican Party has more of a thoughtful type of lemming. The difference between these two types of lemmings is that the unthoughtful lemming votes without concern to the candidates or parties’ policy and positions in both the primary and general election, while the thoughtful lemming votes in the primary for a candidate that they agree with their policies and position but then votes for the party candidate in the general election.

The unthoughtful lemmings are often driven by an unreasonable fear of the opposition by the negative sloganeering and excessive rhetoric of fear of the opposition promulgated by Democrat Party Leaders. The thoughtful lemming is often driven by the concern that the opposition policies and positions are wrong for America and do not represent our American Ideals and Ideas, and they rarely pay attention to the rhetoric of the Republican Party Leaders.

To both types of lemmings, I say stop being a lemming and become a responsible voter and examine and think about your vote before casting your vote in both the primary and general election. Ignore all rhetoric and sloganeering from both sides and vote responsibly. You should never vote out of fear but should always vote out of hope for a better future for yourself and America. Also, think about what is not only best for you but also what is best for America before you vote.

03/04/22 Forms of Governance

Various forms of governance of a society have been tried throughout human history. Most of them have contravened Natural Law and Natural Rights. Below is a short list and definition of these various forms of governance:

I very carefully utilize these words in my Articles and Chirps to distinguish between them.

03/02/22 Fly Eagles Fly

I have been a huge Philadelphia Eagles NFL Football team fan for over fifty years. As such, I have known many disappointments and some delights over these many decades. The Eagle winning Super Bowl LII over the New England Patriots, their winning the 1980 NFC Championship game against the Dallas Cowboys, the 2004 NFC Championship defeat of the Atlanta Falcons, and the Eagles 2018 NFC Championship winning game win over the Minnesota Vikings are some of my most memorable highlights. There are too many lowlights to mention in this Chirp, but these lowlights part of being an Eagles fan.

As a huge Eagles fan, I believe that I know what is best for the team future, as most fans of professional sports believe they know what is best for their team’s future. However, I am cognizant and humble enough to recognize that as a fan I do not know enough to make the best decisions for a team. I do, however, have an opinion, which is part to the fun of being a fan. Therefore, these are my opinions of what I believe is best for the Eagles team in the upcoming 2022 offseason:

Jalen Hurts needs another year as a starter to show if he is or isn't a starting Quarterback in the NFL. The 2021 season was essentially a rookie season for Hurts in which he showed much promise, but some deficiencies. If he can correct these deficiencies in the 2022 season, he can show he is a starting Quarterback in the NFL.

Jalen Reagor, J.J. Arcega-Whiteside, Derek Barnett, Ryan Kerrigan, and Steven Nelson cannot be on this football team next year. They have consistently hurt the Eagles, and their few and far between contributions do not outweigh the hurt that they inflict.

The top 2022 Free Agent signing for the Eagles should be a starting Wide Receiver. A receiving core that features DeVonte Smith, a Free Agent, Quez Watkins in the slot, and Greg Ward as a swing slot/outside receiver would make for a formidable receiving corp.

The lineup of Jordan Mailata, Landon Dickerson, Jason Kelce- Isaac Seumalo, Jack Driscoll, and Lane Johnson is a one very good Offensive-line. Therefore, the O-line should not be a priority until the later rounds in the 2022 Draft as the Eagles need significant improvement in their Defense. As the Eagles have always been at their best when they have a very good defense they must shore-up their Defense going forward.

The Eagles 2022 Draft needs are an Edge Rusher, Cornerback, Linebacker, and Safety. A defense heavy draft, but the Defense needs the most improvement for the Eagles to be a more competitive team. And my fervent hope is that the Eagles are a competitive team that is in the playoffs every year. A hope that cannot be realized unless they have a good defense. Given GM Howie Roseman’s predilection for wheeling and dealing draft picks, as well as their propensity for the offense in the upper rounds in the draft, I do not expect this to happen. But I believe that this should happen for the Eagles to be a more competitive team in the NFL. Since 2014 owner Jeffrey Lurie and General Manager Howie Roseman have been part of first-round draft decisions that have landed Marcus Smith, Nelson Agholor, Andre Dillard, Jalen Reagor, Derek Barnett, and Carson Wentz — all disappointments to one degree or another. This needs to change for the Eagles to become an annually competitive team. Let all Eagles fans hope that this change occurs with their three first round draft picks in the 2022 NFL Draft. If so, their is hope that the Eagles can once more become a dominant NFL team.

03/01/22 Give Peace A Chance

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
 - John Lennon lyrics from ‘Give Peace A Chance’

"Give Peace a Chance" is an anti-war song by John Lennon, written and released in July 1969, which became an anthem of the American anti-war movement during the 1970s. Peace is always desirable, but peace does not mean the absence of conflict, as the great philosopher has said:

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

Peace, when confronted with evil, rarely has a chance, for evil does not recognize nor pay heed to peace. Evil must often be confronted by power and conflict for the true meaning of peace to prevail. Otherwise, evil may triumph to the detriment of true peace. And in this triumph, it often attempts to expand its evil and engulfs others in its despotism. The evildoers often attempt to justify their actions with lofty-sounding rhetoric and justifications for their evil, but it is nevertheless evil.

Natural Law and Natural Rights know no national boundaries, and all governments need to respect Natural Law and Natural Rights for them to be legitimate governments. Therefore, any such governments that do not respect Natural Law and Natural Rights are engaging in evil. Consequently, we must always confront this evil and extinguish its power. To not do so is as the great Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher has said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

As the great American General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is hell”, but sometimes you must go through hell to extinguish evil when the evil is greater than the hell of war. Today, we are faced with a choice between doing nothing or responding insufficiently or sufficiently to oppose evil, as the evil of Russia and China needs confrontation. The actions of Russia in Ukraine are the result of not confronting the evil of Vladimir Putin. Tomorrow, the actions of China in Taiwan and other countries by Xi Jinping will require confrontation. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are the faces of evil, but the governments of Russia and China are the sources of their evil. Russia and China need to be reformulated to eliminate evil, as evil is the basis of their governments. Any government or business that supports Russia or China is enabling evil, and such support needs to end for peace to prevail. Decades of support by governments and businesses in the hopes of reforming Russia and China have failed, and until a full reformulation of these governments happens, it will not be possible to give peace a chance.

02/28/22 The Importance of Data

All Studies and Statistics rely on data. The data must be as thorough and accurate as possible for the studies and statistics to be meaningful. In addition, the data and the methodology (i.e., Data Mining, Data Massaging, and Data Quality) utilized to analyze the data that goes into the studies and statistics must be made available to others to verify the veracity of the studies and statistics. This data and methodology release will allow others to discover possible mistakes the researchers made have made or to verify the veracity of the studies and statistics. For a researcher to withhold the data or the methodology is to automatically make the studies and statistics suspect, and it is considered fraud in academia when data or methodology is withheld.

However, there is simply no way that data alone can provide a genuine full picture of reality. There will always be holes. It will always be late. There will always be mistakes. There will always be uncertainties over causality. Moreover, all data represents a snapshot in time and can prove extremely misleading with changes over time. I have examined some of the other problems with data and methodology in my Article, “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”.

It has been recently discovered that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been collecting data on the COVID-19 Pandemic but has not released this data to the public. Data that is crucial to our understanding of the science behind the pandemic and our responses to this pandemic. This lack of the release of this data in unconscionable. In this they have perpetuated a fraud upon America and impacted the health and safety of all Americans, as well as the economic well being of America. They have thus done great damage to Americans, and they must be held accountable for this damage. I do not know if they can be legally criminal or civil liable for this damage, but at the very least all those involved in this cover-up must be fired forthwith from their government posts and not be hired for any academic or research organization position. Their actions and inactions in this matter are also worthy of the scorn of all Americans.

02/27/22 They Are Not Worried

A recent article by Victor Davis Hanson, Why is the Left Suddenly Worried About the End of Democracy? explains the bunkum about ‘the end of our democracy’ being uttered by so many Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. He explains that it is not the end of our democracy that they are worried about, but the end of their power that concerns them. After reading this article you will understand what they really mean by the end of our democracy, and perhaps chuckle at this nonsense. Another article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, also looks at the motivations of those that utter about ‘the end of our democracy’ and the dire consequences of believing this nonsense.

02/26/22 (Bad) Actors

In June of 2021, I wrote the article. Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue within Government and Society, which is an examination of these qualities and their importance in American society. Given the trucker protest in Canada and various American governments' actions over the last two years, this article is even more apropos. The lack of these characteristics in our current political leadership is appalling and is responsible for many of the ills that beset America and Canada (along with many other democratic nations in the world). Today’s political leaders are driven by a lust for power, most especially amongst Democrat Party Leaders in America and Progressives/Leftists worldwide, and a desire to be rulers rather than leaders, as I examined in my article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They often justify these actions as doing what is best for the people. They often make decisions based on what is best for them and their supporters rather than what is best for all Americans. In this, they have forgotten, or did not know, the words of wisdom and caution of a great American:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?"
- Thomas Sowell

The best decision for Americans is best decided by each American, based on accurate and factual information rather than governmental decisions. However, this would require that they trust Americans to make the best decisions for themselves, a trust in Americans that our political leaders seem to lack. It also requires that Americans examine the facts and make responsible decisions. It also requires that Americans apply their Religion, Morality, Character, and Virtue when making a decision regarding issues and concerns impacting all Americans.

Alas, many Americans do not have the background and education to understand these issues and concerns due to "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and the poor state of American public education, as I discussed in my article "Public Education". The solution is not to have government make these decisions but to educate the American public so that they can make better decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, our current society is not structured to achieve this goal as many (bad) actors would rather have a supine public that accedes to their decisions.

Amongst the leading bad actors are Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. We, therefore, need to reign in these bad actors and level the playing field to assure the American people have the knowledge to make good decisions. This leveling cannot be done by government regulation, as this would cause more problems than it would solve. The proper course of action is to allow those Americans that have been impacted by these bad actors to take legal actions against bad actors when they act badly. It would also require that we extensively reform our public education system to educate Americans as to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

We also need to reform the problems of "Modern Journalism". In their rush to be first in their reporting or for sensationalism to expand viewership and readership, they have forgotten the importance of accuracy and veracity in their reporting. The journalistic reports on the Russian Collusion Delusion, The Coronavirus Pandemic, Systemic Racism in America, and their defamation of Americans that do not kowtow to their viewpoints, along with other dubious actions by journalists and editors, have done great harm to the body politic. Freedom of the Press is essential to our American Ideals and Ideas, but this freedom should not allow for them to misinform or defame Americans. Freedom of the Press is not to be free to say or write anything without constraints. Again, government regulation is not the answer, but a healthy concern about legal lawsuits should give them concern and pause to reflect before they report.

Social Media also needs to be reformed to protect the Free Speech Rights of all Americans, as I have written in my article “Social Media and Free Speech”. Social Medial has taken it upon themselves to restrict what may be said on their sites or for them to label posts or opinions as false, or mis- dis- and mal-information. This restricts the Free Speech rights of Americans and makes social media the arbiters of truth, the truth being something that nobody can objectively determine. These Social Media decisions and actions are based solely on their discretion, with little recourse for the users so impacted. There is also an alarming trend of social media engaging in these decisions and actions against political thought with which they disagree. Opening them up to legal lawsuits is an answer, but again, government regulation is not the answer. However, a healthy concern about legal lawsuits should give them concern to pause and reflect before they engage in these actions.

As I have written in my Chirp on, “02/08/22 Comity in the Workplace”, Modern Big Business is becoming a bad actor. They seem to believe that you must give up your natural rights as a condition of employment, rather than tempering your natural rights while in your workplace to achieve the common business goals of the workplace. Modern Big Business also believes that they have the right to set social policy through social activism rather than follow social policy as delineated by law as I have Chirped on, “02/10/21 Modern Big Business (MBB)”, and my Article “Other People’s Money (OPM)”. This social activism spending by Modern Big Business needs to cease as it is not the proper function of companies in our society, as well as being immoral, as explained in my OPM article. Companies need to focus on their products and services to meet their customers’ needs and not spend monies to meet a social goal. Social goals are the responsibility of the government and the American people and not businesses.

These lawsuits would require extensive changes to slander and libel laws to open lawsuits against the bad actors’ actions. No person or entity should be free to make slanderous or libelous statements against another, nor to make false or unsubstantiated allegations against another person, nor to cause reputational harm to another person or organization without being subject to lawsuits. And nobody should reserve the right to determine what the truth is. All these bad actors should remember that "With great power comes great responsibility", and they should all act responsibly.

02/25/22 Approval of Despotism

A new poll of Americans from The Trafalgar Group surveyed 1080 likely general election voters from February 18-20, 2022, with a margin of error of 3%. This poll occurred after Trudeau brought federal, provincial, and local law enforcement into Ottawa to forcibly clear out hundreds of protesters and dozens of vehicles from Parliament Hill and surrounding areas.

Democrats overwhelmingly favored Trudeau’s response with 65% approval to 17% disapproval. Republican responses were weighted even more heavily against Trudeau, however, with 87% of likely GOP voters disapproving to just 8% approving. Respondents who said they did not belong to either one of the two main parties cut against Trudeau’s crackdown with 74% disapproving versus 21% approving.

Aside from Democrats, the only other demographic areas identified in the poll that cut in Trudeau’s favor are the ages 65 and older category and among blacks and Hispanics. Every other demographic – men, women, Asian, white, younger age groups – disapproved of Trudeau’s handling of the protesters.

The largest difference in approval versus disapproval took place among 25 to 34-year-olds. In that age group, 100% of respondents disapproved of Trudeau’s tactics.

As I Chirped on, “02/24/22 Sliding into Despotism”, Americans have become more inured to despotism, but this poll reveals the extent and to which groups of Americans are accepting of despotism. And it is shocking! It appears that Democrats, blacks, and Hispanics are more accepting of despotism - which are the core groups of Democrat voters. The only good news is that young people disapprove of Trudeau’s tactics. However, the question is if this disapproval by young people is motivated by their understanding of our American Ideals and Ideas or their rebellious nature? I suspect the answer is the latter, but I hope that in large part, it is the former.

This does not bode well for America if Democrat Party Leaders retain power, and they pander to their core constituency. It also does not speak well of our public education system that has not educated these groups on our core American values and, indeed, may have miseducated these groups. It also does not speak well of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media who have perpetuated despotic ideals and ideas. These bad actors are laying the groundwork for more despotism in America, as my next Chirp illuminates.

This perpetuation of despotism needs to end if we are to retain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Otherwise, we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of governmental authority. The hubris of a government that believes that they can rule a free people is astounding, as only a subjugated or subservient people can be ruled. To not resist these despotic actions and ideas is to submit to despotism and the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms.

02/24/22 Sliding into Despotism

Life, Liberty, and Property are the Natural Rights of all persons. As such, a person has the right to defend themselves, their families, and their society against encroachment to their Natural Rights. Whether these encroachments are from other persons, organizations, or governments, a person has the Natural Right of defense. We often delegate the protection of Natural Rights to the government to assure justice, but justice requires just laws to assure justice. Justice also requires that all just laws be enforced equality for justice to reign supreme. However:

“Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal.”
 - Frederic Bastiat - "The Law"

When this occurs, then the government is no longer just and a protector of our Natural Rights. Such governments must utilize fear and intimidation to prevent a person from defending themselves, their family, and society against the encroachments to their Natural Rights. To accomplish this, a government must become despotic to achieve and maintain its powers. In an article, Despotism is all around us: the warnings of Montesquieu by Vickie B Sullivan, a Cornelia M Jackson professor of political science at Tufts University in Massachusetts, she writes:

“Montesquieu, the 18th-century French philosopher who brought the term ‘despotism’ into our political vocabulary, would not be surprised at the disjunction between the putative liberty of our society and the experience many have as the victims of irresponsible power within it. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), he shows that despotism is an ever-present danger and a persistent threat to human flourishing everywhere and always. Even those fortunate to live outside the borders of a despotic government can still be victimised by despotic practices. In response, Montesquieu teaches that the unmasking of despotism must remain a central endeavour in social and political life.”

Alas, America is becoming a despotic country. When the government attempts to control firearms and prosecutes those that utilize firearms to protect their Natural Rights, they are engaging in despotic actions. When a government selectively allows one mob to riot and destroy personal property, as well as injure or kill others without prosecution while furiously prosecuting other groups (i.e., The 2020 riots that swept across America vs. the January 6th, 2021, Capitol riots), they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government issues mandates that are beyond temporary to meet an emergency without legislative approval, they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government utilizes its powers to denigrate and persecute those people who disagree with their actions, as I have Chirped on “02/23/22 The New McCarthyism”, they are engaging in despotic actions. When the government passively allows criminal actions to occur on our streets and does not prosecute the offenders, and indeed, frees them to continue their criminal actions, they are engaging in despotic actions and inactions. When government officials are behaving as if there were ‘rules for thee but not for me’, they are behaving as despots are wont to do.

When such a government engages in these despotic actions, they have forfeited the right to claim they are the protectors of the Natural Rights of their citizens. Unfortunately, this is what the government in America has been doing for the last several years. A despotism that is being conducted by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. As such, our government has become despotic. This situation is analogous to the pre-Revolutionary War period in American history when the English government in the American Colonies became despotic, which resulted in our Declaration of Independence. And this government despotism is not limited to America but can be seen in many European nations, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These nations were once the proud defenders of Liberty and Freedom and are now sliding into despotism along with America.

This despotism needs to end if we are to retain our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Otherwise, we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of governmental authority. The hubris of a government that believes that they can rule a free people is astounding, as only a subjugated or subservient people can be ruled. To not resist these despotic actions and inactions is to submit to despotism and the loss of our Liberties and Freedoms. If such resistance requires a rebellion, then it is a moral rebellion as expressed in The Declaration of Independence:

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

02/23/22 The New McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism. The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. After the mid-1950s, McCarthyism began to decline, mainly due to Joseph McCarthy's gradual loss of public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false and sustained opposition from the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren on human rights grounds. The Warren Court made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several McCarthyist laws and directives and helped bring an end to McCarthyism.

We should all remember McCarthyism and its lessons. For if we do not, then:

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

Alas, we are repeating McCarthyism in today’s society, but a McCarthyism of the left against the right in America. The words and deeds of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and the ideas of Political Correctness, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and Identity Politics are manifestations of McCarthyism against the right.

It is as wrong today as it was then, and it needs to stop now. Unfortunately, the Progressives/Leftist and Democrat Party Leaders have little in their arsenal to offer Americans other than McCarthyism. This is just another reason that they should be turned out of power until they reform themselves.

02/22/22 Free Speech is Essential

Free Speech is essential to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, for free speech staves off the encroachments of would-be despots, dictators, and tyrants. However, today in America and the rest of the free world, free speech is under assault under the guise of limiting hate speech, politically incorrect speech, views that are deemed harmful or threatening, mis- dis- or mal-information, and a variety of other excuses.

This unprecedented assault is being undertaken by Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media. It utilizes the tactics of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and a Herd Mentality to restrict free speech. We are living in one of the most extreme anti-free speech periods in our nation’s history. We have never seen the current coalition of political, media, business, and academic figures aligned to limit speech rights.

Jonathan Turley, the noted and respected professor at George Washington University Law School, has testified in a United States Congressional proceeding about the issues of free speech. His testimony on ‘Fanning The Flames: Disinformation and Extremism In The Media’ can be downloaded here. He also testified on ‘The Right of The People Peacefully To Assemble: Protecting Speech By Stopping Anarchist Violence’, which can be downloaded here. These testimonies are some of the most erudite and intellectual defenses of free speech and the issues and concerns about free speech. He has also written many columns about free speech, which I have collected in my “Three Scholars Understanding and Defending the Constitution”. His other Free Speech articles can be viewed here.

Unfortunately, it is not only our Free Speech rights that are under assault but our other Natural and Constitutional Rights are under assault. But without Free Speech, it is not possible to defend these other Natural and Constitutional Rights. Therefore, we must begin to defend these other rights by insisting upon the Right to Free Speech. Those that would constrict our Free Speech would eventually constrict our other rights, and we have started to see these constrictions in America. We should also remember the words of warning from our first President:

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

02/21/22 Just Doing Their Job

As we watch the spectacle of the Canadian police applying force against the protesting truckers, we have heard many of the police and their defenders proclaim that they are just doing their duty, as their job and business is to enforce the laws and follow orders from their superiors. However, their duty is not only to human law but to God’s law, as God’s law always supersedes human law, and God’s law requires resistance to unjust laws. For those atheists or agnostics that do not believe in God, the term ‘Natural Law’ can be substituted for the term ‘God’s law’. Whenever your actions are contrary to God’s law, you forge a link in a chain of guilt and shame that envelopes you, and these links and your chain will govern your future actions to your detriment. These links and your chain are also examined by God in his judgment upon you when you meet your maker. In this, I am reminded of a snippet of dialog from a famous novel:

As Scrooge is confronted by the ghost of Marley all enveloped in the links and chains of his misdeeds, he rationalized that he and Marley were just going about their business; “But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this rationalization to himself. “Business!” cried Marley’s Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
 - Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

Therefore, it is not enough of a rationalization of just doing your job, as we all have a responsibility to obey God’s law above our responsibility to obey human law, for human law can be just or unjust. As such, one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, and conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ We, therefore, must listen to the dictates of our conscience before we take actions that may contravene God’s law. We all must ask if our actions and other persons' actions are in disobedience to God’s law, and if so, we all have the moral responsibility to not act upon these unjust human laws and to oppose those that would disobey God’s law. To not do so is to allow for injustice to reign supreme, which allows for despotism and tyranny to reign supreme.

We should also remember that history has taught us that when someone relies on just following the law or obeying the orders of superiors, it often leads to inhumanities, atrocities, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. These acts were perpetrated by persons who were just doing their jobs and obeying superiors' orders and often done through ignorance, incuriosity, or willful blindness as to the impacts of their actions. Rather than following the dictates of their conscience, they allowed themselves to be pawns of despots and tyrants. This is no valid reason or excuse for these actions as these actions are inexcusable. However, the perpetrators can repent by working to oppose these unjust laws and depose these despots and tyrants.

We must all oppose these unjust laws and depose these despots and tyrants, for we should all remember that:

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
 - Benjamin Franklin

02/20/22 Our Bedrock and Foundation

Thought for today on our "American Ideals and Ideas":

“The bedrock of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of our American Ideals and Ideas is the Constitution. Anything that contravenes this bedrock or foundation is anathema to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated.”
 - Mark Dawson

A group of Canadian clergy sent an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this week rebuking him for invoking the Emergencies Act to quell the Freedom Convoy and for other actions they described as "tyrannical". It would behoove all freedom-loving people to read this letter as this letter, along with Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, this letter explains the moral justification for civil disobedience against unjust laws as I have written in my Chirp on, “02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws”. Although this letter is longer than most of my Chirps, given its importance, I have decided to reproduce it in its entirety as follows:

“TO: the Prime Minister and Federal Government,

We are writing to you as representative pastors of Christian congregations from across the nation and as law-abiding citizens who respect the God-defined role of civil government and uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the highest law of our land, which recognizes the supremacy of God over all human legislation. For the past two years, we have sought to respectfully and peaceably make known to all levels of government our profound concern about the indefinite suspension of civil liberties, coercive mandates and perpetual state interference in the life, freedom and worship of the church – freedoms guaranteed by both our inherited Common Law tradition and Charter. We have also prayed earnestly for our governing authorities, met with them, written letters and petitions, peacefully gathered for protest with other concerned citizens and in some cases filed lawsuits. We have used every lawful means at our disposal to be heard and taken seriously. Yet at every turn, we have been largely ignored, brushed aside, insulted and even told we in no way represent Canadians.

In recent weeks, the hugely popular truckers convoy containing many Christians (including pastors), has captured the imagination not only of this nation but other nations around the world, laying bare that what we have expressed and argued for months is indeed representative of the concerns of millions of ordinary Canadians who value peace, personal responsibility and liberty. The Ottawa protest has presented your government with a wonderful opportunity to meet with and speak to ordinary Canadians lawfully and peaceably requiring the restoration of their constitutional rights. However, in response to their singing, praying, dancing, candy floss, bouncy castles, speeches about the constitution and outpourings of patriotic love for the country, your government has not only refused to meet with these citizens to hear their concerns, you have insulted, denigrated and lied about them, further dividing a hurting and broken nation.

As ambassadors of Christ, whilst we respect your office as a public servant and honour the limited role of civil authority as a ministry of public justice, we do not hesitate to fulfill our responsibility as servants of the living God by unapologetically reminding you that Jesus Christ is Lord and King and the ruler of the kings of the earth. He sets up kings and pulls down the mighty from their thrones and none can stay his hand. In the words of the same scriptures engraved on the Peace Tower in Ottawa and written into our very national Coat of Arms:

‘Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. (Ps. 2: 10-12)’

Mr. Trudeau, with great respect, you are neither the king nor the ruler of Canada. Both you and your colleagues are public servants sent for a short time to Parliament at our behest as citizens to govern under God in terms of the Canadian Charter and to seek a harmony of public legal interest. You do not grant people rights and responsibilities that are theirs as God’s image-bearers and a free people. Since you do not grant them, you have no authority to remove them.

Your government does not grant people the right to their bodily integrity, the right to work or earn a living, the right to decide for their children or to be with their families or dying loved ones, the right to gather to worship and obey God, the right to travel in their own land or enter and leave. Civil government exists to protect these pre-political and fundamental freedoms, not bestow and remove them as if it can function in the place of God .As such, we as Christian pastors condemn in the strongest possible terms your unprecedented invoking of the Emergency Powers Act (1988) with the intent of bringing unaccountable state power to bear on peaceful citizens – "men women and children" – who have been stripped of their fundamental freedoms for two years and who have in many cases lost everything as a result of your government's mandates. There is no national emergency and to invoke one to crush peaceful political dissent is a totalitarian act of repression displaying weakness not strength. These tyrannical actions are exposing this government and people to the judgment of God, and we are deeply concerned that you do not appreciate the significance of God’s wrath upon a rebellious and lawless nation.

We implore you to step back from the brink, restore the constitutional freedoms of the people, respect the God-given rights of our citizenry and above all to humble yourself and take a knee before Christ the King lest you perish in the way. We urge you to repent of the sins of pride, rebellion against God, and bearing false witness. You have not displayed a brotherly care and love for these honest hard-working people who have tried to peacefully bring their very serious concerns to your attention.

Our hope and prayer for you and your government is that you will lift the emergency measures, end these lawless mandates, and enact justice for a people who elected you to that purpose.

'For He shall have dominion from sea to sea (Ps. 72:8).'”

02/19/22 Limited Forcible Resistance

As I have Chirped on the January 6th, 2020 Capitol “Insurrection” many times at here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, this “insurrection” was anything but an insurrection. In an article by Rob Natelson, What the Jan. 6 Capitol Incursion Really Was, he examines the January 6th “Insurrection” in a historical context. He states that “The Capitol incursion was wrong, but it was not an “insurrection.” It was a very different kind of event with deep roots in our Anglo-American heritage.” He explains that these deep roots as:

“The late Pauline Maier was a distinguished historian of colonial and Revolutionary America. She identified an Anglo-American tradition of “limited forcible resistance.” Although different kinds of actions fit this description, they all have four characteristics:

He then goes on to explain how the Capital incursion fits into the definition of a “limited forcible resistance.” One of his conclusions was, “All of that having been said, it’s wrongheaded to classify the Jan. 6 riot as an “insurrection” rather than what it was: limited forcible resistance undertaken by people convinced they had no other remedy.”

Many of the insurrections were of a limited forcible resistance mob, while some were just Wackadoodles. Any political leader who believes this was an insurrection is simply politically pandering, or they believe resistance to their authority is an insurrection. This posturing and belief are dangerous to the body politic, as it does not illuminate the concerns of these “insurrectionists” and is being used to demonize those Americans who have concerns about the 2020 election irregularities, thus pitting one group of Americans against another. To simply dismiss these concerns is to dismiss a large percentage of Americans who believe that their votes were compromised. This dismissive attitude further divides Americans and disenchants many Americans about the legitimacy of our government.

This disenchantment is one of the seeds of civil unrest, which can grow to civil disobedience and potentially civil war. Therefore, these concerns need to be investigated and addressed properly for all Americans to be satisfied as to the legitimacy of the 2020 elections. The House select committee on the January 6th, 2020, Capitol “Insurrection” is not doing this, and indeed, is furthering the divisions and disenchants in America. Indeed, this committee bears a resemblance to the House Un-American Activities Committee of the mid-twentieth century, and McCarthyism, which should never again happen in America.

Two other articles by Rob Natelson, Weren’t the Capitol Hill Protesters “Mostly Peaceful?” and The Undeniable Irregularity That May Have Cost Trump the Election, also examine this “Insurrection” and its causes.

02/18/22 The Abortion Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States is considering a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade from Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center. Having had all parties submit their written opinions and having heard all oral arguments, they are currently in internal deliberations as to the resolution of this lawsuit.

As I have Chirped on, "09/15/21 An Unresolved National Issue of Natural Rights", there is much to be weighed in this decision. This decision should be weighed with profoundness and expeditiously, and it should be decided and issued prior to the election cycle of 2022. This will give the American people time to consider this decision and weigh it in their decision as to whom they wish to vote. It is important that they do so before they cast their ballots to help settle this issue in the court of public opinion.

Therefore, I would implore the Supreme Court to issue this decision as soon as possible. I would also implore the Supreme Court to not base its decision on narrow legal grounds but to address the issue on the 9th Amendment Rights of both the mother and the unborn child, the core issue of abortion, as this would provide a sound foundation for its Abortion Decision.

02/17/22 Public Education Responsibilities

The American people have always believed in the importance of education, and schooling for children is part and parcel of our society. However, nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. This is because our Founders believed that this was a State and local governments issue that was delegated to them by the Tenth Amendment. This is the way it was until the 1960s when the Federal government became alarmed about the quality and the inequity of education across States and local jurisdictions, as well as the inequity of racial discrimination in schooling resources.

Despite increased federal involvement in the funding and regulations upon public education since the 1960s, the quality of Public Education has not improved much, and in some cases, it has become worse. My article on "Public Education" discusses many of the issues and concerns regarding public education in today’s America. Two other Articles of mine, "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "Indoctrination versus Education", also address the issues of public education in today’s America.

The core issue on Education is what is the role and responsibility of the Federal government in education and the proper ways and means to fund and manage education. Our educational approach in America is to fund educational systems rather than fund the parents or legal guardians in the education of their children. This, by nature, is a top-down approach to education that is rife with bureaucracy and political and judicial meddling in education, which I believe is the core of the problems with Public Education in America.

In 21st century America, we have also seen more "Activists and Activism" in Administrators and Teachers for the purposes of molding children, and less subject matter teaching for the purposes of educating our children. This is leading to parental discontent and the public funding of controversial ideas in the classroom, which are abhorrent as:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors in sinful and tyrannical."
 - Thomas Jefferson

Consequently, we must resolve the core issues on Education to reform education to produce knowledgeable and rational children that can become contributing members of our society as adults.

02/16/22 Government Punitive Damages

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages award. Sometimes punitive damages can be excessive and abused, such as when a jury wishes to punish an individual, company, or organization that they disfavor or they believe has deep pockets and can afford to pay the damages, but such cases are rare but are becoming more frequent in modern America. Punitive damages are subjective by their very nature. Since their purpose is to punish, as opposed to compensation, opinions on how to accomplish this will vary widely among jurors. Regardless, research into punitive damages has revealed some common principles. The wealth of the defendant is positively correlated with large punitive damage awards, jurors either downplay or ignore jury instructions regarding punitive damages determinations, and jurors tend to punish defendants who have conducted a cost-benefit analysis and proceeded regardless of the damages inflicted.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) sharply limits punitive damages from being awarded against the Federal government. This means that damages that are intended to punish the wrongdoer are not allowed. Instead, only compensatory damages can be awarded in an FTCA case.

Given that the 21st century has seen a sharp increase of governmental actions against individuals, companies, or organizations, many times infringing on their Constitutional Rights or going beyond the bounds of the scope of their duties and responsibilities, this FTCA limitations precludes suing for punitive damages to deter these actions by the government. We have also seen law enforcement and regulators enforce or not enforce laws and regulations based upon "Adjective Justice", "Identity Politics", "Political Correctness", and "Wokeness", as well as institute legal actions based on a political agenda rather than wrongdoing. This FTCA limitation precludes using punitive damages to ameliorate these government actions or inactions, and this is a core issue of the proper means and ways of restraining governmental overreach.

I believe that this is wrong and that if punitive damages can be utilized to punish an individual, company, or organization for deterring future inappropriate actions, they should be available to deter future improper government actions that inflict damages upon individuals, companies, or organizations. The punitive damages awarded when such improper governmental actions are so determined must be large enough to deter the government from future improper actions. Given the deep pockets of the government, these punitive damages awards must be very large and directed at the agencies that instituted the improper actions (such as reducing their budgets by the amount of the punitive damages).

Until this happens, we will continue to see more improper governmental actions that damage individuals, companies, or organizations that are harmful to society at large and are often an infringement on our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

02/15/22 Governmental Consent Decrees

A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refers to such a type of settlement in the United States. The plaintiff and the defendant ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties. It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, or consent judgment. Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation. There are many advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree, as outlined in the Wikipedia section on ‘Effects’ of a Consent Decree.

The core issue is the scope of the consent decree. Does a consent decree require Congressional approval if its scope falls outside of the delegated powers of the Executive or Judicial branches of government? Many consent decrees require actions by the government and the other parties to the consent decree that seem to be the prerogatives of Congress to be legitimate under the Constitution.

As important and as useful as the tool as consent decrees are, they can also be abused in the hands of governmental bureaucrats. They are often utilized to advance a government policy not instituted by Congress, most often when an activist group sues the Federal government. Many times, governmental regulatory agencies utilize a consent decree to advance their own agenda outside the bounds assigned to them by Congress. And many times, Congress takes no action and the Executive Officers approve of these consent decrees, as they can hide behind the contentious policies of consent decrees rather than directly vote upon or implement these policies. And when this occurs, the result is often more Federal powers over the people of America without their consent. Sometimes these consent decrees fund activists’ groups as part of the financial settlement of the consent decree, which often begets more lawsuits and consent decrees.

Much of these types of consent decree abuses have occurred in the 21st century, as the Obama Administration discovered them as a means to implement policies not authorized by Congress, along with the issuance of Executive Orders as I have Chirp on, "07/28/19 Executive Orders". Although the Trump Administration utilized consent decrees, it did so in a less abusive manner. However, as the Biden Administration is staffed by Obama Administration personnel and wishes to advance these same types of policies not authorized by Congress, I expect we shall see more abusive consent decrees in the coming years. Therefore, we need to be wary of governmental consent decrees and carefully scrutinize them, as well as finding a means for Congressional approval of all governmental regulatory agencies’ consent decrees.

02/14/22 Income Redistribution

Much talk has been made about Income Redistribution for the purposes of equity, as I have defined in my "Terminology" webpage on "Equity and Equality". The core issue is by what right does the government have to take monies from some people who have earned it and give it to other persons who have not earned it. The government has the right to tax all persons to support the necessary and proper functions of government as defined in the Constitution, but is the redistribution of monies for the purposes of equity a proper function of government?

What has been forgotten is that income is earned and that it is only wealth that can be redistributed. This is why the IRS taxes earned income and has no category for taxing redistributed Income. The IRS does tax interest, dividends, and capital gains, but most of the monies utilized to obtain these incomes originated from earned income, which has already been taxed as earned income.

To distribute wealth requires that you take monies that someone has earned and give it to others that have not earned the income. This is often done in the name of “Social Justice” and for the reduction of poverty. Whenever someone or some group talks of income redistribution, you should recall the wisdom of the late great black economist Walter E. Williams who said:

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?
 - Walter E. Williams

“Here's Williams' roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“However, if we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“I believe in helping our fellow man in need. I believe that reaching into your own pockets to help someone in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into somebody else's pockets to help your fellow man in need is despicable. And, or those of us who are Christians, I'm very sure that when God gave Moses the commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal, he did not mean ...unless you get a majority vote in Congress.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.”
 - Walter E. Williams

“Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers.”
 - Walter E. Williams

Therefore, to redistribute income based on equity is a violation of our Natural and Constitutional rights and should never be permitted.

02/13/22 Rebellion Against Unjust Laws

The framers of the Declaration of Independence fermented a rebellion in violation of English law. Consequently, as rebels, they were subject to arrest, prosecution, fines, imprisonment, and even hanging, as they had broken English law. In their words and deeds, they were criminals and were so labeled by the English government that ruled over the American colonies. The framers of the Declaration of Independence understood that laws could be just or unjust and that to oppose unjust laws was a moral duty of all persons. While their words and deeds were criminal under English law, they were just under Natural Law. They, therefore, defied unjust English law to oppose the despotism of the English government. Such is the case for all rebellions, in all places and times, that oppose unjust laws, as evidenced by the following quote:

“Rebellion is always an evil. It is always an offence against the law of a nation. It is not always a moral crime. […] What is hateful is not the rebellion, but the despotism which induces that rebellion. What is hateful are not the rebels, but the men who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; they are the men who, having the power to redress wrongs, refuse to listen to the petitioners who are sent to them; they are the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone.”
 - Prime Minister of Canada Wilfred Laurier, March 16, 1886

Therefore, it is not a crime to disobey an unjust law, and indeed, it is a moral responsibility to oppose an unjust law. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and spoke extensively about just and unjust laws, and social justice, in his  “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech as well as other speeches and letters, which I have extracted in my “Quotes of Martin Luther King Jr.” webpage. Martin Luther King Jr. considered this question in his powerful letter from a Birmingham Jail. As he so elegantly and persuasively stated in this letter, Civil Disobedience to an unjust law is obedience to God’s law and must take precedence over any man-made law and, indeed, it is one of God’s highest laws that all persons must observe. He was responding to fellow members of the clergy who opposed segregation but rejected civil disobedience, which involved breaking the law. His central point was that laws may be just or unjust. We have a duty to obey just laws and to oppose, even defy, unjust laws. We need to recognize that both kinds of laws exist and learn how to tell the difference. Of particular interest to this Chirp is the following quotes:

“One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

Therefore, the truckers’ protests in Canada, and the planned truckers’ protests in America, are the words and deeds of opposition to what they believe are unjust laws. The truckers’ issues and concerns need to be addressed by the government and not criminalized. Otherwise, it may morph into a Rebellion Against Unjust Laws. We should also that a motto suggested, but not used, for the Seal of the United States of America:

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
 - Benjamin Franklin

02/12/22 Death Taxes

By what right does the government have to confiscate the wealth of a person after they die? This is the core issue of inheritance taxes. They have the power to do so, but they do not have the right to do so. During the course of a person’s life, they accumulate wealth by hard work that generates earned income, earned income that is utilized for wise savings, and good investments, for which they pay interest, dividends, and capital gains taxes. They do this not only for themselves but for their families during and after their death. This motivates them to higher levels of achievement to accumulate more wealth, and this higher level of achievement benefits their customers and clients and, therefore, all of society. Or, as it has been said:

“Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers.”
 - Walter E. Williams

However, many of the inheritors of their wealth, such as farmers and small businesspersons, find it necessary to sell their benefactors real assets to pay the death tax. This deprives the heirs of a future source of earned income and the ability to continue to please their consumers. It may also demotivate the benefactors to higher levels of achievement as they determine the extra effort may not be worth the effort.

Given that the death tax is a tax upon the wealth that was already taxed during the accumulation of the wealth, and death taxes may deprive the beneficiaries of this wealth of utilizing these assets to generate more wealth, the death tax is immoral. Immoral as it is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, “You shan't covet your neighbor's house. You shan't covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” And coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor is the base motivation for the death tax.

Just because the government has the power to tax does not give them the right to tax anything they want to tax. When they do so, they are making the people the serfs of the government, and serfdom is not compatible with our American Ideals and Ideas.

02/11/22 Environmental Protection

I grew up in a time when America did not have environmental protection laws. I remember litter on our streets and highways, smog enveloping cities and towns, and polluted waterways throughout America. I have no wish to see any of this return to America, and I favored environmental protection laws and regulations to assure that this does not reoccur. However, it is not possible to have a pristine environment in a technologically advanced civilization. It is also not possible to protect all wildlife, wilderness, flora, and fauna. Humans are a consumer of natural resources to improve their lives and society, and waste is a byproduct of consumption. The mining, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of our consumption will always entail impacts upon our environment.

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was created to clean up our environment to the extent possible given technological and economic constraints. In this, they were quite successful on the major environmental problems we faced at the time of its creation. Yet, like all bureaucracies, they grew and extended their reach to more minute environmental concerns. In doing so, they impacted society in ways that were not anticipated nor economically constrained and often impacted the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans to conduct their lives as they see fit. This is the core issue that needs to be reexamined – what are the constraints of the EPA upon their involvement in the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans?

Many of the supporters of the EPA’s intervention do so in a religious-like fervor, as they wish to have a pristine environment with little or no impacts of humans upon the environment. This is not possible, nor desirable, as for humans to have a better life requires the consumption of natural resources and the impacts on the environment that it entails. They forget or do not wish to acknowledge that the advancement of humankind always entails impacts upon the environment. Their fervor would constrict or reduce the quality of life for humans to the detriment of all persons.

Congress, in the creation of environmental protection laws and its oversight of the EPA, as well as Presidents in the administration of the EPA laws and regulations, have not done well in consideration of the technological feasibility nor economic impacts of these laws and regulations. They have also not considered the impacts upon the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans to conduct their lives as they see fit. Too often, political considerations of appealing to environmental organizations and persons to garner support and votes have been their primary concern. We need to protect our environment for ourselves and future generations, but we also need to do so within technological and economic constraints, as well as not unduly impact the Liberties and Freedoms of Americans.

Consequently, we must be very careful in the powers we invest in the EPA and assure that they operate within the scope of their powers. Congress, Presidents, and the EPA should always keep in mind the technological constraints and economic impacts of their decisions, as well as their impacts upon the Liberty and Freedoms of all Americans when crafting and enforcing environmental laws and regulations.

02/10/22 Anti-Trust and Interstate Commerce

Since the end of the 19th century and during the 20th and 21st century, the Federal government has become more involved and regulatory in the affairs of American businesses. Much of the reasoning for this Federal government intervention in businesses was for the purposes of regulating monopolistic practices, consumer protections, social justice, and other activists’ purposes (as I have Chirped on. “10/25/21 Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists”). There is no doubt that the government should be involved in businesses for the protection of the health and safety of Americans and for protections against fraud on Americans. However, many of these laws and regulations have become so over-reaching, entangled, complex, burdensome, and sometimes at cross purposes as to make it very difficult for businesses to operate efficiently, not to mention increasing the overhead costs and for both businesses and the government to administer them. Consequently, the prices that businesses charge for their goods and services increase to cover these overhead costs.

As a result, our laws, rules, and regulations that impact business have become entangled and often contradictory to the point that businesses find it difficult to know and comply with all these laws, rules, and regulations without extensive legal counsel. It also makes it easier for anybody who feels aggrieved by a business action to bring a lawsuit and ensnared the business in legal actions that may take years to resolve, and which cost much monies in legal fees to resolve. There is also the unfortunate fact that many juries are sympathetic with the plaintiffs of these lawsuits and often decide on their feelings rather than the (often nebulous) law or regulation, and when they do so, they often award large compensations to the plaintiffs (see my Article, “Who Pays for Large Lawsuit Settlements?)”. All this impacts society, as businesses need to plan for government regulatory fines and possible legal actions, as well as plaintiff lawsuits, and consequently, they need to obtain additional insurance or set aside profits to pay for this. When this occurs, the business must increase the price of their goods or services to cover these costs, which ultimately the consumer pays for. And all of this is a drag on the economy of our society.

Then there is the core issue of the question of the Constitutionality of these laws and regulations? Congress and the Presidency have often utilized "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the laws and regulations, and the Supreme Court has often tied themselves in legal knots to declare them Constitutional. This is especially true when they have regulated businesses for social justice and other activists’ purposes. Congresses, Presidents, and the Supreme Court have expanded the meaning of the words and terms in the Constitution to encompass more than what the founding fathers enumerated nor envisioned. In doing so, they are not utilizing the built-in minor ambiguities of the Constitution that are necessary to legislate and enforce laws for the common good but, indeed, are modifying the Constitution without passing a Constitutional Amendment that needs the will of the people to be enacted.

Monopolies, per se, are not intrinsically bad. It is the way they obtained or maintained their monopoly that they may be bad. If they use a strategy and tactics that constricts the free flow of the marketplace to achieve their goals, or they collude with other businesses to constrict the free flow of the marketplace, then they are bad. If the monopoly was obtained or is maintained by offering the consumer products and services that the consumer desires in a timely manner which the consumer can afford, then they are good.

The meaning of Interstate Commerce has also been so stretched by Congress, Presidencies, and Judicial interpretations of this term that practically all commerce can be considered Interstate Commerce. This has allowed the Federal government to intervene in the affairs of the business, with all the consequences that I mentioned in the second paragraph of this Chirp.

In addition, many of these laws, rules, and regulations were formulated and passed to fit businesses of the industrial age of America. With the progression into the information age in America, many of these laws, rules, and regulations are no longer applicable nor workable. It is, therefore, past time that we re-think these laws, rules, and regulations for our modern times, as well as bring them back into the constraints of the Constitution that preserves our Liberties and Freedom for all Americans and the businesses they own.

02/09/22 Health and Safety in the Workplace

With the recent Supreme Court decision that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not have the authority to institute vaccine mandates in the workplace, the question arises if OSHA has exceeded its authorities in other areas. No evidence exists that this is the case, but allegations of aggressive regulations and enforcement by OSHA have raised this question.

OSHA regulators need proper Congressional oversight to determine if they are exceeding their authority and if the OSHA regulations are reasonable and equitable. If this is the case, then the American people can be comfortable with OSHA not exceeding its duties and responsibilities. If OSHA does exceed its authorities, or it is inequitable in the formulation and enforcement of its regulations, then the American people should be very wary of OSHA.

However, accidents happen. American’s want and deserve a safe and healthy work environment, but it is not possible to have an accident-free workplace. Accidents will happen due to human error, happenstance, lack of foresight, carelessness, and negligence, especially in the manual labor businesses. American’s need to distinguish between the causes of accidents and take the appropriate responses to the accident. To expect an accident-free workplace is unrealistic and an impossible goal, as humans are fallible. When a workplace accident does occur, then workplace policies and procedures and perhaps OSHA regulations need to be updated, and possible legal actions should occur if the accident was preventable. Human error and happenstance are rarely preventable, while lack of foresight may sometimes be preventable. Carelessness and negligence, however, are almost always preventable. American’s must keep this in mind whenever they adjudge the cause of a workplace accident.

OSHA regulators need to keep the causes of accidents in mind and not be overaggressive in regulating businesses. Any overregulation has consequences to the economics of a business, as well as the freedoms of the owners to operate the business as they determine what is best for their business. It is this balance between government regulation, protections of workers' safety, and the freedom of operation of a business that is a core issue.

Compliance with OSHA regulations does have an economic impact on businesses. However, such economic impacts should be viewed as the cost of doing business in America if the OSHA regulations are formulated and enforced equitably across all businesses in America. The only question is do OSHA regulations put American businesses at a disadvantage with foreign competitors who do not have occupational safety and health regulations for their workers. When this occurs, it is the responsibility of Congress to examine this situation and to take actions to ameliorate this situation as appropriate. For Congress not to do so is the favor foreign businesses over American businesses. If foreign nations claim that this is an internal matter, then the response should be you may have that right, but if you exercise that right, then you have no right to participate in the American economy.

The safety and health of all workers is a moral and ethical concern that should be addressed by all businesses and governments worldwide. On balance, OSHA has been a positive force in America in protecting the safety and health of American workers, but the balance of government regulations, protections of workers' safety, and the freedom of operation of a business needs to be maintained. OSHA should also serve as a role model for other nations for the protection of the safety and health of their own workers.

02/08/22 Comity in the Workplace

The question for today’s Chirp is, do Constitutional Rights prevail outside of governmental actions and restrictions? Constitutional Rights such as:

Many people claim that they do not apply except for government actions and restrictions, and they do not apply when they are a condition of employment. Therefore, the question is, do these Constitutional Rights trump employer prohibitions as a condition of employment? Imagine if an employer said that as a condition of employment, you could not be involved in outside employment activities of the following:

And that if you did so, your employment would be terminated or that they would not employ your services. This also raises the question of what other Natural Rights may be prohibited by an employer. An employer has the right to restrict your speech and actions within the place of employment to assure comity in the workplace. However, they have no right to restrict your speech and actions that occur outside of your place of employment. To do so is to violate both your Natural and Constitutional Rights.

Much of this is done by an employer under the rhubarb of assuring that there is no ‘hostile work environment’ or ‘offensive co-workers’ in their workplace. However, to paraphrase a famous quote of Thomas Sowell:

“The most basic question is not what is hostile or offensive, but who shall decide what is hostile or offensive.”

I believe that it is offensive to violate the Natural and Constitutional Rights of any person, and any workplace that does so is a hostile work environment. Should all employees who believe otherwise have their employment terminated? Many would respond that it is the employer that decides what is offensive or hostile. However, to solely leave this discretion to an employer is to make the employer a demigod and to institute despotism in the workplace. A Demagoguery and Despotism that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas".

An employer should only be interested in assuring comity in the workplace. Such comity is best assured by insisting upon polite and respectful speech in the workplace and no discussions of the outside political, social activism, or religious activities of its employees within the workplace. This is the best means to assure comity in the workplace and that there is no hostile work environment or offensive co-workers in their workplace.

02/07/22 The Core Issue

Many issues and concerns facing America are based on a core issue that is the foundation for the resolution of the issue or concern. Core issues that are not complex but are difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of the core issue. However, you cannot ignore the core issue, you cannot skirt the core issue, and you cannot compromise on a core issue because it is a core and thus a foundation for the resolution of the issue or concern.

The core issues are as I have written about in my Articles:

Until you analyze and resolve the core issue, it is not possible to resolve the specific issue to any degree of satisfaction. And you cannot evade the core issue, for if you do so, you fall into the trap of:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

My next several Chirps are on topics that would appear to have little core issues. However, if you analyze the topic in more depth, you will discover a core issue staring back at you.

02/06/22 The Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was as revered and admired as George Washington was by his contemporaries. He was considered as one of the great and wise men of all history. As I am a Franklin-phile, in that I have read many books, magazines, and articles about Benjamin Franklin, I know much about his life and times. In reading about Benjamin Franklin, I have discovered many pearls of wisdom that I have tried to incorporate into my life. In my new Article, “The Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin”, I write about some of the most important things that I have read about and learned from the life of Benjamin Franklin:

02/05/22 The Most Dangerous Persons in America

There has been much talk about ‘Our Democracy’ being in danger and the people who are endangering Our Democracy. Our Democracy is in danger, but not by the people that those who utter this term blame. The real dangers to America are those political leaders that do not embrace our "American Ideals and Ideas" and those that would encroach upon our Liberties and Freedoms, as I explained in my new Article, “The Rights That Structure Liberty and Freedom”.

In today's America, these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms are being done by the coercion and suppression of these Liberties and Freedoms by Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, as well as the words and deeds of Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" as I have written in the Terminology" webpage.

In the forefront of these encroachments to our Liberties and Freedoms are the Democrat Party Leaders who embrace the ideology and ideas of Progressives/Leftists. Therefore, the most dangerous persons in America are President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Their words at deeds have demonstrated that they have no conception of the real meaning of our American ideals and ideas and of our Liberties and Freedoms. They seem more concerned about obtaining and retaining power and control over the American people than they are about preserving our Liberties and Freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers were aware of these Liberties and Freedoms and incorporated these rights into the Constitution to preserve and protect our Liberties and Freedoms. In this endeavor, they have been successful for over two centuries. However, our Liberties and Freedoms are not free. They must be cherished and maintained by the American people for them to persist, or has been said:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
 - Thomas Jefferson

Therefore, all Americans must be vigilant for these encroachments and resist them from being implemented in our society. We must turn out of office those ambitious politicians who would encroach upon our Liberties and Freedoms and replace them with politicians who wish to preserve our rights. To not do so is to allow for the destruction of America. We are at a turning point in American history based upon the decisions we will make today, and our decisions will impact the future of America in that, as the 16th President of the United States has stated:

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

02/04/22 Thou Shall Not Speak On …

On a recent television show, former Congressional Representative Trey Gowdy spoke of how he learned not to speak on the subjects of the Holocaust, Slavery, and Domestic Violence. He expressed that it always landed you into trouble and controversy when you mentioned these topics. In landing you into trouble and controversy I agree with him, but to not speak on these topics I politely and respectively disagree with him. If you speak upon these topics with facts, accuracy, honestly, and truthfully, as well as politely and respectfully, you should speak upon these topics. To not do so is to forget the lessons of history, which is dangerous, as:

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

This topic was brought about by the Holocaust comments of Whoopie Goldberg on ‘The View’ television show in which she was accused of Anti-Semitism. I have carefully listened to her comments and apologies, and I do not believe that she is Anti-Semitic, but she was inarticulate and inartful in what she said, as is typical for the ladies on The View.

As explained in the Wikipedia article on Racism:

“Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.”

“While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g., shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial.”

Therefore, in modern parlance, being Jewish can be considered as being a member of a race. It was in this sense that Whoopie Goldberg was inarticulate and inartful. Her point, however, that the Holocaust was part of a larger event in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of other peoples is correct. While Anti-Semitism is abhorrent and should never be tolerated, nor should the Nazis atrocities against the Jewish people be forgotten, the Nazis were not just Anti-Semitic. 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 attested by the numbers from the Wikipedia article on Holocaust victims:

1,800,000 Polish Civilians (excluding Jews)
1,300,000 Russian Civilians (excluding Jews)
   600,000 Serbs
   270,000 Disabled
   500,000 Romani 
   200,000 Freemasons
     25,000 Slovenes
     15,000 Homosexuals
       3,500 Spanish Republicans
       5,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses
 ------------

4,718,500 Non-Jewish Victims
6,098,000 European Jewish Victims
 ------------
10,816,500 Total Victims

These numbers bespeak of the toll of Anti-Semitism and Intolerance by the Nazis. Therefore, the lesson of history from Nazi’s atrocities is not only Anti-Semitism but of Intolerance for any race, ethnicity, religion, or any other factors that distinguish people. To gloss over or ignore this lesson of history is an injustice to the victims of the Holocaust and to the other Nazi victims, and it portends the possibility of repeating these mistakes of Anti-Semitism and Intolerance.

Consequently, discussing the subjects of the Holocaust, Slavery, and Domestic Violence is important and should not be proscribed. But it should only be done in a factual, accurate, honest, and truthful manner, as well as being done in a politeful and respectful manner. It may still land you in trouble and controversy, as some people thrive of generating troublemaking and controversy, but you will have nothing to apologize for and you will be informing the American public on a topic of importance.

02/03/22 Enlightenment Gone Wrong

In my History article on “Enlightenment”, I extoll the virtues of Enlightenment. However, Enlightenment sometimes gets it wrong. The most egregious example is what happened in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. This is counterposed by how Enlightenment got it right in the American Revolution. My new History Article, “Enlightenment Gone Wrong,” is an examination of how Enlightened thinking got it right and wrong in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

The American Revolution was based on the principles of John Locke's Political Philosophy, while The French Revolution was based on the principles of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy. The American Revolution founded a government of Liberty and Freedom that has lasted over two centuries, while The French Revolution quickly devolved into The Reign of Terror, followed by the rise of the authoritarian rule of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of human nature and the lust for power and the dangers of mob rule, and the need for a government that would reign in these passions to preserve our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". The French Revolution had few checks and balances on the power of personages and no means to reign in the mob passions of its citizens. This was a major difference between the American government and the French government, a difference that led to The Reign of Terror in France.

I conclude this article by stating that the central concepts of John Locke's Political Philosophy must not only be the basis for the government but also needs to be internalized and faithfully adhered to by a government. If not, then a government is doomed to failure, as can be attested to by what happened in The French Revolution. We can, therefore, conclude that a successful government needs Locke’s Political Philosophy to endure. A successful government must also be based on the realities of human nature, for:

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

Let us all think of what happened in The French Revolution and The Reign of Terror as a lesson of history. For if we do not ponder upon this lesson of history, then:

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

And we, in America, may be doomed to repeat it. The rise of Progressives/Leftists political thought in the 20th and 21st centuries and the adoption of their agenda by Democrat Party Leaders have led us to a more Jean-Jacques Rousseau political philosophy and thus a lessening of John Locke's Political Philosophy in America. This could be dangerous for America as unchecked power and mob rule inevitably end in political turmoil and economic repercussions to society. It also, sometimes, leads to a reign of terror. We, therefore, need to turn away from Rousseau’s political philosophy and reestablish John Locke's Political Philosophy for governance. To not do so is to continue down the slippery slope that could lead us to the dissolution of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

02/02/22 The Greater Good versus The Common Good

The term The Common Good has been replaced by the term The Greater Good in the minds of many Americans, and many Americans believe these terms are in the Constitution. However, the Constitution only speaks of the “general Welfare” in the Preamble and in Article I, Section. 8 of the Constitution: “… and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”, but the terms “Common Good” and the “Greater Good” do not appear in the Constitution. Consequently, as Article. I, Section. 8 enumerates the legislative powers of Congress; it thereby restricts the powers of the Federal government, as explained in my Article, “Limited and Enumerated Powers”.

While The Greater Good may seem innocuous and beneficial in practice, it can be very harmful. The logic of The Greater Good is that whatever does the most good for the most people is for The Greater Good. Using the logic of The Greater Good allows the government to implement any government policy or program that they determine is for the benefit of most Americans, even if it may be harmful to some Americans and, indeed, may violate the Natural and Constitutional rights of some Americans. The Common Good term restricts government actions to those that are enumerated and delineated in the Constitution that is beneficial for all the people while not favoring any groups of people, nor violate the Natural and Constitutional rights of any American. The Greater Good would also allow the government to intervene in any speech or actions by individuals, entities, or groups of people to restrict their words and deeds to what they determine is for The Greater Good, or at a minimum restrict those words and deeds they deem harmful to Americans.

Consequently, the term ‘The Greater Good’ allows for any actions by the government, while the term ‘The Common Good’ restricts government actions. Therefore, the term The Greater Good is utilized to circumvent or ignore the Constitutional restraints on government and is antithetic to “The Meaning to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution”. When the government pursues The Greater Good, it must by necessity become despotic to achieve The Greater Good.

The Greater Good term is utilized by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to justify any actions that they deem necessary and proper to achieve The Greater Good. As Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. Consequently, they believe that they can decide what The Greater Good is for all Americans. They believe that no "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights" may take precedent over The Greater Good, as The Greater Good is more important than these rights. If The Greater Good is constrained by Natural and Human Rights, then it is no longer The Greater Good, and indeed, morphs into The Common Good. This morphing would, however, have fewer constrictions on government actions than what is enumerated and delineated in the Constitution. Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists often utilize “Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning” to justify The Greater Good, but nothing can justify the infringement of our Natural and Human Rights, as these rights supersede any government actions.

The Common Good term is utilized by Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans to allow the government to institute policies and programs that are beneficial to any American that would utilize these government policies and programs, so long as these government actions are within the limited and enumerated powers of government.

If we continue to pursue The Greater Good, we should remember the wisdom of Thomas Sowell – “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best?” If Constitutional Conservatives and Republicans were in power to decide what is best, I doubt that Democrats, Progressives, and Leftists would support their decisions as to what The Greater Good entails.

02/01/22 High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Article II. Section. 4. Of the United States Constitution states:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

When most people think about the term ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’, they are often confused or unknowing of the meaning of the modifier ‘High’. They also make the mistake of misconstruing the conjunction ‘and’, as the proper interpretation should be ‘High Crimes or High Misdemeanors’. The question is then, what do the terms ‘High Crimes’ and ‘High Misdemeanors’ mean. My new Article, “Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, examines this topic.

In this article, I conclude that I could support the impeachment and conviction of a President, Vice President, and all civil Officers for violating their Oath of Office under the interpretation of this clause as including abuse or dereliction of duty. However, it is only under the extraordinary circumstances that are so serious as to call into question the republican nature of our government or the dissolution of the balance of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of our government that impeachment and conviction are warranted. It is only when these issues arise that we need to consider the removal of a President and others by impeachment and conviction under the interpretation of abuse or dereliction of duty as “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

It is under these criteria that I believed that the two impeachments of President Trump were unwarranted. However, it is under these criteria that I believe that the impeachment and conviction of President Biden are warranted. With all the current problems in America under the Biden Administration, one problem stands out as impeachable – the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border.

President Biden has flouted the will of Congress by the laws that were passed regarding immigration, and he has substituted his own will regarding immigration. He has allowed illegal immigration of persons that have not been vetted for disease and criminal backgrounds, nor terrorist connections. He has enriched the criminal cartels in Mexico who exploit these illegal immigrants for money and other nefarious purposes. He has made it easier for illegal drugs to be smuggled into America. He has relocated these illegal immigrants under cover of darkness to States and localities ill-equipped to deal with these illegal immigrants, thus imposing a social and financial burden upon these States and localities to police and support these illegal immigrants. In doing so, he is changing the demographics in the next census, thus affecting Congressional districting. He has also opened the possibility of these illegal immigrants voting in State and local elections and the possibility of their voting in future Federal elections.

In all his actions and inactions, he has violated his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, breached the separation of powers between the branches of government, and not faithfully and equally enforced the laws. Consequently, he has abused his powers and is in dereliction of his duties.

It is imperative that this situation be corrected forthwith, for to not do so will forever change America in ways that are unconstitutional and without the approval nor consent of the American people. If President Biden is not removed for his actions and inactions, then it is also possible that future Presidents may determine that they can also act unconstitutionally and suffer little or no consequences.

I, therefore, call for the immediate impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Biden for his unconstitutional actions and inactions.

01/31/22 President Andrew Jackson as a Great American President

President Andrew Jackson was an American lawyer, soldier, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union.

While there is much to dislike Andrew Jackson for, he was a seminal president as he turned the course of American history. Prior to his election as President, the United States was becoming an informal aristocracy. The previous presidents all came from a line of American Revolutionary War heroes or their descendants (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams), and many of the leading political figures of the times had familial connections to American Revolutionary War heroes. This was a New England and Southern family aristocratic social structure that had the reins of power in America.

The Presidency of Andrew Jackson was tumultuous and controversial, and Jackson's name has been associated with Jacksonian democracy of the shift and expansion of democracy as political power from established elites to ordinary voters based in political parties. "The Age of Jackson" shaped the national agenda and American politics for the next two decades after his presidency. His and his successors' controversial decisions led to the establishment of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States, which ended The Age of Jackson.

It is for these reasons that I believe that Andrew Jackson was a Great American President.

01/30/22 Three Great Statesman of the late 20th Century

I believe that Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II should be ranked as the three great statesmen of the late 20th century. When these three people joined forces to combat the evils of the Soviet Union, they doomed the Soviet Union to the dustpan of history. Many forget that when they began their crusade the Soviet Union was on the ascendancy in the world. It was extending its reach across all parts of the globe and strangling all opposition to its power.

Ronald Reagan provided the military and economic might to oppose the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher provided the backbone of the NATO governments to stand with the United States in opposition to the Soviet Union. John Paul II provided the moral authority to oppose the Soviet Union.

Together, they were formidable and resolute in their determination to end the evils of the Soviet Union. They accomplished this end to the Soviet Union despite fierce opposition by both internal and external persons, organizations, and governments. They had the moral courage to stand firm in their beliefs of democracy and liberty for all the peoples of the world.

It is in their honor and memory that I have three bobbleheads in my office to remind myself that courage, democracy, and liberty are worth standing up for:

01/29/22 American Statesmen of the 20th Century

In my previous Chirp on, “01/28/22 A Statesman and a Politician”, I mentioned three American statesmen of the 20th century; Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. I, therefore, think it incumbent on me to explain why I believe that these persons were great statesmen.

President Theodore Roosevelt served at the turn of the 20th century, a time of great social unrest in America and the world. The conflicts between labor and management were intense, and the rest of the world was turning towards socialism or despotism to contain these conflicts. President Theodore Roosevelt found a way to navigate these conflicts so that they did not tear apart American society. By reigning in the industrial capitalists and providing relief to the workers, he avoided the social unrest that permeated the rest of the world while retaining our American ideals of democracy and liberty. At a time after the Spanish-American War when America could have become a world power, he restrained American imperial ambitions to its sphere of interests.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected when America was going through a Great Depression and served through the time when America was threatened by the evils of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan. The American people were desperate for economic relief during the Great Depression and lost hope that the government could provide this relief. The American people were also very isolationist and did not want to engage in any overseas conflicts. President Franklin D. Roosevelt provided short-term solutions to the economic and social problems of the Great Depression, which gave Americans hope for a better future. He also recognized the threats of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan and guided the United States towards assistance and eventual involvement to end the evils of NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.

President Ronald Reagan was elected after the depravity of Watergate and the malaise of the Carter Administration, as well as the threats of world domination by the Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan turned the economy from stagflation into prosperity, and at the same time, he confronted the evils of the Soviet Union, which eventually resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union. He also reminded Americans of our Ideals and ideas and attempted to reinfuse these Ideals and Ideas into American governance.

All three of these Presidents crafted their economic and social policies to address the short-term problems in America while crafting their international policies based upon the ideals of democracy and liberty. In many cases, their economic and social policies have been converted into long-term policies that have impacted America, both positively and negatively. As in all cases of national economic and social policies, we must always be ready to improve, alter, or eliminate economic and social policies based on the contingencies of the current situation in America. These economic and social policies should not be set in stone but should be set based upon our "American Ideals and Ideas". Our international policies, however, should always be based on democracy and liberty, for if they are not, then they tarnish our American Ideals and Ideas and are often doomed to failure.

It is for these reasons that I believe that these three Presidents should be considered as American Statesmen of the 20th Century.

Today we are confronted by the problems of our economy, crime of the streets, illegal immigration, the COVID-19 Pandemic, government overreach into the private affairs of Americans, the fentanyl drug crisis of manufacturing in Southeast Asia and importation from Mexico, and the evils of Russia, China, and international terrorism. We also have seemed to have lost our American ideals and ideals in confronting these problems. We need a new American statesman for the 21st century to find and implement the solutions to these problems while preserving our American ideals and ideas. If not, we may descend into despotism and tyranny.

01/28/22 A Statesman and a Politician

"The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision."
- J. Rufus Fears

The late J. Rufus Fears, Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, left us some Words of Wisdom on the lessons of history that all Americans should ponder, as my Article “Liberty, Freedom, and Power” examines. He also left us some words of wisdom on the differences between a statesman and a politician. In a The Art of Manliness article By Brett and Kate McKay, they explain what Professor Fears meant by the qualities of a statesman:

A Bedrock of Principles

The statesman builds a platform on a foundation of firm, unchanging, fundamental truths that he believes at his very core comprises his overarching philosophy. In the face of changing times, opposition and challenges, this foundation will remain intact. A statesman may change the details of his policies and his methods, but only inasmuch as expedient tactics serve to further his bedrock principles in the long run.

A Moral Compass

A statesman does not govern by public opinion polls, but instead makes decisions by following his own moral compass that is rooted in a sense of absolute right and absolute wrong. He is not a relativist. When he believes something is wrong, he plainly says it is so and does everything in his power to fight against it. When something is right, he is willing to overcome any opposition to preserve and spread it.

The statesman is ambitious—he must be to obtain a position of power— but there are things he simply will and will not do to get to the top. He is a man of integrity; he speaks the truth. He leads by moral authority and represents all that is best in his countrymen.

A Vision

A statesman has a clear vision of what his country and his people can become. He knows where he wants to take them and what it will take to get there. Foresight is one of his most important qualities, because he must be able to recognize problems on the horizon and find solutions good for both the short term and long term. The statesman keeps in mind not only the here and now, but the world that future generations will inherit.

The Ability to Build a Consensus to Achieve that Vision

A politician may have a bedrock of principles, a moral compass and vision, but if he lacks the ability to build a consensus around them, his efforts to change policies, laws and the course of history will largely be in vain.

In enlisting others in government that serve with him to support his initiatives, he knows that their willingness to do so is based on the pressure they feel from their constituents to align themselves with the statesman’s vision. Thus, success ultimately hinges on his ability to convince his country’s citizens of the soundness of his philosophy.

To win their hearts, the statesman shuns media campaigns and instead harnesses the power of the written, and especially the spoken, word; he is a master orator. His lifelong study  of great books and the lessons of history allow him to speak to the people with intelligent, potent, well-reasoned arguments.

Instead of tailoring his rhetoric to the public mood, he speaks to the very best that exists within people, understanding that powerful rhetoric can articulate, bring forth and activate sometimes deeply buried ideals. His authority derives from his belief in what he says. He does not make emotions soar and burn with empty promises, but instead keeps his word and does what he says he will do.”

Unfortunately, in America today, we no longer have statesmen as we have lost these qualities to political gamesmanship. But this is not unusual in history. As society undergoes troubles or crises, they sometimes produce a statesman but must often produce a tyrant. We have been fortunate in America in that we have produced statesmen and not tyrants. Statesman such as our Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, as well as Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. While all these persons have their critics and shortcomings, they all rose to the occasion of the times and led America out of their troubles or crisis while retaining our deepest American ideals of democracy and liberty.

Let us hope that another American statesman arises out of our current troubles and crisis and that our American ideals of democracy and liberty are preserved.

01/27/22 Mask Mania

As the war between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated escalates, the side battle between the masked and the unmasked intensifies. And this side battle is getting uglier as many people begin to understand the science behind masks, become weary of wearing masks, and refuse to wear masks unless compelled to wear masks to obtain essential services and goods. This compelling of mask-wearing is being driven by fear of contagion and not by science.

Nearly all public health authorities claim that masks are absolutely necessary to save lives, as well as the need for social distancing to reduce contagion. But they have virtually no science to back up these claims. There is, however, abundant scientific evidence that masks are worthless in preventing contagion and have harmful psychological effects upon society.

As Medical Doctor and epidemiologist Vinay Prasad of the University of California at San Francisco commented on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's child masking recommendation in one sentence: "The CDC cannot 'follow the science' because there is no relevant science." And what about surgical masks? They are not designed to prevent the spread of viruses but to prevent medical personnel from accidentally infecting the open wounds of patients on the operating table, and to prevent body fluids from patients spraying up into the mouths and noses of the surgical team. Dr. Colin Axon, a COVID-19 advisor to the British government, made this point clear: Medics were "unable to comprehend" the minuscule elements involved: "A Covid viral particle is around 100 nanometers, material gaps in blue surgical masks are up to 1,000 times that size, cloth mask gaps can be 5,000 times the size."

The social impacts of wearing masks are also beginning to be felt, especially the impacts upon children. In July 2021, an article published under the auspices of the USC Center for Health Policy and Economics addressed the issue of the wearing of masks by children:

"Masking is a psychological stressor for children and disrupts learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate. In particular, children lose the experience of mimicking expressions, an essential tool of nonverbal communication. Positive emotions such as laughing and smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students takes a hit. Overall, it is likely that masking exacerbates the chances that a child will experience anxiety and depression, which are already at pandemic levels themselves."

This fear of contagion prevention by mask-wearing and social distancing is not rational, and our political and social leaders need to stop stoking this fear. But stoking fear is one of the tactics that despots utilize to gain control over people. Consequently, mask mandates and social distancing are not about contagion but are about control. A control and despotism that is anathema to our Liberties and Freedoms.

01/26/22 Tribes of America

Democrat Party Leaders have always been good a dividing Americans based upon Nationality, Ethnocentrism, Race, Sexuality, Political Orientation, etc. Today, however, they have narrowed Americans into two groups – the Racists and the Unvaccinated. They believe that everything that is wrong in America is the fault of Systemic Racism or the Unvaccinated, as I have written in my Articles, "Systemic Racism in America" and “Vaccine Mandates”. Everything they currently say or do is based upon allegations of systemic racism or the fault of the unvaccinated.

A divisiveness that pits one group of Americans against another group of Americans, as I have written in my Article, "Divisiveness in America". A divisiveness that is segregating America into tribes and fostering tribal warfare. A divisiveness that is not based upon "Rationality" and "Reasoning" but is emotionally based. A divisiveness that distracts Americans from the true problems in America as I have written in my Articles, "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms". A divisiveness based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" that if it continues will tear America apart.

Consequently, it is important for all Americans to oppose the current political goals and policy agendas of the Democrat Party to assure the continuation of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and to prevent our downfall, as I have written in my Article, “Liberty, Freedom, and Power”. We are at a turning point in American history based upon the decisions we will make, and our decisions will impact the future of America in that as the 16th President of the United States has stated:

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

01/25/22 Liberties, Freedoms, and Power

J. Rufus Fears was Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, where he held the G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty. Jesse Rufus Fears was an American historian, scholar, educator, and author writing on the subjects of Ancient history, The History of Liberty, and classical studies. He is best known for his many lectures for the Teaching Company. He was born on March 7, 1945, and died on October 6, 2012. He left us some Words of Wisdom on the lessons of history that all Americans should ponder. My new Article, “Liberty, Freedom, and Power”, examines this topic and their apropos to the current events in America.

01/24/22 Military Service Requirements

Trey Gowdy, a former South Carolina Congressman, responded to a question from a CNN reporter about the ban of transgenders from joining the U.S. armed forces. As Trey typically does so very well, he nailed it rather succinctly:

Question:  How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgenders from joining the military?  Isn't that discrimination?

Trey Gowdy's Response:

"Nobody has a right to serve in the Military.  Nobody!  What makes you people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer?  It is very far from it - and for good reasons - let me cite a few:

Any other questions?"

Consequently, "Wokeness" and "Social Engineering" have no place in the military. Let us end this nonsense in the military and make sure the military is prepared to win any conflict in which they are deployed.

01/23/22 The Problem with Lawyers

The problem with lawyers is that they think like lawyers. This can be understood and forgiven if you keep in mind their entire education, training, and experience is to think like lawyers. But thinking like lawyers in today’s society is more often about the letter of the law, without much consideration of the spirit of the law.

Many of our Founding Fathers were lawyers, yet they often gave consideration to the spirit of the law before they wrote the letter of the law. It was in the spirit of our "American Ideals and Ideas" that they incorporated into the letter of "The Declaration of Independence" and "The United States Constitution". They also often interpreted the letter of the law by the spirit in which it was written, especially when it regarded constitutional matters.

Unfortunately, in the latter half of the 20th century and continuing until today, the spirit of the law is often not a consideration. And this is how it should be for most legal matters. Some legal matters, however, need to be considered in the spirit of the law. This is most often true when dealing with constitutional issues and the role and responsibility of government in our society. The growth of government and bureaucracy has often been accomplished by ignoring the spirit of the law and focusing on the letter of the law.

The biggest offenders of this lack of focus on the spirit of the law have come from the persons most responsible for upholding the spirit of the law – The United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s primary role in our governance is to determine the Constitutionality of laws written by Congress and actions by the Executive Branch in enforcing these laws. In this, they are expected to exercise jurisprudence - the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do. Too often, they ignore the spirit of the law and focus on the letter of the law, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/nn/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution”.

The Supreme Court jurists are not only appointed and confirmed for their extensive knowledge and experience of the letter of the law, but also for their jurisprudence in interpreting the spirit of the law based on our American Ideals and Ideas incorporated into the Constitution. By not doing so, they corrupt the Constitution by allowing governmental actions that are antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas expressed in the Constitution.

They often do this to avoid becoming involved in controversies that they deem are of a political nature, and sometimes this is true, but sometimes this is not true. It is best that the courts stay out of political matters, but it is difficult to distinguish between politics and constitutionality. This judgment between political and constitutional is where the Supreme Court must utilize its jurisprudence in interpreting the spirit of the law to determine if it is politics or constitutionality they are being asked to rule upon.

In the past several decades, the Supreme Court has not utilized this jurisprudence and has deemed many controversial issues as political rather than constitutional. They often evade the constitutional issue by ignoring the spirit of the law and focusing on the letter of the law. It has been said that they do this to uphold the integrity of the court and to preserve its standing with the American people. However, the Supreme Court should not skirt or decide any Constitutional issues solely for the reasons of being nonpolitical. They should also remember that the best way to uphold the integrity of the courts and their standing with the American people is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They should also remember the sage words of the 16th President of the United States:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

01/22/22 Rewriting the Constitution

Shortly after I wrote my Chirp on “01/21/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution”, the distinguished constitutional historian and scholar Rob Natelson began a new series of articles on ‘How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution’. As I have already linked to his series of articles on Defending our Constitution and Understanding the Constitution, I will begin to add the links to the Rewriting the Constitution articles as well.

The first two articles of this series are “How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution: 1937–1944, Part I: A government small and frugal” and “How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution: 1937–1944, Part II: The Stage is Set”. As always, with the works of Robert G. Natelson, these articles are well researched and scholarly but are brief and easily understood by the general public.

In addition to Rob Natelson, the other constitutional historian and scholar that I regularly follow is Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley’s articles are also well researched and scholarly but are brief and easily understood by the general public.

It would behoove all Americans interested in our Constitution to regularly read these constitutional scholars to gain a better understanding of the Constitution.

01/21/22 Ignoring and Rewriting the Constitution

The Bill of Rights, along with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, are some of the greatest protections of our Liberties, Freedoms, and Equalities under the Constitution. Yet, the Supreme Court seems to ignore or castrate some of these Amendments. In particular, the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth Amendments were and are ill-treated by the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Amendment has been routinely ignored throughout the history of Supreme Court rulings, while the tenth amendment is being routinely ignored in the latter half of the 20th century and continues until today. The Fourteenth Amendment was eviscerated by the Supreme Court shortly after it was passed, an evisceration that continues to this day. The Ninth Amendment simply states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, while the Tenth Amendment simply states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Fourteenth Amendment is more complex and more ungainly, as I shall discuss later in this Chirp.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to rule on the Ninth Amendment as there is no legal definition of these other rights. However, they are based upon Natural Rights, which are terribly difficult to define and thus to adjudicate. As difficult as they are to adjudicate, these Natural Rights are important to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms of the individual. In some cases, they lie at the heart of the matter on the issues before the Supreme Court. Issues such as slavery, racism, discrimination, equalities, entitlements, and abortion, amongst others, have Natural Rights at their core. However, being difficult should not mean that they should not be addressed. Supreme Court Justices are not only appointed for their excellent legal background but also for their concerns with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do. The American people need a dispassionate analysis of any possible infringements to their Natural Rights to guide society. To expect Congress and the Presidency to provide a dispassionate analysis of Natural Rights is irrational, as these branches of government are about the political concerns of America. The Supreme Court needs to do this dispassionate analysis as a basis for their legal reasoning to guide the American people in their reasoning and responses to the core issues facing society. The failure of the Supreme Court to do so is to fail the American people.

The Tenth Amendment has been circumvented by the Federal government by assuming powers not delegated to them under the Constitution under "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to obtain these powers. They have done so in order to achieve a Democratic Constitution rather that a Republican Constitution as I have written in my Article, "A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution". They have also attached conditions upon a State to receive Federal funding – a.k.a. a bribe (and these conditions are a bribe) that usurp State powers. To paraphrase The Bard – A bribe by any other name is still a bribe, and no matter how the Federal government couches the language, it is still a bribe. Bribery at any level of government corrupts the Federal and State government and encroaches on the rights of the people and the States over the power of the Federal government. Indeed, it expands the Federal governments' powers at the expense of the people and the States.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed in the wake of the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, while the 15th Amendment assured the right to vote for the ex-slaves. The 14th Amendment was to assure that all persons were treated equally by protecting the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by State (and hence Local) governments. The heart of the 14th Amendment is Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The difficulty is in defining what is meant by privileges or immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. This is where the Supreme Court stepped in and eviscerated the 14th Amendment due to opposition by southern politicians and political considerations by northern politicians. These three terms had a well-defined written meaning by the authors of this amendment, which were utilized in the discussions and adoption of this amendment. However, these meanings were controversial and not part of American jurisprudence prior to this amendment. The Supreme Court members of the time had many reservations and concerns about these meanings, so they, through their rulings on the 14th Amendment lawsuits, constricted the meanings of these terms to befit their reservations and concerns.

This was not good jurisprudence as the Supreme Court reinterpreted the will of Congress, thus changing the purposes of the Amendment. This led to much unequal treatment under the laws and violations of the fundamental rights of individuals. Indeed, much of the era of discrimination and racism between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement would not have been possible if the Supreme Court had utilized the original meaning of these terms as defined by the authors of this amendment.

A new book, The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit by Randy E. Barnett and Evan D. Bernick, explains the history and original meaning of these terms. It also makes a case for a reconsideration of the previous rulings of the Supreme Court to strengthen this amendment to further protect the fundamental rights of individuals from being violated by the government.

This reconsideration of the 14th Amendment, along with the considerations of 9th and 10th Amendment rights, needs to happen in current Supreme Court rulings considering the overreach of governmental actions that is occurring today. To not do so is to allow the government to encroach on the Liberties, Freedoms, and Natural Rights of all Americans.

01/20/22 Our Billy Madison’s

Upon watching President Biden, Vice-President Harris, and Press Secretary Psaki answer questions, I am reminded of some dialog from the movie ‘Billy Madison’:

After the Principle asked Billy Madison a question on the Industrial Revolution’s impact on the modern novel, he answered with nonsense. The principal clearly didn’t like Billy’s answer since he says, “Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.” Sandler then finishes the punchline by saying, “Okay, a simple 'wrong' would’ve done just fine.”

However, a simple 'wrong' is not a fine response to these three very important people. These three people are the leaders of our government, responsible for helping solve the important problems of our time. For such nonsense to come out of their mouths is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans. With their insanely idiotic statements, we should all tremble for what may happen to America in the next three years. Unfortunately, these are not the only three people in the Biden Administration who utter rambling, incoherent responses that could even be considered a rational thought. Watching many other Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists comments is also akin to the Billy Madison Principle’s observation. To which I say, “May God have mercy upon our souls.”

01/19/22 The American Theory of Government

What are the Duties and Responsibilities of the people of a country to the government, and what are the Duties and Responsibilities of the government to the people? This philosophical question has been pondered by philosophers for millennia, most especially by John Locke in his 1689/90 Two Treatises of Government. In my new Article, “The American Theory of Government”, I examine this topic as the Founding Fathers envisioned these responsibilities.

01/18/22 Words of Wisdom about History

J. Rufus Fears was Professor of Classics at the University of Oklahoma, where he held the G. T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty. Jesse Rufus Fears was an American historian, scholar, educator, and author writing on the subjects of Ancient history, The History of Liberty, and classical studies. He is best known for his many lectures for the Teaching Company. He was born on March 7, 1945, and died on October 6, 2012. He left us some Words of Wisdom on the lesson of history that all Americans should ponder. They are:

10 Fundamental Lessons of History:

    1. We do not learn from history.
    2. Science and technology do not make us immune to the laws of history.
    3. Freedom is not a universal value.
    4. Power is the universal value.
    5. The Middle East is the crucible of conflict and the graveyard of empires.
    6. The United States shares the destinies of the great democracies, the republics, and the superpowers of the past.
    7. Along with the lust for power, religion and spirituality are the most profound motivators in human history.
    8. Great nations rise and fall because of human decisions made by individual leaders.
    9. The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision.
    10. Throughout its history, the United States has charted a unique role in history.

- J. Rufus Fears, The Wisdom of History – from The Great Courses

He also had two additional quotes that are apropos:

“We are no wiser than the Athenians of the 5th century B.C., no wiser than Sophocles for our science of today has shown us the overwhelming power of genes, of DNA.”

“I fear that we live in a historical age in which we believe that we are so wise that we no longer need the lessons of the past, perhaps most disturbingly of all that technology has put us beyond the lessons of the past.”

Despite our advancements in Morality, Ethics, Law, Science, and Technology, we are still governed by our Human Nature, formed by our genetic structure and guiding our thoughts and actions. We should also remember that:

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

01/17/22 Vaccine Mandates – Part Deux

A recent Rasmussen poll on government actions to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic revealed that:

– Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 55% of Democratic voters would support such a proposal, compared to just 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliated voters.

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”

– While about two-thirds (66%) of likely voters would be against governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others, 47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

The survey consisted of both telephone and online polling of 1,016 likely voters and was conducted on January 5, 2022, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

This attitude against the unvaccinated is being stoked by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists for political purposes, and indeed, for the purposes of their rulership over the American people. They are scapegoating the unvaccinated to achieve this rulership and impose their will upon the American people. This is reminiscent of how Adolf Hitler scapegoated the Jews, the Undesirables, and un-Germanic thought to obtain a dictatorship over Germany.

These percentages of Democratic voters are not only shocking as to their size but also to the disregard Democratic voters have for our "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". They also reveal that Democratic voters have no qualms about imposing despotism, and indeed tyranny, upon America. As such, these Democratic voters are not committed to our "American Ideals and Ideas" but are un-American in their disposition. God help us all if they manage to elect "Democrat Party Leaders" who will implement their policy predilections.

01/16/22 Vaccine Mandates

A longer but important Chirp, on the current status of our efforts to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the societal impacts of this effort.

In the book “The Case for Vaccine Mandates”, by Alan Dershowitz, he explains why he believes that Vaccine Mandates are a legitimate government action in certain cases. He does this by starting out his argument from a libertarian basis. In his ‘Introduction: A Libertarian Case for Vaccine Mandates’, section A: ‘A libertarian Case Derived from John Stuart Mill’, he utilizes the following quote:

“[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the past which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
 - John Stuart Mill

A folksier way of putting Mill’s doctrine is to say that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

In Section B. ‘Analysis of Hypotheticals’, Professor Dershowitz utilizes a “Socratic Methodology” that gives two hypothetical situations that he then utilizes to make his case:

“So, here are the two polar extreme Hypotheticals. The first posits a vaccine that cure cancer with a 100 percent certainty and with no risks or side effects. I would urge everybody to take it. I would want the government to make it available free. I would support incentives to encourage such medical treatment. I might even limit insurance and other benefits to those who refuse to take it. But I would not allow the government to compel any competent adult to take a vaccine that prevents a non-contagious disease from killing only individuals who decline to take it. They have the right to make decisions – even foolish ones – regarding their own bodies, lives, and health. As I put it in the context of smoking cigarettes: everyone has the right to inhale into their own lungs, but not to exhale into mine.

The second hypothetical is imagining a risk-free vaccine that in addition to helping the individual who received it, was also 100 percent effective in preventing the spread of a highly contagious and deadly disease to others (even those who were vaccinated and took additional precautions). I would support a governmental decision, arrived at democratically, that required everyone (with limited medical exceptions) to be vaccinated.”

These hypotheticals are important to discover some truths and to give direction to our decision-making on how to combat this disease. However, the reality of our current situation is between these two polar extremes. A reality that he does not discuss, as the facts of the reality are dynamic and fast-changing. A reality that has changed since he wrote this book. This reality is:

“Vaccines that were developed to prevent the contraction of this disease and lessen the spread of this highly contagious and deadly disease to others. Vaccine development which was done outside of the normal testing and verification procedures for medications. Vaccines in which the effectuality on the individual, the effectivity in combating the pandemic, and the risks of side effects are uncertain or unknown. These vaccines were then provided for free voluntary inoculations but are rapidly becoming mandated inoculations. Mandates for the purpose of blunting this pandemic which were instituted outside of normal democratic procedures, and which are being enforced in an invidious manner. Mandates that are being enforced by despotic government actions.”

Would Professor Dershowitz be supportive of these mandates if this situation was the actuality? I would suggest that under the John Stuart Mill Libertarian Doctrine that these mandates would be unacceptable.

We currently know that these vaccines do not fully prevent the transmission and contraction of this disease. However, for many persons, these vaccines reduce the severity of the impact of contracting this disease. We also now have therapeutics that assist in the treatment and recovery of this disease, but that government has not stressed nor provided therapeutics, nor have they considered herd immunity in their efforts to combat this disease. We also know that the risks of this disease seem to be mostly limited to persons that have comorbid factors in their medical history, and the contraction of this disease by persons without comorbid factors is small, and the impacts to them of this disease are less severe. We know that healthy adults under sixty-five years of age are less likely to have severe reactions to this disease when they contact this disease. We also know that children very rarely contract this disease and have much less severe reactions to this disease if they contract this disease. We also know that there can be complications when taking these vaccines by persons of all ages, although we do not know the full extent of these complications. We also have no information on what, if any, are the long-term impacts of taking these vaccines.

We do know that the impacts on our society and our economy to combat this disease have been severe and may be longstanding. Unemployment, business foreclosures, and government deficit spending to combat this disease and bolster the economy will be felt for at least the next decade. The social development abilities of our children, along with their educational skills, may be felt for generations. The divisiveness between the vaccinated and unvaccinated that has been sown by excessive rhetoric that promotes fear and loathing against the unvaccinated, for the purposes of intimidating the unvaccinated to become vaccinated, will linger. The distrust and suspicions of our government and its institutions due to confusing and contradictory information they provided about this disease, and the invidious enforcement of the mandates, may permeate our society for decades to come.

I, therefore, believe that the current science and the current events of the COVID-19 Pandemic are this reality. As such, no governmental nor employer mandates to impose this vaccination on an individual is acceptable. The decision to take this vaccination must reside with the individual and based on their circumstances and their risk and reward evaluation on taking the vaccination.

01/15/22 Enlightenment and Myside Bias

In my Articles, “Rationality” and "Reasoning", I explain the importance of applying both of these in your thinking. In my new Article, “Enlightenment”, I explain the importance of applying Enlightenment principles to today’s issues and concerns. The combination of Rationality, Reasoning, and Enlightenment to your thinking is the best means to advance the progress of humankind.

The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment) was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.

A new book examines the importance of applying Enlightenment principles to today’s issues and concerns. In what can be considered a companion book on Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, by Steven Pinker, he has authored a book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress on the importance of enlightened “Rationality” and "Reasoning" to solve today’s problems. The inside dust jacket to this book describes this book as:

“Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.

Far from being a naïve hope, the Enlightenment, we now know, has worked. But more than ever, it needs a vigorous defense. The Enlightenment project swims against currents of human nature--tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking--which demagogues are all too willing to exploit. Many commentators, committed to political, religious, or romantic ideologies, fight a rearguard action against it. The result is a corrosive fatalism and a willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy and global cooperation.

With intellectual depth and literary flair, Enlightenment Now makes the case for reason, science, and humanism: the ideals we need to confront our problems and continue our progress.”

This book makes a very good case for the importance of reasoning and science, done in a humanist manner, to propel the progress of humankind. Yet, even the best can get it amiss, including the author of this book. Throughout this book, in several paragraphs and sentences, he occasionally reveals some of his own Myside bias that he defined in his aforementioned book on Rationality:

“Politically motivated numeracy and other forms of biased evaluations show that people reason their way into or out of a conclusion even when it offers them no personal advantage. It’s enough that the conclusion enhances the correctness or nobility of their political, religious, ethnic, or cultural tribe. It’s called, obviously enough, the Myside bias, and it commandeers every kind of reasoning, even logic. Recall that the validity of a syllogism depends on its form, not its content, but that people let their knowledge seep in and judge an argument valid if it ends in a conclusion they know is true or want to be true.”

His Myside bias is generally in the favoritism of Progressives’ positions and ideas over Conservatives’ positions and ideas, done in several different ways. I have, therefore, examined Myside bias in my new Article, “Myside Bias”, utilizing this book as an example.

01/14/22 Ignorance and Stupidity

Ignorance and Stupidity are a common lot of humankind, as, throughout history, this has been the norm for men and women of all categories. On occasion, some civilizations have slightly risen above ignorance and stupidity, but they then sink back into ignorance and stupidity. It wasn’t until The Age of Enlightenment that humankind has made steady progress against ignorance and stupidity.

Ignorance and stupidity are a tool of the powerful to obtain and maintain control of the masses. Ignorance and stupidity also allowed for the suppression of the Natural Rights of the individual by other persons, other peoples, and the powerful. All this ignorance and stupidity was detrimental to humankind and an impediment to the progress of humankind.

For the purposes of this article, I define ignorance and stupidity as:

The following articles are a good explanation of how ignorance and stupidity operate:

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlo M. Cipolla as:

The Eight Degrees of Ignorance and Stupidity by Darren Smith as:

America has been blessed as our founders, and the general populace was not ignorant nor stupid. They founded this country on the ideas and ideology of The Age of Enlightenment. The general populace of the time was familiar with these ideas and ideologies from newspaper articles, pamphlets, and books that espoused these enlightened ideas and ideologies. Our Founders were not perfect in our founding, as the sin of slavery and the treatment of the American Indians attests, but they were better than any other country in trying to achieve these enlightened ideas and ideology. The descendants of our forefathers tried to improve and rectify our problems and build upon enlightened ideas and ideology, and all the while, the general populace tried to escape the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity.

Today, however, in America, we seem to be slipping back into the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity. And those leading the retreat into the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity are Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Led by the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, our enlightened ideas and ideology are under attack by Political Correctness, Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, and the Social Engineering and Herd Mentality common in today’s American society.

This is not an evolution out of, but a devolution into, the boundaries of ignorance and stupidity. A devolution that leads to the violation of the Natural Rights of the individual, which then leads to despotism and then tyranny. Therefore, we need to call it out whenever we encounter ignorance and stupidity, fight against this ignorance and stupidity, and hold fast to enlightened ideas and ideology. If we fail to do this, then we will sink back into ignorance and stupidity, as so often has happened in the history of humankind.

01/13/22 The Ten Cannots and Seven National Crimes

In 1916, an outspoken advocate for Liberty, Christian minister William J. H. Boetcker, published a tract entitled “The Ten Cannots”. It fittingly contrasts the competing political and economic agendas in our modern era, of those advocating for Liberty versus those advocating for statist socialism:

    1. “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”
    2. “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”
    3. “You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.”
    4. “You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”
    5. “You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.”
    6. “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.”
    7. “You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.”
    8. “You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.”
    9. “You cannot establish security on borrowed money.”
    10. “You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.”

Simply put, the central government cannot give to anybody what it does not first take from someone else. Boetcker also spoke of the "Seven National Crimes":

    1. I don't think.
    2. I don't know.
    3. I don't care.
    4. I am too busy.
    5. I leave well enough alone.
    6. I have no time to read and find out.
    7. I am not interested.

Today’s Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders have forgotten, or never knew, The Ten Cannots and they also practice the Seven National Crimes.

01/12/22 Voting Rights Advancement

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, formally known as For the People Act of 2021, is once again in the forefront. And once again it is being utilized as a reason to eliminate the Senate Filibuster as I have Chirped on, "12/22/21 The End of the Filibuster" and "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail and Political Gamesmanship". The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has all the issues and concerns of the For the People Act as I Chirped on, "02/17/21 Election Integrity", "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", and "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections". Don’t be fooled by a lofty name change, as this is yet another example of lofty words concealing dastardly deeds, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds”.

As in my Chirps on, "02/17/21 Election Integrity" and "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", and my Articles, "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", elections are too important to be left in the hands of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, who have a propensity to cheat and steal elections. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is the codification of cheating and stealing elections by Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as my aforementioned Chirps and Article explain. In an article by Kurt Schlichter, “Hey Dems, We Got Your Election Reforms Right Here”, he proposes a “Voting Freedom Initiative” to prevent the cheating and the steaking of elections. His initiatives are:

    1. Picture voter ID both to register and to vote. If you are too dumb to get an ID, you should be licking windows instead of casting ballots.
    2. No same day registration. There’s no way to confirm your identity the same day you sign up.
    3. One day voting, on Election Day. If it’s too much trouble to vote on Election Day, don’t.
    4. In-person voting. If you are deployed with the military or in an iron lung, you can vote absentee. Everyone else shows up in-person. Only absentee ballots arriving by 5 pm on election day get counted.
    5. No ballot harvesting. That nonsense ends.
    6. Paper ballots only. We want an audit trail.
    7. No ballots not counted within 12 hours of the polls closing get counted. We’re done with dumps and “found” ballots.
    8. Every vote gets counted in public with lots of observers. Total transparency.
    9. Large urban centers must report votes first. This makes it hard for Democrat pols to know how many ballots to find.
    10. No changes to election laws or procedures within 180 days of the election. That gives time for us to litigate the scams.

While these Voting Freedom Initiatives may be difficult to implement, the issues of the cheating and the stealing of elections are far too important to go unaddressed.

01/11/22 Our Democracy

As I have written in my Chirp on, "05/08/20 Social Justice", when you place an adjective in front of the word “Justice,” you no longer have true Justice- you have favoritism (i.e., “Adjective Justice”). The same holds true for truth, as in ‘My Truth’ or ‘Your Truth’ rarely reveals ‘The Truth’. We now are placing adjectives in front of other words such as ‘Democratic’ in front of ‘Socialism’, and ‘Our’ in front of ‘Democracy’. Socialism is not democratic as it must be imposed by despotism, while ‘Our Democracy’ is not real democracy. In a new article by Rob Natelson, “‘Our Democracy’ = Their Oligarchy”, he explains:

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

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

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

This is yet another example of lofty words concealing dastardly deeds, as I have written in my Chirp on “01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds”. I would highly recommend that you read his article to clear the "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" that the perpetrators of the phrase ‘Our Democracy’ wish you to uncritically believe their meaning of this term.

01/10/22 Lofty Words and Dastardly Deeds

Lofty words and dastardly deeds are an apt description of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. This has become readily apparent in President Biden’s Administration. The most glaring example is the ‘COVID-19’ and the ‘Unity’ rhetoric espoused during his campaign and at the start of his administration, compared to where we are today. President Biden campaigned on defeating the Coronavirus Pandemic and bringing all Americans together. He has done neither and, indeed, made the situation worse for both problems.

This has become so obvious to the American people that it needs no elaboration in this Chirp (although I have mentioned them in many of my Chirps and Articles). The continued deaths from COVID-19, and the Omicron variant infection planning and responses, make hallow his promise to defeat the virus. His extreme partisan legislative and spending agenda, along with his mandates and Executive Orders, have widened the divide between Americans. The phrase and chants of “Let’s Go Brandon” show the depth of this lack of unity in America.

My Chirps on, "02/21/20 Bring Us Together", "07/24/20 Bring Us Together", and "08/21/20 Bringing Us Together" examine the meaning of togetherness to President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders. Essentially, their meaning of unity is that the American people comply with their mandates and Executive Orders and support their political policies and goals. Otherwise, the American people who oppose them are to remain silent and submissive to their wants and desires. And the only way they can achieve this silence and submissiveness is through despotism. The hubris of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders that believe that they can dictate to a free people is astounding, as only a subservient or subjugated people can be made to be silent and submissive.

In these and other actions, President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders resemble a Con Artist - A swindler who exploits the confidence of their victim in saying one thing but doing otherwise. And the American people are the victims of the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders confidence game. But Americans are wising up to the con, as seen in the plummeting approval ratings for President Biden and the Democrat Party Leaders. Let us hope that they continue to see this con and express their revulsion to being conned in the 2022 elections.

01/09/22 Evan Sayet Observations on Progressives

Evan Douglas Sayet (born October 29, 1960) is a writer, comedian, and conservative speaker. Born and raised in a New York, NY by a Jewish family, he attended the University of Rochester where he majored in Political Science and English Literature. Afterwards, he moved to Hollywood to be in the entertainment industry, and he has spent over twenty-five years writing television shows, screenplays, documentaries and more before segueing into the field of political commentary.

His observations on Progressives and Progressive Politicians are insightful, humorous, and piercing. I have, therefore, created a web page, Evan Sayet Observations on Progressive of some of my favorite sayings of his comments.

01/08/22 The Black Book of Communism

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by multiple authors was first published in France in 1997, and it touched off a storm of controversy that continues to rage today. Its conclusion was that Communism, in all its many forms, was morally no better than Nazism, and of the two totalitarian systems, the authors argued, Communists were far better at killing than at governing, as the world learned to its sorrow.

Famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalog and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience―in China under "the Great Helmsman" Mao Zedong, in Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" Ho Chi Minh, and in Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah the fruits were indeed bitter. In the USSR, the leadership of Vladimir, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, and Mikhail Gorbachev was an unending story of death, deprivation, and despotism against its citizens.

The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.

As the death toll mounted―as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on―the authors systematically show how and why wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century. As the book documents, the death toll was:

And these numbers are only best guesses as there was no documentation of the actual deaths, and it is possible the real numbers were greater (but not lesser) than the guestimates. As Communism in these countries has been responsible for the above deaths, would you say that Communism was “not that bad” for those murdered citizens? Not only did Communism bring forth these deaths, but it also brought forth destruction, disease, privation, and starvation for the people living under Communism, as well as the disregard of the Natural Rights of every person under its rule. To deny or equivocate these numbers, and to ignore the atrocious consequences of Communism, is the equivalent of and as despicable as being a Holocaust denialist.

As we should never forget the Holocaust of the Jews nor the Murders of the Undesirables under Nazism, so we should also never forget those that perished under the evils of Communism. We should also declare ‘Never Again’ to Communism and its Marxism and Socialism offshoots.

01/07/22 Words of Wisdom and Warning

Some words of wisdom and warning from President Abraham Lincoln that are apropos today:

On Jan. 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln spoke before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions." During that address, he said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

"Citizens," Lincoln also said in this address, "seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose."
 - Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln also stated:

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
 - Abraham Lincoln

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
 - Abraham Lincoln

The events of January 6th of last year were not an insurrection but a warning. A warning of the rising tide of discontent in America. A discontent brought forth by the despotic actions of government and the men who pervert the Constitution. The American people are awaking to the danger to our Liberties and Freedoms and to our Constitution by those that seek and weld power to direct our lives. Those people who would disregard or subvert the Constitution for their own political goals and policy agendas. And those people are Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Let us hope that we can counter this by the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, rather than having to resort to the ammo box, as I have written in my Article, “The Four Boxes of Liberty”.

01/06/22 Insurrection Day

It’s January 6th, the first anniversary of the notorious insurrection at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C... A day that will live in infamy, our Guy Fawkes Day, our Bastille Day, our Beer Hall Putsch, and our October Revolution. An insurrection of which I have written about in my Chirps on, "04/19/21 Insurrection", "06/03/21 Insurrectionists", "06/15/21 Was January 6th a Reichstag Fire?", "07/07/21 A Speedy Trial?", "08/08/21 A True Insurrection", and "10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax".

If January 6th was an insurrection, it was most certainly the most enfeeble and incompetent insurrection in history. Very few people were involved in this ‘insurrection’, and none of them had weapons or explosive devices. The only person who died during this ‘insurrection’ was a protestor shot to death by a Capitol policeman, and most of the injuries sustained were the injuries to the ‘insurrectionist’. Minor damage was done to the Capitol building, and some property was looted or destroyed, for which the persons involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A few of the ‘insurrectionists’ have been arrested and detained on charges such as trespassing and destruction of property, for which they have not been released on bail nor allowed to publicly speak of their actions. A detention that, according to some reports, appears to be of a cruel and unusual nature. This detention also appears to be a violation of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Constitutional Rights. A detention in which the courts seem to be indifferent or complicitous. The Justice Department is continuing its investigation, but a number of people who were videoed instigating the ‘insurrectionist’ have not been captured nor detained. Indeed, it appears that they are no longer being pursued by the FBI, as there are allegations that these people have FBI ties that could be embarrassing to the FBI and may be detrimental to the prosecution of the 'insurrectionist'.

By a vote in the House of Representatives, a House Committee was formed to investigate this insurrection. A House committee that was to be of a certain number and representation appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Republican Minority Leader. A House Committee that never had this number and was appointed solely by the Speaker of the House. In doing so, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi negated the will of the House of Representatives and thus created an unlawful committee.

Yet, this 'insurrection' rhetoric is being proclaimed throughout the land today. Rhetoric based on a misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the events of January 6th, rather than a recital of the actual events that occurred on January 6th. Rhetoric that is for the purposes of politics rather than for the purpose of enlightenment. The purposes of politics that are explained in an article in Imprimis, “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”, by Roger Kimball, the Editor, and Publisher of The New Criterion, that examines the events and politics of this 'insurrection':

“Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

There was, however, a real insurrection on January 6th. It was an insurrection against our Constitutional protections against government overreach that is occurring within the Justice Department, the House of Representatives, and the Courts. The actions by the Justice Department, the House of Representatives, and the Courts are contrary to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and a violation of our Constitutional Rights. This is the insurrection of January 6th that all Americans should be wary of and concerned about.

01/05/22 Liberty and Tyranny

I have recently discovered a website, “The Patriot Post”, that focuses on Liberty as defined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Their mission is as they have stated: “The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!”

When you sign-up for a free subscription to The Patriot Post, you can download a free copy of their pamphlet, ‘The Patriot's Primer on American Liberty. This is an excellent primer pamphlet that is an “indispensable pocket resource on Liberty, “endowed by [our] Creator,” is to provide a foundational understanding of Liberty, so that today’s generation of Americans can more effectively “Support and Defend” the unalienable Rights of Mankind as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution.”

One sentence, in particular, caught my eye as it focuses on the core issue between "Progressives/Leftists" and "Constitutional Conservatives" when debating their policy goals and political agendas:

“. .. the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny is the contest to determine who endows Liberty. Is Liberty the inherent right of all people, or is it awarded by presidents, legislatures, and judges? The importance of this foundational question cannot be overemphasized.”
 - The Patriot's Primer on American Liberty

Our Liberties and Freedoms cannot long endure unless We, the People, reaffirm what was well understood by our Founders — that Liberty is “endowed by [our] Creator” and is, thus, “unalienable.” Thus, as Jefferson wrote, our “liberties are the gift of God” and not the gift of government.

Today’s Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders act as if the government may circumscribe our Natural Rights of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the Government, and the freedom to keep and bear arms, along with other freedoms as espoused in the Constitution. They forget that these are Natural Rights that government may not violate nor ignore, but they act as if they can change the meaning of these terms to suit their goals. Consequently, by their doing so, these Natural Rights are no longer relevant and may be limited by law. They, therefore, treat these Natural Rights as given by the government and, consequently, may be annulled or bounded by the government.

We, therefore, must be steadfast in our advocacy for Natural Rights, and we must return to the principles of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States, or we shall devolve into despotism then into tyranny.

01/04/22 The Great Forgetting

In an article by Rob Natelson, The Great Forgetting, he examines the Founder’s meaning of the words and terms utilized in the writing of The Constitution of the United States with the following foreword:

“The Constitution was created in a special legal environment. The Founders were raised with a particular educational canon. They also had certain common experiences. During the 19th century, important details about those matters began to slip away. Constitutional law forgot them.

In other words, information crucial to understanding 18th century words was lost during the 19th century. I call this phenomenon “The Great Forgetting.”

This article stresses my perspective that we must judge history by the historical context of the words and terms and the political, social, cultural, and economic setting for a particular idea or event, as I have written in my Article, “Condemned to Repeat It”. This article highlights some of the problems that arose because the words and terms the founders utilized were forgotten or unknown by succeeding generations. This Great Forgetting often led to a misinterpretation of the Constitution’s true meaning and, hence, a corruption of our "American Ideals and Ideas".

This article, as with his other articles on Defending and Understanding the Constitution, along with his articles on The Values in the Declaration of Independence and The Values in the Constitution, are excellent guides to the Founder’s true meaning of the Constitution. He is also the author of the book “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant”, which I believe is one of the finest books on understanding what our Founding Fathers intended in creating the Constitution.

01/03/22 America Is Not Just a Place

America is not just a place but a belief in American Ideals and Ideas and the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. To be un-American is to not believe and uphold these ideals and principles.

This is best exemplified in the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

    1. Support the Constitution;
    2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
    3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
    4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
    5. A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
      B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
      C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

To become an American is to commit yourself to this Oath of Allegiance. To be an American is to commit to these ideals, ideas, and principles. Ergo, if you believe in internationalism or are a Citizen of the World, then you cannot be an American. As you must decide, as Hamlet asked, ‘To Be, or Not to Be’, you must decide to be an American or not to be an American – there cannot be both. And to not to be an American is to put your internationalism and world citizenship ahead of your Americanism. Otherwise, you will become entangled in a Non-Sequitur from which there is no escape other than to decide to be or not to be an American.

01/02/22 American Ideals and Ideas

I have often written in my Articles and Chirps about our American ideals and ideas. But what are these American ideals and ideas? The answer is that The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals. I have touched upon these American ideals and ideas in many of my Chirps and a few Articles. However, these articles and Chirps do not do full justice to our American ideals and ideas. I have, therefore, created a reference article, "American Ideals and Ideas", that is a coalescence of several of my Chirps and Articles dealing with our American Ideals and Ideas.

01/01/22 Happy New Year

There is much to be unhappy in America, as my previous Chip on “12/31/21 Reflections Upon the Year” expressed. At the same time, there are glimmers of hope for the new year. Americans are beginning to recognize the despotisms of the Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, and are beginning to say NO MORE! Even these aforementioned bad actors are beginning to realize this, as they have been backtracking and dissembling about their prior actions and stances. They are also very worried about the upcoming 2022 elections and a possible red wave of Republicans being elected to office.

This is the main reason to be happy for the coming year - a return to sanity and the reaffirmation of our American Ideals and Ideas. Let all Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas grow and continue in their defiance to these bad actors and actions. And let them vote in large numbers so that we may return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

12/31/21 Reflections Upon the Year

Many things have occurred this year that merit reflection, which I have tried to do in my Chirps and Articles. The deepest reflection that I have about this year is the rise in despotism in America. The despotism of one group of Americans trying to force its will upon the rest of Americans. The despotism of Democrat Party Leaders, Progressives/Leftists, Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, Whether through governmental mandates and Executive Orders, social ostracism, free speech constrictions, physical harassments, verbal scapegoating, employment pressures and dismissals, educational indoctrinations, as well as other intimidations they wish to make all Americans bend to their will and be subservient to their dictates through threats of persecutions, punishments, or violence.

These behaviors by these actors all occur without being roundly condemned as antithetic to American Ideals and Ideas, and they are a slippery slope to despotism then tyranny. This is the most distressing aspect of their actions. If Americans cannot remember and stand up for our Ideals and Ideas, then we will become a subservient or subjugated people subject to the dictates of these un-American actors.

For more of the ills that beset America in the last year I would direct you to Dennis Prager’s column, “The (Crappy) Year We Just Lived Through”.

12/30/21 Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. They also believe that when they are opposing Conservatives and Republicans, they are doing battle against wickedness and fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. In this battle, they believe that they are morally justified to fight their opponent’s wickedness by utilizing untruths, injustices, and the un-American ways to defeat their opposition.

The tactics that they often utilize are to make assertions that are to be accepted as truths to buttress their arguments. However, Assertions also contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Therefore, assertions must always be supported by “Rationality” and "Reasoning" based on facts.

Facts and truth are essential, for without accurate facts and proper Rationality and Reasoning, it is impossible to ascertain the truth. Without truth as a basis for political goals and policy agendas, much time, money, and efforts will be expended on governmental efforts that are doomed to fail, as failure is what is inevitable if you do not base governmental decisions on truths.

When Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders assertions are challenged, they exhibit an attitude that they are correct and that their challenger must prove them wrong. Ergo, they are asking their challenger to prove a negative. In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who makes an assertion. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. Also, as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.", the proper retort to this challenge to prove a negative is to require that they prove their assertion; otherwise, their assertion must be dismissed.

The Burden of Proof must be based upon Rationality and Reasoning rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and, as I have often stated, "Just because you 'believe' something to be true does not mean that you 'know' something is true, and just because someone says it is true doesn't make it true."

They also parrot the expression of the moment by Progressives and Leftists, an expression that serves as a vacuous container for unthoughtfulness or irrationality. An expression of the moment that is often concocted to "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" their opponents in an attempt to stifle any challenge to their assertions. An expression of the moment meaning that is often the antithesis to the expression of the moment terminology. It makes one wonder if this parroting of the expression of the moment is because they are bird-brained.

Progressives and Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders also claim to support justice in American, but often their support for justice involves a double standard of justice, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards". They, consequently, are not in support of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" and "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" but are espousing unjustness in America. You cannot be for justice in America if you have a double standard and condone unjust words and deeds.

Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' un-American ways are a result of their not believing in our American Ideals and Ideas, as I have written in my article, "American Ideals and Ideas". Many Americans do not know or have forgotten the ideals and ideas upon which our country was founded, or as I have said, “The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals.”. However, these ideals and ideas have several interpretations and meanings that often are contradictory or contentious and fraught with misunderstandings of the founders’ intentions. The Progressives and Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning", "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to justify their un-American ways of achieving their goals.

It is for these reasons that I think that Progressives and Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders are utilizing untruths, injustices, and the un-American ways to defeat their opposition. Therefore, in doing so, they are not fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way but for the exact opposite.

12/29/21 Negotiation and Compromise

With the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against Senator Joe Manchin for his decision to not vote for the Build Back Better legislation, they have bemoaned that he did not negotiate in good faith and was unwilling to compromise. However, negotiation and compromise have a particular meaning to Democrat Party leaders.

As Democrat Party Leaders believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. They, therefore, cannot negotiate and compromise nor exhibit bipartisanship with anyone that differs from their policies, as they believe that their policies are what best for all Americans. The Democrat Party has thus exhibited that no true compromise or bipartisanship is to be allowed, and their attitude toward legislation appears to be that if it does contain all that they want, then the opposition must negotiate and compromise within themselves to adopt their position.

Negotiation and compromising with them is often a matter of them cajoling or threatening the opposition to concede to their positions. Private badgering and public verbal haranguing and harassment of the opposition are the tools of the trade of their negotiations. Any changes that they agree to are often merely language artifices or accounting gimmicks to make their legislation more palatable to the opposition, rather than substantive changes to the legislation.

Consequently, the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists are analogous to those of children when they do not get their way. And this is what they are – children incapable of dealing with the vicissitudes of politics. Crybabies they are, and crybabies they shall remain until the American electorate spanks them and forces them to become more adult-like in their approach to negotiation and compromise, as well as in the crafting of legislation.

12/28/21 Backwards, Not Forwards

With the cries and wails of the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists against Senator Joe Manchin for his decision to not vote for the Build Back Better legislation, they have often claimed that he is not helping America move forward. This complaint has the inherent presumption that their political goals and policies are moving America forward. But are their political goals and policies a forward movement for America? It all depends on what you define as forward for America. My own definition is that which enhances our American Ideals and Ideas, as I have Chirp on, "07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas", and preserves our Natural and Constitutional Rights as in my Article, "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". Under this definition, the Democrats and Progressive political goals and policies are not a forward movement, but a backward movement for the reasons I stated in my Chirp on “12/27/21 Destroying the Village – Part Deux”.

In this, I am reminded of a scene from the movie Inherit the Wind (1960), in which the defense attorney, Drummond, rails (against) the law on the banning of the teaching of evolution:

“DRUMMOND (Turns to BRADY, in righteous anger) I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish! And I warn you (Points first at BRADY, then to various members of the audience and the JUDGE) that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!

JUDGE Colonel Drummond!

DRUMMOND (Striding to the JUDGE’s bench. This speech builds to a crescendo at the end.) Can’t you understand that if you take a law like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it? (Turns to the crowd in the gallery and begins addressing them. The crowd has grown strangely quiet during all of this as they listen. BRADY looks worriedly.) And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man! If you can do one, you can do the other! Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. (Strides slowly back to the JUDGE’S bench) And soon, Your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating we’ll be marching backward – BACKWARD - to the glorious ages of that sixteenth century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind! (DRUMMOND turns with disgust back to the defense table as he continues to pack his bag.)

JUDGE (In an angry, but shocked tone) I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.

DRUMMOND Your Honor has the right to hope!”

The Democrats and Progressive political goals and policies are wicked as they do not advance our American Ideals and Ideas and preserve our Natural and Constitutional Rights. On the contrary, they move us back to the time when governments dictated to their citizens, and governments were not of the people, by the people, and for the people, but imposed by a ruling class. We also see the Democrats and Progressive turning Americans against each other by Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality, and by scapegoating and persecuting groups of Americans based on their personal beliefs and decisions.

This is not forwarding of America, but a marching backward to a time when the individual was subordinate and subject to the tyranny of the majority or to their ruler's will. For myself, I choose not to hope that America rights itself but to fight against those that would take us backward – the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

12/27/21 Destroying the Village – Part Deux

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

Today we are seeing, hearing, and reading that any opposition to Democrat political policies and their agendas is a “Threat to Democracy”, which are usually followed by solutions that are undemocratic. Their proposals to ‘save’ democracy include:

Not to mention numerous other violations of our Natural and Constitutional Rights, as I have outlined in my Chirp on "10/13/21 A Declaration of Liberty". And all these solutions would require despotism to implement, a despotism that is antithetic to democracy.

Therefore, the solutions that they propose will destroy democracy in order to save democracy, and thus leaving in the rubble a despotic and not a democratic America.

12/26/21 ASSUME - Making an ASS out of yoU and ME

In an article by Jim Geraghty, Biden’s Many, Many Wrong Assumptions, he outlined the many assumptions of President Biden and his administration made upon entering office. Some of his points, as well as some of my points, on Biden’s assumptions, are:

In these assumptions, he has made an ass out of you and me (ASSUME). However, these assumptions are not only the assumptions of President Biden and his administration but also of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists. Assumptions that are often based on delusions about human nature, incorrect motivations of persons and groups, and no ill effects of governmental actions on the economy and society of America.

These delusions, as I have pointed out in many of my Chirps and Articles, are harmful to America and Americans. The combinations of these assumptions, and the depths of these delusions, portends a dark and gloomy American future. As Thomas Paine published in the article ‘The American Crisis’ during the Revolutionary War:

“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

As trying as these times are, we have it within ourselves to overcome these assumptions and their adherents. The only thing necessary to overcome these assumptions and adherents is to remember our American Ideals and Ideas and to preserve our Declaration of Independence and Constitutional principles. If we so persevere, then America can once again become the ‘Shining City on a Hill’ rather than a dark and gloomy place.

12/25/21 Hubble's Grand Tour of the Outer Solar System

From its vantage point high above Earth’s atmosphere, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has completed this year's grand tour of the outer solar system – returning crisp images that complement current and past observations from interplanetary spacecraft. This is the realm of the giant planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune – extending as far as 30 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

This is but one example of the advancement of the greatest scientific invention, the telescope, as I Chirped on, “12/24/21 The Greatest Scientific Inventions” These images are both striking and beautiful, and I would encourage all to view them.

12/24/21 The Greatest Scientific Inventions

There are many inventions that have changed the world. This Chirp is about the greatest scientific Inventions that changed the scientific world. These inventions changed the course of scientific history and brought about modern science. They are the telescope (around 1608), the microscope (around 1620), and standard and precision measurement instruments (starting in the 16th century).

The invention of the telescope allowed humankind to peer into the depths of the heavens. Until the age of the telescope, most people believed that the Heavens and the Earth were different from each other. The Heavens were thought to be perfect and unchangeable, while the Earth was imperfect and constantly changing. After Galileo disproved this distinction and Newton formulated his Law of Universal Gravitation, it was no longer possible to have a distinction between the Heavens and Earth, thus greatly advanced science in the understanding of the functioning of our Universe.

The invention of the microscope had the same effect as the telescope, as it allowed scientists to see things much smaller than the capabilities of the human eye. Much of the original discoveries were in the ability to see microscopic life and how it interacted with macroscopic life. This led to great advances in medicine and disease control, which greatly reduced the medical suffering of the people. Along with the telescope, this led to a better understanding of the natural processes of our world.

Standard and precision measurement instruments for scientific research are the core of scientific experiments and observations. A measuring instrument is a device to measure a physical quantity. In the physical sciences, quality assurance, and engineering, measurement is the activity of obtaining and comparing physical quantities of real-world objects and events. Established standard objects and events are used as units, and the process of measurement gives a number relating to the item under study and the referenced unit of measurement. Measuring instruments, and formal test methods which define the instrument's use, are the means by which these relations of numbers are obtained. All measuring instruments are subject to varying degrees of instrument error and measurement uncertainty. These instruments may range from simple objects such as rulers and stopwatches to electron microscopes and particle accelerators. Virtual instrumentation is widely used in the development of modern measuring instruments.

The invention of the basic measurement instruments of the thermometer, graduation rulers, Vernier scales, weighing scales, graduated cylinders, and accurate clocks and stopwatches changed the nature of scientific inquiry. Prior to the invention of these items, it was impossible to measure with any accuracy the basic properties of matter and the interval of changes to matter. Once you could measure these things, it was possible to determine scientific laws and formulate scientific theories.

These three inventions allowed brought about modern science and the benefits of modern science. They greatly added to our knowledge base and allowed us to harness nature for the benefit of humankind. Without these inventions, we would probably still be living as the people of the Middle Ages lived.

12/23/21 A Duel of Swords or a Duel of Pistols

As I explained in my Chirp on "09/07/19 Form Over Substance", in today’s political “debates”, and especially debates on television, there is a tendency to adjudge the debate winner on form over substance. The content of the debate is often overshadowed by the style of the debater, to the detriment of the audience, the debaters, and to the topic of the debate. A good debater requires supportive facts and figures to be available at a moment’s notice to counter their opponent. A good thinker, however, relies on thorough “Rationality” and "Reasoning" based on Empirical Evidence, which is more difficult to recollect and/or to explain in a debate. This puts the good thinker at a disadvantage to a good debater in a debate. A great debater is both a first-class thinker and a first-class debater, but these individuals are few and far between. In the situation of a debate between a debater and a thinker, the good debater is often seen as the “winner’ of the debate, even though their argument may be defective or without merit. Meanwhile, the good thinkers’ argument is largely ignored in a debate, as there is insufficient time to be effectual in explaining their thinking.

A good debater often relies on the crux of the subject, while a good thinker relies on the substance of the subject, as I explained in my Chirp on, "05/15/20 Gettysburg Address in Words and in Crux". After reading this Chirp, I think that we can all agree that the words and reasoning have a much more significant intellectual and emotional impact than the crux of the words. It is for this reason that I prefer to discuss my words and reasoning rather than go to the crux of the matter.

Consequently, a good thinker may not be a good debater, and a good debater may not be a good thinker. I am, myself, afflicted with this problem as I believe I have good thoughts, but I also believe that I am a poor debater. It is for this reason that I often do not engage in debates. I do, however, engage in discussions in which both sides have ample time to challenge facts and figures and effectually explain their arguments.

This situation is analogous between a duel of swords or a duel of pistols. A duel of swords provides much action and excitement, while a duel of pistols is calmer but is a more tension-filled event until after the pistols are fired. The sword fighter’s skill of lunges and thrusts, and blocks and parry, will lead them to victory, but it is a victory of technique. The pistol fighters rely on calmness and a deliberativeness to achieve victory, a victory of substantialness. A victory is a victory, but a victory of technique is less satisfying and less meaningful than a victory of substantialness. Of course, if the reason for the duel was shallow, then the victory in the duel is also shallow.

When debating social policy or government legislation, a victory of substantialness is required to achieve a more positive outcome for society. Consequently, you should never adjudge victory in a political debate based on technique but rather adjudge the victory on substantialness. And victory should always be adjudged by which party has demonstrated better “Rationality” and "Reasoning".

12/22/21 The End of the Filibuster

The Democrats have often been for or against the Filibuster in the United States Senate, depending on whether they were in or out of control of the Senate, as I have Chirp on, "07/15/21 The Party of Double Standards". As I have Chirp on, "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship", the Senate Filibuster can be used or misused depending upon the circumstances. As the Democrats have been unable to nullify or modify the Senate Filibuster, they have started to utilize another tactic to neuter the Senate Filibuster – The Reconciliation Process.

The Senate Democrats are trying to utilize the Reconciliation process to pass legislation that could not be passed through the normal and customary procedures of the Senate. The Reconciliation process allows the Senate majority to sidestep the filibuster and pass bills that affect spending, revenue, or the federal debt ceiling. There are limits on how it can be used, though. One is that, at maximum, three bills can be passed a year using the Reconciliation process. Another is the Byrd Rule, which states that certain kinds of provisions are “extraneous” and therefore cannot be passed under Reconciliation. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for Reconciliation—in six cases:

    1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
    2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
    3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
    4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision;
    5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of 10 years); or
    6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Whenever the Senate attempts to utilize the Reconciliation process, the Senate Parliamentarian must rule on the appropriateness of the legislation to the Byrd Rule to include this legislation in the Reconciliation process. The Senator or Senators who wish to inappropriately use the Reconciliation process often use "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify their actions. However, the Parliamentarian just as often rejects their attempts as not meeting the Byrd Rule standard for inclusion in the Reconciliation process.

The most recent example is of the Senate Democrats trying to pass Immigration Reform through the Reconciliation process. As the proposed Immigration Reform legislation would not pass a Senate Filibuster, they attempted to include this legislation in a Reconciliation measure under consideration. The Senate Parliamentarian rejected this attempt as not appropriate under the Byrd Rule, and the wails and protestations from the Senate Democrats and President Biden and his administration have been piercing. There is even talk about overturning the Senate Parliamentarians' decision and even changing the Byrd Rule in the future. If such a change to the Byrd Rule were to occur, it would effectively end the Senate Filibuster.

If this were to occur, then the Senate would then operate on the basis of majority rule, with little or no concerns for the rights of the minority. Whether this is a good or bad thing is open to much debate, with much of the debate depending on whether a party is in or out of power in the Senate and the legislation in contention, as I have discussed in Chirp on, "10/30/20 The Filibuster as Obstructionism, Blackmail, and Political Gamesmanship".

Whenever anyone proposes the elimination or modification of the Senate Filibuster, they should be asked if they would think the same if the shoe were on the other foot. The other foot being that if they needed the Senate Filibuster to stop or amend legislation that they thought was wrong or harmful. I suspect that they would want to keep the Senate Filibuster if it was needed by themselves to achieve their goals. The word for such duplicitousness is hypocrisy, which is what needs to be eliminated in the Senate rather than the elimination of the Senate Filibuster.

12/21/21 Regulatory Capture

Regulatory Capture explains how governmental regulatory agencies actually operate in the real world, rather than how they were supposed to operate when they were authorized:

“Regulatory Capture is an economic theory that says regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating. The result is that an agency, charged with acting in the public interest, instead acts in ways that benefit incumbent firms in the industry it is supposed to be regulating.”

“Regulated industries devote large budgets to influencing regulators at federal, state, and local levels. By contrast, individual citizens spend only limited resources to advocate for their own rights. This is an extension of the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of regulation, public policy, and collective action in general, described by economist Mancur Olsen.”

“In many cases, the regulators themselves come from the pool of industry experts and employees, in part due to the complex and specialized knowledge needed to regulate an industry, and may also then return to work in the industry after their government service. This is known as the revolving door between government and special interests. In some cases, industry leaders trade the promise of future jobs for regulatory consideration, making revolving doors criminally corrupt.”

“Regulatory agencies that come to be controlled by the industries they are charged with regulating are known as captured agencies, and agency capture occurs when that governmental body operates essentially as an advocate for the industries it regulates. Such cases may not be directly corrupt, as there is no quid pro quo; rather, the regulators simply begin thinking like the industries they regulate, due to heavy lobbying.”

 - From the article Regulatory Capture at Investopedia.com

We are beginning to see this process unfold in the current Facebook.com actions to address the concerns of their censoring some content, mostly content from conservative posts or posts with which they disagree with the content (i.e., content that they label hateful, untruths, or misinformation amongst other labels). Facebook has started a media campaign in which they have ads in the "Mainstream Media" that appear to be news media interviews with their employees involved in this censuring activity within Facebook. In these ads, their employees make an appeal for governmental regulations that would supposedly assist them in making better and more fair criteria for their censorship under regulations from the Federal government.

Many of the other "Social Media" companies have also expressed an interest in government regulations for their censorship activities. Don’t be fooled by Facebook’s ad campaign and the other Social Media's advocacy for government regulations. While I genuinely believe they want government regulation, it is not for the purposes of better and more fair criteria for their censorship. They wish to engage in regulatory Capture of the government agency that would be responsible for creating these regulations and for instituting their criteria for censorship as government regulations. Thus, they would be deflecting attention from themselves and onto the government agency they have captured.

And always remember that any government control or censorship of speech is unconstitutional, as well as a slippery slope to despotism.

12/20/21 Feeding the Crocodile

As Winston Churchill once famously said about the appeasement of Adolf Hitler prior to World War II:

"Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely."

And feeding the crocodile is what "Modern Big Business" has been doing lately. In their rush of Virtue Signaling, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and Cancel Culture, they have been feeding the crocodile in an attempt to stave off criticisms and actions by "Progressives/Leftists". This feeding has been done by making large donations to "Activists and Activism’ organizations. Now, the crocodile is starting to feed on them. When destructive mobs and violent gangs were content to rob, loot, and destroy the property of small businesses in the inner-city neighborhoods, they did not protest these actions and instead voiced their support by either their silence or by mealy-mouthed words about these actions of the mob and gangs. They also started to make contributions to the organizations that either were engaged or supportive of these mob or gang actions in an attempt to stave off these mob and gang actions against their businesses.

When the mob and gangs turned their attention to upscale businesses in affluent neighborhoods, these same feeders of the crocodile have then asked for Federal assistance to curb these mob and gang actions. This request for Federal assistance is pure hypocrisy and only driven by their own self-interest.

If they want assistance in controlling mob and gang actions, then they should be appealing to local and state law enforcement who are responsible for controlling mob and gang violence. They should also be making contributions to those small businesses and neighborhoods that were victims of the mob and gang violence. It would also be helpful if they supported political candidates that are for law enforcement rather than for political candidates that support the mobs and gangs (which are mostly Democrat Party candidates whom they currently support).

As to their request for Federal assistance, I would respond – You made your bed, and now you should sleep in it, as well as go pound sand.

12/19/21 Changing the Rules

Today, the Philadelphia Eagles Football team will not play the Washington Football Team, even though this contest has been scheduled for many months. The reason given by the NFL for this rescheduling is that it was necessary as the Washington Football Team has so many players that are inactive due to the NFL’s COVID-19 restrictions that they could not field a competitive football team for this game. The NFL has also changed its COVID-19 protocols so that they are less restrictive so that more players could be activated to play on game day and hence have more competitive games. This change to the COVID-19 protocols also calls into question their commitment to player safety. The reason that the Washington Football Team has so many players inactive due to the COVID-19 restrictions is that they were less proactive in preventing COVID-19 exposures than the Philadelphia Eagles Football team, which only has a few players that are inactive due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Washington Football Team has 23 reported players on the reserve/COVID-19 list, while the Philadelphia Eagles Football team has only two players on the reserve/COVID-19 list.

In effect, the NFL is punishing the Philadelphia Eagles Football team for being proactive against COVID-19 while rewarding the Washington Football Team for being less proactive against COVID-19. It is punishing the Philadelphia Eagles Football team because the following game against the New York Giants will occur after a short week for the Philadelphia Eagles Football team to recover and rest from the aches and pains of the Washington Football Team rescheduled game. The Philadelphia Eagles will also have less time to prepare for the New York Giants contest, which gives the New York Giants a competitive advantage. It also increases the chances of Philadelphia Eagles players being injured in the New York Giants game as they had insufficient time to rest and recover for the New York Giants contest. All of this has also impacted the NFL playoffs, as the Philadelphia Eagles and the Washington Football Team are jockeying for a playoff spot, which may be affected because of this rescheduling.

All of this exemplifies the current attitude of "Progressives/Leftists". An attitude that if you don’t like the results, then you should change the rules of the game, even in the middle of the game, to change the results to achieve a more fair and equitable result. But fairness and equitable are in the eye of the beholder and often do not take into account "The Law of Unintended Consequences" as a result of changing the rules of the game.

As the NFL and its players are widely known for their support of progressive causes, it should be no surprise that they have adopted this attitude in their own actions. An attitude that corrupts the integrity of the football season results and calls into question the fairness of the NFL. It also adds to the coffers of the NFL, as now they have an additional prime time game during the week that could generate more revenue for the NFL. As such, one wonders as to the reason for this scheduling change are more money or more competitiveness, but I believe it is more of the former rather than the latter.

12/18/21 American Military Leadership – Part III

Victor Davis Hanson, In his book, The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, defines great military leadership as the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them to a noble cause for the wars they fought. They did this by utilizing unconventional military strategy and techniques, with a concern of their soldiers’ and sailors’ safety and minimization of casualties, while attempting to expeditiously end the war and achieve their noble cause. In my opinion, Generals George Washington, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton are the great American Generals, while Admiral Nimitz was the greatest American Admiral. General Douglas MacArthur, on the other hand, was not so great. As such, I have written an article about each of these generals and Admiral Nimitz, and my thoughts about their greatness and not so greatness:

12/17/21 American Military Leadership – Part II

In his book The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, Victor Davis Hanson makes no mention of General George Washington of the American Revolutionary War, nor General John J. Pershing of World War I as great generals. This is because while Washington was a greater leader, his generalship was often lacking. After all, he did lose more battles than he won. However, I believe that General Washington should be considered as a great general under Victor Davis Hanson’s criteria.

Like the great Ancient Greek Theban general Epaminondas in Victor Davis Hanson’s book, General Washington led ordinary citizens in unconventional warfare against the British, inspired his troops for the noble cause for which they fought and to keep fighting, and thus achieved victory for this noble cause.

His military strategy was to fight limited battles rather than conventional battles, as he knew that his Army would be defeated, captured, and destroyed in conventional battles. He, therefore, adopted a strategy of engaging in a limited fight until the point of defeat or unacceptable casualties, then to retreat to live to fight another day. While this did wear down the British and eventually win the war for American Independence, his greatness was not in generalship but in his leadership to hold the colonial army together until victory was accomplished.

General Washington persevered despite many hardships and deprivations of his Army. Food, munitions, and other supplies were always in short supply. Accommodations for his troops between battles were often wretched, cold, or non-existent. Many a night, the troops slept on cold, hard ground with inadequate tenting and only a small campfire for heat. Political infighting within the Continental Congress only made matters worse. There was also political jockeying for appointments and promotions of officers in his Army, as well as his troops often being untrained, undisciplined, and rambunctious. There was also the problem of his troop’s enlistments expiring during the course of the war, and many of his troops would go back home when their enlistments were over, thus depriving him of manpower to conduct battles.

General Washington also many times fought with his troops and exposed himself to the dangers of battle, just as Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton did when they led their troops. He also suffered many of the hardships and deprivations that his troops suffered. And he persevered until the American Revolution was won, and thereby General Washington changed the course of World History and advanced the cause of Liberty and Freedom to all humankind. 

As such, therefore, I believe that General Washington deserves to be considered a great general under Victor Davis Hanson’s criteria.

General Pershing recognized that tank warfare, and infantry mobility was the key to winning WWI, which he employed very effectively thanks to the exploits of his junior officers, most especially Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton. He also resisted British and French attempts to incorporate American troops into their battle lines, thus avoiding the quagmire, horrors, and casualties of trench warfare and mass frontal assaults against the Germans. While he did not win the war, he was instrumental in achieving an Armistice until a Peace Treaty was signed. An Armistice and Peace Treaty that sowed the seeds of the death, destruction, disease, and horrors of WWII in Europe and the Pacific. If he had won the war, and established a peace that would have prevented WWII, then he would be worthy of consideration as a great liberator.

I also believe that Admiral Chester W. Nimitz should be considered the greatest Admiral in American history. Through his decisive offensive actions at the start of World War II in the Pacific and his strategy and tactics of Leapfrogging naval battles and submarine warfare against Japanese maritime shipping, Admiral Nimitz shortened the war and demonstrated concerns for the safety and minimization of casualties while attempting to expeditiously end the war. And he did this by doing what he thought best despite the reservations of others. Therefore, Admiral Nimitz should be considered one of the best admirals in U.S. Navy history and, indeed, one of the greatest admirals in all naval history. This is also why he is my favorite American admiral.

Today, we have had near great generals in General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and General David Petraeus of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. However, today's American military is permeated with bureaucracy and administrative intervention that is focused on conventional military strategy and techniques to fight a war and are often beholden to the Military-Industrial Complex in their decision-making. They also are more political and concerned with Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, and "Social Engineering" rather than creating the deadliest and most efficient military possible. Any independent thinking and criticism within today’s military ranks are met with derision and/or charges of insubordination, which often ends the military career of the person voicing criticism, if not outright dismissal or discharge of the dissenter from the military.

12/16/21 American Military Leadership – Part I

America has produced some great generals and admirals throughout its history. Generals such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradly, Courtney Hodges, Douglas MacArthur, and George S. Patton of World War II, John J. Pershing of World War II, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, and General Robert E. Lee of the American Civil War, and George Washington of the American Revolutionary War are some of these great generals. In current American history, we have had near great generals in Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and David Petraeus of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. We have also had great Fleet Admirals of the U.S. Navy in World War II in William D. Leahy, Ernest King, Chester W. Nimitz, and William Halsey Jr.

In the book The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny by Victor Davis Hanson, he defines great military leadership as the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them to a noble cause for the wars they fought. Most often, this noble cause is for the freedom of oppressed persons under the enemy’s control. A great military leader also fights with the concern of their soldier’s safety and minimization of casualties while attempting to expeditiously end the war and achieve their noble cause.

My three favorite American generals are George Washington, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton, with a sneaking admiration of Ulysses S. Grant. As such, I have written History Articles about these three generals. I have included my comments about why General Grant does not rise to greatness and why General Lee should not even be considered a great general in my article on William Tecumseh Sherman. I have also written a History Article to explain why Douglas MacArthur is not a favorite general of mine, nor is he a great general.

I do not consider Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradly, and Courtney Hodges of World War II as preeminent generals of America as they had some shortcomings that exclude them as my favorites. All these generals utilized conventional military strategy and techniques to fight World War II, and as a result, the war was prolonged and, therefore, additional hundreds of thousands of troop casualties and millions of innocents lives in the death camps occurred. They were also often too cautious and too administrative/bureaucratic, as well as too political in their decision-making when boldness and apolitical decisions would have better served in expeditiously ending the war. They also lacked the military leadership as to the ability to lead and inspire the troops under them for the noble cause for which they fought.

Tomorrow's Chirp will examine other American generals that Victor Davis Hanson did not include in his book.

12/15/21 America's Trust in Mass Media

The Gallup Poll on America's Trust in Mass Media by Political Party reveals no surprises, but it is revealing as to the extent that Americans do not trust the "Mainstream Media" and "Modern Journalism":

I suspect that these results are a factor of the more you engage in “Rationality” and "Reasoning", the less likely you are to trust Mass Media, which also says much of the intelligence of Americans by Political Party.

12/14/21 Rationality and Reasoning

In my Chirps and Articles have often written about being rational and reasonable. While I have written an article on "Reasoning", I have not written about Rationality. This is a difficult topic to write upon, as rationality can be a nebulous term and have different meanings to different people. However, my new Article, “Rationality”, attempts to define Rationality and my utilization of Rationality in my Chirps and Articles.

12/13/21 The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration is a document signed by over 15,000 infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, and over 45,000 medical practitioners, that states that they have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommends an approach that they call Focused Protection.

The premise of the Declaration lies on two scientific facts. First, while anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in COVID-19 mortality between the oldest and youngest. Children have lower mortality from COVID-19 than from the annual influenza. For people under the age of 70, the infection survival rate is 99.95%. We now have good evidence on the relative risk posed by the incidence of chronic conditions, so we know that among common conditions, age is the single most important risk factor. For instance, a 65-year-old obese individual has about the same COVID-19 mortality risk conditional upon infection as a 70-year-old non-obese individual.

Second, the harms of the lockdown are manifold and devastating, including plummeting childhood vaccination rates, worse cardiovascular disease outcomes, less cancer screening, and deteriorating mental health, to name a few. The social isolation induced by lockdown has led to a sharp rise in opioid and drug-related overdoses, similar to the “deaths of despair” that occurred in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession. Social isolation of the elderly has contributed to a sharp rise in dementia-related deaths around the country. For children, the cessation of in-person schooling since the spring has led to “catastrophic” learning losses, with severe projected adverse consequences for affected students’ life spans. According to a CDC estimate, one in four young adults seriously considered suicide this past June. Among 25 to 44-year olds, the CDC reports a 26% increase in excess all-cause mortality relative to past years, though fewer than 5% of 2020 deaths have been due to COVID-19.

The Great Barrington Declaration also has answers to many Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19:

Lockdowns And Collateral Damage

Covid-19 Risk

Protecting The Old and Other High-Risk Groups

Herd Immunity

Standard Public Health Practice

This may surprise some persons who know of this Declaration, its FAQs, and its recommendation for Focused Protection, given the unfortunate caricature of the Declaration, where some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy” that aims to maximize infections among the young or as a laissez-faire approach to let the virus rip through society. On the contrary, they believe that everyone should take basic precautions to avoid spreading the disease and that no one should intentionally expose themselves to COVID-19 infection. Since zero COVID is impossible, herd immunity is the endpoint of this epidemic regardless of whether we choose lockdowns or focused protection to address it.

I would encourage all to read this Declaration and the supporting FAQs, as it is a basis for “Rationality” and "Reasoning" on our COVID-19 responses.

12/12/21 Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma

As nouns, the difference between tenet and doctrine is that tenet is an opinion, belief, or principle held to be true by someone or especially an organization, while doctrine is a belief or tenet, especially about philosophical or theological matters.

Doctrine comes from the Latin "doctrina" for "teaching", and still retains that meaning of a principle, position or policy that is taught (see indoctrinate). Dogma comes from Greek "dokein" for "to seem good, think" through Latin "dogmatos" for "that which one thinks is true". And tenet simply comes from the Latin "tenere" for "to hold", as in something (an idea or belief) which is held. Contextually, doctrine and dogma are used interchangeably, and all are listed as synonyms for each other, but, if we haven't already learned that by now, it bears repeating that there are no true synonyms.

In my article on Religiosity, I explain my thoughts on this topic. These thoughts have led me to my personal Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma that I try to apply to my life.

Given the above definitions, my tenets are:

      1. Before the beginning, there was God.
      2. And God was all there was, is, and could be.
      3. And God was conscience, intelligent, and all-knowing.
      4. And God was bored as it knew all there is, and was, and what will be.
      5. And God decided to create a universe, a universe of matter and energy, and dark matter and dark energy. A universe of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and thermodynamics.
      6. And this Universe would evolve so that galaxies, stars, and planets would form, and life could be created and evolve on the planets.
      7. And this life would also evolve so that conscience intelligent life would come forth.
      8. And God gave this conscience intelligent life the knowledge of good from evil, right from wrong, truth from falsehood, creative from destructive, reasonable from emotional, love from hate, wisdom from folly, and beauty from ugliness.
      9. And God gave this conscience intelligent life free choice so that it could decide how to behave based on this knowledge.
      10. And God would observe their behavior and be entertained by it.
      11. When the conscience intelligent life died, God would absorb their consciousness’ into its own, and God would know all the conscience intelligence life knew.
      12. After the conscience intelligent life died, God would judge them based on their words, deeds, and thoughts and punish or reward their consciousness as appropriate.

My doctrine is my interpretation of “The Ten Commandments” as:

    1. You shall have no other gods but me.
    2. You shall remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
    3. You shall not make any graven images of anyone or anything.
    4. You shall not utilize the name of the Lord thy God to justify immoral acts.
    5. You shall respect your father and your mother.
    6. You shall not unjustly take the life of another person.
    7. You shall not have sexual relations with the spouse of another person.
    8. You shall not steal, loot, nor destroy the property of another person.
    9. You shall not lie about nor give false testimony against any person.
    10. You shall not covet anything of any other person.

And my dogma is:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

"It is much more important to do good than to feel good."

"Knowing why is often more important than knowing how."

"Nothing is as good as it appears, or as bad as it seems. But on rare occasions, it can be better, or worse."

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."

"To understand well, you must read; and read well, often, and on subjects on which you are unfamiliar."

"True Courage is doing the right thing, at the right time, regardless of personal consequences."

"Try to think philosophically, but always act pragmatically."

"You may be the smartest person in the room, but you're not the only person in the room, and most times, you are not the smartest person in the room."

"You'll never get confused if you simply tell the truth. Then you don't have to remember what you have said, and you never forget what you have said. And you won't get in trouble for telling a lie if you have told the truth."

I attempt to adhere to these Tenets, Doctrines, and Dogma in my life, but given that I am human, I occasionally fall short in my efforts. That is why I firmly believe, as I have written in one of my Pearls of Wisdom - "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Devine".

12/11/21 The Irrationality of Progressives/Leftists

As I have often written in my Chirps and Articles dealing with "Progressives/Leftists", they believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct. And always being correct, they believe that their opponents are not only wrong and stupid but that their opponents must be evil as they are morally good. It also demonstrates their narcissistic belief in their own superiority.

As to their being better educated, in today’s world of "Indoctrination versus Education", this simply means that they are more indoctrinated in Progressives and Leftists Ideals and Ideas, and consequently less capable of “Rationality” and "Reasoning".

While many Progressives and Leftists profess a belief in God, they are committed to secularism in government, and many of them are atheists or agnostics. They, therefore, do not base their policies and agendas on religion or morality but on an internal sense of righteousness. As a result:

"When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything."
 - Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to G. K. Chesterton)

And Progressives and Leftists will believe anything that fits their narrative and discount anything that does not fit their narrative. When Progressives and Leftists are confronted by facts and circumstances that contravene their narrative, they often resort to irrationality to explain away this contravention of their narrative. Hence, anything that happens that does not fit their narrative must undergo "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning, "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors", and "Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness" to explain away this contravention or to shoehorn the contravention into their narrative. And sometimes they simply ignore the contraventions and pretend they do not exist. All of which is an exercise in irrationality.

In many cases, they manufacture irrationalities to support their narrative. The Steele Dossier, the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Impeachments of President Trump, the January 6th ‘Insurrection’, as well as many allegations and assertions against persons and incidents in the recent past are manufactured to fit the Progressives and Leftists narrative. And most often, this is done before the facts are established (i.e., Jumping to Conclusions), and anytime that you Jump to Conclusions, you are being irrational. If, after they discover the facts and truths that do not fit their narrative, they do not apologize and correct their falsehoods but engage in more irrationality to justify their previous irrationality. This is not only divisive and destructive to America, but it also demonstrates their narcissistic belief in themselves.

Irrationality will lead you to conclusions that support political and policy agendas that are not in the best interests of America and Americans. These conclusions are not based upon truths as:

"There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning."
 - Mark Dawson

Progressives' and Leftists' narratives often deny the truths of human nature to support their narrative. As a result, any political and policy agendas implemented on this denial of human nature is doomed, as:

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

Therefore, the Irrationality of Progressives/Leftists is harmful to America and Americans.

12/10/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight – Part II

In my Chirp on "11/28/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight", I point out that the situation in Ukraine could escalate and pose a danger to peace and possible war in Europe. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in Europe? And if we believe that this is a precursor, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression? And if we do act against Russia, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

One of the loudest voices for minimal action is Tucker Carlson, while many in government are arguing for more proactive and even military actions by America in the Ukraine situation. I generally agree with Tucker Carlson that America should be wary of getting involved in Ukraine, but I am concerned that his argumentation has some assertions that, if they turn out to be false, could have detrimental consequences for America.

As I have stated many times in my Chirps and Articles, Assertions often contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Some of Tucker Carlson’s assertions about the situation in Ukraine, and my notes on these assertions are:

If any one of these assertions is incorrect, then the conclusions that Tucker Carlson reaches would be wrong. History has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predetermine the motivations and goals of aggressors and that when you misjudge an aggressive leaders’ intentions, you often pay the penalty for your misjudgments. In modern history, we have the examples of the misjudgments of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte that led to war in Europe. Many of his assertions about the intentions of Vladimir Putin were also made about the intentions of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte, with disastrous consequences. I would therefore ask Tucker Carlson, as in the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers, that he:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

I would also ask that he ponder the possibility that he is wrong in these assertions and that, therefore, we could be blundering into another armed conflict in Europe.

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations. I also believe that our current and past government leaders do not have the wisdom to make a judgment on the intentions of Vladimir Putin. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe to protect its direct interests in Europe, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European people.

12/09/21 There Are No Human Rights Without Natural Rights, and No Civil Rights May Violate Our Natural and Human Rights

In my article, “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”, I examine the differences and hierarchy of Natural, Human, and Civil Rights. Many people conflate these rights and give each of them equal importance. However, this is not correct, as each is different, and each has more or less importance to the other.

As is typical for most people discussing Natural Rights (myself included), they conflate the ideas of natural law and natural rights into the term Natural Rights. Though these two ideas are closely related, they are not the same. Natural law is inherent and fundamental in a society of sentient beings that wish to survive and thrive in their interactions with each other. Natural rights are those rights derived from natural law which establish a zone of liberty and freedom for an individual that no other person, group of persons or government can violate. The issues and concerns of Philosophers, Theologians, Legal scholars, and others involved in this epistemology are to determine what are the natural laws, and what are the natural rights derived from these natural laws. A fine legal article (but easily readable and understandable by non-lawyers) is A Law Professor’s Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights by Randy E. Barnett, which defines and explains the ideas of natural law and natural rights.

When I utilize the term ‘Natural Rights’ (with beginning capitalization), I am deliberately conflating the ideas of natural law and natural rights for convenience purposes. In my opinion, Natural Rights are endowed by Nature or Nature’s God by the fact of being conceived, born, and living and dying as a human person. Natural Rights are also inviolate and cannot be abrogated nor annulled by any person, group, society, or government. Human Rights are those rights bestowed upon a person by society or government. Once bestowed, they cannot be revoked except by overwhelming agreement of the persons who have these Human Rights. Civil Rights are those rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, including especially the fundamental liberties, freedoms, and privileges of Natural and Human Rights. Any Civil Rights acts of a legislature, including the right to legal, social, and economic equality may be altered, abolished, or added as the government sees fit as necessary to protect our Human and Natural Rights, but Civil Rights cannot abrogate, constrain, or alter our Natural and Human Rights.

Consequently, all rights must originate from Natural Rights, while Human Rights are special protections for basic Natural Rights within a government jurisdiction, and Civil Rights may come and go as needed to protect our Natural and Human Rights. Therefore, ‘There Are No Human Rights without Natural Rights, and no Civil Rights but for the protection of our Natural and Human Rights’.

12/08/21 The Disinformation and Misinformation of the Media

The willful avoidance of facts and deliberate obscuring of what happened in the Waukesha, Wisconsin massacre (as outlined in the article, “Waukesha: The Shame of the Media” by Newt Gingrich), in the Kyle Rittenhouse reporting (as outlined in the article, “10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked” by Miranda Devine), and in the Ahmaud Arbery and the Jussie Smollett’s trials, and other disinformation and misinformation reporting of "Modern Journalism", is practiced because it apparently violates the established media’s narrative of inherent white racism and black victimization. The propaganda media’s answer has been to simply avoid the facts and focus on reporting, which can at best be described as inadequate and at worst be described as maliciously dishonest and misleading.,

As in my Chirp on, "11/22/21 The Atrociousness of Mainstream Media Reporting and Commentary", modern journalism has drifted from reporting the facts and truths in America to the advocacy of ‘change’, ‘reform’, and ‘transformation’ based on "Progressives/Leftists" Ideals and Ideas, and their support of Democrat Party politicians and their agenda. They believe that this is proper journalism, as it advances the Noble Lie as I have Chirped on, "11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies". They do so because of their American hatred viewpoint, as I have Chirped on, "11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?".

This Disinformation and Misinformation is doing great harm to the body politic, for without proper and correct information, it is not possible for the American electorate to cast their ballots in an informed, rational, and reasonable manner as I have explained in my Articles, “Rationality” and "Reasoning". It is also leading us to a degradation of "A Civil Society", a coarsening of "Dialog and Debate", and the American public to believe in "The Biggest Falsehoods in America".

Hopefully, the American public is beginning to recognize this Disinformation and Misinformation as seen in the declining viewership and readership of the "Mainstream Media". And, hopefully, this will be seen in the voting of the American electorate in the next few elections.

12/07/21 The Soul of Our Political Parties

After recently having read The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny by Victor Davis Hanson, I began to consider the soul of our modern political parties. To do this, we should ignore the words and deeds of both the Democrat and Republican Parties prior to the 21st century and concentrate on the 21st-century words and deeds of the parties. If we do this, we can see some distinct differences in the modern souls between the parties. The modern soul of the Democrat party was formulated and solidified in the first decade of the 21st century, while the soul of the Republican party was formulated in the second decade of the 21st century and is now being solidified in the third decade of the 21st century.

The modern soul of the Democrat Party was formulated on the excessive ideologies and ideas of "Progressives/Leftists" in response to the election of President Bush in 2000, which were solidified in the election of President Obama in 2008, then further cemented in the election of President Biden in 2020.

The modern soul of the Republican Party began to formulate with the rise of the Tea Party Movement in 2009, an American conservative political movement within the Republican Party that coalesced against President Barack Obama's agenda and held a series of public protests against President Obama and moderate Republican Party leaders. This soul solidified with the election of President Trump in 2016.

My new Article, “The Soul of Our Political Parties”, examines these modern souls of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

12/06/21 The 25th Constitutional Amendment Issues and Concerns

Much has been said and written about the inadequacies and unworkability of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution as to the temporary removal or reinstatement of the President if they are unable, or able, to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President. In this, I agree that the current 25th Amendment is inadequate and unworkable. Therefore, I would propose we replace the current 25th Amendment with the following:

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or by their death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the Vice President and the Secretary of State transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their joint written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then with the jointly written affirmation within twenty-four hours of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the acting President and the Secretary of State transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their joint written declaration that no inability of the President currently exists, then within twenty-four hours of a jointly written affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the President is fit to resume their office the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of their office.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a written declaration that they are able to discharge the powers and duties of their office, then with the jointly written affirmation within twenty-four hours of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of the office of President.

If the President disagrees with the joint affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then they may transmit a written appeal of this joint affirmation to the parliamentarian of both Houses of Congress, who shall set forth and advance Congressional action in their respective chambers under Section 4 of this Amendment.

If no joint written affirmation of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives is obtained within twenty-four hours of the transmittal by the Vice President and the Secretary of State, or by the President, of the inability or ability of President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then Section 4 of this Amendment is to be applied.

Section 4.

If the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are unable to jointly agree upon the inability or ability of President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, or upon an appeal by the President of their joint affirmation, then Congress shall within three days, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session, decide the inability or ability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President. If Congress determines, by a three-fifths vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.  If Congress determines, by a three-fifths vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, that the President is fit to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the President shall immediately resume the powers and duties of their office.

I believe that this wording is adequate and workable and will assure a smooth transition of power when the President is unable then becomes fit to discharge the powers and duties of their office. I also believe that this procedure will help assure the security and authenticity of our Democratic Republic.

12/05/21 Much Ado About Nothing

There has been much talk about the removal of a President or Vice President, especially Vice President Kamala Harris. I would remind Americans, and especially Democrats and Progressives/Leftists, that there are only four ways to remove a President or Vice President under the Constitution. They are:

    1. Resignation
    2. Impeachment and Conviction
    3. Physical or Mental Incapacity
    4. Death by natural causes, accidental causes, or assassination

With the current rumors about Vice President Kamala Harris's removal, I would like to address these four ways in regard to her removal.

    1. Resignations most often occur through scandal or revulsion to a President or Vice President's words or deeds. In modern American history, this occurred with the resignations of President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.

      No such scandal or revulsion exists for Vice President Harris, and she has little motivation to resign except political pressure from her Democrat Party leadership. Given the possibility of President Biden being unable to serve his full term and her becoming President, or her becoming the Democrat heir apparent in the next presidential election, her motivation to stay in office is too great to force her into resignation.

    2. Impeachment and Conviction are difficult to accomplish for a President or Vice President, as seen by the two impeachment actions against President Donald Trump. While they did impeach President Trump in the House of Representatives, they were unable to obtain a conviction in the Senate, as I have written about extensively in my articles on “The Impeachment of President Trump”.

      Although the American people and Democrat Party leader may dislike Vice President Harris or believe that she is incompetent or a drag on the Democrat Party election hopes, these are not impeachable offenses under the Article II Section 4 Constitutional standard of:

      “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

      In addition, it takes a majority vote in the House of Representatives to vote for Impeachment, but Article I Section 3 of the Constitution states that in a Senate trial:

      “And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

      I would doubt that two-thirds of the Senate would vote for conviction, especially as the Republicans are happy to see her in office as an example of the incompetency and ineffectiveness of the Biden administration.
      To try to remove Vice President Harris through Impeachment and Conviction is purely political gamesmanship and makes a mockery of our Constitution.

    3. Vice President Harris appears to be a physically and mentally healthy adult, especially as compared to President Biden, and the Physical or Mental Incapacity provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution is not applicable, especially since those provisions only deal with the office of the Presidency. Therefore, this avenue of removal is moot when it comes to the office of the Vice Presidency.

    4. Vice President Harris appears to be a healthy and vigorous adult, and I would not expect that she would die from natural causes. Given the protections she is afforded by the Secret Service, I would not expect her to die of accidental cause, although it is possible. That only leaves assassination as the only sure method of her death, something that I hope and pray never occurs to a President or Vice President, or any elected or appointed official, but unfortunately has occurred in American history.

Some have suggested that the Electoral College reconvene and revote. But this is not possible as the Electoral College ceased to exist when they transmitted their votes to the United States Secretary of State. As such, their vote is final and not subject to a revote. If by some incomprehensible means, they would reconvene and revote, it would open up the can-of-worms, including that they could also revote for the office of the presidency. What an utter mess this would create to our republic is unfathomable.

Consequently, any talk about the removal of Vice President Kamala Harris from office is simply ‘Much Ado About Nothing.’

12/04/21 A Brief Guide to Leftist Destruction

“To understand the modern world, perhaps the most important rule one needs to know is this: Everything the Left touches it ruins.” So begins a new article A Brief Guide to Leftist Destruction by Dennis Prager.

As I have written in my "Terminology" webpage; Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality", are all Leftists Ideologies and Ideas, and they are all destructive to America. Leftists Ideologies and Ideas that are antithetical to Natural and Human Rights. And this is being accomplished with as described in my Chirp on, “12/03/21 The Real Terrorists in America”.

Dennis Prager’s article is the best overview of the Leftists destruction of:

  1. Art.
  2. Music.
  3. Journalism.
  4. Colleges and universities.
  5. High schools and elementary schools.
  6. Happiness.
  7. The family.
  8. Women.
  9. Childhood.
  10. Black life.
  11. Black-white relations.
  12. The military.
  13. Late-night television.
  14. Superman.
  15. Free speech.
  16. Sports.

I would encourage all to read this article to discover the extent of this destruction of America.

12/03/21 The Real Terrorists in America

We are all worried that international terrorists will strike America and cause much damage, death, and injuries. We are also worried about domestic terrorists harming America. Fortunately, our Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies have done a pretty good job in preventing these attacks. But these terroristic activities worries have been triggered by physical attacks upon America. There is, however, a more insidious and dangerous attack upon America. These attacks are upon our American Ideals and Ideas and the persons who hold to these Ideals and Ideas. These attacks are mental attacks upon these Americans and are meant to intimidate, silence, and punish those Americans who cherish our American Ideals and Ideas.

When you are publicly shamed and harassed or threatened with bodily or property harm and the potential loss of your business or employment when you express your First Amendment rights in support of our American Ideals and Ideas, you are being terrorized. And this terrorism is an assault on our Natural and Constitutional rights, and it is a threat to our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

These terrorist activities range from verbal assaults to mob violence from "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", to the "Mainstream Media" and the "Mainstream Cultural Media" false and inaccurate depictions of America and Americans, to "Modern Education" Indoctrination versus Education, to  "Modern Big Business" hiring, promotion, and firing policies, and now to governmental actions against those persons who express contrary words and deeds to Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality".

Most insidious is the politicization and weaponization of government law enforcement and our justice system. When the government surveils its citizens who express disagreement with current government policies, when a government institutes prosecutions against dissidents on trumped-up or insignificant charges, when the justice system bends to mob demands and violence, when the government issues mandates contrary to the Natural Rights of a person, and when bureaucrats harass businesses, employees, and persons, and when all of this incurs significant financial expenditures to fight the charges and the reputational harm to those people so inflicted, they are terrorizing its citizens.

Equally insidious is the current politicization of our military forces. Our Founding Fathers were very aware that a standing army that is politized often turns into a repressive force against its citizens, subject to the will of entrenched authorities and bureaucrats whose primary concern is their own power and prestige, rather than the defense of our nation and of the preservation of our Liberties and Freedoms.

When non-governmental entities such as political or social commentators, Progressives/Leftists, or Activists/Activism engage in verbal assaults or actions to harm persons or groups of persons with whom they disagree, or engage in mob actions of violence, they are also attempting to terrorize persons into submission to their viewpoints. They are also utilizing the strategy and tactics of Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies, as I Chirped on “11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies”. In all of this, they are going beyond the bounds of "A Civil Society" by pitting groups of Americans against each other and sowing the seeds of distrust, fear, and hatred between groups. They are also demonstrating their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior; they are, of course, always correct, and therefore the other side must be iniquitous.

All of these actions are meant to intimidate, silence, and punish Americans who would disagree with current government policies, political or social commentator viewpoints, Activists/Activism agendas, or Progressives/Leftists positions. And all these actions are a form of terrorism by the government, political or social commentators, Activists/Activism, or Progressives/Leftists. Therefore, the real terrorists in America are now the Progressives/Leftists, the Democrat Party leaders who support them, political or social commentators, Activists/Activism, the Mainstream Media, the Mainstream Cultural Media, and Modern Big Business, for they are terrorizing us for exercising our Natural and Constitutional rights.

12/02/21 Walter E. Williams Remembrance

On December 2, 2020, Walter Edward Williams, an American economist, commentator, and academic, passed away. As a black man raised in the ghetto of Philadelphia, PA, he provided keen insights into the political and economic issues confronting the minorities in America. His thoughts and commentaries were instrumental in the formulation of my ideas and political philosophy. The eulogies posted in The National Review do far more justice to him than I could ever hope to provide. I, and many other Americans, will sorely miss his perspectives on America. Four of his books are well worth the read, as the topics he discusses are still apropos in America today:

For more on these books, I would direct you to my Book It review, “12/01/21 Notable Conservative Thought”.

12/01/21 Systemic Racism in America

At the turn of the 20th century, America was a bigoted and discriminatory place for Niggers, Chinks, Mackerel Snappers, and Micks, later in the century to included Kikes, Polacks, Wops, Spics, and Japs, as defined in the  List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity and List of religious slurs on Wikipedia. I deliberately utilized these offensive and pejorative words to accentuate the essence of American bigotry and discrimination of the time. We were, in those times, a systemic (affecting an entire system) discriminatory nation of Jim Crow Laws, Separate but Equal institutions, public facilities access and usage, employment and promotion practices, Entertainment and Sports personages, etc., all fueled by an undercurrent of white European and Protestant superiority, as well as a reaction to an influx of immigrants from other nations, ethnicities, races, and religions.

Many claim that America is the most racist country in the world. This may be true, but I think not, as America has made great strides in eliminating systemic racism, as well as eliminating racism in the hearts and minds of most Americans. There is also the fact that America is the most diverse nation in the world and in history, except perhaps the Ancient Romans, and therefore racial tensions are greater in America than in the rest of the world. As the rest of the world is less racially diverse, racial tensions in those countries are not a significant factor in their society.

My new article, “Systemic Racism in America”, examines the past and present state of racism in America.

11/30/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part II

The press must be free to publish what they consider newsworthy. However, they should not be free to publish defamation, slander, and libel and ruin the reputation of a person. I believe that the Supreme Court must reexamine Times v. Sullivan decision and come to a better decision in order to retain "A Civil Society". I believe that we must distinguish between three groups of persons regarding defamation, slander, and libel by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media; Public Officials, Public Figures, and Private Citizens. The difficulty is, of course, legally defining the members of these three groups of persons.

Public Officials should be fairly easy to legally define, as they would be elected or appointed officials of government, or any civil servant who becomes embroiled in controversial governmental actions as a result of their governmental decision (an example would be the case of Lois Lerner). The problem is the distinction between a Public Figure and a Private Citizen. In general, a public figure is someone who knowingly and willingly becomes involved in the advocacy of societal issues and concerns, while a Private Citizen is someone who exercises their Free Speech Rights to comment on societal issues and concerns. Nor should any private citizen who has had no intention of becoming a public figure become a public figure as a result of the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media decision to make them a public figure. Any dispute as to the status of a person as a public figure or private citizen should be a decision for the judicial system to distinguish.

I would include as a public figure a person who has committed a criminal act or involved in civil litigation, but for the fact that the government finds little difficulty in charging private citizens as engaged in criminal or civil litigation that have little merit or that are politically motivated (as in the case of the Covington Kids and Nicholas Sandmann, the Duke Lacrosse Players, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.). This would be an attempt by the government to make a private citizen a public figure so as to allow the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media to engage in defamation, slander, and libel to bolster their public case against the individual.

Public Officials should be able to institute a lawsuit on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel, subject to a high standard of proof of actual malice. Public Figures should be able to institute a lawsuit on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel, subject to a standard of a lack of due diligence to uncover the facts. Private Citizens should be able to sue on the basis of defamation, slander, and libel at their discretion.

Exercising your Free Speech and other First Amendment rights does not make you a Public Figure; it makes you a concerned citizen of America. A concerned citizen of America who should not be worried about becoming a target of defamation, slander, and libel by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media. If we cannot alleviate these fears, then Free speech would only be exercised by the hooligans of our society, as intelligent and reasonable persons would not want to subject themselves to defamation, slander, and libel and the resulting debasement of their good character.

11/29/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part I

Since the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Times v. Sullivan, a critical case in the civil rights movement, is that citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize government officials. The court ruled that freedom of the press protects statements about the conduct of politicians. It found that public officials who sue for libel must meet a high standard of proof: showing those statements are made with actual malice, as explained in the Wikipedia article, “Freedom of the press in the United States”.

With the 1964 Supreme Court Times v. Sullivan decision, it has become exceeding difficult for government officials to sue news organizations, even if news stories are sometimes caustic, as Supreme Court Justice Brennan said in the Sullivan decision, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.”

However, with subsequent rulings, they have expanded the definition of public officials to public figures. Public figures are any person who becomes involved in words and deeds on issues and concerns affecting our society. And recently, it has included persons who are thrust into the public eye by "Modern Journalism", whether or not they so choose to be public figures (as in the case of the Covington Kids and Nicholas Sandmann, the Duke Lacrosse Players, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc.). This slippery slope means that any American who exercises their Freedom of Speech or publicly assembles, or petitions the government for a redress of grievances could become a public figure. And thus, becoming a public figure, they are open to any criticisms aimed at them by the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media. Criticisms that often include defamation, slander, and libel, which they believe they can make with impunity under the definition of a public figure.

My article "Slander and Libel in America" examines this issue in more detail. My other article on "Social Media and Free Speech" examines the defamation, slander, and libel that occurs by "Social Media" and in the posts on social media.

I, myself, may be considered as a public figure for publishing these Chirps and Articles on the Internet. Does this mean I should be subject to defamation, slander, and libel by those who disagree with me in the Mainstream Media, Mainstream Cultural Media, and Social Media? I do not believe so, but I believe that I should be subject to critique as opposed to criticism as I have written in my Chirps, “Criticism vs. Critique”. But I believe that I should have legal recourse against any person or entity that engages in defamation, slander, and libel against myself in an effort to preserve and protect my good reputation.  If, however, I wrote and published a book, or went on a speaking tour, or was a panelist in a public forum that discussed public issues, I believe that I can be considered a public figure.

My next Chirp on, “11/30/21 Freedom of Speech and the Press to Defame, Slander, or Libel – Part II”. Examines what we should do about defamation, slander, and libel of Public Officials, Public Figures, and Private Citizens.

11/28/21 The Wars You Don’t Fight - Part I

No one should want to fight a war, especially a war that has no direct impact on yourself. However, not only should you consider fighting a war that has a direct impact, but you should also consider fighting a war that does not have a direct impact but may eventually engulf yourself. Such indirect wars are hard to justify but even harder to determine if there could be a justification. The last half-century has seen America become involved in conflicts that did not have a direct impact on America and even may have had a dubious indirect impact on America. These indirect wars have made America wary of engaging in indirect wars, and justly so. However, this wariness should not be determinative in going to war, but it should be a precaution about engaging in indirect impact wars.

The history of the beginnings of World War II is illuminative of this dilemma. Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Europe, we saw Germany take many aggressive actions in Europe as follows:

Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Asia, we saw Japan take many aggressive actions in Asia as follows:

During this time, America was in the Great Depression and had an isolationist sentiment. Indeed, they wanted no part in another European war after World War I. There was an activist peace movement in America that had rallies to not enter the current European conflict. It was not until the Lend-Lease policy, which was enacted March 11, 1941 (formally titled ‘An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States’), that America began a limited involvement in the European conflict. The Lend-Lease policy was a program under which the United States supplied the United Kingdom (and British Commonwealth), Free France, the Republic of China, and later the Soviet Union and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and 1945.  Also, at this time, Americans essentially ignored the Japanese actions in Asia, while the American government attempted to curb Imperial Japanese actions through diplomacy and economic action. They did this by placing an oil embargo against Japan, which only made Imperial Japan more aggressive in obtaining Southeast Asia oil supplies.

As a result of the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent American Declaration of War on Japan, and Germany’s Declaration of War on America as an ally of Japan, America finally entered into the war in the Pacific and Europe. A war that resulted in millions of deaths, vast destruction, and huge expenditures of America's treasury. It is impossible to speculate if WWII could have been averted if America had engaged in a confrontation with Germany and Japan before the outbreak of war, but we do know that nonintervention by America did nothing to alleviate a war.

What we can learn from this history is that unless unprovoked aggression by nations is confronted and stymied, these aggressive nations will continue with their aggressions. A lesson that history from ancient to modern times has taught us many times.

The reason for this Chirp is that we are facing a similar situation today. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. Their reasoning and actions were very reminiscent of the NAZI takeover of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia prior to WWII. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine. We also, today, have China making very bellicose statements against Taiwan and other neighboring nations, much like Imperial Japan threatened China prior to WWII, which was followed by the aggressive actions of Imperial Japan against Manchuria China. Russia and China have recently announced both nations have signed a road map for closer military ties, and they have been strengthening their joint military training activities at sea, in the air, and on land this year. This is very reminiscent of the pact between Germany and Japan prior to WWII.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia and threats from China a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in their respective regions of the world? And if we believe they are precursors, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression and Chinese belligerence? And if we do act against Russia and China, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations or China will start aggressive actions in Asia. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe and the start of China's aggression in Asia. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe and Asia to protect its direct interests in Europe and Asia, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European and Asiatic people.

11/27/21 The Hypocrisy of Progressives and Leftists

Recently, video journalist Johnny Harris and Binyamin Appelbaum, who is the lead writer on business and economics for the Editorial Board of The New York Times, analyzed states where Democrats have all the power. They examine why famously liberal states — such as New York, California, and Washington — struggle to advance the progressive policies despite little to no Republican opposition. A video they recently posted reveals and explains their findings.

They focused on three core initiatives of the Democratic Party platform: affordable housing, economic equality, and educational opportunity. And in the end, they discovered that "liberal hypocrisy," not Republican opposition, "is fueling American inequality" and that things are actually much worse in blue states than they are in red.

"In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states," the journalists noted in a written report accompanying the video. "It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding, and economic inequality is increasing most quickly."

"Blue states are the problem," Applebaum, who covers economics and business for the Times, exclaimed.

"Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem," he added.

At one point, Harris noted that "affluent liberals tend to be really good at showing up at the marches and talking about how they love equality, [and] at putting signs in their lawns saying, 'All are welcome here.'"

"But by their actions," he continued, "What they are actually saying is, 'Yes, we believe in these ideals, just not in my backyard.'"

This is the hypocrisy of deeds versus words. To Conservatives and Republicans, these findings are not startling, as they have known for decades that the zeal of Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party leaders for their agendas increases with the square of the distance between themselves and the impacts of their agendas. But hypocrisy and shame are of little concern to "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", as the only thing that matters to them is to obtain and retail power to implement their agendas for America.

11/26/21 The Silence of Racism and Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society

With the recent conviction of three white men in the murder of a black man, Ahmaud Arbery, the silence is deafening about our Racist and Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society that we heard in the Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict. The jury in the Ahmaud Arbery trial was composed of one black juror and 11 white jurors. All those politicians, journalists, and commentators who decried the Rittenhouse verdict and condemned America as being racists and patriarchal have remained mum about America in the Arbery verdict.

The reason for the silence is that the Arbery verdict does not support their narrative of a Racist, Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society, and indeed, contradicted their narrative. This reveals that they are not interested in reporting or commenting on the facts and truths of America. Indeed, they are only interested in pushing their (false) narrative about America to institute the changes in America that they desire. In doing so, they are fracturing and dividing Americans and pitting one group of Americans against another. In doing so, they are inciting mob passions and violence in America.

But to institute change in America, based upon a (false) narrative, is to invite calamity upon America. A calamity that will not make America better but will make America much worse. Therefore, we can conclude that when these politicians, journalists, and commentators speak or write about America, they are not being truthful but being political, and we should condemn and ignore their (false) narrative.

11/25/21 Thanksgiving of Hope

There are many reasons for me to be thankful in my personal life this past year. However, as they are personal, they need not, nor should not, be elaborated in the Chirp. This Chirp is the reason to be thankful for what has been happening in America in the last year.

There are many reasons to be concerned about what has happened to America in the last year. The border is a broken disaster, the economy is flailing, the employment situation is a withering mess, our foreign policy is in shambles, the supply chain is in crisis, oil and gasoline are in short supply, inflation continues unabated, and race relations are more polarized.  Many Americans are heartsick and despondent about the current and future prospects of America.  

But there is much to be hopeful of, as the American people are waking up to the root causes of these problems. These root causes are "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms" and "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems", which were engendered by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" policies and agendas.

The Biden administration and the Democrat Congress policies and agendas are the root causes for the current problems in America, and the American people are waking up to this. As such, they are turning against these policies and agendas and hopefully against Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders. Therefore, there is hope that by next year's Thanksgiving, we will have a Republican Congress to resist these policies and agendas, followed by a Republican Presidency two years afterward to solve these problems in America.

All we have to do is survive the next three years, which will be difficult, but afterward, there is hope for America’s future once the American people recognize that the policies and agendas of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are the wrong course for America to take.

11/24/21 Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies

The ‘Noble Lie’ is a falsehood knowingly propagated by an elite or powerful to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

The ‘Big Lie’ is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

The ‘Repeated Lie’ are the Noble and Big Lies that are repeated so frequently, and so widely, that the populace accepts the lie as the truth, and does not even consider their falsehood, and indeed, rejects the facts and truth that contradict the lie.

Politicians have often lied and repeated these lies for electioneering purposes and to advance their agenda, believing that they are noble for doing so. But these are self-serving lies driven by a thirst for power and narcissism. They also demonstrate that the politicians lack of trust in Americans to understand and deal with the facts and the truths of the facts. However, rarely do they rise to the level of Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies.

In the 21st century, however, we are seeing these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies propagated by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, aided and abetted by the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness,  Activists and Activism, Adjective Justice, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and a "Herd Mentality".

In the beginning of the 21st century we saw small scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies directed at President Bush, while during President Obama’s administration we saw small scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies in support of President Obama. However, with the election of President Trump we saw large scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies directed at President Trump. With the election of President Biden, we are seeing large scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies in support of President Biden. And many of these large-scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies are emanating from President Biden and his appointed officials, usually to mislead or deceive the American people. These large-scale Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies of President Biden and his appointed officials are being propagated by the aforementioned supporters of Progressives/Leftists, and Democrat Party Leaders.

Indeed, these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies have become the strategy and tactics for which the Progressives/Leftists, and the Democrat Party Leaders are advancing their agenda. Whenever Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies are utilized to advance an agenda you can be assured that the end result does not bode well for a society. Indeed, modern history has shown the dire consequences when the Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies take hold of a society. The French Revolution, The Communist Revolution in Russian, The Nazism Revolution in Germany, The Fascist Revolution in Italy, The Communist Revolution in China, and various revolutions in Central and South America, as well as in Asia, that are all examples of what happens when the Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies grip a society.

Usually, the end result of these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies is the imposition of despotism upon a people. A despotism in which the Natural Rights of individuals are violated, and there is the loss of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". Consequently, these Noble Lies, Big Lies, and Repeated Lies must be resisted and challenged to assure the future of our American Ideals and Ideas.

11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?

"Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" profess to love America at the same time they disparage America. Their words and deeds demonstrate that they believe that America is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted. They also believe that America is an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society" based on white supremacism. These are not the words and deeds of someone who loves America but are, indeed, someone who despises America.

When you love someone or some entity, you defend and cherish that person or entity, while at the same time, you try to improve the person or entity and not fundamentally transform that person or entity. To fundamentally transform someone or some entity requires that you impose your will on a person or entity, and this is often and usually implemented via punitive actions or despotism.

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders do this by cloaking themselves in moral righteousness and intellectual superiority; however, they are demonstrating their belief that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior they are, of course, always correct. Therefore, the other side must be iniquitous, and this iniquitousness must be confronted and stamped out by any means necessary to eliminate it from our society. However, this is not moral righteousness and intellectual superiority but disdainfulness and narcissism.

The Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, in their attempts to obtain and retain the power to end this iniquitousness and institute their vision of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good", and their vision of a just America of "Equity and Equality", often sow "Divisiveness in America" through "Improper Dialog & Debate” and "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate". This results in an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society". Again, these are not the words and deeds of persons who love America but are the actions of arrogant and egomaniac persons.

Most of these Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders are avowed secularists, and many are agnostic or atheistic. In this, they forget the words of one of our most esteemed Funding Fathers:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
  - John Adams

This lack of religiosity provides little foundation for their beliefs and often leads to moral relativism. A moral relativism that is a house built of shifting sand that changes shape and moves with the winds of popular opinion. A popular opinion that does not account for the Natural Rights of the individual but instead seeks the false safety and security of "Socialism is Acceptable" and "Entitlements".

Most Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often judge America’s past by today's moral standards, and therefore they adjudge America negatively. They have forgotten, or do not know, that “The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons” and that morality has always been evolving throughout the history of civilization. Any society or nation throughout history will be found wanting if judged by today’s moral standards. Yet Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders often refer to American history negatively to bolster their opinions. At the same time, they forget how America has contributed to the advancement of moral standards for the benefit of all humankind. This leaves them with feelings of remorse about America, which is easily transformed into flagellation or hatred of America, which is what we see in the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds.

America has many problems, issues, and concerns but does not require a fundamental transformation but improvements. These problems, issues, and concerns need to be factually addressed and not rhetorically addressed. And this rhetoric is often based on "The Biggest Falsehoods in America" and the belief that we have an "Oppressive Patriarchal Hierarchical Society". But the main problem in America is "Systemic Family, Education, and Faith Problems" and "The Problem is Systemic Liberalisms & Progressivisms".

Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders' words and deeds are, in fact, the actions of persons who believe in a utopian ideal of America and the disparagement of America for not meeting that utopian ideal. However, history is repeat with societies attempting to implement a utopian ideal that resulted in anarchy, violence, economic deprivation, and the eventual collapse of the society. In recent history, we have seen The French Revolution, The Communist Revolution in Russian, The Nazism Revolution in Germany, The Fascist Revolution in Italy, The Communist Revolution in China, and various revolutions in Central and South America, as well as in Asia, that are all examples of the collapse of a society attempting to institute a utopian ideal. And these collapses often resulted in mass deaths and much destruction of the people and property of these societies.

This, therefore, is the primary reason that is the answer to the question of ‘Why Do They Hate America?’.

11/22/21 The Atrociousness of Mainstream Media Reporting and Commentary

Since writing my Chirp on “11/20/21 The Seven Deadly Sins of Kyle Rittenhouse”, I have read an article in the New York Post, “10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked” by Miranda Devine, that details the false and misleading information that was said or written about Kyle Rittenhouse in the Mainstream Media:

    1. He killed two black BLM protesters.
    2. He crossed state lines.
    3. Rittenhouse took an AR-15 across state lines.
    4. The gun was illegal.
    5. Rittenhouse’s mother drove him across state lines to the riot.
    6. He was an “active shooter” who took his gun to a riot looking for trouble.
    7. Rittenhouse is a “white supremacist,” as then-candidate Joe Biden labeled him in a tweet showing the teenager’s photograph.
    8. He “flashed white power signs” with Proud Boys.
    9. He wore surgical gloves “to cover his fingerprints.”
    10. Judge Bruce Schroeder is a “Trumpy” racist biased toward the defense.

 You should read this article and weep for America, especially if their other reporting and commentary are this atrocious (which it is).

But this is nothing new for the Mainstream Media, especially in the last five years of all the willful lies and omissions in the media’s coverage of the Steele dossier and the Russian Collusion Delusion, the January 6th, 2021 ‘Insurrection’ and Officer Brian Sicknick death, the Covington kids and Nicholas Sandmann smears, the Jussie Smollett’s lies, the Wuhan laboratory gain of function research and the resulting COVID-19 Pandemic and responses, Hunter Biden’s laptop and his foreign nation dealings, and so on. But nothing beats the evil propaganda peddled about Kyle Rittenhouse and demonstrates the atrociousness of "Modern Journalism" reporting and commentary. And all of this is based upon a false narrative about American society that the "Mainstream Media" and Mainstream Cultural Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media holds dear.

In the 20th century, and progressively worse in the 21st century, modern journalism has drifted from reporting the facts and truths in America to the advocacy of ‘change’, ‘reform’, and ‘transformation’ based on "Progressives/Leftists" Ideals and Ideas, and their support of Democrat Party politicians and their agenda.

As a result of this reporting and commentary, America has become a bitter partisan nation based on the Mainstream Media skewered view and narrative of America, a view and narrative that is incorrect and harmful to American society, and indeed, is hateful of America. In my next Chirp on, “11/23/21 Why Do They Hate America?”, I will examine why the Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, as well as their adherents in the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, so hate America that they believe that the ‘Noble Lies’ they propagate is justifiable, rather than speaking the truth of America.

11/21/21 The Harm to American Society as a Result of Kenosha

The first harm to America was to the truth. Many journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders jumped to a false narrative based on a paucity of facts. A narrative based on their preconceived notions of American society. A narrative that inflamed passions and led to the riots. A narrative that attempted to demonize Kyle Rittenhouse and disparage those who opposed the riots (mostly conservative middle-class Americans). And even after the facts and evidence were revealed, the false narrative continued to be pushed by many journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders.

The next harm was to the residents of Kenosha, Wisconsin, in their persons and property. The destruction and looting that accompanied the riots will have a long-term harmful effect not only on those directly affected but also on the community that will no longer have access to the goods and services of those directly affected. It will also have a long-term effect on the psyche of the residents, as they can no longer be assured of living safely and without harm in Kenosha. They may also decide to leave the environs of Kenosha, thus decreasing the population and businesses in Kenosha and the resulting economic losses to Kenosha.

The harm that State and local officials inflicted on the residents of Kenosha in not allowing law enforcement to control and detain the rioters was an attack on the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Equality of the Law’. It is also a violation of their sworn duty to preserve and protect the citizens of their State and localities. There seemed to be one set of laws for the rioters and another set of laws for everyone else (i.e., a two-tiered justice system). It would be interesting to know how many of the rioters were arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted for the crimes they committed and the nature of the crimes they were charged with. To date, I have not been able to determine these numbers or charges, which is disquieting.

The next harm was to our system of justice. The mob and others demanded the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse before the facts were uncovered. A demand of which the prosecutors submitted without doing their due diligence to determine the facts and evidence before bringing the charges. Prosecutors who succumbed to these demands instead of standing for truth and justice, which is their sworn duty. The prosecutors who, in one instance, violated Kyle Rittenhouse Constitutional Rights, as well as committing several violations of criminal law proceedings. When the judge made several rulings that disfavored the prosecution, many Progressives/Leftists and political and social commentators began to disparage the judge calling into question the legitimacy of the trial and the fairness of our judicial system. Such miscues by a judge, if they occur, are the providence of the Appellate Courts to determine the veracity of the judges’ miscues and to take corrective action if necessary, and not the demands of the mob nor shrill cries of the pundits.

And finally, it has harmed America itself from the journalists, political and social commentators, and Democrat Party leaders continually disparaged America and Americans as a racist and a white supremacist society, and by pitting groups of Americans against each other and sowing the seeds of distrust, fear, and hatred between groups. They did this by continuing to push the false narrative while ignoring the facts and the evidence presented at the trial. This was all done by utilizing Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning and Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors as I examined in my Article, "Dialog and Debate", as well as sowing "Divisiveness in America" by the language they used.

Given that there was intense pressure outside the courtroom to find Kyle Rittenhouse guilty of at least one charge, it can be inferred that the jury carefully examined the facts and evidence to reach their verdict. Thank heaven that the judge and jurors were able to put aside this narrative, and the outside pressures, to reach a rational verdict.

11/20/21 The Seven Deadly Sins of Kyle Rittenhouse

With the recent verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I think it is appropriate for me to comment on the events, the commentary, and the trial and the verdict.

The Kenosha Wisconsin riots were a reaction in the aftermath of a police shooting of Jacob Blake by a white police officer. Jacob Blake, who is Black, was involved in a domestic disturbance in Kenosha in August 2020. The shooting left Blake paralyzed from the waist down and sparked several nights of riots. State prosecutors decided not to file charges against the police officer earlier this year after a video showed that Blake, who was wanted on a felony warrant, was armed with a knife.

The U.S. Department of Justice launched its own investigation days after the shooting. The agency announced that a team of prosecutors from its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney’s office in Milwaukee reviewed police reports, witness statements, dispatch logs, and videos of the incident and determined there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the police officer willfully used excessive force or violated Blake’s federal rights.

During the course of the riots, in which local and state enforcement agencies made little effort to suppress the riots, a 17-year-old white male, Kyle Rittenhouse, went to Kenosha, where his father lived to provide aid and assistance to the property owners at the center of the riots.

In the course of this aid and assistance, several rioters verbally abused and physically attacked Kyle Rittenhouse after chasing him down as he was running toward the police. Kyle Rittenhouse, who was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot three white rioters who attacked him, killing two of them and seriously injuring the other rioter. He was arrested, and charged, and put on trial of five felony counts.

The commentary from the "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders", as well as the "Mainstream Media" and the "Mainstream Cultural Media", were all disparagements of Kyle Rittenhouse along the lines of his:

    1. Crossing State lines with a weapon.
    2. Cleaning up graffiti on the personal and governmental property which the mob defaced.
    3. Providing first aid to all.
    4. Putting out fires started by the mob.
    5. Running to police when attacked by the mob.
    6. Pointing and shooting his weapon at violent mob members who threaten him.
    7. Being a white supremacist for shooting three white men.

To which I would respond:

    1. The 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to within State boundaries but applies to all States and Territories under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. American history is rife with people carrying arms across state lines, such as volunteers did in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the pioneers of the American West did. People today travel and move across State lines while in possession of their firearms.
    2. The mob has no right to deface or destroy any property, no matter what they believe is the righteousness of their cause. Righteousness requires that you respect the Natural Rights of others and demonstrate the justice of your cause within the boundaries of peaceful civil disobedience. Otherwise, you cannot be righteous but are indeed unrighteous.
    3. The horror of providing aid and comfort to any other persons than the violent protestors is too inconceivable to describe. It is also too ridiculous to comment upon.
    4. Helping to put out fires of any sort is a civic duty when a government entity is unable, for any reason, to do so, as It helps to preserve the personal property of others. Personal property that is a Natural Right to obtain, retain, and be disposed of by the owner at their discretion and no other person's actions.
    5. Running to the police when you are threatened or in danger is the appropriate and correct thing to do in these circumstances. Placing yourself under the protection of the law to preserve your life, safety, and property is befitting our American dedication to the Natural Rights of all persons. Only when the law is unavailable to secure our life, safety, and property is it appropriate for an individual to take action to protect their person and property.
    6. His firearm was not utilized until weapons were directed at himself (a Gun, a Knife, and a blunt instrument – the Skateboard). A skateboard is a blunt instrument, such as a baseball bat, a 2x4 lumber, a pipe, a pot or pan, and many other items when wielded for violent purposes. These blunt instruments can inflict serious injury or death upon the intended victim. Utilizing a weapon to protect yourself against bodily harm and perhaps death is self-defense and justifiable.
    7. The accusation of being a white supremacist by killing whites is so absurd upon its face that it hardly needs a response, but a response is needed to demonstrate the absurdity of those making this claim. White supremacy is a state of mind that is a prejudice that members of the white race are superior to members of other races and that it is justifiable to take actions to violate the Natural Rights of other races. No evidence, presented in court, or the court of public opinion, showed that Kyle Rittenhouse had this state of mind, nor did his actions demonstrate any racial animosity.

At his trial, Kyle Rittenhouse pleaded self-defense as justification for the shootings. The prosecutors at the trial did a dreadful job of presenting their case, and in one instance, violated Kyle Rittenhouse Constitutional Rights, as well as committing several violations of criminal law proceedings. The prosecutors also may outrageous statements such as everyone takes a beating implying that Kyle Rittenhouse should have taken a beating by the rioters, a beating in which he may have been grievously harmed and possibly died from the beating. The prosecutors also stated when you come armed to a confrontation, and you give up your right to self-defense. The right to self-defense is a Natural Right and, as such, is inviolate and can never be given up if you or your family faces bodily harm or death. There were many other things that the prosecutor said that have no basis in the facts of this case and no basis in law or morality.

After jurors deliberated for a total of 26 hours and found Rittenhouse not guilty on five counts, including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. His actions of attending a riot may be stupidity, but they are not actions of criminality, and they may not be stupid but patriotic. Patriotic in that if you stand up to mob violence and exercise your Natural Rights and insist on Equal Justice and the Rule of Law and Order in your community, State, and Federal government, you are being patriotic to American Ideals and Ideas.

My next Chirp will examine the harm to American society as a result of what happened during and after the riots in Kenosha.

11/19/21 Powers Specifically Denied to the Federal Government

The Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution were passed to protect the basic Natural Rights of Americans. As such, they are prohibitions against actions by the government upon persons. During the Constitution Convention and the public debate on its adoption, two groups formed as to the inclusion of Natural Rights into the Constitution. One group thought that as the Constitution limited the scope of the Federal Government, and as this scope did not intrude on Natural Rights, that it was not necessary to delimit these rights into the Constitution. The other group thought as they had just fought a war to protect these Natural Rights and that these rights should be explicitly protected within the Constitution. In order to pass the Constitution, it was agreed that it should be passed as is and that one of the first efforts of the new government would be to incorporate these Natural Rights, via Amendments, into the Constitution. After the Constitution was adopted, it fell to James Madison to accept hundreds of proposals for these amendments and consolidate them into a small set of proposals. James Madison winnowed them and rewrote them into 12 Amendments, 10 of which were adopted as The Bill of Rights. However, these were not the only prohibitions upon government actions in the Constitution. Indeed, Article I. Section. 9. of the Constitution is entirely dedicated to prohibitions upon the government:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. [superseded by the 16th Amendment]

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

These prohibitions were mainly to protect the States from Federal Government abuses that could occur if all the States were not treated equally. However, the missing piece in the Constitution was protecting the people of a State from State government actions that would infringe upon their Natural Rights. This missing piece was addressed by the passage of the 14th Amendment. Some say it’s the most important amendment because it empowered the federal government to protect people from state government abuse of their Natural Rights. Two new articles by Rob Natelson, “Understanding the Constitution: The 14th Amendment: Part I” and “Understanding the Constitution: The 14th Amendment: Part II”, examines the protections of the 14th Amendment, and they are well worth the read.

11/18/21 Fascist Corporatism

In my Chirp on, "10/15/20 Stakeholder Capitalism is a Form of Socialism on a Small Scale", I wrote that one of the notions being bandied about by "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" is the concept of Stakeholders Capitalism. As Deborah D'Souza has written in her article, “Stakeholder Capitalism” in Investopedia, the main concepts of Stakeholders Capitalism are:

“Stakeholder capitalism is a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders and local communities. Under this system, a company's purpose is to create long-term value and not to maximize profits and enhance shareholder value at the cost of other stakeholder groups.

Supporters of stakeholder capitalism believe that serving the interests of all stakeholders, as opposed to only shareholders, is essential to the long-term success and health of any business. Notably, they make the case for stakeholder capitalism being a sensible business decision in addition to being an ethical choice.”

A very good article that critiques this concept is “The Dangers of ‘Stakeholder Capitalism” By Andrew Stuttaford of National Review, as he states:

“In effect, its advocates are insisting that corporate money and power should be conscripted to force through a social and political agenda — without the bother of going through the ballot box.”

In my web browsing reading, I came across the article in Wikipedia, “Fascist Italy (1922–1943)”, that mentioned the following:

“Mussolini and the Fascist Party promised Italians a new economic system known as corporatism, an outgrowth of socialism into a new economic system where the means of production were nominally left in the hands of the civil sector but directed and controlled by the State. In 1935, a passage from the Doctrine of Fascism read:”

“The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organizer of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.”

Stakeholder Capitalism allows its proponents to feel good about their intentions, but it often does more harm than good. Or as has been said:

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

It also raises the question of:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

We also should all remember that Fascism is best expressed by the quotes of its leading proponent:

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

This Corporatism of Fascist Italy is not too different from the goals of Stakeholder Capitalism. The underlying beliefs of fascism are not too different from the believers of Stakeholder Capitalism. Which makes one wonder who the Fascists in America really are?

11/17/21 The Age of Enlightenment and Critical Theory

In my Chirp on “11/16/21 The Danger of Critical Race Theory”, I mention that Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory philosophy that is incompatible with the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.

The Enlightenment and the Age of Enlightenment led to the ascension of the Natural Rights of mankind, which resulted in the "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" we have in America, as well as the rise of democracy in the world. Critical Theory is a danger to the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded, as it places peoples into groups, and frames the world in terms of us versus them, and pits the two against each other.

Critical Theorists often have an attitude of self-righteousness and correctness, which is common amongst academics, especially the more esoteric academic subjects. Just as "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" believe that they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct, so do Critical Theorists believe they are always correct. Perhaps this explains the commonalities between the social policies of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders and the Critical Theorists, and their pitting of groups of Americans against each other that occurs more fervently today.

The only good of Critical Theory is that it forces other social theorists to more deeply examine their own theories to come to a more reasonable and more accurate conclusion. Critical Theory provides no real-world solutions to the problems it addresses but often provides real-world conflicts between people. Therefore, whenever a word is placed between “Critical’ and ‘Theory’ (such as Critical Race Theory), you can safely presume that it is hogwash.

I would encourage all to read my new Article, “The Age of Enlightenment and Critical Theory”, which examines these theories and their incompatibilities, and the tragic consequences of Critical Theory.

11/16/21 The Danger of Critical Race Theory

In my Chirp on “11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy”, I explained that the ‘education of students does not include Critical Race Theory (CRT), but the ‘pedagogy’ of teaching does include CRT. In this Chirp, I touched upon the consequences of CRT in public education; however, there are also several real dangers to CRT in public education. The dangers are to the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. CRT is a branch of Critical Theory philosophy, a philosophy that helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century, such as Marxism and Nazism, amongst others, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, CRT teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

Marc Thiessen has brought up these issues of consequences and dangers in multiple columns for the Washington Post. The entire November 11, 2021 column of his, "The danger of critical race theory," is a worthwhile read. This column is based on an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) podcast, “WTH is critical race theory? How a philosophy that inspired Marxism, Nazism, and Jim Crow is making its way into our schools, and what we can do.” and transcribed as a pdf file. This podcast is a discussion moderated by Danielle Pletka of AEI, with Marc Thiessen, an American conservative author, political appointee, and weekly columnist for The Washington Post, and Allen Guelzo, the noted historian:

“Allen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is an American historian who serves as Senior Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities and Director of the Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University. He formerly was a professor of History at Gettysburg College.

Rachel A. Shelden wrote in 2013 that for two decades, Guelzo "has been at the forefront of Civil War-era scholarship. In particular, he has focused his analytical efforts on the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln, publishing books covering the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the origins of the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln's presidential leadership, among others.”

Professor Guelzo is one of my favorite historians, and I have read and recommended many of his books. I have always found Professor Guelzo to be reasonable, analytical, and perceptive, and I have always taken very seriously what he has written and stated. I would suggest you review this podcast or pdf to think about the implications of CRT in our public schools. For what he has to say is very ominous to the future of America if CRT thinking becomes widespread in America.

11/15/21 Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?

“Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.”

So begins a new Imprimis article by John R. Lott, Jr., “Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?”. In this article he contrasts Voter ID laws in Europe to American Voter ID laws. Spoiler alert – American Voter ID laws fall far short of European Voter ID Laws, and there is less election fraud and more voting in European elections. He ends his article by writing:

“Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.”

Mollie Hemingway has also written a book,  “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections” that examines the voting irregularities that occurred in the 2020 elections. The Amazon review of this book states:

“Stunned by the turbulence of the 2020 election, millions of Americans are asking the forbidden question: what really happened?

It was a devastating triple punch. Capping their four-year campaign to destroy the Trump presidency, the media portrayed a Democratic victory as necessary and inevitable. Big Tech, wielding unprecedented powers, vaporized dissent and erased damning reports about the Biden family's corruption. And Democratic operatives, exploiting a public health crisis, shamelessly manipulated the voting process itself. Silenced and subjected, the American people lost their faith in the system.

RIGGED is the definitive account of the 2020 election. Based on Mollie Hemingway's exclusive interviews with campaign officials, reporters, Supreme Court justices, and President Trump himself, it exposes the fraud and cynicism behind the Democrats' historic power-grab.

Rewriting history is a specialty of the radical left, now in control of America's political and cultural heights. But they will have to contend with the determination, insight, and eloquence of Mollie Hemingway. RIGGED is a reminder for weary patriots that truth is still the most powerful weapon. The stakes for our democracy have never been higher.”

I have also written two articles on American voting, "Voting in America" and "Voting Responsibilities", and in my Chirps on "02/17/21 Election Integrity", "03/06/21 Election Integrity - Part Deux", "03/22/21 How H.R. 1 Would Change Elections", and "07/27/21 Rigged", that examines these issues. It is past time that we assure election integrity and that those legally eligible to vote can legally vote, and those not eligible to vote cannot register nor vote in elections, and that we curb election fraud by proper election and Voter ID laws that assure election integrity.

11/14/21 Funding Students Instead of Systems

The Democrat Party has often claimed that they are the party of ‘Education’. But the 2021 election in Virginia has shown this to be false. The Democrat Party is actually the party of the ‘Education System’. An Education System that is run by teachers’ unions, bureaucrats, and politicians that are primarily interested in their own priorities rather than the student interests’ priorities. An Education System that is focused on "Progressives/Leftists" ideals and ideas, and "Democrat Party Leaders" control of the Education System. An Education System that is more concerned with "Indoctrination versus Education" and what a student should think rather than how a student should think. An Education System that is more concerned with a student’s self-esteem rather than a student’s self-achievement.

It is past time that we should stop funding the Education System and begin to fund Students Education. The current Education System has too many systemic problems to be reformed, as I have examined in my Article, "Public Education". And the only way that this Education System can be successfully reformed is to fund the students’ parents to allow them to send their child to a school of their choice. School Choice focuses the parents’ attention on providing a quality education for their children, and therefore focuses a school’s attention on providing a quality education for the student.

The Federal and State Departments of Education and the Local School Boards should only be concerned with infrastructure and education materials funding and the certification of teachers and a school to meet academic requirements. These academic requirements are outlined in my Public Education article topics of “Core Proficiencies K-8” and ”High School Subjects”. In addition, all curriculum material, textbooks, instructional materials, and recommended reading of the school or teacher must be available to the general public for their review and comments. The general public must also be advised as to the pedagogy employed, as discussed in my chirp on “11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy”, that is utilized to instruct the student. Perhaps a publicly available weekly lesson plan from the teacher that lists all the educational topics and materials and the pedagogy to be utilized during the week will satisfy this requirement.

An article by Corey A. DeAngelis of the Cato Institute, “Fund Students Instead of Systems”, examines the recent efforts to change educational funding, and more information can be obtained from the American Federation for Children and The Heritage Foundation Education websites.

11/13/21 The Values of Americas Founding

I have often spoken about our American Ideals and Ideas, Many Americans do not know or have forgotten the ideals and ideas upon which our country was founded, or as I have said, “The Declaration of Independence expresses our American ideals, while the Constitution of the United States is the ideas of how to implement our ideals.”. These ideals and ideas are based on the values in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. However, these ideals and ideas, and their values, have several interpretations and meanings that often are contradictory or contentious and fraught with misunderstandings of the founders’ intentions.

The Declaration’s values surface in every part of the document. The preamble evidences respect for the opinions of mankind, not just in America and Britain, but throughout the world. The grievances against the Crown presuppose certain values being violated. However, most of the Declaration’s foundational values are in its statement of general philosophy. It’s this part of the document that sets forth the American common creed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The values of the Constitution are:

Two new articles by Rob Natelson, “The Values in the Declaration of Independence” and “The Values in the Constitution” examine these values and our founders’ intentions for implementing America's ideals and ideas, and they are well worth the read.

11/12/21 A Bakers Dozen Plus Nineteen

As I mentioned in my previous Chirps on “11/10/21 The More Things Change” and “11/11/21 Words and Deeds of Politicians”, the intentions and deeds of politicians are much more important than the words of politicians. This has been demonstrated by the votes of the House of Representatives on the Infrastructure bill. Despite the lofty words in support of the Infrastructure Bill, this bill is more human or social infrastructure spending, a category of infrastructure spending that never existed prior to this bill, than that of traditional infrastructure spending. Human or social infrastructure that authorizes spending on the goals of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders, which was accomplished without the involvement of Conservatives or Republicans. Human or social spending that will not have to undergo the scrutiny of a separate bill to determine their need, practicability, and funding, let alone their economic and social impacts on America. This human or social Infrastructure spending was included in this bill to avoid having the Democrat politicians vote separately on these human or social policies, which may have incurred the wrath of their voters if they had been voted upon separately.

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, a figure in dispute due to the way in which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores legislation that the House submits to the CBO, was supported by a Bakers Dozen (13) of House Republicans and 19 Republicans in the Senate. While I support improving and building traditional infrastructure, this bill does much more than that. Most of this bill is spending on items that are not traditional infrastructure but on human or social policies masquerading as infrastructure. These human or social policies in the Infrastructure Bill make some fundamental changes to the fabric of our society and, as such, should be separate bills that should be debated and passed on their merits and faults. The words of the Republicans that voted for this bill focus on traditional infrastructure spending but ignore the human or social policy spending. Consequently, the deeds of this bill, in terms of the traditional infrastructure spending versus the human or social policies spending, in balance are more harmful to America from the human or social policies spending that far outweighs the good of the traditional infrastructure spending.

As such, the Republicans who voted for this bill are not in concordance with their Republican constituents’ ideals and ideas but are, in fact, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), or persons who would trade their vote for the short-term political advantage of the traditional infrastructure spending. Therefore, it is only appropriate that they should be demoted from any positions of responsibility on the House and Senate committees on which they serve. It is also appropriate that they be challenged in their primaries and not receive any financial or other support from the Republican party constituents in the primaries. To the screams of imposing orthodoxy, I would reply that on the big-ticket issues that impact all Americans, such orthodoxy is required to counter the Democrat Party orthodoxy that would impose their human or social policies upon America. I would also reply that human or social policies need to be separate bills that Congress would debate and have a recorded vote on the bill and that the American people would have a voice during such debates and could base their future votes for the politicians based upon their vote for or against the bill.

Here is the list of the House Republicans who voted for the Infrastructure Bill:

Here is the list of the Senate Republicans who voted for the Infrastructure Bill:

All Republican voters should remember these names in their next election and vote accordingly.

11/11/21 Words and Deeds of Politicians

As I mentioned in my previous Chirp on “11/10/21 The More Things Change”, it is the underlying issue of political power and that political viewpoints remain the same between Democrats and Republicans. As to the issue of political power, they are the same in their desire to obtain and retain political power, and the differences are in the means utilized to achieve their goals. The Democrats mostly rely on idealistic emotional appeals to the voters, while the Republicans have the more difficult task of convincing voters based on reasoning. And both utilize improper "Dialog & Debate" and faulty "Reasoning" to mask their deeds.

Too often in today’s society, we pay particular attention to what a politician says and gloss over what a politician does. It has become more important for a politician to communicate acceptably than to implement properly, and our judgment of a politician is often almost entirely based on what they say. But what a politician says is not harmful (except emotionally), but what a politician does can have positive or negative repercussions to all aspects of society. Therefore, we must pay more attention to the deeds of a politician and become more accepting of a politician if the deeds have positive repercussions and more rejecting of a politician if their deeds have negative repercussions. Of course, if both the words and deeds of a politician have positive consequences, we should praise the politician and elevate them into positions of more responsibility within society. Politicians must be held accountable for not only their words but their deeds, for to ignore or discount one or the other in judging our politicians can be very harmful to society. Perhaps we should remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin – “Well done is better than well said.”

Alas, words and deeds are two different things, especially in politics. Therefore, you must examine the deeds to determine the goals of politicians. And your examination of the deeds must be based upon “With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" or you will arrive at an incorrect conclusion. And you should always be wary of statistics, especially when utilized by politicians and activists, as I have discussed in my Article, "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". You should also keep in mind "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", as politicians often misrepresent these falsehoods depending on their propensities.

As usual with Thomas Sowell, his book “Dismantling America” looks beyond the words of politicians and into their deeds. Utilizing proper facts, statistics, and reasoning, he exposes the actual deeds of politicians. I would encourage all to read this book, as it does a superlative job of describing the deeds behind the words.

11/10/21 The More Things Change

As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr is often quoted, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” This is especially true in politics, as while the surface issues in politics may change, the underlying issues driving the politics are the same. It is not the surface issue of the Democrat Party versus the Republican Party - which does change, but the underlying issue of political power and those political viewpoints that remains the same. And the Democrats and the Republicans are often congruent on the issue of political power and divergent on their political viewpoints.

As to the issue of political power, they are the same in their desire to obtain and retain political power, and the differences are in the means utilized to achieve their goals. As to the issue of political viewpoints, they differ on the question of the role of government intervention in the affairs of society. The viewpoints of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders portend a different society than what we have traditionally had in America. It is the difference between our founding pragmatic ideals and ideas and a new foundation based on idealistic goals of adjective justice and equity, as I have written in the "Terminology" webpage on "Adjective Justice" and "Equity and Equality". This new foundation requires "Social Engineering" to achieve the "Greater Good versus the Common Good" to accomplish their idealistic goals, which requires that they dismantle our current traditions and institutions and replace them with their own ideals and ideas.

In a book by Thomas Sowell, “Dismantling America”, published over ten years ago, this book is a collection of his columns about the changes that are being undertaken by Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders to reshape America to fit their ideals and ideas. He also examines the underlying issues, and the facts of the underlying issues, that are often ignored or glossed over by politicians of all stripes that conceal these changes:

“These wide-ranging essays -- on many individual political, economic, cultural, and legal issues that have as a recurring, underlying theme the decline of the values and institutions that have sustained and advanced American society for more than two centuries. This decline has been more than an erosion. It has, in many cases, been a deliberate dismantling of American values and institutions by people convinced that their superior wisdom and virtue must over-ride both the traditions of the country and the will of the people.

Whether these essays (originally published as syndicated newspaper columns) are individually about financial bailouts, illegal immigrants, gay marriage, national security, or the Duke University rape case, the underlying concern is about what these very different kinds of things say about the general direction of American society.

This larger and longer-lasting question is whether the particular issues discussed reflect a degeneration or dismantling of the America that we once knew and expected to pass on to our children and grandchildren. There are people determined that this country's values, history, laws, traditions and role in the world are fundamentally wrong and must be changed. Such people will not stop dismantling America unless they get stopped -- and the next election may be the last time to stop them, before they take the country beyond the point of no return.”

Reading this decade-old book about occurrences at the beginning of the Obama Administration is like reading about occurrences in the current Biden Administration (i.e., ‘American Rescue Plan Act’, ‘The Infrastructure Bill’, and the ‘Build Back Better Plan’). If you substitute President Obama with President Biden, and the Obama Administration with the Biden Administration in this book, you can see the sameness of the underlying viewpoints of President Obama and President Biden and their attempts to dismantle America and change the foundation of American Ideals and Ideas from our Founding Fathers vision.

I would encourage all to read this book, as it does a superlative job of describing the why of what is happening behind the scenes of our current political gamesmanship. It is also a warning of what may occur in America if the Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders prevail in achieving their idealistic goals of adjective justice and equity.

11/09/21 Tax the Rich

Like clockwork, whenever Democrats gain control of Congress or the Presidency, Democrat politicians attempt to increase spending and taxes utilizing the platitudes of ‘Tax the Rich’ and ‘Make Them Pay Their Fair Share’, and to the disparagement of ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory. An Article of mine, “Tax the Rich and Making Them Pay Their Fair Share”, examines this issue and the implications of taxing the rich. Those that utilize these phrases rarely understand this issue and its implications, and this article examine these issues and concerns. I have not written an article on ‘Trickle Down’ economic theory, as there is no such economic theory. Trickle-down was a caricature invented for political purposes to disparage those that believed that less taxes on the rich would generate more tax revenue and economic growth in the private sector.

I am a big believer in the truth; as the Bible states, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Therefore, you should examine the facts and discover the truth before you utter these phrases. A short essay by Thomas Sowell, “Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich”, can be downloaded and read to discover the truth. This essay unscrambles gross misconceptions that have made rational debates about tax policies virtually impossible for decades. I would recommend you read this essay to review the facts and discover the truth, which will set you free.

11/08/21 The Dismal Science

Economics was long ago called "The dismal science" and for a very good reason. It was a derogatory alternative name for economics coined by the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century because it poured cold water on all sorts of wonderful sounding ideas. In modern economics, it is dismal because of the extensive utilization of mathematics, especially statistics and probabilities, that make it very difficult for the general public to understand economics, or as a Nobel Award-winning economist has said:

“Whether one is a conservative or a radical, a protectionist or a free trader, a cosmopolitan or a nationalist, a churchman or a heathen, it is useful to know the causes and consequences of economic phenomena.”
 - George J. Stigler

It is also important to understand the economic details (i.e., the empirical data) of any situation, for:

"Without knowing the details, it is impossible to know the devils."
 - Mark Dawson

This is especially true when trying to understand governmental legislation and policies, for they have direct, indirect, and consequential impacts on our society. And many politicians have little or no sense of economics, which is why they rely on economists to assist them. However, for every economist that states one premise, argument, or conclusion, you can find another economist the states the opposite, which is why you should be wary of what any economic expert states. And you should never take it at face value or create laws and regulations solely based on economics or economists’ opinions. Or, as it has been said:

"Experts ought to be on tap and not on top."
 - Irish editor and writer George William Russell

As I have Chirped on, “07/19/21 The Party of Anti-Economics”, this lack of understanding of economics seems to inflict many more Democrats than Republicans, as I have also written about in my Article, “A World of Words versus the World as It Is”. This is because politicians operate in contravention to the first lesson of economics:

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
 - Thomas Sowell

The noted economist and commentator Thomas Sowell has written a book “Basic Economics – A Commonsense Guide to the Economy”, which is a citizen's guide to economics, written for those who want to understand how the economy works but have no interest in jargon or equations. Although this is a hefty book, it is a readable book for the general public. Therefore, I would highly recommend this book if you desire to gain a greater understanding of economics.

11/07/21 Education and Pedagogy

Many "Progressives/Leftists" and "Democrat Party Leaders" claim that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is not taught in Public Education. In this claim, they are partially correct. While there may not be any formal ‘education’ in CRT, there are ‘pedagogy’ methods and practices of CRT ideology. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between ‘education’ and ‘pedagogy’ as follows:

“01. Education:

Education is the process of imparting knowledge, values, skills, values, beliefs, habits and attitudes, which can be beneficial to an individual.

Education is the process through which a society passes on the knowledge, values and skills from one generation to another.

Education is the process of facilitating learning in schools or school-like environments as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization.

The objective of education is learning, not teaching.

  1. Pedagogy:

Pedagogy refers to the “interactions between teachers, students, and the learning environment and the learning tasks.” Meaning is to say, how teachers and students relate together as well as the instructional approaches implemented in the classroom.

Pedagogy is the study of teaching methods, including the aims of education and the ways in which such goals may be achieved. The field relies heavily on educational psychology, which encompasses scientific theories of learning, and to some extent on the philosophy of education, which considers the aims and value of education from a philosophical perspective.

Pedagogy refers more broadly to the theory and practice of education, and how this influences the growth of learners.

Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.

In short, "Education" is how we learn & "Pedagogy" is how we teach.”
 - Samir G Pandya

Given the above definition, if we look at some of the recommended reading books and instructional materials and the teachers’ interactions with the students in public education, we can discern a CRT ideological pedagogy basis in the teaching of the students. Unitizing the same distinction of education and pedagogy, we can also determine that there is much anti-American history teaching in public education and very little teaching of the contributions of America for the betterment of humankind. As a result, our students are being educated on what to think rather than how to think, and this is the basis for the current uproar about CRT teaching in our public schools.

Consequently, American students have been indoctrinated with a viewpoint of self-loathing for America, which they carry forward into their adult lives. A self-loathing of an underlying feeling that America is just not good: not good enough, not good at this, not good at that, not good at, or for not much good of anything. It can be subtle and long-term, as those American students that have been impacted may habitually negatively compare America to other countries, constantly finding fault with America and putting America down, with no real awareness that there is anything amiss. Or they may listen intently to a critical inner voice that scolds and berates America, telling them how embarrassing, stupid, or insensitive Americans are; and they are refusing to challenge these feelings about America and Americans even while they suffer from America self-loathing. A self-loathing that is harmful to the psychological health of the student.

A pedagogy that is Insidious and results in "Indoctrination versus Education", and the other issues as I have written in my Chirps on "02/07/20 What to Think and Not How to Think" and "03/24/21 Is it Time to End Public Education?", and in my Article on "Public Education. This Insidiousness has led many persons in America to believe in "The Biggest Falsehoods in America", which leads to divisiveness in America.

This pedagogy and the resulting self-loathing viewpoint influence their political choices and votes, which determines the direction of our society. A direction that is antithetic to our American Ideals and Ideas that may result in the destruction of our society, or at the very least to the detriment of our Freedoms and Liberties as I have Chirp on, "07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas".

Therefore, do not believe the half-truth that there is no CRT teaching in American Public Schools, as the whole truth reveals that the ideology of CRT permeates the pedagogy of many teachers and school districts in America, especially teachers and school districts under the control or influence of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leadership.

Addendum - After writing this Chirp I came across an article, “We’re Educators. Critical Race Theory Is, in Fact, in the Schools” by Daniel Buck  & Anthony Kinnett, that further elaborates on this topic, as well as an article by Larry O'Connor, “CRT Isn't in the Curriculum, It's the Language of the Curriculum”, does a good job of explaining how CRT is in the pedagogy of modern public education.

11/06/21 Proposed Federal Election Law

In place of the current Congressional proposals to legislate Federal elections in the States, which I believe are unconstitutional, I would propose the following legislation, which I believe is Constitutional and would assure the integrity of Federal elections:

“Whereas certain practices and actions by State and Local Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of governments have called into question the integrity of Federal Elections, the following shall be the restrictions of The Times, Places and Manner of holding Federal Elections for Senators and Representatives under the United States Constitution and its Amendments, and the appointment of electors for President under the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

No person shall be eligible to cast a federal election ballot unless they are a citizen of the United States. State and local registrar officials shall undertake due diligence to determine the citizenship of the voter as proscribed by federal statute as passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States. No State Legislations, or Governors or their Executive Officers, nor any Federal, State, or local Court shall change the election laws, rules, and regulations within forty-five (45) days of a Federal election. All newly eligible voters must register to vote at an authorized registrar’s office prior to sixty (60) days of a federal election day. All registered voters must be legal residents of the State and election district for sixty (60) days prior to registering or casting a vote. Any person who attempts to cast a ballot or casts a ballot that is not legally eligible to vote will be subject to federal prosecution and upon a guilty verdict will be subject to a penalty of three to six months imprisonment and a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars nor less than one thousand dollars.

The day of a federal election shall be a national holiday, and State and local governments shall also observe this national holiday. Businesses will be encouraged (by way of tax credits or other financial remuneration) to allow time off for their employees to vote on a federal election day.

No casting of ballots, except absentee ballots, will occur prior to the day of a federal election except for serving members of the United States Armed Forces. The United States Armed Forces shall establish such methods and procedures as required to allow service members to legally vote in their election district, with such ballots being received at the local election registrar office prior to election day. Absentee ballots are to be defined as those eligible voters who will not physically be present within their election district on the day of the election, or those persons too ill or infirmed to vote at their polling station, and such absentee ballots must be requested by the absentee voter. The United States Postal Service, nor any other delivery service, shall be utilized for the casting of ballots, except absentee ballots, and all such absentee ballots must be sent and received by the United States Postal Service via certified mail. All Absentee Ballots must be received at the designated postal address for such Absentee Ballots prior to election day to be legally counted. All such absentee ballots shall be verified by the signature on the ballot as compared to the signature on the voter rolls before the ballots are counted.

All ballots for Federal elections must occur at the legally designated polling stations on the designated day of the Federal election. All ballots cast in a federal election must be verified by signature or photo identification against the registered voter rolls. Six (6) months prior to a federal election, the registered voter rolls shall be purged of deceased or nonresident voters, as reported to the Social Security Administration by a Statement of Death by Funeral Director or a United States Postal Service by a Permanent Change of Address Form. Such notifications will be provided by the Federal government to the State election office nine (9) months prior to a Federal election, which shall be distributed to the local election registrar officials within thirty (30) days of receipt by the State election office.

The Presidential electors from within each State shall not be legally bound to another State’s electors. The Presidential electors from each Congressional district shall only be legally bound to the Presidential candidate that received a majority vote of the Congressional district from which they were elected, and the electors for the Statewide electors shall only be legally bound to the Presidential candidate that received a majority vote of the State. Such bindings shall only be for the purposes of the first round of the Electoral College vote. Subsequent rounds of the Electoral College vote, if needed, the Electors' vote shall be at the discretion of the Elector.

This legislation shall be effective on the first day of January 2024 and for all subsequent federal elections thereafter.”

11/05/21 A Disgrace to our Constitution

In the 21st century, the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court have become antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and, therefore, a disgrace to our Constitution. This has not been a sudden change, as it was a gradual disgrace during the 20th century, but it has accelerated to break-neck speed in the last two decades. It is a disgrace because each elected or appointed official in our government takes an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and they have not been doing so. Instead, they have been accumulating more power unto themselves or to the branch of government under which they serve.

Our Founding Fathers were quite aware that power uncheck would accumulate more unchecked power, to the detriment of Liberty and Freedom. Therefore, they drafted a constitution of limited and enumerated powers of the Federal government and a system of checks and balances of power in the Federal government to preserve our individual Liberties and Freedoms. The growth of the Federal government beyond its enumerated and limited powers by tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution to justify this growth and the shifting of duties and responsibilities of one branch of government to another branch in the 20th and 21st century have diluted or compromised our Constitution.

This dilution or compromise has been brought about by a gradual despotism under the justification of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Alas, once despotism is established, it tightens its grip and becomes more despotic until it devolves into tyranny. The Congress and the Presidency have been the driving force in this accumulation of power. However, the Supreme Court has acquiesced and sometimes supported this accumulation of power. The Supreme Court has also assumed more powers than was intended by our Founding Fathers, and they are becoming more Lords than Judges as I have examined in my Article, "Judges, Not Lords".

The Supreme Court, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, was supposed to be a check upon the accumulation of powers by Congress and the Presidency. This was to be accomplished by the Supreme Court having the power of negation of unconstitutional laws, illegitimate regulations, and improper enforcement of said laws for the purposes of keeping in check the powers of Congress and the Presidency. However, the Supreme Court has more frequently been issuing positive rulings requiring Congress and the Presidency to enact laws and regulations and methods of enforcement of said laws, rather than negating unconstitutional laws, regulations, and enforcements. This is an accumulation of powers unto themselves not envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Indeed, our Founding Fathers were very concerned by activist judges, as they had experienced the misuse and deleterious effects of magisterial power prior to the American Revolution, which was one of the major issues that led to the American Revolution.

The Supreme Court has been avoiding these issues of the accumulation of powers by the Federal government by not accepting cases or issuing ambiguous rulings on these issues by utilizing their own tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution. They have also been avoiding the issues of the infringement of our Natural and Constitutional Rights by this accumulation of power by the Federal government. They are, therefore, in dereliction of their duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing so, they are incurring the animosity of many Americans who believe in our American Ideals and Ideas and, therefore, they are disgracing the Supreme Court.

11/04/21 Let’s Go Brandon

As one who rarely resorts to profanity, as I explained in my Pearls of Wisdom - "Do Not Swear", there are exceptions. And “Let’s Go Brandon” is a worthy exception.

If you've heard people chanting, "Let's go, Brandon!" or seen someone with a shirt or hat sporting the seemingly jovial message lately, you might be wondering who Brandon is and why so many people are rooting for him. In this case, the phrase isn't actually about supporting a guy named Brandon. Instead, it's a euphemism that many people in conservative circles are using in place of saying, "F*** Joe Biden."

The origins of the meme go back to Oct. 2, when race car driver Brandon Brown won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race and was being interviewed by NBC reporter Kelli Stavast. In the background, many in the crowd can be heard chanting, "F*** Joe Biden," though Stavast says, "You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!' " in her broadcast. It remains unclear if Stavast misheard what the crowd was saying or if she purposely tried to change the message.

Given the damage that President Biden and his administration have done to America in ten short months, this expression is the exception, especially since it is a mild euphemism. With the latest elections of Republicans winning in Democrat Virginia, and a narrow Republican loss in heavily Democrat New Jersey, and other unexpected Republican wins, the majority of voters seem to agree with this euphemism.

Despite what the political pundits may say to minimize the Democratic Party's losses in the last election, this was the American peoples' reflection of the Presidency of Joe Biden and the "Progressives/Leftists" ideas and the "Democrat Party Leaders" ideology.

Now is the time to move forward onto the 2022 mid-term elections, and the slogan for these elections should be “Let’s Go Brandon” to put an end to what I described in my Chirp on "10/24/21 Death by a Thousand Cuts”.

11/03/21 The World Turned Upside Down

According to American legend, the British army band under Lord Cornwallis played the tune “The World Turned Upside Down” when they surrendered after the Siege of Yorktown (1781). Customarily, the British army would have played an American or French tune in tribute to the victors, but General Washington refused them the honours of war and insisted that they play "a British or German march." Although American history textbooks continue to propagate the legend, the story may have been apocryphal as it first appears in the historical record a century after the surrender.

And, indeed, the old world was turned upside down by the new world. Monarchy, aristocracy, and upper/lower class distinctions of the old world were being replaced by Meritocracy, the Middle Class, the ability to rise above your birth. Liberty and Freedom had replaced Despotism and Servitude. Or, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

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

Today, in America, we should all be playing the tune “The World Turned Upside Down”, for the American Ideals and Ideas are being turned upside down. Led by Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media, our ideals of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" are under attack by Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" common in today’s American society. And they are succeeding! Meritocracy, the Middle Class, the ability to rise above your birth are being replaced by Elitism, Tribalism, and Globalization, and they are destroying the Ideals and ideas of America, as I have Chirped on, “07/02/21 Our American Ideals and Ideas”.

A new book by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America”, looks at this transformation and its impacts on America. Having just read this book, I would have posted a review of this book in this Chirp. However, as there is a review of this book by Michael Cozzi, “The Dying Citizen”, that is so excellent, I thought it would be better to redirect you to his article rather than create a review of my own. As Mr. Cozzi states about this book that it: “is a prescient account of how the American conceptualization of citizenship has been eroded by progressive ideologues and those who wish to undermine the original intent of the Framers. He focuses on the categories of pre-citizens and post-citizens”.

I would also encourage you to read the Introduction to this book, which is viewable by clicking the ‘Look inside’ hyperlink of the Amazon web page for this book. This introduction is perhaps the finest introduction to a book that I have encountered in my readings, as it succinctly highlights the content of the book.

This book, along with Thomas Sowell’s book “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles”, which I Chirped on “08/09/21 A Conflict of Visions”, are the two books that provide an excellent explanation of the ideological differences that exist in America today.

11/02/21 Disparate Visions and Divisions in America

Two of the most notable conservatives of the late 20th century and early 21st century, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer, started their adult life on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist, while Charles Krauthammer worked and wrote for liberal politicians and organizations. Both had a change of mind for what Thomas Sowell attributed ‘facts’ and to which Charles Krauthammer attributed ‘evidence’.

In the case of Thomas Sowell, after a rough and tumble early life, he attended college in his late twenties and studied economics and mathematics. Born in North Carolina, Sowell grew up in Harlem, New York. Due to financial issues and deteriorated home conditions, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and later served in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Upon returning to the United States, Sowell enrolled at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude in 1958. He received a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959 and earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

It was in college that Sowell learned the importance of Facts, Reasoning, and Critical Thinking. When he applied all three of these faculties, his independent thinking, and his street life experience to examining society, he determined that his earlier convictions were ill-placed and wrong. When he was asked in an interview what changed his thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Facts’, explaining that correct and proper facts were the basis for all reasoning to reach an accurate conclusion.

In the case of Charles Krauthammer, he was medically educated and certified as a psychiatrist. While in his first year studying medicine at Harvard Medical School, Krauthammer became permanently paralyzed from the waist down after suffering a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at cervical spinal nerve 5. After spending 14 months recovering in a hospital, he returned to medical school, graduating to become a psychiatrist involved in the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III in 1980. He joined the Carter administration in 1978 as a director of psychiatric research, eventually becoming the speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale in 1980.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

When asked in an interview what changed his political thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Evidence’. He explained that his medical training taught him to follow the evidence to reach a correct medical diagnosis and treatment. When he followed the evidence on American society's ills, his diagnosis was contrary to Liberal ideology and ideas. He thereafter began writing and speaking with a more conservative mind, as he believed that conservatism was the correct treatment for the ills of America.

Both of these men utilized their knowledge and experience to achieve a level of wisdom that I have written about in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom", that is and was of the highest order. Therefore, we can be certain that if you objectively look and the facts and evidence, it will lead you to the conclusion that "Progressives/Leftists" ideology and ideas are not supportable.

Any book written by Thomas Sowell is well worth the read, but for a grasp of his intellectual biography, I would recommend the book “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” by Jason L Riley, as well as his selections from his many writings in “The Thomas Sowell Reader. Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. All four books are illuminative of these great men’s thinking and are well worth the read.

11/01/21 A Moral Compass

There are many politicians in America, but almost no statesmen in America. The best distinguishment between the two is:

"The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision."
- J. Rufus Fears

To be a statesman, you must have all four qualities, while to be a politician only requires a combination of less than four of these qualities. And anything less than all four qualities can lead to bad politics and sometimes downright evil. Many evil leaders in history had principles, visions, and a consensus but lacked a moral compass which led them to do great harm. This has been especially true in the 20th century.

Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ho Chí Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and many other despots and dictators of the 20th century lacked a moral compass but had principles, visions, and consensus that led them to power to the devastation of their people, and sometimes to the world.

There is only one moral compass that prevents these devastations, a moral compass directed to the respect and dignity of the individual person by acknowledging and upholding their Natural Rights. Whenever you trample a person’s Natural Rights, you are treading down the road to despotism and eventual tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this and established a Constitution of the United States in which the Federal government had enumerated and limited powers and a balance of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government to preserve our Natural Rights. In doing so, they showed themselves to be statesmen more than politicians.

Unfortunately, we in America have been treading down this road to despotism for the last century. The growth of the Federal government beyond its enumerated and limited powers by tortuous and convoluted readings of the Constitution to justify this growth, and the shifting of duties and responsibilities of one branch of government to another branch, and the hoards of administrators and bureaucrats to regulate what Americans can do (and now say) under their Natural Rights have diluted or compromised our Natural Rights. This dilution has been brought about by a gradual despotism under the justification of the "Greater Good versus the Common Good". Alas, once despotism is established, it tightens its grip and becomes more despotic until it devolves into tyranny.

With the COVID-19 mandates and restrictions, the crisis at the southern border, and our exorbitant spending and taxes, we are at a precipice of losing our Natural Rights in America. A drop-off of this precipice that will end America as it was founded, and that we may never be able to recover our American Ideals and Ideas. Our decisions on how to proceed will determine if, as President Abraham Lincoln said in another time in American history when he faced a precipice, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth”.

10/31/21 The Wisdom of History

In many of my Chirps and Articles I speak of history, but not as a dry discourse of facts, quotes, and people, but of the importance of knowing and understanding history. It is important to not only know history but to understand history. Many know history, but few understand history, for understanding history means that you can apply the lessons of history to make decisions for today and plans for tomorrow. Understanding history allows you to analyze current events in the light of historical events and to determine possible outcomes of current events.

It is the conceit of modern history that human nature has evolved for the better as our enlightened morals and economic prosperity has increased. To this, I would reply that The Ten Commandments of ancient history have not evolved and are still applicable in today’s morality, and economic prosperity is not a guarantee and can disappear from natural and man-made calamities.

Another conceit of modern history is that advances in science and technology make previous history meaningless in the modern world. Science and technology are powerful tools in the hands of humans, but human nature will utilize any tools that are available to advance the base desires of human nature. Our base human desires have not changed throughout history, and Science and technology have only altered the means to achieve base human desires.

We also often learn the wrong lessons from history. As there are a great number of lessons from history, it is often difficult to determine if these lessons are correct or incorrect and what the fundamental lessons of history are. In a Great Courses: Wisdom of History – Professor J. Rufus Fears, Ph.D. (a course I highly recommend), speaks of the ten fundamental lessons of history:

    “10 fundamental lessons of history:

      1. We do not learn from history.
      2. Science and technology do not make us immune to the laws of history.
      3. Freedom is not a universal value.
      4. Power is the universal value.
      5. The Middle East is the crucible of conflict and the graveyard of empires.
      6. The United States shares the destinies of the great democracies, the republics, and the superpowers of the past.
      7. Along with the lust for power, religion and spirituality are the most profound motivators in human history.
      8. Great nations rise and fall because of human decisions made by individual leaders.
      9. The statesman is distinguished from a mere politician by four qualities: a bedrock of principles, a moral compass, a vision, and the ability to create a consensus to achieve that vision.
      10. Throughout its history, the United States has charted a unique role in history.”

Even historians can get the lessons of history wrong, as most historians have extensive knowledge of their history subject field but may have little knowledge of other history subjects. To learn the lessons of history also requires a broad range of knowledge of history, along with knowledge of other topics such as economics, sociology, governmental theory, and philosophy. They also need the wisdom to apply their knowledge, as I have written in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom".

Beware the politician who espouses history, for they often have an incomplete or incorrect knowledge of history which does not lead them to The Wisdom of History. They also tend to misconstrue or selectively utilize history for their own purposes. It is also important that we remember two of the most famous quotes about the importance of history:

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

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

10/30/21 The Right of Revolution

America was founded on an armed and violent revolution. However, this revolution was not the first or last step in this revolution. Preceding this revolution was attempts to reconcile the differences between the Colonists and the British Parliament and Monarchy, and following this revolution was the founding of our government to enshrine to ideals of this revolution. This Revolution was not just a war but was a revolution of the relationship between a government and the people, and the governmental respect for the Natural Rights of the people, and based upon "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", or as was said:

“What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.”
  - John Adams

The Revolutionary War was based upon the Natural Right to Revolution in “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government” as stated in The Declaration of Independence. For a concise overview and analysis of this Right of Revolution, I would recommend the article “The Right of Revolution in the American Founding” by Kevin Portteus.

It is important for the American people to understand our founding to understand our American Ideals and Ideas. As such, they should be familiar with the following documents that explain the thinking behind our revolution:

    1. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress
    2. A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms
    3. The Declaration of Independence
    4. The United States Constitution
    5. The Bill of Rights

As our current Public Education does such a poor job of teaching our history and our ideals I would suggest that you become better acquainted with these documents. Understanding these documents will also lead you to a better understanding of the deep division in today’s American society. The divisions between the forces of limited and enumerated government and the forces of expanded and interventionism government, and between the preservation of our Natural Rights versus the imposition of Societal Rights.

10/29/21 The Degradation of the Individual

As I mentioned in my Chirp on “10/28/21 The Three C’s”, we, in America, have drifted away from individualism into collectivism. Whenever we think collectively, we often do so at the expense of the individual by violating the Natural Rights of the individual. Whenever anyone or any entity violates our Natural Rights, it is a degradation of each individual human being. Whether it is an individual, organization, business, or government that violates our Natural Rights, it is a debasement of the individual and is unjustifiable.

This debasement is the result of the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" that currently exists in America.

The degradation of each individual human being comes in the form of restrictions and requirements imposed by Presidents, Governors, and Mayors, or their executive officers, upon the people that direct the words and deeds of the people, usually in an emergency situation, but now more frequently in the course of their everyday lives. When these restrictions and requirements are imposed through mandates, they are especially odious. Odious as they were not formulated and passed by the normal legislative process, and they are often difficult and time-consuming to challenge by normal legal recourses. As such, the representatives of the people have had no part in their creation and no ability to determine the negative impacts of the restrictions and requirements, nor the possible violations of our Natural and Constitutional Rights.

As I have mentioned in my Chirp on “10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience”, when a conflict arises between the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests, only a compelling interest of Society can override Natural Rights. This compelling societal interest is in the harm to the safety and security of individuals and society in an emergency. Such Natural Rights violations must be of limited scope and duration, and if it is not limited in scope and duration, then it is not an emergency. It then becomes subjugation, and our leaders become rulers, as I have written in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". The hubris of a government that believes that it can rule a free people is astounding, as only subjugated or subservient people can be ruled.

When the government encourages or coerces businesses, organizations, and individuals to enforce their restrictions and requirements, these entities are violating the Natural Rights of the individual. It is an abasement of the individual and as unjustifiable as if the government were to enforce these restrictions and requirements. As I stated in the aforementioned Chirp on Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience, it is the duty and responsibility for Americans to disobey these restrictions and requirements from all entities to preserve our Natural Rights and, therefore, our Liberties and Freedoms. It is also the duty and responsibility of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court to overturn these restrictions and requirements, as they are Unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The failure to disobey and overturn these unjust restrictions and requirements is a pathway to despotism and the subjugation of the American people.

10/28/21 The Three C’s

I recently came across the phrase that America was founded on three ideas - Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom. While this is true in general, it is also very easy to read too much into this phrase. But as a general principle, it is applicable if the general principle for each is:

Constitutionalism - A democratic republic system of government with a written constitution that enumerates the powers of government to protect the Natural Rights of the individuals within the boundaries of the nation. The colonists and first generation of Americans understood that without a written constitution, the law of the land could be misapplied or ignored to the privilege of some and to the disadvantage to the individual.

Capitalism - An economic system based on private ownership of property in which the exchange of said property is a mutual agreement of the individuals involved in the exchange. The Colonists and first generation of Americans believed that the free flow of the marketplace would allow the individual to utilize their skills and abilities, intellect, and hard work to achieve their individual goals and to rise above the economic circumstances of their birth.

Christendom - The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia) is not so much the religion or theology of Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, or Orthodox, but of the worth and dignity of each individual as a child of God. Many of the early settlers of America migrated to North America to escape the conformity of the Anglican and Catholic religions, and most of the Colonists and the first generation of Americans were of a Protestant denomination.

In America, these were the general principle that we were founded upon. Despite, at times, having fallen short of these general principles, we have recognized our shortcomings and have attempted to rectify them. Through periods of civil unrest and a Civil War, these general principles were what animated American patriots. The unifying principle of Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom was in the belief of the dignity and importance of the individual person and the protection of their Natural Rights.

And so, it was, for most of our history. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have drifted away from these general principles of individualism to a more collectivist viewpoint of society as exemplified by the rise of ‘Identity Politics’. No longer is the individual the pivot of concern for societal and governmental actions, and indeed, the individual is often secondary to the interest of special groups. In doing so, the Natural Rights of the individual have been replaced by societal interests to the detriment of the individual, and our Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom are being destroyed.

This destruction is the result of the words and deeds of Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, Social Media, Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, the "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" that currently exists in America.

All of this must come to an end if we are to preserve and protect our American Ideals and Ideas of the general principles of Constitutionalism, Capitalism, and Christendom.

10/27/21 The Philosopher President

Abraham Lincoln was known as a great political leader and President who guided America through the anti-slavery debates, the Civil War, and the abolition of slavery. His wit and wisdom were renowned throughout the ages. Much of his wit was in his storytelling and quotes, of which I have collected a few on my webpage, My Favorite Quotes of Abraham Lincoln, and many more can be found on the Wikiquote webpage of Abraham Lincoln. His wisdom, however, came from his deep philosophical understanding of the underlying meaning of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. Much of his wisdom is apropos to today’s issues that divide America if you substitute slavery for the current topic of dispute.  I have collected some of his more famous writings and speeches in my Documents, Letters, and Speeches web page as follows:

Reading these writings and speeches in today’s context can assist you in understanding the philosophical basis of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States.

For more information on Abraham Lincoln’s thinking, I would recommend the book Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas by Allen C. Guelzo, a distinguished historian and professor of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War period of American history whose other books I would also recommend.

10/26/21 Book It

I have thoroughly revised my Book It webpage to include more information about the books I have recommended, as well as the reasoning for the recommendation. I hope that you will take the time to read my Book It webpage, and you will become sufficiently interested in my recommended books that you will purchase these books, or at least borrow these books from your library, and hopefully read these books.

10/25/21 Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists

Since the social activism of the 1960s and onwards, the Liberals, Progressives, and Leftists, social justice warriors, and other activists have undertaken many crusades to reform and make America better.  All of this was undertaken for the good of Americans and America, and sometimes for the good of the world (i.e.., Environmentalism and Global Climate Change). They have self-anointed themselves as more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, and therefore they are, of course, always correct and in a better position to determine what is best for America and Americans. In doing so, they have uncritically and selectively relied on expert opinion from academics and the intelligentsia as to the problems and solutions within America. However, they have not remembered:

"The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."
- Thomas Sowell

When the best is determined by the few and implemented by the government, it often degenerates into despotism of governmental actions and a ruling class of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes, how do they achieve and maintain their goals and policies? In America, we have disparate differences of opinion and ideology that divide us. Trying to understand these differences is difficult, as they are based on the closely held viewpoints of human nature and the role of government in society.

As Dr. Sowell, the distinguished economist, and social commentator, examines in three books of his that the differences of opinion and ideology in America stem from; “The Quest for Cosmic Justice”, “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles”, and “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. These three books by Thomas Sowell should be considered a trilogy and should be read in order to have a fuller understanding of the disparate visions that divide us in America. Although these books were written more than a decade ago, the issues and concerns that he illuminates are even more apropos today. For more on these books, I would direct you to my Article, “Crusades of the Social Justice Warriors and Activists”.

The latest book by Victor Davis Hanson, “The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are Destroying the Idea of America”, is another attempt to explain the disparate ideologies in America. In an excellent review of this book by Michael Cozzi, “The Dying Citizen”, he states that this book: “is a prescient account of how the American conceptualization of citizenship has been eroded by progressive ideologues and those who wish to undermine the original intent of the Framers. He focuses on the categories of pre-citizens and post-citizens”.

These four books are an excellent explanation of the ideological differences that exist in America today and are well worth the read to understand the deep divisions in America. The Unconstrained Visions, The Vision of the Anointed, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and The Dying Citizen are a hallmark of the Liberals, Progressives, and Leftists, social justice warriors, and other activists, and are the tactics of the Democrat Party to pass legislation and increase funding for these policies. They also utilize the stratagem of improper "Dialog & Debate" to achieve their goals, and all of this leads to the erosion of "A Civil Society" and "Divisiveness in America".

10/24/21 Death by a Thousand Cuts

Lingchi (Chinese), translated variously as the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing, and also known as death by a thousand cuts, was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly 900 until it was banned in 1905. It was also used in Vietnam and Korea. In this form of execution, a knife was used to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, eventually resulting in death.

Death of a thousand cuts is what is happening to our Liberties and Freedoms in America. For years the "Progressives/Leftists" and the "Democrat Party Leaders" have everywhere pressured, cajoled, browbeat, and bullied those that would oppose their political goals and policy agendas through the tactics of Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, and the Greater Good versus the Common Good. Now they have started to prosecute those voices that oppose their policies and agendas. They claim that their activities are all legal, and some of them may be legal, but they forget or did not know that "The Law is Not All", as some laws are unjust and require civil disobedience as I have Chirped on, “10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience”.

From the parents who protest the public education of their children, to the persons who defend their lives, safety, and property with firearms, to the illegal surveillance and perjury traps on Americans, to the IRS Audits of political dissidents and to IRS delays in certifications of conservative organizations, to the non-investigations of voting irregularities, to the imprisonment without trial of the January 6th ‘Insurrectionists’, and to a host of other actions contrary to our Constitutional Bill of Rights as I examined in my Chirp on, “07/23/21 The Party Hostile to The Bill of Rights”. By labeling their opponents ‘Domestic Terrorists’ rather than the ‘Loyal Opposition’, they hope to inure the American public to the violation of their Natural and Constitutional Rights. Meanwhile, violent mob protests that result in injuries, death, and the destruction of personal property are supported, not prosecuted, and indeed praised if they are in support of the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders policies and goals. Government officials who lie under oath and mislead the American public are not prosecuted and are often rewarded with lucrative book contracts and paid commentary on the mainstream media. Politically connected individuals and family members who commit criminal actions are not prosecuted if they are supportive of the Progressives/Leftists and the Democrat Party Leaders policies and goals. And all of this makes a mockery of ‘Equal Justice for All’.

These are not isolated incidents but are meant to intimidate the American people into silence and submission and impose an oligarchic (Democrat Party) rule in America. These Death of a Thousand Cuts are destroying our American Ideals and Ideas, and if they are not resisted and quashed, then we will become a subjugated people.

10/23/21 A Tale of Two Revolutions

The end of the 18th century saw two revolutions of historical significance, The American Revolution (1765-1791) and The French Revolution (1789-1799), which was followed by the reign of Napoléon Bonaparte as First Consul (1799-1804) then Emperor (1804-1815), and which included the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

The American Revolution was a violent ideological and political revolution that occurred in colonial North America between 1765 and 1791. The Americans in the Thirteen Colonies formed independent states that defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), gaining independence from the British Crown and establishing the United States of America, and creating a constitution that was the first liberal democratic republic in history. The American Revolution was more than the Revolutionary War. It started with the protests of the Stamp Act of 1765, then protests against other Parliament and Monarchical acts that eventually led to the "The Declaration of Independence" and the Revolutionary War (which ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which recognized American independence). The American Revolution continued until the creation and adoption of the "The United States Constitution" and "The Bill of Rights", which enshrined the principles of the American Revolution into American government. A Constitution that has lasted for over two hundred years to the benefit of Americans, albeit with periods of great social and economic changes, and a Civil War, and periods of Civil unrest. It was a revolution of the relationship between a government and the people, and the governmental respect for the Natural Rights of the people, and based upon "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All", or as was said:

“What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.”
  - John Adams

The French Revolution was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates-General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy, while phrases like Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) reappeared in other revolts, such as the 1917 Russian Revolution, and inspired campaigns for the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. Its values and the institutions it created dominate French politics to this day. It also led to The Reign of Terror as a means to harness revolutionary fervor but quickly degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances. It began when the Convention set price controls over a wide range of goods, with the death penalty for hoarders, and a week later, 'revolutionary groups' were established to enforce them. Shortly thereafter, the Law of Suspects ordered the arrest of suspected "enemies of freedom", initiating what became known as the "Terror". According to archival records, from September 1793 to July 1794, some 16,600 people were executed on charges of counter-revolutionary activity; another 40,000 may have been summarily executed or died awaiting trial.

Napoléon Bonaparte (born Napoleone di Buonaparte; 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821), usually referred to as simply Napoleon in English was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the Revolutionary Wars. He was the de facto leader of the French Republic as First Consul from 1799 to 1804. He also initiated The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) that were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions. It produced a period of French domination over most of continental Europe. The wars stemmed from the unresolved disputes associated with the French Revolution and its resultant conflict. The wars are often categorized into five conflicts, each termed after the coalition that fought Napoleon: the Third Coalition (1805), the Fourth (1806–07), the Fifth (1809), the Sixth (1813–14), and the Seventh (1815). These wars resulted in about a million French soldiers becoming casualties (wounded, invalided, or killed), a higher proportion than in the First World War. The European total may have reached 5,000,000 military deaths, including disease. For decades after the Napoleonic Wars, French society was beset with political and economic problems because of the wars, all to the detriment of its people.

The question is, why did the American Revolution succeed while the French Revolution failed? In my opinion, it was because the American Revolution was based on "A Civil Society" and "A Just Government and a Just Society" driven by “The rule of law, not men”, while the French Revolution became uncivil and unjust and was governed by “The rule of men, not law”. The French Revolutionaries took it upon themselves to become rulers and not leaders, as I examined in my Article, "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders". They were so sure of the righteousness and correctness of their opinions that they enforced, through violence, their opinions upon the French people. These French Revolutionaries had a vision and believed themselves to be anointed to lead the French people to a new and better society. Or, as Thomas Sowell has said in his book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”:

“Where the American government deliberately create a government of elaborate checks and balances, to constrain the evils inherent in human beings, the French revolution concentrated vast powers in its leadership, so as to allow those who were presumably wise and benevolent to effect sweeping changes with little hinderance. Condorcet, as an intellectual supporter of the French revolution, could see no reason for the American system of checks and balances, in which society was to be “justled between opposing powers” or to be held back by the “inertia” of its constitution. Indeed, even after the revolutionaries turned against him and threw him into prison, Condorcet still seemed not to understand the reason for limitations on government power.”
 - Thomas Sowell

Condorcet died in prison, either by suicide or murder, for which he was imprisoned for criticizing the French Constitution of 1793. Terrorism through despotism, imprisonment, and the guillotine were the tools of the French Revolutionaries to impose the vision of the anointed upon the French people. Today, in America, we see this same type of vision and anointment in "Progressives/Leftists", "Democrat Party Leaders", and the Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media who support this vision, and praise, glorify, or honor the anointed. We are also beginning to see despotism, investigations, prosecutions, and imprisonment of those persons who would oppose the visions of the anointed.

President Biden and his administration seem to be predisposed to rule by Executive Orders rather than the passage and enforcement of the laws as passed by Congress. Coercion, intimidation, and threats to achieve their objectives seem to be the methods chosen to implement their political goals and policy agendas, as I have Chirped over the last several months.

Hopefully, the groundswell of opposition that we are seeing in America will correct these actions of the visions of the anointed and their imposition by government mandates through Executive Orders, and we will return to our American Ideas and Ideals. Otherwise, we may face our own reign of terror and the end of the American Revolution experiment of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” – Abraham Lincoln.

10/22/21 The Answer to Why Not?

“Some men see things as they are and ask, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and ask, ‘Why not?’"
 - Robert Kennedy

However noble, visionary, and uplifting this quote is for many social justice warriors, they never seem to answer the ‘Why’ and ‘Why not’ questions in this quote. The ‘Why?’ is very difficult to answer, as there are many various reasons and circumstances that need to be examined to answer ‘Why?’. The ‘Why not?’ is easier to answer, as the prescriptions for social justice often encounter the same problems of economics, sociology, politics, and at the very root causes of the issues of human nature and individual individualism.

However, we can answer the ‘Why not?’ to each social justice prescription generically. Whenever a social justice prescription is pronounced, it should be confronted with several questions and statements to evaluate the efficacy of the prescription. These are:

“The three questions that will destroy most of the arguments of the left:
   1. Compared to what?
   2. At what cost?
   3. What hard evidence do you have?”
- Thomas Sowell

"Life is like a double entry ledger. For everything that happens, there are both positives and negatives, especially for anything that you say or do."
 - Mark Dawson

Therefore, you must compare the prescription to the current situation, determine the economics of the prescription, and be skeptical of and question the empirical data that led to the prescription. You also need to create not only a financial balance sheet but also a societal balance sheet to weigh the costs and benefits of the prescription. You also need to think about "The Law of Unintended Consequences" and its potential positive and negative consequences.

After doing so, you must then adjudge whether the prescription runs contrary to human nature or individualism, for:

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

After doing so, in many if not most cases, the social justice prescriptions would be found to be deficient, and they may be found to cause more harm than good, if not outright impracticable and doomed to failure.

10/21/21 Illegal Immigration is Unconstitutional

The unconstitutional case for President Biden and his administration not enforcing immigration and other laws on the southern borders is not as readily apparent as many think. As Rob Natelson has stated in his new article, Immigration: How Biden Is Violating the Constitution”:

“Critics of President Joe Biden’s non-defense of the southern border have emphasized his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3).

This is a good point, but it has some weaknesses.”

He then proceeds to illuminate and inform the real unconstitutional basis for allowing illegal immigration. I would highly recommend that you read this article to understand the Unconstitutionality of President Biden and his administration's actions on the southern border and how we can deal with these actions.

10/20/21 A Broken Country

In a new article by Larry O'Connor, “Biden Can't Fix What He Shattered”, he explains that:

“This country, in many respects, is broken. Wait... that's not entirely accurate. It sounds too passive. It sounds like it was an accident or something.

This country has been broken. And Joe Biden broke it.

That's the bad news. Now, for the worse news.

Biden is incapable of fixing any of this.”

He then states that President Biden is incapable of doing this “Not because he doesn't have the skills or power to do so, it's because he doesn't have the character, will, or humility to do so“. I also wonder if some of this is deliberate as to increase governmental power, and the taxes and spending that he (incorrectly) believes is necessary and proper to correct these problems.

In either case, we have become A Broken Country with no plan or end in sight to repair our country. God help us all ... literally.

10/19/21 The Insurrection Hoax

For many years I have been an avid reader of Imprimis, a free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College that is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political, and educational issues. The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered at Hillsdale College events. First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over six million subscribers.

A new article in Imprimis, “The January 6 Insurrection Hoax”, by Roger Kimball, the Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion, examines this topic:

“Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

Imprimis articles are always rational and reasonable, and they are an excellent source of truthful information about current events. I would recommend that you explore the back issues of Imprimis to obtain factual and truthful information on a variety of topics.

10/18/21 Scholarship is Passé in America

Profound scholarly knowledge and intelligence based on "Reasoning“ is unfashionable today, especially in academia. Instead, we have Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, and Equity and Equality as the basis of scholarship. In academia, this is not scholarship but propagandism, and they are not educating their students but indoctrinating them. True scholarship is not only knowledge and intelligence but the wisdom obtained through their scholarship, as I have examined in my “Pearls of Wisdom” on “A Wise Person”.

The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields were often immune from this scholarly decline, but they have now started down this road. The other fields of academia are now in the full throes of this decline. Much of this decline is because we have forgotten history, or reinterpreted history, to meet our preconceived notions. Whenever you base your scholarship on a preconceived notion, you sacrifice scholarship, and you often must ignore or distort facts to fit your preconceived notion. But only facts as a basis count in scholarship for:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 - New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

and

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
 - John Adams

Today, however, many scholars treat facts as malleable and open to interpretation. These scholars often utilize "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" and "Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors" to fit their preconceived notions to arrive at their desired result. In doing so, their ideas are often so absurd that it fits the criteria of:

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

But you should not believe absurd ideas without evidence that the facts and "Reasoning" are correct. To do otherwise leads you down a path to disappointment and delusion. This is especially true for the academics of the social sciences (Anthropology, Archaeology, Economics, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology), for many of the academics in social science wish to change the world for the better rather than discover the truths of the world.

Therefore, you should be careful as to what you read and hear from academics, as they may not be scholarly or wise. It is almost a hopeless task to determine which academics are scholarly and wise, but I have a few that I trust to provide scholarly information. They are:

Historians Victor Davis Hansen, Allen C. Guelzo, and James M. McPherson; Economists Thomas Sowell, and the late Walter E. Williams and departed Milton Friedman, Constitutional Scholars Rob Natelson, Michael Stokes Paulson, Randy E. Barnett, Jonathan Turley, and Alan Dershowitz; and scholarly Commentators Dennis Prager, William J. Bennett, Michael Barone, and the departed Charles Krauthammer are scholars of the highest order. I have also recommended some books by these scholars on my “Book It” web page.

10/17/21 A Touch of Humor

Once in a while, we just have to stand back in awe of our government.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S Dept. of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of free meals and food stamps ever - to over 46 million people.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because "The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.”

This ends today's lesson.

* * * * *

The King wanted to go fishing, and he asked the royal weather forecaster the forecast for the next few hours. The palace meteorologist assured him that there was no chance of rain. So, the King and the Queen went fishing. On the way, he met a man with a fishing pole riding on a donkey, and he asked the man if the fish were biting.

The fisherman said, "Your Majesty, you should return to the palace! In just a short time I expect a huge rainstorm."

The King replied: "I hold the palace meteorologist in high regard. He is an educated and experienced professional. Besides, I pay him very high wages. He gave me a very different forecast. I trust him."

So, the King continued on his way. However, in a short time, torrential rain fell from the sky. The King and Queen were totally soaked. Furious, the King returned to the palace and gave the order to fire the meteorologist.

Then he summoned the fisherman and offered him the prestigious position of royal forecaster.

The fisherman said, "Your Majesty, I do not know anything about forecasting. I obtained my information from my donkey. If I see my donkey's ears drooping, it means with certainty that it will rain.”

So, the King hired the donkey.

And so began the practice of hiring dumb asses to work in influential positions of government. And thus, the symbol of the Democrat party was born. This practice is unbroken to this day.

10/16/21 Facts and Evidence

Two of the most notable conservatives of the late 20th century and early 21st century, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer, started their adult life on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell was an avowed Marxist, while Charles Krauthammer worked and wrote for liberal politicians and organizations. Both had a change of mind for what Thomas Sowell attributed ‘facts’ and to which Charles Krauthammer attributed ‘evidence’.

In the case of Thomas Sowell, after a rough and tumble early life, he attended college in his late twenties and studied economics and mathematics. Born in North Carolina, Sowell grew up in Harlem, New York. Due to financial issues and deteriorated home conditions, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and later served in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Upon returning to the United States, Sowell enrolled at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude in 1958. He received a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959 and earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he served as the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy. Sowell writes from a libertarian–conservative perspective. Sowell has written more than thirty books, and his work has been widely anthologized. He is a National Humanities Medal recipient for innovative scholarship which incorporated history, economics, and political science.

It was in college that Sowell learned the importance of Facts, Reasoning, and Critical Thinking. When he applied all three of these faculties, his independent thinking, and his street life experience to examining society, he determined that his earlier convictions were ill-placed and wrong. When he was asked in an interview what changed his thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Facts’, explaining that correct and proper facts were the basis for all reasoning to reach an accurate conclusion.

In the case of Charles Krauthammer, he was medically educated and certified as a psychiatrist. While in his first year studying medicine at Harvard Medical School, Krauthammer became permanently paralyzed from the waist down after suffering a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at cervical spinal nerve 5. After spending 14 months recovering in a hospital, he returned to medical school, graduating to become a psychiatrist involved in the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III in 1980. He joined the Carter administration in 1978 as a director of psychiatric research, eventually becoming the speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale in 1980.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Krauthammer embarked on a career as a columnist and political commentator. In 1985, he began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post, which earned him the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for his "witty and insightful columns on national issues." He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013. Krauthammer had been a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a Fox News Channel contributor, and a nightly panelist on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Bret Baier until his death in June 2018.

When asked in an interview what changed his political thinking, he had a one-word answer – ‘Evidence’. He explained that his medical training taught him to follow the evidence to reach a correct medical diagnosis and treatment. When he followed the evidence on American society's ills, his diagnosis was contrary to Liberal ideology and ideas. He thereafter began writing and speaking with a more conservative mind, as he believed that conservatism was the correct treatment for the ills of America.

Both of these men utilized their knowledge and experience to achieve a level of wisdom that I have written about in my Article, "Knowledge, Experience, and Wisdom", that is and was of the highest order. Therefore, we can be certain that if you objectively look and the facts and evidence, it will lead you to the conclusion that "Progressives/Leftists" ideology and ideas are not supportable.

Any book written by Thomas Sowell is well worth the read, but for a grasp of his intellectual biography, I would recommend the book “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell” by Jason L Riley, as well as his selections from his many writings in “The Thomas Sowell Reader. His book “Basic Economics – A Commonsense Guide to the Economy” is a citizen's guide to economics, written for those who want to understand how the economy works but have no interest in jargon or equations. Charles Krauthammer did not write many books, but he wrote many columns. Two books by him and his son are a powerful collection of the influential columnist’s most important works; “Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics” and “The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors”. All five books are illuminative of these great men’s thinking and are well worth the read.

10/15/21 Proper and Improper Facts

In my writings, I have often commented upon utilizing the proper facts to reason. But what are proper or improper facts? Proper facts are facts that are correct and complete – which can be difficult to define. Therefore, I have extracted quotes about facts that may help you to better understand proper and improper facts:

" Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
  -  New York Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan

"Assertions are not facts, as they often contain Presumptions and Assumptions; Improper Facts, Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the problems of Unintended Consequences that may be inherent in any assertion."
 - Mark Dawson

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
  - John Adams

“Facts do not "speak for themselves." They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theory or visions are mere isolated curiosities.”
 - Thomas Sowell

"I'd rather be factually correct than politically correct."
- Mark Dawson

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
  - from Darrell Huff's book "How to Lie with Statistics" (1954)

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

“Incorrect facts, incomplete facts, improper facts, ignored facts, irrelevant facts, misinterpreted facts, misstated facts, misunderstood facts, unknown facts, and sloganeering replacement for facts are widespread and believed in today’s world.”
 - Mark Dawson

“The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.”
 - Mark Twain

This is why, whenever I write or speak, I try to not be wrong as I have Chirp on, "11/09/19 To Be Right or Not to Be Wrong". Being not wrong in the sense that I try to utilize the proper facts and proper reasoning as in the section "With Facts, Intelligence, and Reasoning" of my "Dialog & Debate" article, as well as my "Reasoning" article. For to ascertain the truth, you should remember:

“There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning.”
 - Mark Dawson

10/13/21 A Declaration of Liberty

Cliff Nichols has written an article, “Who in America is Entitled to Call Who an Insurrectionist These Days?” in which he states:

“… a just government must be one restrained by, in compliance with and obedient to both the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended, and to the venerable Rule of Law upon which it was founded.

But, alas, that is not the case presently before the people of the United States.

For the truth is that the government presently vested with power unlawfully seized by means of fraud and other chicanery—amounting to domestic insurrection—has exercised that recently acquired power to put in place a train of abuses and usurpations that have only evinced a common design to institutionalize a tyranny that is unfit to rule a free people.

To prove this, let the following facts and circumstances be submitted openly to a candid world:

  1. The regime has weaponized our federal courts—including the Supreme Court— and the various branches of federal law enforcement — including the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice — to:

    • Persecute the regime’s political enemies for imagined crimes while stigmatizing many of them as domestic terrorists and extremists;

    • Turn a blind eye to even the most blatant crimes committed by those sympathetic to the regime’s politics, causes and ideologies;

    • Ignore and refuse to investigate any of the alleged voting irregularities of the 2020 election that have been sworn to have occurred under penalty of perjury by hundreds, if not thousands, of affiants in a multitude of states; and

    • Ignore and indeed refuse to provide any judicial review of any evidence that election laws in a multitude of states were altered in 2020 for the benefit of the regime in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

  2. The regime has weaponized a virus to spread a pandemic of fear among the population that has served the regime as a false flag used to distract the public’s attention away from its election chicanery.

  3. The regime has weaponized so-called social justice ideologies like cancel culture to untether this nation from its true history for the purpose of erasing both our culture’s virtues and our advancements as a society to overcome and remedy our cultural defects.

  4. In turn, this anti-American Marxist regime has weaponized the historical vacuum created by cancel culture ideology to enable it to use critical race theory to cement in place a fabricated tale of American history based on false allegations that there exists systemically race-based capitalist oppression by all whites of all racial minorities.

  5. In turn, this fabricated anti-American historical narrative, based on identity politics, has been weaponized by the regime to create out of thin air a poisonous, racially divided social atmosphere which they are using to promote the public’s pursuit of their own false promise that only a socialist society based on so-called “social justice” notions like equity and diversity will usher us toward a utopian state that will be able to cure the very racial divisions that this illegitimate regime is working so hard today to both create and fulminate by promoting, encouraging, supporting and defending:

    • Marxist anarchists going by names like ANTIFA and BLM that threaten citizens with the violence of mob rule;

    • Defunding, dismantling and demoralizing local law enforcement officers and their departments across America while also attempting to seize our weapons to lower the public’s defenses against such mob rule and the diktats of the regime; an

    • Opening our borders to be invaded by hordes of un-vetted immigrants in violation of our nation’s immigration laws, to dilute the voter base of patriotic Americans while exhausting the funds and resources of their communities.

  6. To advance its anti-American agenda, the regime has enlisted the cooperation of its sympathizers in the media and big tech/social media companies to disseminate its propaganda while at the same time also censoring and silencing those who would wish to voice their opposition to the regime’s agenda.

Therefore, to restore domestic tranquility, the undersigned hereby demand that all now serving in the federal government shall forthwith do all that is necessary and appropriate to:

If the foregoing demands are not met, the undersigned hereby declare that they will be required to absolve themselves from any allegiance to the regime defying these principles, and with firm reliance on guidance by divine Providence, they hereby commit themselves to do all that is necessary and lawful to return a government to America that in both word and deed is completely committed to protecting for all individuals their God-given rights to freely pursue and enjoy their lives … and their liberty.”

This, along with my "A New Declaration of Independence", makes a compelling case for the unconstitutionality of President Biden and his administration actions.

10/11/21 Updated New Declaration of Independence

Give all the assaults to our Liberties and Freedoms by President Biden and his administration, as well as the Democrat Party controlled Congress as I have documented in many of my current Chirps, I though it necessary to update my "A New Declaration of Independence" article to include these assaults. This New Declaration of Independence has also been reorganized, edited, and amended for clarity purposes. In reading the ’Particulars’ of this New Declaration of Independence one can understand the feelings of succession that are rising in America, as I have Chirped on, “10/10/21 Succession”. One can also understand the urgency of correcting these particulars to preserve our Liberties and Freedoms, and to reinstitute our American Ideals and Ideas.

10/10/21 Succession

The national divide has gotten so deep that even the brilliant Roger Simon has broached the subject of succession: “I never thought I’d be writing about secession or anything close. Not in a million years.” So begins a new article by Professor Rob Natelson - “Avoiding Secession Through an Amendments Convention”.

In this article, he states that historically much “Secession movements are responses to national policies imposed over strong objections from particular regions of the country” and “As with previous secession movements, modern secession sentiment derives from regional dissatisfaction with national policy.” He proposes that rather than succession, we should attempt to decentralize Federal power, as our Founding Fathers envisioned our republic:

“The Founders understood the advantages of decentralization. That’s why they created a federal, rather than a unitary, government. History had shown that free republics endure only if they govern small territories. Republics occupying large areas degenerated into despotism, because holding together regions with disparate interests and cultures requires a strong man or military oligarchy. An obvious example was the Roman Republic, which couldn’t adapt to territorial expansion and therefore degenerated into autocracy. Another example is Russia today.”

The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and the Soviet Empire are also more modern examples of despotism that was required to maintain an empire. A despotism that failed and resulted in World War I and the end of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, and the eventual collapse of the British and Soviet Empires after World War II.

His solution is to force Congress to call a Constitution Convention to address this issue. His article explains the history of Article V of the Constitution permits two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments and how this may come about. He concludes his article with:

“We have everything to gain from a convention of states and nothing to lose (claims that an amendments convention is uncontrollable or could be controlled by Congress are myths without historical or legal basis). Accordingly, we have a moral and legal obligation to employ that constitutional tool before splitting up the country.”

The issues that drive the feeling for succession need to be resolved to quell calls for succession, as well as create a more unified America. A more unified America that resolves the issues that I have stated in the ‘Particulars’ section of my Article, “A New Declaration of Independence”. If we do not do so than intense Civil Strife, and a possible Civil War, may be required to produce a unified America based on our American Ideals and Ideas. Or perhaps succession may be required to end the divisiveness in America.

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor, is a senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, CO, and a senior adviser to the Convention of States movement. His research articles on the Constitution’s meaning have been cited repeatedly by justices and parties in the Supreme Court. He is the author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”

10/09/21 Regulating Big Tech

As I have written in my Article, "Who Needs Government Suppression When You Have Big Tech Suppression?", the government need to longer be censors as "Social Media" has become the modern day censors for the "Progressives/Leftists" dogma. Anyone who would disagree with their political opinions or viewpoints, political opinions and viewpoints that have a decidedly progressive, leftists, and Democratic Party orientation, is either suspended, suppressed, de-monetized, or labeled as misinformation, along with other methods to restrict the viewing of their comments.

This censorship has serious consequences for our society, as Free Speech is the lubricant for the retention of our Liberties and Freedoms, not to mention that it skewers our elections as the electors do not have all the information that they need to be informed voters. The question is then how we can correct this situation without violating the rights of Social Media companies?

A new article by Kurt Schlichter, "Regulate Big Tech the Right Way – Unleash the Lawyers", proposes an answer to this question. He proposes ‘A Big Tech Control Act’ that would rectify this situation by:

"A Big Tech Control Act would set out a series of rights every citizen has in their social media presence against the large social media companies – the right to speak within the nearly limitless bounds of the First Amendment, the right to fair terms of service, the right to due process before any action is taken to limit their use of the platform, the right to control their data (and to have it protected), the right to full transparency of algorithms that control how an individual’s social media reach is controlled, and other rights that ensure every citizen can speak without fear."

"A Big Tech Control Act shall be broadly and liberally construed in favor of expanding and protecting the right of every American citizen to freely exercise his or her rights of free expression.”

" A Big Tech Control Act, it would include the right to go into court – with priority, so cases do not languish – to enjoin violations of these rights, to recover actual damages (the Act would recognize that social media presence has real monetary value), to win civil penalties or punitive damages, and to collect attorney’s fees."

This Big Tech Control Act would alleviate the need for government regulation of Social Media companies, as government regulation could easily be corrupted to serve the interest of Social Media companies as he explains in this article. As Social Media companies and their officers and employees are one of the largest contributors to the Democrat Party elections, and Progressives/Leftists causes, it seems unlikely that this Big Tech Control Act could be legislated in the current Congress and signed into law by the President.

However, this suggestion should be considered by future voters, and Congresses and the Presidency, to ensure that Free Speech is retained by individual Americans to assure our Liberties and Freedoms.

10/08/21 Are We Segregating?

One of the defining Supreme Court decisions was 1954’s “Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka”. This was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision's 14 pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II (349 U.S. 294 (1955)) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

This decision also set the predicate that all ‘separate but equal’ discriminations in the United States were Unconstitutional, thus legally ending segregation and discrimination in the United States. The Civil Rights movement was galvanized by this decision and began its crusade to end racism and discrimination in all aspects of American society, resulting in several Civil Rights Acts that ended institutionalized discrimination. Although largely successful in changing American societies' perspectives and activities on racism and discrimination, there are, and always will be, vestiges of racism in any society as racism seems to be inherent in human nature.

And this inherent human nature of racism seems to be again rearing its ugly head in America. But not in the form of White Supremacy but in the form of White Discrimination. As I have written in my "Terminology" webpage; Political Correctness, Virtue Signaling, Cancel Culture, Doxing, Wokeness, Identity Politics, Equity and Equality, the Greater Good versus the Common Good, "Social Engineering", and "Herd Mentality" have all contributed to this White Discrimination. Much of this White Discrimination is manifested by Progressives/Leftists, Democrat Party Leaders, Mainstream Cultural Media, Mainstream Media, Modern Big Business, Modern Education, and Social Media.

The believers in ‘Critical Race Theory’ and ‘The 1619 Project’, along with Antifa and Black Lives Matter, are some of the most prominent and vocal proponents of White Discrimination. The Democrat Party utilizes Identity Politics to pit racial groups against whites as a means of garnering votes. Modern Education has set aside dormitories and study spaces that exclude white people. Different criteria for people of color in educational grading and higher education acceptance and enrollment have been established. Hiring and promotions in business have been based on racial factors rather than merit. Governmental programs and assistance have been targeted at non-white persons. Entertainment and Sports awards now have categories that exclude white persons.

White Guilt and accusations of White Privilege are utilized to stigmatize all white people as a means to lessen their moral authority to comment on racial issues and to institute Reverse Discrimination. And all of the above is contrary to Martin Luther King jr.’s ideals as espoused in his “I Have a Dream” speech:

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’“

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

“I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’”

The Democrat Party Leaders and their constituents accept this as necessary and proper to rectify past racism and discrimination. Regrettably, this means that in the present white persons who do not believe in racism or discrimination are forced to be victims of White Discrimination. This leads to the sins of the father being vested upon the son, as I have written about in my Article, “Sins of the Fathers and of Youth”. Vesting the sins of the father upon the son is immoral and should never be tolerated by those that believe in "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All forms of discrimination, including White Segregation and Discrimination, are contrary to our American Ideals and Ideas and should not be tolerated in America.

10/07/21 The Fear of Despotism

Recent words and deeds of President Biden and his administration reveal the despotic nature of the Biden Administration. Their utilization of "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate", shaming, badmouthing those that disagree with them, or accusations of bad character or ill intentions of their opponents appears to be preferred means to achieve their goals, rather than persuasion and convincing Americans to voluntarily adopt their ‘suggestions’. And if that does not work, they take despotic actions through threats of governmental intimidation or punishment to achieve their political goals and policy agendas. All these words and deeds are an assault on our Natural and Constitutional Rights and demonstrate that President Biden and his administration prefer to be rulers rather than leaders, as I have written in my Article "To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders".

From the COVID-19 Vaccine Coercions and Mandates, the FBI announcement of the monitoring of School Board Meetings, the proposal that financial institutions report to the IRS any transaction over $600, the various Gun Control Executive Orders, to no bail and long confinement before judicial proceedings for the January 6th rioters, amongst a host of other speech and actions they have utilized threats of despotic governmental actions. Threats and actions that can lead to the reputational or financial ruin of Americans and possible fines and/or imprisonment for the individuals that they target. Although they may not undertake these actions, they want you to be afraid that they may target you if you exercise your Natural and Constitutional Rights.

Most disconcerting is their attempts to limit or shut down the Free Speech and Petitioning Rights of those that oppose their political goals and policy agendas. They are trying to label anyone who vigorously opposes them as ‘Domestic Terrorists’, and then threaten to arrest and prosecute them for exercising their First and Second Amendment Rights of:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

They have also threatened our fourth amendment rights as I have chirped on “10/06/21 Probable Cause”. They have tried to justify these actions because of the acrimonious, acerbic, hostile, and vehemence of those persons who strongly disagree with their political goals and policy agendas. They should remember, however, that:

“Acrimonious disagreement is not terrorism, nor is acerbic argument a crime.”
 - Gregg Jarrett

and

“The First Amendment protects speech unless it unambiguously calls for the use of force that the speaker clearly intends, under circumstances in which the likelihood of violence is real and imminent. Even actual "threats of violence" are not actionable unless they meet this high threshold.”
- Andrew McCarthy

They should also remember their Oath of Office to ‘Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States’ requires that they preserve and protect the Constitutional and Natural Rights of all Americans, and not just those Americans that agree with them.

10/06/21 Probable Cause

One of the great protections of our Natural Rights is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment ensures our privacy from government intrusion unless there is probable cause to allegations of criminal activities of a person. This probable cause must be established in a Court of Law under a Judge’s review before the government can intrude upon our privacy, only they can only intrude on our privacy under the auspices of a search warrant. This protection makes it more difficult for the government to root out criminal activity, especially before it occurs, but the government should not have an easy path to violate our Constitutional Rights.

The Patriot Act was the first salvo in circumventing our Fourth Amendment rights. While The Patriot Act intentions were good, its implementation left much to be desired, as I have examined in my Political Issues Observation on “The Patriot Act”. Since that time, there has been other legislation that has encroached upon our Fourth Amendment rights, all in the name of safety or law enforcement.

There is a new proposal aimed at curbing tax evasion that is part of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package under consideration by Congress. A proposal that I believe blatantly violates our privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. This proposal, which is being pushed by the Biden administration, would require banks and other financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) any deposits or withdrawals totaling more than $600 annually to or from all business and personal accounts. President Biden is also proposing to double the size of the IRS by hiring nearly 87,000 new workers over the next decade, with a corresponding doubling of the budget for the IRS.

With the Patriot Act, the government keeps track of our phone messages, e-mail, and text messages, and with this proposal, they would keep track of our financial transactions. And all of this is being done without probable cause and search warrants. The defenders of these government actions retort that the government cannot search this collected information without a warrant, but in practice, we have seen that this does not always occur or occurs without proper safeguards to our Fourth Amendment rights (such as in the withholding of exculpatory evidence or sometimes false testimony). In addition, the IRS Proposal allows them to search this information prior to probable cause to determine if tax evasion has occurred. This is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment as it presumes illegality before probable cause (a.k.a. A Fishing Expedition) that requires no warrants to protect our privacy rights. There is also a presumption of guilt until proven innocent when the IRS notices something suspicious in these financial transactions.

This proposal needs to be resisted at all costs, and if it becomes law, it needs to be challenged as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Also, the Patriot Act, and other laws that allow the government to snoop upon the people, need to be changed to protect our Fourth Amendment Rights. To not do so is to make the government spies upon the personal affairs of the people, which is an encroachment upon our Liberties and Freedoms.

10/05/21 Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience

In an article by Paul Adams, a professor emeritus of social work at the University of Hawai‘i, and was professor and associate dean of academic affairs at Case Western Reserve University, the article “If There Is No Truth, There Is No Injustice” puts forward:

“Can there be injustice if there is no truth?

Martin Luther King Jr. considered this question in his powerful Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963). He was responding to fellow members of the clergy who opposed segregation but rejected civil disobedience, which involved breaking the law. His central point was that laws may be just or unjust. We have a duty to obey just laws and to oppose, even defy, unjust laws. We need to recognize that both kinds exist and learn how to tell the difference.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote and spoke extensively about just and unjust laws, and social justice, in his  “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech as well as other speeches and letters, which I have extracted in my “Quotes of Martin Luther King Jr.” webpage. Of particular interest to this Chirp is the following quotes:

“One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’“
 - Martin Luther King Jr.

Therefore, it is the preservation of Natural Rights that makes a law just and the violation of Natural Rights that makes a law unjust. There is always a tension between the Natural Rights of individuals and the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests. The Natural Rights between individuals are a matter of civil disputes to be decided by law, but the Natural Rights of individuals and societal interests are Constitutional issues, as the Constitution was formulated to constrict government to preserve Natural Rights. When a conflict arises between the Natural Rights of individuals and Societal interests, only a compelling interest of Society can override Natural Rights, and that compelling societal interest is the harm to the safety and security of individuals and society in an emergency, and such Natural Rights violations must be of limited scope and duration.

This brings us to the question of the governmental actions to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic – were these actions just or unjust in relation to a compelling interest of Society, and were they limited in scope and duration? At the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the restrictions they imposed may have been just if these restrictions were supported by a cogent scientific basis. As the science at the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic was unclear, they may have been justified. However, as the science became clearer and as a vaccine was developed, the scientific basis for these restrictions no longer supported a compelling societal interest to infringe upon our Natural Rights.

As the science revealed that the COVID-19 virus was spread as an aerosol and that the masks that people used were ineffective against aerosols, and the dangers of the COVID-19 virus were mostly limited to the elderly and specific groups of persons, the violations of our Natural Rights were no longer a compelling interest of society. With the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine, those that chose to take that vaccine were in no danger to their health from those that chose not to take the vaccine or those that have natural immunity. Therefore, there is no compelling societal interest to force the unvaccinated person or those that have a natural immunity to take the vaccine. Indeed, as I have Chirped on, "09/24/21 Have We Learned Nothing", it is immoral and unethical to force an individual to undergo a medical procedure without their ‘informed consent. Consequently, the current government restrictions and requirements of COVID-19, especially the governmental coercion to take the COVID-19 vaccine, are unjust.

Therefore, as Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, these restrictions and requirements being unjust ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws’. It is, therefore, the duty and responsibility for Americans to disobey these restrictions and requirements to preserve our Natural Rights and our Liberties and Freedoms. It is also the duty and responsibility of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court to overturn these restrictions and requirements as they are Unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Natural Right to not undergo a medical procedure is one of the rights ‘retained by the people’. Therefore, Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court would be in violation of their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States if they did not overturn these COVID-19 restrictions and requirements.

The failure of the Supreme Court to not even consider lawsuits challenging these COVID-19 restrictions and requirements is especially egregious. By not doing so, they are eviscerating the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. This is not surprising, however, as I have written in my Article, "The Failures of the Supreme Court", as they have often not ruled on Ninth Amendment Natural Rights issues, or they have ruled incorrectly not based on Ninth Amendment Natural Rights issues such as Dread Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade.

When the Supreme Court does not rule or rules incorrectly, the consequences for America are too often destructive to American society. It has resulted in Civil War, Institutionalized Racism, and Civil Strife in America, and often government overreach of their enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the case of the COVID-19 restrictions and requirements, it may result in the destruction of our essential Liberties and Freedoms and the imposition of despotism in America.

10/04/21 Why You Should Quit Social Media

For years, people have accused social media, and particularly image-driven sites like Instagram, of being bad for young people, particularly young women. It turns that Instagram’s owner, Facebook, agrees:

“Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.”

This was one of the findings of internal Instagram researchers, which was included in a presentation slide posted to Facebook’s internal messaging board in March 2020. Teen girls aren’t the only ones affected, as Facebook’s 2019 research report found that 14 p