Two Johns Hopkins professors, both with apparently too much idle time, have concocted a cockamamie idea. They are advocating for Coordinated Universal Time. No more pesky time zones to decipher. The world's clocks would all be synced to display the same hour at the same time.
In practical terms, that means that regardless of the position of the sun in the sky, every clock in every town and village on planet Earth would be set for the same, exact hour, minute and second. If it's 7 a.m. in Dubai, then it's 7 a.m. in Bug Tussle, Texas. But it may be sunny in Dubai and dark in Texas.
The professors, Steve Hanke, an economist, and Richard Conn Henry, an astronomer, are scholarly serious, we think. Their idea was chronicled in a recent edition of The Wall Street Journal, which treated the subject with journalistic reverence. But today that means diddly as you know.
The professorial duo argue that people would rise with the sun and retire for the evening at dark, no matter the time. Our body clocks would recalibrate in a matter of days. Apparently, these guys have never flown across multiple time zones and the international dateline. It will befuddle your body.
By now you are probably perplexed about the benefits of change? Why mess with centuries of time keeping? Because, you ancient Neanderthal, the world would be a simpler place. Whether you're traveling or managing an international business, you wouldn't be stumped about the local time.
These erudite intellectuals point out that whole industries already operate on a universal clock, such as airlines, the stock market and the international space station. Even our nation's railroads use a modified version. Why can't the rest of us march in a timely matter to their clock?
To give you a preview of life under Coordinated Universal Time, the sun would begin to peek over the horizon in the United States about noon. (That would be perfect for us seniors). But the sun would set around midnight. And people today howl about Daylight Savings Time! Whew!
First I am certain the National Rooster Union (NRU) would crow foul (or fowl?). These poor birds would never know when to signal it was morning. Should they let loose at 5 a.m. or when the sun rises? And what about all those nocturnal animals? It would drive bats batty.
Teenagers might like the idea of sleeping until noon before their school day begins at 4 p.m. However, they sure would be grumpy working on homework until 1 a.m. Bars would be open until 8 a.m. Drunk driving would become a national pastime. Only Budweiser would cheer.
Long haul truck drivers would pull over at a rest stop at 2 p.m. but they couldn't snooze because of the blinding sun. The nightly news would begin at midnight when most folks would be too sleepy to watch. Prescriptions for sleeping pills would quadruple. Everyone would have two My Pillows.
July 4th fireworks would be scrapped because who wants to stay up until after midnight to gaze up at a few bursts of color? Count me asleep. Napping could become a lost art. Can anyone justify reclining in a barcalounger at 6 p.m.? Working the night shift would be everyone's worst nightmare.
Couples would stop having children. Imagine the difficulty of training your newborn when to sleep and when to wake. Churches would shutter their doors because worshipers would keep arriving at odd hours. A flummoxed parishioner might ask: "I thought sunrise service was at 7 a.m. not noon!"
However, there would be one benefit. Congress would still convene at 9 a.m. That means most of us would be sleeping. Legislators could pass bills, condemn colleagues and alter our lives with rules while we are kept in the dark. Come to think of it, that's one thing that wouldn't change.
Monday, July 29, 2019
Monday, July 22, 2019
Demographic Data: Older Voters Are The Future
Conventional wisdom often is dead wrong. Take the latest election hyperbole perpetuated by both major political parties. Their widely accepted thesis is no presidential candidate can win without courting support from Millennials. It has become the mantra of the 2020 presidential election.
In a recent column posted on Fox News, a political analysis appeared under the headline: "To Triumph in 2020, Republicans Will Need to Win Over Millennials." At the opposite end of the political media spectrum, NPR opined online, "The Game for 2020: Wooing Millennials."
This political obsession with Millennial voters is nothing new. In 2016, virtually every political pundit forecast that Millennials would be the deciding factor in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton won 53% of young voters, but lost the election. So much for conventional wisdom.
Those who blindly embrace the theory of Millennial power have overlooked two easily discoverable facts. One issue is a matter of simple demographic data. The largest increase in voting age groups in the past few presidential elections has been Americans aged 65 and older, according to Census data.
The total number of citizens who reached voting age in the 2016 election increased by nine million from the 2012 presidential contest. Of that number, six million or two-thirds were Americans aged 65 and over. The country's electorate is graying, the opposite of what the media has portrayed.
An intelligent observer would expect the political parties to zero on seniors, especially in light of their propensity to show up on election day. For the first time in decades, voters over 65 years old outnumbered those aged 18-34 in the 2016 presidential contest. Let that sink in.
Somehow this fact has escaped the highly paid political consultant class. Try this. In 2008, Mr. Obama's win was fueled by the fact young voters outnumbered older ones by six million. Eight years later, Mr. Trump was victorious because older voters exceeded youthful ones by more than a million.
For at least the next few election cycles, Census demographics underscore the importance of the senior vote, despite the media and political party hoopla about Generations X, Y and Z. Pew Research estimates 23% of voters in the 2020 election will be 65-plus, the highest level since 1970.
Two trends are influencing this growth in older voters. Birthrates have dwindled substantially since the baby boom period from 1946-1964. And secondly, Americans are living longer than in any previous generation. Those two data points are indisputable evidence of the Gray Wave.
The future should be clear by now. In the war of generations, the old folks are winning at the ballot box. Politicians ignore this at their own peril. In fact, focusing on Millennials can actually alienate seniors because they tend to be more conservative than liberal-minded young people.
The other issue is the lower turnout rates for Millennials. Analysis of voting over the last several decades confirms that people 65+ are more likely to cast votes than any other age group. In the 2016 election, turnout for Millennials was 50%, compared to 71% for seniors, a yawning disparity.
Democrats are planning an urgent appeal to Millennials in 2020 to gin up enough excitement to motivate young people to show up. The nadir for Millennial turnout was the 2008 election when Barrack Obama ignited youthful enthusiasm. The turnout rate was still only 52%.
After looking at the historical data, Washington Post political columnist Phillip Bump concluded that a campaign that depends on the Millennial vote is "doomed to failure." One political analyst in Mr. Bump's article noted that Millennials were "stuck to their phones and uninterested in politics."
Actually, that last comment may be another example of conventional wisdom gone awry. The Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California found that today's Millennials are about as interested in politics as prior generations of American young people.
Studies show many Millennials are politically active in protests, demonstrations and on campuses. However, they are less likely to vote or to influence others to go to the polls than their counterparts were in the 80's generation or the first wave of Boomers in the 1960's.
Tufts University reported that Millennials are often early in their careers with inflexible schedules that afford them less time to vote. They also tend to be more mobile in these years, which could delay voter registration in their state. But those things have always been true about young people.
Reviewing voting and Census data, a trend emerges that better explains this phenomenon. The numbers indicate that young people tend to have lower voter turnout in most every decade with a few exceptions. As they get older, mature and their priorities change, they are more likely to vote.
But it is also true that as voters age they have historically become more conservative than they were when they were young. Despite this fact, political gurus are insisting today's voters in their 20's and 30's are unlikely to change their views as they turn older. We have heard that one before, too.
While Republicans and Democrats chase after those rabbits known as Millennials this election, those turtles sunning in their wheelchairs and pushing their walkers will decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest. That prospect is enough to make a young person to stay home on election day.
In a recent column posted on Fox News, a political analysis appeared under the headline: "To Triumph in 2020, Republicans Will Need to Win Over Millennials." At the opposite end of the political media spectrum, NPR opined online, "The Game for 2020: Wooing Millennials."
This political obsession with Millennial voters is nothing new. In 2016, virtually every political pundit forecast that Millennials would be the deciding factor in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton won 53% of young voters, but lost the election. So much for conventional wisdom.
Those who blindly embrace the theory of Millennial power have overlooked two easily discoverable facts. One issue is a matter of simple demographic data. The largest increase in voting age groups in the past few presidential elections has been Americans aged 65 and older, according to Census data.
The total number of citizens who reached voting age in the 2016 election increased by nine million from the 2012 presidential contest. Of that number, six million or two-thirds were Americans aged 65 and over. The country's electorate is graying, the opposite of what the media has portrayed.
An intelligent observer would expect the political parties to zero on seniors, especially in light of their propensity to show up on election day. For the first time in decades, voters over 65 years old outnumbered those aged 18-34 in the 2016 presidential contest. Let that sink in.
Somehow this fact has escaped the highly paid political consultant class. Try this. In 2008, Mr. Obama's win was fueled by the fact young voters outnumbered older ones by six million. Eight years later, Mr. Trump was victorious because older voters exceeded youthful ones by more than a million.
For at least the next few election cycles, Census demographics underscore the importance of the senior vote, despite the media and political party hoopla about Generations X, Y and Z. Pew Research estimates 23% of voters in the 2020 election will be 65-plus, the highest level since 1970.
Two trends are influencing this growth in older voters. Birthrates have dwindled substantially since the baby boom period from 1946-1964. And secondly, Americans are living longer than in any previous generation. Those two data points are indisputable evidence of the Gray Wave.
The future should be clear by now. In the war of generations, the old folks are winning at the ballot box. Politicians ignore this at their own peril. In fact, focusing on Millennials can actually alienate seniors because they tend to be more conservative than liberal-minded young people.
The other issue is the lower turnout rates for Millennials. Analysis of voting over the last several decades confirms that people 65+ are more likely to cast votes than any other age group. In the 2016 election, turnout for Millennials was 50%, compared to 71% for seniors, a yawning disparity.
Democrats are planning an urgent appeal to Millennials in 2020 to gin up enough excitement to motivate young people to show up. The nadir for Millennial turnout was the 2008 election when Barrack Obama ignited youthful enthusiasm. The turnout rate was still only 52%.
After looking at the historical data, Washington Post political columnist Phillip Bump concluded that a campaign that depends on the Millennial vote is "doomed to failure." One political analyst in Mr. Bump's article noted that Millennials were "stuck to their phones and uninterested in politics."
Actually, that last comment may be another example of conventional wisdom gone awry. The Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California found that today's Millennials are about as interested in politics as prior generations of American young people.
Studies show many Millennials are politically active in protests, demonstrations and on campuses. However, they are less likely to vote or to influence others to go to the polls than their counterparts were in the 80's generation or the first wave of Boomers in the 1960's.
Tufts University reported that Millennials are often early in their careers with inflexible schedules that afford them less time to vote. They also tend to be more mobile in these years, which could delay voter registration in their state. But those things have always been true about young people.
Reviewing voting and Census data, a trend emerges that better explains this phenomenon. The numbers indicate that young people tend to have lower voter turnout in most every decade with a few exceptions. As they get older, mature and their priorities change, they are more likely to vote.
But it is also true that as voters age they have historically become more conservative than they were when they were young. Despite this fact, political gurus are insisting today's voters in their 20's and 30's are unlikely to change their views as they turn older. We have heard that one before, too.
While Republicans and Democrats chase after those rabbits known as Millennials this election, those turtles sunning in their wheelchairs and pushing their walkers will decide the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest. That prospect is enough to make a young person to stay home on election day.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Historical Malpractice: Defaming Founding Fathers
The latest brouhaha involving former NFL quarterback turned racial victim Colin Kaepernick is a manifestation of the fashionable disparagement of the nation's Founding Fathers. This fabricated flap over the flag and Betsy Ross underscores the deliberate demonizing of America's history.
For those who haven't heard of the faux uproar, Nike pulled the release of shoes with a 13-star American flag at the request of Kaepernick, who cited the Betsy Ross design was related to a time in history when slavery existed in America. The shoe's flag design was to mark Independence Day.
When Nike kowtowed to this has-been player, there were calls for boycotting the shoe manufacturer. The company ignored the complaints, secure in the fact that many politicians, pro athletes, social agitators and a cadre of influential African-Americans activists would fervently support their action.
This is part of a orchestrated conspiracy to make villains of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and anyone associated with building this great nation. If you are skeptical of such a searing indictment, here are a few excerpts from the media cabal on our Founding Fathers.
"Founding Fathers, Founding Villains," from the Boston Review magazine. The New York Times that paragon of journalistic elitism carried an article that opined "the Founding Fathers were paranoid hypocrites and ungrateful malcontents."
The Atlantic magazine contained a tome that claimed the Founding Fathers "were not smarter than the best their country can offer now, they weren't wiser or more altruistic." Jurist, published by the University of Pittsburgh, alleged many founders "were socialists."
Now to address the grievances of Kaepernick, who must be ill informed about American history. According to most historical sources, there is "no conclusive" evidence that Betsy Ross designed the original American flag. The narrative is based on claims by Betsy's descendents. It is likely a myth.
What Kaepernick and other anti-American proselytes want to do is besmirch the Founding Fathers by judging them on current standards, dwelling on their defects, instead of their achievements. Not only is this unfair, it fails to recognize the difference in social, moral and ethical norms of that era.
What the critics overlook is that our Founding Fathers risked everything to build an independent nation built on ideals that have been the bedrock for facilitating many of the changes that ended slavery, wiped out segregation, gave women the right to vote and made us a better nation.
The 56 white men (yes, there were no women or people of color) who met in Philadelphia to declare our independence from England radically changed the course of human history. The idea of freedom over tyranny and the God-given rights of people took root here and spread the world over.
The convictions of these courageous men led to their being branded traitors, faced with the prospect of forfeiting all their possession to the English if their revolution failed. They were willing to let the English put bounties on their own heads for the sake of freedom and liberty.
Many at the meeting in Philadelphia paid a steep price for their rebellion. Richard Stockton of New Jersey had his home overrun by the British. He was captured and remained in prison for years. After he was released, he returned home to find his livestock destroyed, crops ruined and library burned.
Lewis Morris of New York lost almost all his property and wealth in the war, just two months after signing the Declaration of Independence. His frail wife was imprisoned by the British and never recovered her health. Fellow New Yorker Philip Livingston had his homes burned to the ground.
Robert Morris of Pennsylvania supported the war effort by extending credit to the fledgling country. He lost his substantial wealth and was never repaid. Like many, he risked everything to stand for freedom against the English oppressors. Today no one acknowledges his suffering.
Thanks to the sacrifices of our Founding Fathers the nation survived and earned the right of the Kaepernicks in America to speak out against injustice. Instead of praising their efforts, their ignorance of history and search for imperfections have fueled a rush to judgment of these leaders.
Certainly, no historian would deny many of our Founding Fathers were flawed individuals. They had character faults; some were slave owners; at least one was a known playboy, and each arrived at this point in history with their own biases and peccadilloes. But their actions were patriotically unselfish.
No past president, world leader, religious figure or explorer (see Christopher Columbus) can survive unscathed from judgment by callous hindsight and the malpractice of historical scholarship when its practitioners do no acknowledge the difference in time periods.
It is time more American leaders and ordinary citizens call out those who would rewrite history to serve their own grievances, resentment, political or social purposes. We should all be proud of our Founding Fathers' actions to carve out a nation built on principles that remain intact today.
For those who haven't heard of the faux uproar, Nike pulled the release of shoes with a 13-star American flag at the request of Kaepernick, who cited the Betsy Ross design was related to a time in history when slavery existed in America. The shoe's flag design was to mark Independence Day.
When Nike kowtowed to this has-been player, there were calls for boycotting the shoe manufacturer. The company ignored the complaints, secure in the fact that many politicians, pro athletes, social agitators and a cadre of influential African-Americans activists would fervently support their action.
This is part of a orchestrated conspiracy to make villains of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and anyone associated with building this great nation. If you are skeptical of such a searing indictment, here are a few excerpts from the media cabal on our Founding Fathers.
"Founding Fathers, Founding Villains," from the Boston Review magazine. The New York Times that paragon of journalistic elitism carried an article that opined "the Founding Fathers were paranoid hypocrites and ungrateful malcontents."
The Atlantic magazine contained a tome that claimed the Founding Fathers "were not smarter than the best their country can offer now, they weren't wiser or more altruistic." Jurist, published by the University of Pittsburgh, alleged many founders "were socialists."
Now to address the grievances of Kaepernick, who must be ill informed about American history. According to most historical sources, there is "no conclusive" evidence that Betsy Ross designed the original American flag. The narrative is based on claims by Betsy's descendents. It is likely a myth.
What Kaepernick and other anti-American proselytes want to do is besmirch the Founding Fathers by judging them on current standards, dwelling on their defects, instead of their achievements. Not only is this unfair, it fails to recognize the difference in social, moral and ethical norms of that era.
What the critics overlook is that our Founding Fathers risked everything to build an independent nation built on ideals that have been the bedrock for facilitating many of the changes that ended slavery, wiped out segregation, gave women the right to vote and made us a better nation.
The 56 white men (yes, there were no women or people of color) who met in Philadelphia to declare our independence from England radically changed the course of human history. The idea of freedom over tyranny and the God-given rights of people took root here and spread the world over.
The convictions of these courageous men led to their being branded traitors, faced with the prospect of forfeiting all their possession to the English if their revolution failed. They were willing to let the English put bounties on their own heads for the sake of freedom and liberty.
Many at the meeting in Philadelphia paid a steep price for their rebellion. Richard Stockton of New Jersey had his home overrun by the British. He was captured and remained in prison for years. After he was released, he returned home to find his livestock destroyed, crops ruined and library burned.
Lewis Morris of New York lost almost all his property and wealth in the war, just two months after signing the Declaration of Independence. His frail wife was imprisoned by the British and never recovered her health. Fellow New Yorker Philip Livingston had his homes burned to the ground.
Robert Morris of Pennsylvania supported the war effort by extending credit to the fledgling country. He lost his substantial wealth and was never repaid. Like many, he risked everything to stand for freedom against the English oppressors. Today no one acknowledges his suffering.
Thanks to the sacrifices of our Founding Fathers the nation survived and earned the right of the Kaepernicks in America to speak out against injustice. Instead of praising their efforts, their ignorance of history and search for imperfections have fueled a rush to judgment of these leaders.
Certainly, no historian would deny many of our Founding Fathers were flawed individuals. They had character faults; some were slave owners; at least one was a known playboy, and each arrived at this point in history with their own biases and peccadilloes. But their actions were patriotically unselfish.
No past president, world leader, religious figure or explorer (see Christopher Columbus) can survive unscathed from judgment by callous hindsight and the malpractice of historical scholarship when its practitioners do no acknowledge the difference in time periods.
It is time more American leaders and ordinary citizens call out those who would rewrite history to serve their own grievances, resentment, political or social purposes. We should all be proud of our Founding Fathers' actions to carve out a nation built on principles that remain intact today.
Monday, July 8, 2019
Trump's Tweets Versus Dems Incendiary Rhetoric
Every tweet dashed off by President Trump jangles the psyche of Democrats. Tweets are so unpresidential they scoff. His cryptic dispatches are hurtful, mean-spirited. Trump's messages create confusion, contradicting staff. The uproar over 280 characters has never been so self-righteous.
On the subject of presidential docurm, Mr. Obama was hailed by the media when he became the first president to open a Twitter account. He posted more than 15,000 tweets to fawning praise. It was Mr. Obama, not Mr. Trump, who first broke with tradition to use social media as a political pulpit.
Democrats and Never-Trumpers demand Republicans renounce the president's tweets. They are appalled by his tone. For the record, I too wince at some tweets. However, like any president, Mr. Trump has the right to communicate in his unique style. No one is forced to read the tweets.
All this indignant outrage might be taken seriously if it wasn't so hypocritical. Democrats are seldom if ever called upon by the media to defend their colleagues often palatable Trump-loathing screeds or the incendiary, repulsive, vitriolic speech, including vile anti-Semitic rants.
The media stokes the tweet outrage by dissecting each one as if it were an atom then searches for those who are offended. They are rankled by the audacity of the president to announce news on Twitter rather than pandering to their interests, wounding their journalistic and personal ego.
It may explain why the media either ignores or glosses over scandalous language by Democrats. Before passing judgment on trifling social media missives, perhaps those who hold Mr. Trump in contempt should read the vicious tirades of Democrats reaching a wider media audience than tweets.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) has called on her supporters and all Democrats to "harass" Trump cabinet members. Her words have incited repugnant confrontations in restaurants aimed at former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and most recently Eric Trump.
No Democrat has dared condemn Waters for shouting to crowds "tell them (Cabinet members) they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Can you just imagine the puffed up fury if a Republican lawmaker would have urged people to do the same to Obama cabinet members?
Then you have precocious Democrat Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez comparing migrant detention centers to "concentration camps." Even giving her the benefit of her youthful 29-years, no educated person with an iota of historical knowledge would make such an outlandish, untruthful statement.
A member of Poland's Parliament invited the New Yorker to fly to his country to "study concentration camps." He admonished her because the comparison "cheapens the history" of Nazi camps for the purpose of "political point scoring." Democrats tip-toed around her comment to avoid confrontation.
In her latest dishonest broadside, Ms Ocasio-Cortez characterized the conditions at an El Paso County immigration detention center she visited as deplorable and complained about babies in dirty diapers and women drinking out of toilets. Her explosive invective garnered worldwide headlines.
However, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, toured the same facility later and reported his group of pastors "found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities." His rebuke was buried by the media.
Then you have Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) insulting Jews and all Americans by admitting she gets a "calming feeling" when "I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust." Her words should have led to her censure by Congress. A few heads shook but nothing more.
She also once screeched to impeach "the motherf----r" Mr. Trump. Take a moment and think what would have been the reaction if a Republican had used those exact words about former President Clinton. The offender would have been stampeded out of Washington by the media and colleagues.
Ms. Tlaib's fellow Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) has waded in deep into the murky waters of anti-Semitism. She claimed that Israel's allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reluctantly forced to call her out.
Not satisfied with one anti-Jewish slur, Rep. Omar charged Israel with "hypnotizing the world to carry out evil." She also trivialized the attacks of 9/11 by remarking that "some people did something (on 9/11) and that all of us (Muslims) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."
Instead of a Democrat groundswell to reign in this rhetorical swill, Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson has done the opposite. She warned that those "making fun of a member of Congress" should be "prosecuted," adding the authorities need to "shut them down."
Apparently in her view, freedom of speech does not include mocking members of Congress, even if the person is an eight-year old child actor. Ava Martinez, who parodies AOC on social media, has received death threats and harassment, forcing her mother to end the skits for the child's safety.
Rep. Wilson is not alone in her campaign to bully Democrat opposition. Today there are many in Congress who want freedom FROM speech they consider insensitive. They are determined to persecute, defame and imprison if necessary anyone who dares to exercise their right to free speech.
Is this the America we want? If Democrats have the right to smear and deliberately sow discord, then surely the President of the United States should not be silenced for his choice of words on Twitter. Or do Democrats prefer a double standard? Their actions indicate they do.
On the subject of presidential docurm, Mr. Obama was hailed by the media when he became the first president to open a Twitter account. He posted more than 15,000 tweets to fawning praise. It was Mr. Obama, not Mr. Trump, who first broke with tradition to use social media as a political pulpit.
Democrats and Never-Trumpers demand Republicans renounce the president's tweets. They are appalled by his tone. For the record, I too wince at some tweets. However, like any president, Mr. Trump has the right to communicate in his unique style. No one is forced to read the tweets.
All this indignant outrage might be taken seriously if it wasn't so hypocritical. Democrats are seldom if ever called upon by the media to defend their colleagues often palatable Trump-loathing screeds or the incendiary, repulsive, vitriolic speech, including vile anti-Semitic rants.
The media stokes the tweet outrage by dissecting each one as if it were an atom then searches for those who are offended. They are rankled by the audacity of the president to announce news on Twitter rather than pandering to their interests, wounding their journalistic and personal ego.
It may explain why the media either ignores or glosses over scandalous language by Democrats. Before passing judgment on trifling social media missives, perhaps those who hold Mr. Trump in contempt should read the vicious tirades of Democrats reaching a wider media audience than tweets.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) has called on her supporters and all Democrats to "harass" Trump cabinet members. Her words have incited repugnant confrontations in restaurants aimed at former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and most recently Eric Trump.
No Democrat has dared condemn Waters for shouting to crowds "tell them (Cabinet members) they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Can you just imagine the puffed up fury if a Republican lawmaker would have urged people to do the same to Obama cabinet members?
Then you have precocious Democrat Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez comparing migrant detention centers to "concentration camps." Even giving her the benefit of her youthful 29-years, no educated person with an iota of historical knowledge would make such an outlandish, untruthful statement.
A member of Poland's Parliament invited the New Yorker to fly to his country to "study concentration camps." He admonished her because the comparison "cheapens the history" of Nazi camps for the purpose of "political point scoring." Democrats tip-toed around her comment to avoid confrontation.
In her latest dishonest broadside, Ms Ocasio-Cortez characterized the conditions at an El Paso County immigration detention center she visited as deplorable and complained about babies in dirty diapers and women drinking out of toilets. Her explosive invective garnered worldwide headlines.
However, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, toured the same facility later and reported his group of pastors "found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities." His rebuke was buried by the media.
Then you have Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) insulting Jews and all Americans by admitting she gets a "calming feeling" when "I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust." Her words should have led to her censure by Congress. A few heads shook but nothing more.
She also once screeched to impeach "the motherf----r" Mr. Trump. Take a moment and think what would have been the reaction if a Republican had used those exact words about former President Clinton. The offender would have been stampeded out of Washington by the media and colleagues.
Ms. Tlaib's fellow Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) has waded in deep into the murky waters of anti-Semitism. She claimed that Israel's allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reluctantly forced to call her out.
Not satisfied with one anti-Jewish slur, Rep. Omar charged Israel with "hypnotizing the world to carry out evil." She also trivialized the attacks of 9/11 by remarking that "some people did something (on 9/11) and that all of us (Muslims) were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."
Instead of a Democrat groundswell to reign in this rhetorical swill, Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson has done the opposite. She warned that those "making fun of a member of Congress" should be "prosecuted," adding the authorities need to "shut them down."
Apparently in her view, freedom of speech does not include mocking members of Congress, even if the person is an eight-year old child actor. Ava Martinez, who parodies AOC on social media, has received death threats and harassment, forcing her mother to end the skits for the child's safety.
Rep. Wilson is not alone in her campaign to bully Democrat opposition. Today there are many in Congress who want freedom FROM speech they consider insensitive. They are determined to persecute, defame and imprison if necessary anyone who dares to exercise their right to free speech.
Is this the America we want? If Democrats have the right to smear and deliberately sow discord, then surely the President of the United States should not be silenced for his choice of words on Twitter. Or do Democrats prefer a double standard? Their actions indicate they do.
Monday, July 1, 2019
What Patriotism Means To Me
This July 4th my fellow Americans will dust off their flags for display. Don tee shirts featuring a patriotic slogan. Gawk at dazzling fireworks of red-white-and-blue explosions. For too many Americans, that's where patriotism starts and ends. It's a once a year expression. Little more.
There is nothing wrong with a day of celebrations, even if some are clueless about why July 4th matters. On that date in 1776 the Continental Congress declared the American colonies were no longer under the oppressive thumb of Britain with the passage of the Declaration of Independence.
My sense is that if you polled average Americans on their concept of patriotism their answers might baffle you. Some believe it is a blind loyalty to country. Others think it is voting, saluting the flag, standing for the National Anthem or supporting the military. All laudable exercises of freedom.
A growing minority attach all sorts of political causes to patriotism. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Treasury, once opined that patriotism was paying "taxes in full rather than seeking tax loopholes and squirreling away money abroad." Wonder if the founding fathers would agree?
Schools and universities today are dishing out a lot of nonsense about patriotism. According to news reports, students are being taught tolerance of transgender individuals, refraining from hurtful speech, saving the climate and opening borders to illegal immigrants are patriotic causes.
That is not what patriotism means to me. I revere the idealism expressed in the Declaration of Independence, particularly the opening paragraphs. The 1,337 word document enumerates the sacred compact every person makes when they become an American either by birth or naturalization.
Our often imitated, but never surpassed, declaration includes the idea that all men (and women) are created equal. That was a novel concept in 1776 and remains so centuries later in some countries. For those worried about equality today, visit other nations before too harshly judging America.
Americans also are endowed NOT by their government, but by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Under the Declaration of Independence, these rights cannot be taken away. Among the rights we enjoy as Americans are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We are free to follow our own course in life without interference from the government. To insure there is no tampering, our hollowed document underscores that the government derives its powers only with the consent of the people, not from politicians, political parties or the courts.
Not many Americans know that our grand treatise includes the admonition that we the people have the right to alter or abolish our form of government if it becomes destructive to the fundamental truths spelled out by the framers. That may sound extreme, but that's exactly why we ditched Britain.
At its core, America stands for freedom. That may ring quaint to those of us born in a free country, but look around the world today. Brutal dictators, rogue governments, military juntas and tyrants still rule many nations with an iron fist. That's why we should never, ever take freedom for granted.
As a patriot, I vehemently oppose anyone who would abridge our freedoms, whether they are leaders, legislators, court judges, police, military or unelected do-gooders. Too many Americans have died to protect and defend those freedoms for us to surrender even one of our God-given rights.
Our nation has many symbols to represent freedom. The Liberty Bell. Statue of Liberty. The American Flag. Our National Anthem. Patriotic celebrations. But symbols are not what makes America singular. Our country was built on noble ideals that have withstood the test of centuries.
Those principles have defined our nation. America has at times failed to live up to those soaring ideals. However, our moral compass, the Declaration of Independence, has guided us to reverse course after we have strayed from the values rooted in the soul of our nation.
Every human on the planet yearns for independence, freedom and contentment. That's why so many immigrants have endured hardships to become U.S. citizens. They often appreciate the wisdom of the American democratic experiment more than those families who have spent generations here.
Remember that on July 4th and every day. Reacquaint yourself with our Declaration of Independence. Discover in its words the essence of what it means to be an American. Proudly identify as a patriot who treasures the towering idealism of America.
There is nothing wrong with a day of celebrations, even if some are clueless about why July 4th matters. On that date in 1776 the Continental Congress declared the American colonies were no longer under the oppressive thumb of Britain with the passage of the Declaration of Independence.
My sense is that if you polled average Americans on their concept of patriotism their answers might baffle you. Some believe it is a blind loyalty to country. Others think it is voting, saluting the flag, standing for the National Anthem or supporting the military. All laudable exercises of freedom.
A growing minority attach all sorts of political causes to patriotism. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Treasury, once opined that patriotism was paying "taxes in full rather than seeking tax loopholes and squirreling away money abroad." Wonder if the founding fathers would agree?
Schools and universities today are dishing out a lot of nonsense about patriotism. According to news reports, students are being taught tolerance of transgender individuals, refraining from hurtful speech, saving the climate and opening borders to illegal immigrants are patriotic causes.
That is not what patriotism means to me. I revere the idealism expressed in the Declaration of Independence, particularly the opening paragraphs. The 1,337 word document enumerates the sacred compact every person makes when they become an American either by birth or naturalization.
Our often imitated, but never surpassed, declaration includes the idea that all men (and women) are created equal. That was a novel concept in 1776 and remains so centuries later in some countries. For those worried about equality today, visit other nations before too harshly judging America.
Americans also are endowed NOT by their government, but by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Under the Declaration of Independence, these rights cannot be taken away. Among the rights we enjoy as Americans are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We are free to follow our own course in life without interference from the government. To insure there is no tampering, our hollowed document underscores that the government derives its powers only with the consent of the people, not from politicians, political parties or the courts.
Not many Americans know that our grand treatise includes the admonition that we the people have the right to alter or abolish our form of government if it becomes destructive to the fundamental truths spelled out by the framers. That may sound extreme, but that's exactly why we ditched Britain.
At its core, America stands for freedom. That may ring quaint to those of us born in a free country, but look around the world today. Brutal dictators, rogue governments, military juntas and tyrants still rule many nations with an iron fist. That's why we should never, ever take freedom for granted.
As a patriot, I vehemently oppose anyone who would abridge our freedoms, whether they are leaders, legislators, court judges, police, military or unelected do-gooders. Too many Americans have died to protect and defend those freedoms for us to surrender even one of our God-given rights.
Our nation has many symbols to represent freedom. The Liberty Bell. Statue of Liberty. The American Flag. Our National Anthem. Patriotic celebrations. But symbols are not what makes America singular. Our country was built on noble ideals that have withstood the test of centuries.
Those principles have defined our nation. America has at times failed to live up to those soaring ideals. However, our moral compass, the Declaration of Independence, has guided us to reverse course after we have strayed from the values rooted in the soul of our nation.
Every human on the planet yearns for independence, freedom and contentment. That's why so many immigrants have endured hardships to become U.S. citizens. They often appreciate the wisdom of the American democratic experiment more than those families who have spent generations here.
Remember that on July 4th and every day. Reacquaint yourself with our Declaration of Independence. Discover in its words the essence of what it means to be an American. Proudly identify as a patriot who treasures the towering idealism of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)