Election 2024: A Historically Unconventional Race

The presidential race is thundering toward the finish line in the most inconceivable American election.  Donald Trump has been the target of two assassination attempts.  Kamala Harris carries the Democratic Party banner without the benefit of being elected by primary voters.  

Acts of political violence are a stain on American politics since the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.  Through the decades, three presidents have been killed and there have been seven presidential assassination attempts and the murder of Democrat candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. 

Another distinction of this election, Trump is the only presidential candidate who is a convicted felon.  Although even Democrats have dropped the reference because independents and Republicans are convinced the verdict was produced by a sham trial, it hovers over the presidential race. 

Vice President Harris holds the Democratic Party distinction of the only nominee to not receive a single primary vote since Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968.  Humphrey's nomination at the Democratic National Convention ended with his defeat to Richard Nixon.   

President Joe Biden after campaigning for more than a year dropped out on July 21, barely four months until election day.  A humbling debate performance cleared the way for Harris to assume the mantle.  Theories continue to ruminate about what prompted Biden's abrupt about face.

With the election in the homestretch, the polls continue to show the outcome will likely be decided by hundreds of thousands of voters in a few so-called swing states.  On the bellwether list: Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Nevada.  

In 2020, Biden's victory in those states cleared the way for his election. He won those six states by a total popular vote of 312,362.   In Pennsylvania, the Democrat won by 81,660 votes out of more than 3 million ballots case.  He carried Wisconsin by a slimmer margin, 20,682 votes and Nevada by 33,596.

Razor-thin vote margins in Arizona (10,457) and Georgia (11,779) benefited Biden.  Even Michigan, a charter member of the Big Blue Wall named for traditionally voting Democrat, gave Biden a comparatively slim edge of 154,188 votes out of more than 5 million ballots.  

Consider that the 2020 race was decided by less than 400,000 votes out of 158 million ballots cast.  Turnout was seven percentage points higher than the 2016 election.  A record 66% of citizens voted in the election. Some experts are forecasting higher turnout this cycle.

The two candidates are crisscrossing paths with each other ending up in the same state on the same day as they deliver their closing arguments in swing state voters.  A shift in a scintilla of votes could end up titling the election to Harris or Trump.  Dueling camps have bombarded the air waves with attack ads.

What started out as an election about issues, has descended into the junk yard politics mantra: Negative sells.  Trump is painted as Adolf Hitler, who murdered six million Jews and started a world war.  The caricature has been responsible for fueling a toxic political divide that threatens to rupture the country.

Trump has branded Harris a socialist and critiqued her intellect in demeaning language.  His early reference to Harris' racial ethnicity cringed even his supporters.  Both candidates are covered in mud and the voters are left in the quandary of selecting the person with the fewest smudges.  

Unsurprisingly,  national polls reveal the race is deadlocked with less than two weeks until Election Day.  Looking under the hood of the polls, there are positive and negative signs for both campaigns.  Polls agree on one point: Harris and Trump both have above average unfavorable ratings. 

Worrisome for the team Harris is that she is underperforming with key demographics that were responsible for Biden's narrow win.  She has lost support among Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, particularly men in those demographics.  If the trend continues, it will not bode well for Harris.

Trump is behind with college graduates and suburban women.  Abortion is proving to be an issue that still moves the needle with swaths of voters across party lines.  It was a crucial wedge issue in the 2022 midterms and could once again cleve Trump support among independents. 

Mail-in voting, a tool used extensively during the Covid-era election of 2020, is trending lower.  It turned out to be a boon for Democrats, but at least early signs don't indicate it will be as robust this year. However, early voting is on pace to break records, galloping ahead of 2020 and 2016 levels.

Political watchers are noticing early voting among Republicans is outperforming Democrats, a once unthinkable outcome. Republicans have traditionally preferred to cast ballots on Election Day.  

On election night, the early results in Pennsylvania will offer a clue to the remainder of the evening.  Biden banked 36.2 percent more early votes than Trump in 2020 to offset Republicans voting advantage on Election Day.  If Harris falls below 25%, it will be a clunker of a start to a long agonizing evening. 

The final tally could take days, since Arizona and Nevada are notoriously slow reporting results. Whatever the outcome, expect fireworks from the losing side.  Candidates have accused each other of being a threat to Democracy. There will be no gracious concession speeches.

Adding to the turbulence is revelations by U.S. spy agencies that foreign actors are using covert influence campaigns to interfere in the election. Intelligence indicates Russia, Iran and China are sewing discord and disinformation. Expect the losing candidate to point to election interference as a factor in their defeat.  

Campaign rancor and the divisive cultural chasm have the makings of a potential power keg in the election aftermath. The nation's temperature is north of 98.6 degrees. Let's pray for decorum in the name of saving democracy.  We should all want a peaceful end to this fractious election.  

Frolicking Your Way To Prescription Happiness

Exposure to pharmaceutical company advertising may leave you shaking your head.  Never have people looked so giddy about having a serious health issue.   Do these folks recognize disease is nothing to sing and dance about? Turns out, one little pill is a prescription for profuse jubilation.    

Pharmaceutical firms spent $1.1 billion on advertising in 2023, most of it on television to convince Americans to gulp more medications.  It must be working because Big Pharma racked up $722.5 billion in sales last year in the U.S., peddling more than 20,000 FDA approved drugs.  

Statistics show most of us are taking a prescription drug.  According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, 60% of adults are on at least one medication and 36% are swallowing three or more drugs. Pillboxes are the new must-have vanity item.

The names of the medications are designed to be catchy and memorable.  Take Skyrizi, a prescription for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.  Sounds like the name for a sky diving outfit.  Picture yourself parachuting into luxurious skin.  The sky's the limit with this medication.

The fanciful name Cymbalta sounds like an Italian dish.  Or an orchestral instrument. But the prescription drug is used to treat depression and anxiety, so the brand name has to be uplifting.  No one wants to take an anxiety medication with a name such as Doomstics.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approves mediations, insists brands cannot be viewed as overpromising on a cure.  For example, the FDA rejected the name Regain for an Upjohn company drug that helps regrow hair.  Upjohn changed a single letter and won approval for Rogain.

Big drug manufacturers use focus groups, consumer testing and a phonetic formula to create evocative names for their products.  In an average year, the FDA approves about 60 new drugs and the makers want each one to sound different than every other prescription.  With 20,000 drugs, it's getting harder.

Apparently, someone at Sanofi, a consumer healthcare firm, ran out of clever names for medications.  The company slapped the moniker Xyzal on its allergy drug, which promises 24-hour relief from scratchy throats, running noses and itchy eyes.  Did a marketing person throw a dart at an eye chart?

But today it takes more than fetching names to sell prescription drugs to consumers.  Television ads featuring dancing, singing actors are how you stand out in the crowded prescription space. Drugs to treat type 2 adult diabetes feature Broadway worthy productions.

If you ever seen a Mounjaro commercial, chances are you rushed to your doctor and pleaded for a prescription.  Overweight people suffering from diabetes look awfully happy about their battle against disease. They can't stop grinning, swirling and clapping on television.

Similar drugs in the same category--Wegovy, Ozempic and Jardience--are trying to outdo Mounjaro on the blissful meter.  They feature practically intoxicated adults, dressed in loose fitting clothes with perky demeanors.  They are canoeing, hiking and flitting.  No one is ever eating cake in these ads.

Even mirthful drug names cannot mask the side effects.  The killjoys over at FDA mandate the drug companies mention the possible downside of the medication.  After the onscreen celebration of the medication, an off camera narrator delivers a somber warning.

It usually goes something like this: taking XYZAB may cause weight loss, blurred vision, rapid heartbeat, acute kidney injury, increasing or worsening chronic renal failure, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.  Who would sign up for those side effects?  

A benign drug this writer has taken for years contains this WARNING: "A very bad reaction called angioedema has happened with this drug. Sometimes this may be life-threatening."  Say, what? How often is "sometimes"?  Twice a week? Once in a millennium?  Just asking. 

The key for selling the drug is for the announcer to whiz through the side effects at hyper speed, hoping the rhythmic performers distract the consumer.  It would be fun to once hear the narrator make this claim to see if folks are paying attention to this gibberish:

"Taking this medication may cause you to lose four toes, soil your pants, call your wife by your exes name, provide your  computer password to a complete stranger, sprout long hair on your nose, leave your new iPhone in a seedy bar and drop your expensive Patek Philippe watch in a airport toilet."  

If that sounds entertaining, imagine showing up in your doctor's office with a list of every drug advertised that encourages consumers to ask your physician about taking this medication.  Innocently inquire: "Should I be taking..." and then reel off the entire list.  

I tried it and found out primary care doctors have no sense of humor. The doctor fixed me with a quizzical look and folded arms.  He didn't appear amused.  There's a reason you won't find humor in a medical dictionary.   

Make America Venezuela

Venezuela's thuggish regime hardly inspires imitation. But the South American country's overhaul of its highest court is eerily similar to the plan outlined by President Biden.  Venezuela's dictators hoodwinked voters into believing reforms would strengthen the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

In 1999, Hugo Chavez outlined a string of proposals to promote democracy.  The strongman proposed laws making it easier to remove sitting justices. His plan included 12-year term limits. As part of the scheme, he expanded the court by 12 members, packing it with cronies.

Nicolas Maduro, who succeeded Chavez, now oversees a tribunal that does the president's bidding. The International  Court of Jurists (ICJ) calls the tribunal nothing "but an instrument of the executive branch." It no longer serves as a grantor of the "rule of law, human rights or fundamental freedoms."  

In a speech marking the signing of President Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights legislation, Biden unfurled his party's masterplan for remaking the Supreme Court.  He argued a president should appoint a justice every two years for an 18-year term. He pushed for enforceable conduct and ethics rules.

Biden claimed his proposals were to "restore faith in the Supreme Court."  However, his plan is nothing more than a presidential election year ploy to juice Democratic Party turnout.  His ire has been raised by court decisions he labeled as "not normal."  

Forget the Constitution's separation of powers clause which spells out three distinct branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Evidently the Constitution is seen as an "existential threat to democracy" by Biden.  There's nothing normal about changing Supreme Court terms.  

If Biden wants to bolster rules of conduct, he should start with Congress.  One member of his party--New Jersey Senator Bob Menedez--still serves in the Senate despite a conviction one 16 felony charges. Democrats need Menedez in a closely divided Senate, so personal ethics are fungible.  

Another Democrat, Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar and his spouse have been charged by federal prosecutors with participating in two schemes involving bribery, unlawful foreign influence and money laundering.  Cuellar remains a member in good standing in the House of Representatives.

If the president has a serious concern about ethics, he should be leading an effort to strengthen the Code of Ethics for members of Congress. Why is he silent on that issue, yet indignant on the travel of Supreme Court justices?

Following Biden's effort to undermine the Supreme Court, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre marched to the podium at a press briefing to declare surveys show "the American people" want term limits for justices.  In her view, America should be governed by polls not by the Constitution. 

Since she is a proponent of rule by polls, perhaps Karine's boss will now shill for term limits for Congress.  A poll by Pew Research finds 87% of Americans support term limits.  Nearly eight in ten (79%) favor age limits too.  Less than half (46%) agree on term limits for high court justices.

Nancy Pelosi has served 19 terms in the House, a number matched by Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey.  However, they are eclipsed by Republicans Christopher Smith and Harold Rogers; and Democrat Steny Hoyer. Each has served 22 terms in Congress.

Seven senators have served a total of 223 years: Democrats Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin; Republicans Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins. Each has been elected to six-year terms ranging from four to five times. 

Biden and his party also point to the age of the justices, a shot aimed at the oldest sitting jurist Clarence Thomas, who turned 76 this year. The president and the Democrats had no such qualms about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died at age 87.  She served 27 years on the highest court.

The Constitution doesn't mention age limits for justices, but if age is on the table, what about Congress? There are 11 current members of Congress who are 80 or above, including 90-year-old Republican Chuck Grassley.  Justice Thomas is a youngster by comparison. 

The truth is Biden's "bold plan" to reform the Supreme Court has nothing to do with ethics, age or terms limits.  This is a scam to make the court an adjunct of the executive branch, bending it to the political will of Democrats.  It worked in Venezuela.  Why not in the U.S.?

Court packing was tried under another Democratic Party President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.  His motivation, like Biden's, was FDR's displeasure with SCOTUS rulings. The court struck down key components of Roosevelt's New Deal, drawing criticism from the president. 

He secretly developed a plan to appoint additional justices for every sitting justice over the age of 70.  It would allow FDR to appoint six additional justices to the court. Sound familiar? Once Roosevelt revealed his plan, it was met with stinging opposition, even from Roosevelt's Democratic Party. 

Roosevelt's court packing scheme suffered a resounding defeat.  The Biden court "reforms" deserve the same fate.  America's democracy calls three separate branches of government.  It's worked for 248 years and there are no Constitutional grounds for Biden's election year contrivance.     

Why You Can't Trust Political Polls

Historians generally trace presidential polling to the 1824 election.  A straw poll conducted by the Harrisburg Pennsylvanian newspaper predicted Andrew Jackson would win.  In what would become an all too familiar outcome, the poll was inaccurate. John Quincy Adams was elected president. 

Since that oops moment, there have been a procession of presidential polls that have spectacularly failed. In 1936, The Literary Digest polled its two million subscribers and concluded Republican Alf Landon would triumph over incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Oh-Oh.

In 1948, the prestigious Gallup Poll reported that Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman. Gallup predicted the margin of the vote would be 45% for Dewey and 41% for Truman.  The poll secured its place in infamy as Truman won 50% of the vote compared to Dewey's 45%.

A more recent whoops moment occurred in 2016 when polls showed Donald Trump trailing Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Two poll modelers put her chances at 99%.  Trump's stunning win left Clinton to claim the Russians had influenced the outcome. Hillary's problem was putting too much stock in polls.

The 2016 election has been the subject of an analysis by the Berkeley Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley.  Their study found a steady decline the in accuracy of early polls.  Only 60% proved to be accurate including those conducted up to 10 weeks before the election.

Their analysis of 1,400 polls from 11 election cycles found the outcome lands within the poll results only about half the time. The Berkeley Haas study documents many reasons the election outcome could be different from polls, including the way pollsters compute confidence levels in their results. 

Confidence levels only take into account a sampling error, a statistical term that quantifies deviations from polling large voting populations. But Berkeley Haas concludes that it does not include other kinds of error, such as surveying the wrong set of voters.  As a result, there is more opportunity for errors.

Nonpartisan Pew Research Center has studied polling in depth for decades, shedding light on presidential surveys.  Pew has researched surveys from Gallup, Fox News, Associated Press and others, that conduct polls by telephone or online from randomly selected samples of adults. 

Pew documented the influence of party affiliation in national polls. There are 7% more registered Democrats than Republicans. Pollsters generally attempt adjust their data to compensate for this disparity. Surveying more Democrats would reflect a bias in results.

Pew researchers admit that is no single "correct" adjustment to the ratio of Democrats to Republicans for national polls.  Pollsters use their own modification, which explains why there can be differences between national polls.  The absence of a standard ratio explains why polls are often wrong.

As Pew points out, there is also a bias in people who register to vote. Compared with the public in general, registered voters tend to be older, wealthier, more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and homeowners, according to Pew.  

"Evidence suggests that the Democratic advantage is somewhat narrower among registered voters than the general public--and often even narrower among actual voters," Pew found.  What this means is that polls often have a sampling prejudice that tilts toward an oversampling of Democrats.

Democratic likely voters are also clustered geographically, more so than Republicans. Since national polls are designed to reflect geographic population centers where the majority of likely voters are located, polling will underrepresent the candidate preferences of Republicans. 

Sampling for "likely voters" is also less science than the polling organizations confess.  Pollsters screen for registered voters on the assumption they will cast ballots.  However, Pew has reported that in each election there are a myriad of factors that determine whether registered voters turnout.  

In some elections, Democrats have outperformed the 7% advantage in registered voters.  In others, robust Republican turnout has erased the registration margin. Turnout is the most difficult number to calculate yet it is most critical factor in determining the election outcome. 

Polling methodologies are also subject to variances.  Different polls may have sampling errors, different weighting practices for Democrats and Republicans, variations in the wording of questions and differences in the survey mode--whether by telephone or online, notes Pew. 

One flaw never mentioned in news coverage about poll results is telephone surveys, a staple of many polls including the Gallup Poll.  An estimated 73% of Americans, including most under the age of 40, do not have a landline telephone.  Those with landlines skew older, distorting results.

Pew reveals that all national polls use weighted data rather than raw data.  In other words, the actual survey numbers (raw data) may show one presidential candidate leading by five percentage points.  However, the data is adjusted to reflect the general population's age, race, gender and region. 

Most Americans have no idea that the polling numbers they are reading are subject to so many alterations, which have the potential to influence the outcome of the polling. 

Pew Research's extensive analysis of national polling uncovered another prevalent defect in surveys.  Pollsters often claim their polls have a three percent margin of error.  Pew found the real margin of error is often double the one reported.  That makes a huge difference in closely contested battleground states. 

Remember national polls reflect voter preferences from a sampling of states.  However, U.S. presidents are not selected by popular vote.  The tally of votes in the Electoral College determine the presidential outcome.  That makes national polls an unreliable predictor of the final Electoral College vote. 

State by state polls might potentially paint a true picture of  the electoral outcome.  However, those polls are often conducted by newspapers or state organizations. There are wide disparities in the quality of methodologies used at the state levels, including those by professional polling organizations.

Despite these cautions, polls are already popping up reflecting the head-to-head matchup between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump.  In one poll, the election is a dead heat.  There are more than 100 days until the election.  As noted, early polls are notoriously wrong.

These polls are fodder for campaigns and the media.  But they are practically useless as predictors of the outcome of the election.  So much has happened in just the last few weeks--an assassination attempt on Trump; President Biden bowing out; and, the coronation of Harris as the Democrat nominee. 

The public has not had time to digest all these developments to form an opinion about voting in November.  The race is just beginning. And convulsions in the political landscape are likely to jolt the campaigns, including a Manhattan judge's ruling on presidential immunity.  

Even with overwhelming evidence, America's pollsters remain in denial about the accuracy of their predictions.  They owe Americans the truth about how the polls are conducted, including a breakdown of respondents age, gender, party affiliation and geographic representation. 

If pollsters election forecasts go south this election, they will rush in with a clever spin.  Their revisionist narratives will assert their polling was misrepresented or they were within the margin of error.  Don't fall for their phony excuses.  Put your faith in election returns not polls.   

Opinion: Will Political Hate Speech Ever Cease?

An attempted assassination of presidential candidate Donald Trump plunged the country into a political abyss.  Never again the country swore after President Ronald Reagan was wounded 43 years ago.  And yet, here we are again--the collision of violence and politics that saps the soul of a nation.

In my nearly eight decades, I have witnessed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.  In a single year--1968--the United States suffered through the killing of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King and the murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, leaving the nation stunned.

Former President Trump was holding an outdoor rally in Pennsylvania when a gunmen armed with a rifle squeezed off eight shots, wounding the candidate in the right ear, missing his face by millimeters. When this blog was written late Sunday, questions are swirling around the assassination attempt.

How was a gunmen able to secure a perch on a building roof within 150-yards and a clear line of sight to the former president? Did the Secret Service do a proper site survey of that building prior to the rally?  Were Secret Service snipers surveying the building during the event?  

In the aftermath of high profile shootings involving politicians, the FBI has always immediately assumed responsibility for the crime and held on the spot briefings, answering reporters questions.  Why has it taken so long for the FBI to provide transparency? Why the delay? What are they hiding? 

Why didn't Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who is in charge of the Secret Service, honor a Trump campaign request for more protection?  Why did Mayorkas refuse to provide a Secret Service detail to candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose family has been targeted twice by assassins?

Were political considerations factors in the decisions by Mayorkas? And why is the Secret Service already admitting it has no plans to beef up security for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Monday?  Biden's security detail also should be bolstered.  

Too many unanswered questions remain, which is fueling conspiracy theories, anger and distrust.  President Biden's statements in the aftermath have been admirable.  But the agencies in charge of protection and the investigation need to stand for a public briefing accompanied by media questions. 

There is no excuse not to do so, even if all the facts are unknown. 

President Biden called for lowering the temperature of political discourse.  He is right.  However, in the two years leading up to the shooting,  the media and Democrats have compared Trump to Adolph Hitler, who murdered more than six millions Jews.  Incendiary rhetoric always proceeds assassination attempts.

Biden also has mocked Trump as a "dictator" and has over and over reminded supporters that the former president is an "existential threat to democracy."  He regularly calls Trump a convicted felon and five days before the shooting said  "it was time to put Trump in the bullseye." 

Many Democrats have used similar language without weighing the impact of their pejorative words.  

Attorney General Merritt Garland is quick to condemn "hate speech" of administration critics and opponents.  But he has been strangely silent in the wake of continuing comparisons of Trump to Hitler.  Garland also has tacitly sanctioned the harassing lawsuits against the former president.   

In an effort to cover their tracks, the media is accusing the former president of tapping into Hitler "vibes" as The New Republic magazine claimed. An unrepentant media can be expected to ramp up the anti-Trump vitriol with the kickoff of the GOP convention.

Want to understand the deep vein of Trump hatred in the country?

Your journalist tracked social media posts on Facebook and X, formerly Twitter after the assassination attempt.  Here is just a representative sample of the scalding temperature of the political climate.  

"Trump can't run his mouth off and expect not to pay for it."

"This (shooting) was obviously a set up by Trump.  The guy loves attention."

"Next time the shooter needs to spend more time at the range."

"This is classic Trump.  He's losing the election so he arranges to get nicked with a bullet."

A staffer of Democrat Rep. Bennie Thompson, a rabid Trump critic, huffed the shooter needed "lessons so you don't miss next time." Thompson fired the staffer.  

Colorado Democrat Rep. Steven Woodrow was despondent because "the last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil, but here we are."

This represents the state of American politics. Politicians, the mainstream media, social platforms, candidates and the two political parties own the inferno.  They need to preach civility as well as practice it.  Healing a nation always takes longer than plunging it into the abyss. 

Abraham Lincoln, before he was brutally assassinated, shared advice for times such as these. "I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go.  My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day."

Amen, Mr. Lincoln. 

Conspiracy To Cover Up Biden's Cognitive Decline

A political earthquake rattled the Democratic Party after President Biden's debacle in the first presidential debate.  A growing schism in the party over the president's cognitive fitness is roiling Washington. Biden's handlers and family are circling the wagons, hoping to stave off a party revolt.

A growing chorus of Democrats went public urging the president to gracefully exit the race in the face of plummeting poll numbers.  But a defiant Biden in an ABC interview made it clear he is pressing on, stubbornly insisting he was the best Democrat to beat former president Donald Trump.  

Amidst the turmoil, the lackey Biden mainstream media did the unthinkable. They turned on the president after propping him up for four years, despite a spate of public episodes offering evidence that Biden was neurologically impaired.  

Editorials and opinion pieces in The New York Times called for the president to bow out of the presidential race.  The Washington Post published a column with suggestions for a speech tailor made for Biden's  campaign withdrawal.    

The Times reported that at last month's G-7 meeting in Italy observers were said to be "shocked" at Biden's state.  Another unnamed official confessed Biden appeared to be "out of it," according to The Times. Other media felt emboldened by The Times reporting to pile on. 

A string of articles based on administration insiders painted a picture of an out-of-touch president, who is shielded by his staff from bad news in fear of igniting Biden's temper tantrums.  His handlers limit his schedule to a 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. to avoid sapping the 81-year-old's mental and physical energy.

The media's sudden about face is prompted by a realization they can no longer lie about Biden to Americans who witnessed a decrepit president with their own eyes. The president's halting speech, raspy voice, nonsensical word salads and non sequiturs were on full display.   

Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson undressed journalists covering the president for failing to "hold power accountable," while participating in a "massive coverup" with the White House to shield Biden's obvious mental decline.

"It is our duty to poke through White House smoke screens and find out the truth," Abramson said.  "The Biden White House clearly succeeded in a massive coverup of the degree of the President's feebleness and serious physical decline, which may be simply the result of old age."

Another respected liberal journalist Carl Bernstein told CNN how multiple well placed sources disclosed to him that Biden's abysmal debate performance was not atypical but increasingly representative of the president's mental fog.  Bernstein's sources reported 15-to-20 similar episodes.

The media knew.  But the powerful who control the nation's news outlets choose to deceive Americans.

Instead of independent reporting, the fawning media regurgitated press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's talking points.  Behind closed doors Biden runs circles around his staff.  His mental sharpness amazes everyone around him.  He has the energy of someone half his age.  All lies.  

The messaging was picked up by Democrat leaders such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Vice President Kamala Harris.  Biden is fully engaged and sharp these top Democrats swore.  Other Democrats chimed in right on cue.  More lies.

You would expect as much from Democrats panicked the truth about Biden would seep into the voters' conscious.  Even when online videos and Fox News documented the president's verbal stumbles, confusing and dazed appearance, Jean-Pierre called the visual evidence "deep fakes."

But the debate ended the charade.  The cellophane wrapped president appeared on television for 90 minutes looking every bit of his 81-years, pasty-faced, staring blankly in the distance and seemingly unable to summon up talking points that had been drummed in him for six days.

Those who blame Biden for not being truthful about his mental decline should point fingers at the media. Their job is to honestly report on the occupant of the White House even when they know the truth will help the hated Donald Trump.  But they were invested insulating Biden from criticism.

For example, the White House press corps never insisted that Biden stand for a full press conference until post-debate. Consistently answering reporters questions is a basic tenant of presidential coverage. Yet Biden has held the fewest press conferences since Ronald Reagan.  

At one point in 2022, Biden went nearly 200 days without being interviewed by an American TV journalist.  Jean-Pierre claimed the president had taken more questions than his predecessors combined. There was no push back from fact-checkers.  The White House press corps never challenged the lie.

Every American should be convinced the media cannot be trusted.  They willingly, knowingly participated in a conspiracy to coverup for Biden. The media cabal's sudden interest in exposing the truth is a sign they have new marching orders from Democrats hoping to oust Biden from the ticket.

The nation deserves an answer to these questions: "Who orchestrated this massive conspiracy that involved Vice President Harris, the media, cabinet members, donors, White House staff, congressional Democrats and foreign leaders? Were power brokers pulling the strings behind the scenes?"

The fallout from the coverup doesn't just rest on Biden's decision to obstinately stay in the race.  How can a man with serious cognitive issues remain president for four more months?  Can he be trusted with nuclear codes and critical midnight decisions? The nation is at risk every day Biden clings to power. 

Democrats should remind Biden he pledged to be a one-term president when he ran in 2020.  He admitted he was no "spring chicken." Perhaps he was being honest or it was just a ploy.  This will not end well for Biden, the Democratic Party or those who knowingly fed falsehoods to voters.

What will Biden and Democrats do?  First Lady Jill Biden and their grifter son Hunter Biden are isolating the president in a cocoon to ward off detractors. No one has been able to pierce the bubble. Jill and Hunter will not allow Biden to go quietly into the night.  

There is a nuclear option.  Democrat leaders, including Vice President Harris, could meet secretly with the president and threaten to invoke the 25th Amendment, which provides for removal of the chief executive if he is incapable of serving.  

Faced with the certainty of an ouster,  Biden could choose to magnanimously resign or suffer the humiliation of being thrown out of office. 

What if Biden calls their bluff?  Would Democrats really want to hang out to dry one of their own in a messy public flogging?  The next few weeks should provide some answers.  This writer's opinion is the party is stuck with Biden at the top of the ticket.   

Joy Reid, a co-host on ABC's The View, may have been prescient when she asserted on air she would vote for a comatose Joe Biden over Trump.  That perspective may be shared by large numbers of Democrats.  That's why a Biden candidacy may yet survive the political gallows.  

Democrats Collude To Aid Biden Campaign

America's disingenuous media protested Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government wielding strong arm tactics to muzzle political opposition.  Reports lambasted Modi's political party for filing corruption charges against his main rival ahead of this month's national elections.

South Korean politics has been marked for decades by fierce persecution of ex-presidents. The media cabal has derided the jailing or investigation of nearly every president exiting the nation's highest office. Opposition parties in turn routinely exploit popular anger over official malfeasance for political gain.

That's why the media's hyper partisan coverage of the first felony conviction of a major presidential candidate in America's 246-year history reeks of hypocrisy.  It raises the ugly specter of American politics descending into the abyss frequented by thug dictators, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin.  

Manhattan's Democrat attorney general aided and abetted by a former senior member of Biden's Department of Justice, conspired to indict and prosecute former President Donald Trump on bookkeeping charges. 

The conviction comes amidst historically low favorable ratings for any incumbent president,  The travesty of justice was a gift to a Democrat Party,  thirsting for the opportunity to brand Biden's political opponent a "convicted felony" to bail out his faltering campaign.    

Those partisans who complain the Democrat Party had nothing to do with the Trump conviction are suffering from irrational hatred for the former president.  The facts are incontrovertible.  A recitation of what transpired prior to the verdict of 12 New York jurors is illustrative:

• Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a promise to go after Donald Trump. Yet he allowed the case against Trump to lay fallow for 18 months after his election. Bragg waited until Trump announced for the presidency to manufacture his politicized case. 
• Bragg owed his election to Democrat Party mega donor George Soros, the billionaire who showered Bragg's campaign with $1 million.  The influential Soros donated the funds to Color of Change, a racial justice Political Action Committee (PAC), which funneled the money to boost Bragg's campaign.  
• A member of the Manhattan DA office resigned in February 2022 after Bragg refused to charge Trump with financial crimes.  The attorney Mark Pomerantz had championed the prosecution of Trump.  Bragg ignored the pleas of Pomerantz, prompting the attorney to resign.
• Bragg's predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr. reviewed the Trump "hush money" payments and opted not to indict.  The prosecutor for the Southern District of New York chose not to pursue the case in 2019.  The Federal Election Commission reviewed the allegations in 2021 and did not take action.
• Bragg filed charges in 2023 elevating what are misdemeanor charges of bookkeeping errors into a felony charge of "falsification of business records." Bragg pumped up the charges to felonies by claiming Trump was concealing an unspecified second crime.  Six years had passed since the original misdemeanor violations, exceeding the statute of limitations.

When Pomerant quit he intentionally leaked his resignation letter to The New York Times.  The newspaper's account ignited a political firestorm among Democrats who were demanding charges be filed against Trump. Concerned about this political future, Bragg knew he had to act fast.  

Pomerantz was one of three attorneys given a leave of absence from a heavyweight Manhattan law firm to assist Bragg. The firm is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison.  New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer's brother Robert is a partner in the powerhouse firm.  

After Bragg hastily unveiled his state case, a former Department of Justice senior official was brought onboard to help lead the inquiry, The New York Times wrote.  The official, Matthew Colangelo, worked for Biden's U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland before he departed for Manhattan.

Colangelo was the number three official in the DOJ, serving as Acting Associate Attorney General.  Garland plucked Colangelo from the New York Attorney General's Office, where he lead a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies. 

It strains the bounds of credulity to believe that Garland was not involved in the decision to send Colangelo to assist Bragg. Garland, testifying before Congress, scoffed at suggestions the administration was involved, labeling  it a "conspiracy theory."  

Imagine if a Trump appointed acting associate attorney general had departed to handle a state's prosecution of Hunter Biden.  Would Democrats agree the Trump Administration was acting in good faith?  An intellectually honest Democrat would confess the administration would be accused of abuse of power. 

The insidious charade doesn't stop with Colangelo-Garland. 

Presiding Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from the case.  He made $35 in political contributions through Democrat PAC ActBlue in 2020, including $15 to Biden's campaign.  Merchan asked the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics to decide if his contributions amounted to a conflict.

CBS News reported that the panel issued a caution to Merchan because political contributions of any amount by judges are prohibited under New York law.  Despite the red flag, the ethics panel inexplicably ruled Merchan's ability to do his job was not impacted.  State law and impartiality be damned. 

A politically compromised judge will now determine the punishment for Trump on July  11.  Some are predicting Merchan will not sentence the former president to jail.  That's improbable because this sham prosecution is about putting Trump in an orange jumpsuit.  

The politically motivated prosecution is covered with the fingerprints of Democrats at the state, local and federal level.  Yet they keep repeating their mantra: "No one is above the law."  It rings hollow when the DOJ allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on millions of dollars in tax evasion charges against Hunter Biden.     

In the run up to the trial, octogenarian Biden and his fear-mongering Democrat Party have repeatedly warned a Trump presidency would be a "threat to Democracy."  The bigger risk to democracy is that courts decide elections instead of voters.  Democracy dies if that is allowed to stand.  

Injustice in The Age of Tolerance

A sleepy college campus on a bluff overlooking the Missouri River languished for 53  years in anonymity.  Benedictine College was content with its unique role as private Catholic institution in Atchison, Kansas. A single commencement speech catapulted the college into the nation's headlines.

At the college president's invitation, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker delivered a 20-minute speech to the 485 graduating seniors.  His comments about his faith ignited ovations from students and parents who cheered his message, grudgingly admits the Associated Press.  

Once the national media became aware of Butker's speech, it created a firestorm of reaction over the NFL player's comments about the role of women as mothers and wives. Stinging rebukes filled the traditional media and online sites, condemning Butker for talking openly about his religious beliefs.

Here are samples of the vitriol that oozed into headlines: 

"Social media slams Butker as "sexist..." "Stars react to Harrison Butker"s controversial remarks..." Women roasting the KC Chiefs over Harrison Burker's speech.."  Every alphabet activist organization from LGBTQ to pro-abortion lashed out at the star kicker, once celebrated by Chiefs fans.

Mounting backlash forced National Football League brass to issue a statement distancing the organization from Butker's comments.  "His views are not those of the NFL.... The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which makes our league stronger," a spokesperson dutifully said.

A Kansas City Star columnist called on the Chiefs to fire Butker and replace him with a female kicker.  Social media erupted in a volcano of expletives and hateful ridicule of Butker, who was chosen as the commencement speaker specifically because of his conservative Catholic prospective.  

Judging from the coverage and accompanying fall out, few actually read the entirety of his speech.  Butker, who frequently espouses his faith, leveled his fiercest criticism at the Catholic Church and its leaders for bowing to the cultural vultures instead of upholding the faith's doctrinal traditions.  

Butker, a key member of the Chiefs' three Super Bowl titles, bemoaned society's impact on traditional Catholic morality, chiding bishops and priests for "pretending the Church of Nice is a winning proposition. We must always speak and act in charity, but never mistake charity for cowardice."

He derided church bishops for remaining silent on touchstone issues such as abortion, euthanasia and gender ideology.  The kicker's biggest sin in the media's eyes--singling out professed devout Catholic President Biden for full his throated support of abortion.  However, most failed to report the quote. 

The legacy media cast Butker as a misogynistic Neanderthal who wanted to enslave women and exclude females from the business world.     

Lacking even a pretense of objectivity, the media mocked Butker without putting his remarks in context.  The father of two children lauded his spouse, applauding her for living a vocation as a wife and mother.  Isabelle, who played basketball at Rhodes College in Tennessee, freely chose her role as homemaker. 

What a sad commentary that one person's profession of faith and moral values is savaged in the name of cultural compliance.  Elites and the media demand fealty to their doctrine on every issue.  No one is permitted to disagree without a public flogging, including destroying their livelihood if necessary. 

The critics figured the backlash would bully into silence anyone who might consider backing Butker. They were wrong. The daughter and spouse of the Kansas City's Chief's CEO Clark Hunt praised the 28-year old kicker's speech. Tavia Hunt, married to billionaire Clark for 30 years, weighed in:

"Affirming motherhood and praising your wife, as well as highlighting the sacrifice and dedication it takes to be a mother, is not bigoted. It is empowering to acknowledge that a woman's hard work in raising children is not in vain."

Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes and head coach Andy Reid defended Butker's right to express his views.  Others were embolden by the growing pushback to raise their voices, including the Catholic bishop of the Kansas City Diocese and former Notre Dame Football Coach Lou Holtz.

Liberal talk show maven Whoopi Goldberg, while disagreeing with Butker's views, maintained his right to free speech. Actor Matthew McConaughey added his endorsement for the right to air your beliefs. Sales of Butker's Chiefs jersey rocketed to the top of the NFL list.  The majority was no longer silent.  

Contrast the media's trashing of Butker's brief remarks to the news cabal's sanitized coverage of the antisemitism roiling American college campuses in the wake of hundreds of protests from California to New York. The lackey media painted the protests as "anti-war" and "pro-Palenstinian."

In reality, the majority of the demonstrations were hate-filled attacks on Jews and Israel.  Chants of "death" to Zionists and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state were routine parts of the protests. Graffiti sprayed on campus buildings at USC, Columbia and Duke included the Nazi Swastika.   

The most egregious agitators masked their faces to avoid being identified as they spewed their ugly antisemitic tropes and epitaphs. Cowardly protestors vehemently declared their support for Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to the murder of all Jews in Israel.

The media trumpeted free speech as rationale for administrators to allow students to erect tent cities, occupy buildings and trash campuses.  In today's climate, speech is free only if you adhere to the cultural dogma supported by the news media, elites and a few vociferous activist organizations.   

Dare to talk about issues from the perspective of your personal faith-based values and you will be excoriated, banished and disciplined.  Free speech dies when groups orchestrate plots to silence those who disagree with their cultural theology.  That's the lesson of Harrison Butker.  

Washington's Failures to Supercharge EV Industry

With exuberant fanfare, the Biden Administration unveiled a plan in 2021 to spend $7.5 billion to build thousands of electric vehicle charging stations. The funding was shoehorned into the engorged $1.3 trillion Infrastructure Bill.  Three years later, guess how many stations have been constructed?

If you said "thousands" you are in the camp of most Americans.  The exact number according to the Federal Highway Administration is seven as of March 29.  The progress--or lack of it--is an indictment of government intervention into free market capitalism.

By comparison, Tesla, the U.S. EV market leader, has constructed a labyrinth of 4,436 charging stations with 27,527 total ports.  Elon Musk's company has stations in all 50 states. The public firm has managed to build out an extensive network while still making a profit for share owners. 

Companies selling electric vehicles are now partnering with Tesla to adopt a charging station standard that will support their autos. Tesla has opened its super fast charging network to Ford and GM.  Other auto companies will make their future EV's compatible with Tesla's chargers.

A group of seven auto firms recently revealed plans to open 30,000 of their own charging stations across the country under the Ionna brand name.  It is a clear signal that EV makers recognize the lack of a charging infrastructure as a major impediment to consumers purchase of electric vehicles.

Washington bureaucrats carrying suitcases full of money are no match for private industry. The charging revolution is surging without taxpayers picking up the tab.  Big government cannot not compete with the innovation and speed of businesses incentivized by profits. 

When gasoline cars replaced horses and buggies, the government did not spend a dime to build gas stations across the country.  Oil companies invested in gas stations because it was in their economic interest.  Now there are 145,000 gas stations in the U.S--not one built by Washington. 

What if the charging industry followed the evolutionary map of gas stations? Electric utility companies, like the oil producers, stand to benefit from millions of vehicles hooked up to chargers. Unleashing utilities to build retail charging networks would accelerate the deployment of a national infrastructure. 

Naturally, there would be resistance from the New Green Deal crowd, who would carp about increasing electricity output, likely through fossil fuels.  Do they not realize government chargers will be hooked up to the electric grid?  The grid will collapse without added capacity for chargers, regardless of which entity constructs the station.

The federal government also has shelled out millions of dollars in subsidies to charge up sales of electric vehicles while using regulations to quash companies building gasoline powered cars. Taxpayers, most of whom own gas vehicles, are underwriting these generous handouts to wealthy EV buyers.

A study by Harvard's Law School's Labor and Worklife Program found the so-called subsidies end up going to more affluent Americans.  The government gives up to $7,500 as an incentive for the purchase of an electric vehicle.  The study by Ashley Nunes, Ph.D., concluded the following:

"By subsidizing richer households and not secondhand (EV) buyers, we are rewarding those who aren't always helping to reach emissions targets while ignoring those who actually do.  It's a situation that is both unfair and detrimental to our climate goals."

Nunes points out that many EVs are purchased by wealthier households as secondary cars, which are typically driven fewer miles than a primary gas vehicle.  His research showed that "electric vehicles must, when used as second cars, remain in service longer to deliver an environmental benefit."

Even with government largess, the Biden Administration's plan aimed at achieving 50% of new vehicle sales to be electric by the end of the decade remains an auto galaxy too far. 

U.S. electric vehicle sales hit a record 1,189,051 last year. Electric vehicles accounted for 7.5% of the light vehicle market (excluding trucks).  However, the rate of sales growth has dipped slightly over the last six months, although it remains on a steady incline. 

Tesla has garnered the largest share of the electric vehicle market in the U.S.  Although its share dipped last year, Tesla sold 654,888 cars in 2023.  Worldwide Teslas sales soared to 1,808,581.  Tesla now has a bigger share of the U.S. car market (4.2%) than Volkswagen, Subaru, BMW or Mercedes. 

There will be an eventual rationalization of the EV market. The winners will be determined in the free market place, not dictated by Washington. Government sales goals are a poor substitute for American consumers, who are capable of choosing their next automobile purchase.

Electric car makers, especially Tesla, are gradually shrinking the cost disparity between electric and gas vehicles to even the playing field. Kelley Blue Book estimates the price paid for the average electric vehicle was $53,469 last year. By comparison, the average gasoline powered car sold for $48,334. 

With parity within grasp, there is no justification for the federal government to continue to ask taxpayers to underwrite someone who buys an electric vehicle.  Likewise, the government should scrap its exorbitantly costly plan for building chargers.

It's past time for Washington to butt out of the electric vehicle business. Less big government heavy-handed intervention and regulation will provide more impetus for the growth of the EV industry.  

Poisoning American Civility One Day At a Time

Americans are reminded ad nauseam that we are a nation divided. There is no agreement on any issue. Pundits of varying intelligence urge us not to discuss politics. The subject is too incendiary for even the family dinner table. Hunker in a bomb proof bunker until the presidential election is decided.  

Those who carp about divisions in our country never cracked a book on American history.  The United States has been disunited for most of its 247 years.  After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860,  seven states seceded and the bloodiest war in the nation's history killed 618,222 Americans.

In 1968, the Democratic Party convention meeting in Chicago turned bloody as protestors fought with local police and national guardsmen. Tear gas was used to disperse thousands who commandeered Lincoln Park. Inside the convention, there was raucous infighting over the seating of state delegations.  

Our democracy has survived these earthquakes as well as hundreds of political aftershocks.  Division is a natural outgrowth of America's brand of democracy.  Even during World War II when America outwardly was united, there were voices of dissent in the country and in our politics. 

Step back and ask yourself: Why is the country divided today?  If you pin the blame on one of the two candidates for president, you have fallen for the partisan media's mindless doctrine. America's current divisions, like many in the past, are the byproduct of failed institutions.  

Today's media is biased, hyper-partisan and devoid of journalistic principles.  Throw social media in the mix and the result is a toxic brew which poisons politics and feeds conflict.  Americans who still care about information and news are left to sort through bins of partisan garbage to find a kernel of truth.  

Coverage of politics evokes negativity and stokes the worst human emotions.  Daily controversies are ginned up by the media to generate clicks and drive viewership numbers.  Broadcasters, newsrooms and social media influencers treat politics as a bloodsport.  

The media coverage of society, politics, issues and policy is designed to sort people into categories.  If we view America by looking in the media crockpot, we are destined for sharper divisions, perverse political discourse,  and mental stress.  

But history informs us that America's nascent media was not much more distinguished. In 1796 presidential election scandalous broadsheets were used to mercilessly smear the combatants John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. One newspaper claimed Adams wanted to become king. Sound familiar?

Congress takes no back seat to the media when it comes to name-calling and combustible rhetoric. We the people elect the 535 members of the House and Senate.  Each year the ideological center becomes smaller until it now resembles a pinprick. Lawmakers who seek compromise are voted out of office.

Congressional elections are becoming contests of the South Poles of both parties.  Each primary season Republican and Democrats vote for candidates who are more partisan.  Some would use the pejorative "extreme" to describe the electoral transition.  But, what does extreme mean today?

Elected officials must pass their party's litmus test on the issues.  If a lawmaker is not ideologically pure, then a primary opponent uses a wedge issue to displace the incumbent.  Our politics are more polarized and less civil.  Don't put all the onus on politicians.  Voters are the enemy of accommodation.

Lawmakers and the media have adopted incendiary political language that inflames public opinion.  Phrases such as far left liberal, ultra-conservative, MAGA and "woke" politicians are the equivalent of carpet bombing our politics.  Such labels do not promote dialogue or civility.   

Every national election, including the current campaign, brings out the loathsome in America.  Negativism is the grist feeding political advertising.  Pundits claim positive ads don't motivate voters, so slick campaign managers insist on a steady diet of acerbic, dreary, personal attack advertising.   

Today's ad campaigns are volcanic, but in 1964 a TV ad by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson figuratively reduced his opponent Barry Goldwater to ashes. The ad, dubbed "Daisy," featured a little girl and a nuclear mushroom cloud ignited by the Republican.

There is little new in American democracy, except the admonition not to discuss politics.  Our senses are too delicate to have conversations with friends, acquaintenaces.  Surely, you have seen unruly eruptions everywhere from school board meetings to city councils to the halls of Congress.

As a result, we have become a country of political tribalism.  People are less willing to see those of opposing views as human beings rather than enemies or dunderheads. Americans should stop taking their cues from the media and politicians and become their better selves.  

We should heed the advice of the aforementioned Thomas Jefferson:

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Uncovering Undocumented Immigrant Crime

The brutal murder of a Georgia student shocked the nation and catapulted the illegal immigration issue front and center in the presidential election. The victim, 22-year-old Laken Riley, went for a jog and never returned. A day later an illegal immigrant from Venezuela was charged in her death.  

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records show that the suspect, Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, entered the United Sates illegally in September 8, 2022. Ibarra was arrested in New York City a year later for "acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17."

Despite his arrest, Ibarra was released by New York City authorities.  ICE should have been notified of the arrest and detained Ibarra.  By the time ICE learned of the details, the Venezuelan had fled the sanctuary city.  Had New York City officials followed protocol, Laken Riley would be alive.

As details of the grisly murder began gaining circulation, the legacy media launched a disinformation campaign.  Big media omitted the detail of Ibarra's immigration status in reporting on the incident. The details seeped through the national conscience on social media, exposing the cover up.

The New York Times, Washington Post and its television echo chambers tried to deflect the simmering national anger by claiming the arrest of an illegal immigrant was an isolated case.  America doesn't have a problem with "undocumented immigrant crime" was the common theme.

That became an administration talking point too, but facts keep surfacing indicating illegal immigrant crime is a bigger problem than most Americans had been led to believe.  The arrest of one Venezuelan is only the tip of a growing iceberg:

• An illegal immigrant from Honduras was arrested this month in Louisiana for robbing a man at knifepoint and repeatedly stabbing him.  After his arrest, he was also charged with allegedly raping a 14-year old girl.
• A Mexican national who entered the U.S, illegally was arrested in Washington State for allegedly crashing his SUV into a state trooper's car, killing him. Arrest documents stated the suspect had admitted drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana before getting behind the wheel.
• An illegal Salvadoran immigrant was arrested in connection with the murder of a two-year old toddler in Maryland.  He was one of five suspects arrested for the killing.
• A 34-year old Guatemalan illegal immigrant was arrested in Boston for the sexual assault of a 14-year old girl.  The suspect had been released weeks earlier by Gloucester District Court and ICE was not notified.  
• A gang of illegal immigrants stomped and kicked two New York City police officers in Times Square, the center of the city.  Five alleged assailants were released without bail and several fled to California.  

There are likely many similar illegal immigrant crimes that have gone unreported, particularly in sanctuary cities. NBC news tried to soft pedal the ugly incidents, claiming data did not support charges of a migrant crime wave.

However, the news outlet was forced to concede that "the data is incomplete on how many crimes each year are committed by migrants, primarily because most local police don't record immigration status when they make arrests." NBC's attempt at whitewash collapsed on its own admission. 

Had the reporters at NBC not had an agenda, they could have searched the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data base.  In a weeklong law enforcement effort in January, ICE arrested 171 "non-citizens" with pending charges for murder, homicide or assaults against children.  

In fiscal year 2023, the agency arrested 73,822 "non-citizens" in the U.S. with criminal histories.  Those individuals were "associated" with 290,178 crimes and convictions, according to border patrol statistics.  If this is not a crime wave by NBC's definition, then what is?  

Agent arrests and seizures at the border offer further testimony to the crime surge.  Since 2021, agents have arrested 43,674 illegal immigrants at the border with one or more criminal convictions; seized 18,507 weapons; and, confiscated 2,031,059 rounds of ammunition.  

Finally, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released some eyeopening statistics.  As of January, 8.1% of inmates are Mexican nationals.  Non-citizens make up 15.4% of the prison population.  The numbers do not include illegal immigrants in state prisons or local jails because there is no available data.

Communities are becoming less safe because of crimes by illegal immigrants and transnational gangs, such as MS-13 from El Salvador, which ICE labeled "a threat to public safety."  Covering up this menace will not fool Americans, who now see illegal immigration as the top issue facing the nation. 

The Silent Killer That No One Likes To Talk About

It is the second leading cause of preventable deaths.  An estimated 300,000 people die annually from diseases related to this condition. Yet the issue lurks in the shadows because of unhealthy anguish about social stigma. By not shining a light on the subject, America is inviting a catastrophic health crisis.

Obesity is a health risk the nation can no longer ignore.  Obesity is linked to chronic medical conditions, including Type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, nerve damage, gum diseases and some forms of cancer.  And there are a host of lesser disorders, such as sleep apnea.     

Statistics document that obesity is one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century:

• Data shows that 41.9% of adults are obese according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  In 1995, obesity affected 15.3% of adults.  Adult obesity rates have increased 37% since 2008.

• More than 80% of obese people develop Type 2 diabetes, according to research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Obesity related cardiovascular disease deaths tripled between 1999 and 2020, reports the American Heart Association. 

• The American Cancer Society data found excess body weight is responsible for about 7% of all cancer deaths in the country, including 11% in women and 5% in men.  

• The rate of childhood obesity is increasing at a faster rate than adult obesity. As of 2023, one in five children in the country is obese. Youth obesity rates have increased 42% since 2008. 

• A recent report by the Milken Institute estimates the annual medical and economic impact of obesity exceeds $1.3 trillion. The direct medical costs to treat obesity related diseases ranges from $147 billion to $260 billion annually, reports the CDC. 

Who is considered obese?  Answering that question would appear simple.  The process involves a calculation based on a person's weight in pounds, divided by the height in inches squared, multiplied by 703, to determine a Body Mass Index (BMI).  The number is adjusted for age and gender.  

For the average American, it sounds like voodoo medicine.  A study reported by the NIH found only 22% of obese women and 6.7% of obese men correctly classified themselves as obese. Complexity is the enemy of dealing with preventable health issues.

Improbably, the American Medical Association has been at the forefront of quashing honest discussions about obesity and its impact on health. A report in the AMA Journal of Ethics stated that focus on BMI and weight has "yielded few health benefits and contributed to weight related discrimination."

How can the country tackle obesity if the leading medical group hushes information about unhealthy weight gain?  Apparently, the medical profession prefers to treat obesity related diseases rather than target prevention. No wonder U.S. medical costs are soaring, reaching $4.5 trillion in 2022.

Another impediment is the country's obsession with race.  Since African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by obesity, many academics and medical groups blame systemic racism for the rise of obesity.  Even pointing out the statistics is considered racist.  What does that solve?

Lifestyle choices play a large role in obesity.  Unhealthy diets and Americans addiction to screen time --cell phones, computers, video games and television--contribute to sedentary lifestyles. Only 28% of adults and 22% of adolescents meet the CDC's physical activity guidelines.

Prevention can be as simple as a healthy diet and exercise, such as walking 20 minutes a few times a week.  But let's acknowledge that for some, hormones and genetics make some people predisposed to obesity or excessive weight gain.  Unhealthy stress can also be a contributing factor. 

But why eat healthy and exercise when a drug can do the heavy lifting? It's the American way, and pharmaceutical companies are eager to profit from the solution.  The Food and Drug Administration has approved two Type 2 diabetes drugs, administered with an epipen, for weight loss.  

Diabetes medications Mounjaro from Eli Lilly and Ozempic from Novo Nordisk are soon expected to be rebranded and marketed for weight loss. Currently, the drugs cost about $1,000 to $1,200 for a month's supply. No prices have been announced for the weight loss versions.

Today most insurance companies do not cover weight loss drugs.  A 2003 law prohibits Medicare from doing so.  However, given the size of the obesity cohort, expect growing political pressure for insurance companies to cover the drugs, which will raise the cost of health premiums for everyone.

The sensible solution is for the medical profession and public health organizations to launch campaigns to increase education about the causes of obesity, while describing its harmful effects.  The campaign should include information on unhealthy foods and the benefits of physical activity. 

Unfortunately, many medical organizations and health advocates want the government to step in and legislate health.  Zealots want Washington to pass laws mandating better food labeling, healthier fast food, organic vegetables while outlawing red meat.

Onerous federal edicts are not the answer.  Arresting obesity rates requires individuals and families to take responsibility for their health. Prevention starts in the home with healthy food and physical activity. That means arming Americans with facts, not silencing discussion of obesity.  

34 Trillion Reasons To Cut Federal Spending

Every hour the U.S. debt jumps $218 million. That's $5.2 billion each day.  Current total government debt stands at a staggering $34.228 trillion. As scary as those figures are, the debt is expected to skyrocket to $50 trillion by 2033, less than a decade away.

For perspective, the nation's debt was $5.67 trillion at the beginning of 2000.  In just over two decades, the current debt is nearly seven times higher.  Since 2018, Congress has shoveled on another $12.7 trillion to the debt mountain. 

Today there is no limit on how high the federal debt can rise.  Congress passed a bill in June of last year suspending the nation's debt limit through January 1, 2025.  It is the equivalent of handing a credit card for Congress to continue to rack up more debt without any restraints.   

The debt balloon is the result of Congress's insatiable appetite for spending more than the tax dollars the government collects. In the most recent fiscal year 2023, the federal government collected $4.44 trillion in taxes, but spent $6.13 trillion, creating a $1.7 trillion deficit hole. 

Deficits matter because the feds issue debt to fund the yawning canyon between revenues and spending.  Beginning with fiscal year 2020 through 2023, the government accumulated deficits totaling $9 trillion. Even drunken sailors are spendthrifts by comparison.   

Don't expect a baptism of fiscal responsibility to convert the current Congress. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts a $1.6 trillion deficit by the end of fiscal year 2024 on September 30. Deficits are expected to top $2 trillion annually after 2031, reaching $2.6 trillion in 2034.

Revenues are not the problem.  Tax collections and fees rose 8% from 2022 to 2023.  Individual taxpayers forked over $2.18 trillion, accounting for 49% of the revenue collected by the feds. Fiscal accountability is a fleeting idea that has been drowned by a gusher of spending.

Paying for the debt created by deficit spending is getting more expensive.  Interest costs have nearly doubled the past three years from $345 billion in 2020 to $659 billion in 2023.  Interest is now the fourth largest spending category, behind only Social Security, Medicare and defense.

Those eye watering figures are projected to get worse.  Based on trends, the CBO forecasts that interest on federal debt will reach $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2033, creating a budget nightmare.  This is fiscally unsustainable without Draconian tax increases or budget cuts or both.   

Balancing the budget, a feat performed by millions of American households, is apparently beyond the mental acuity of Congress.  Only twice in the last half-century has Congress found the political will to reach financial equilibrium--in 1969 and from 1998-2001 under President Bill Clinton,

Before even tackling a balanced budget, Congress must first reign in deficits.  Although it's easy to blame COVID spending for the spike in the size of deficits, Congress has been spending more than government revenues for the last 22 years.  Lawmakers have a spending dependency. 

Since 1997, senators and representatives of both parties have ignored the regular budget process of approving a budget that fully funds the government.  Congress seems to prefer chaos, failing to pass more than five of its 12 regular appropriation bills by the deadline in the last 26 years. 

In 11 of the past 13 fiscal years, lawmakers have not passed a single spending bill by October 1, which marks the beginning of a new federal budget year.  Instead, Congress employs a shell game, approving what's called continuing resolutions to partially fund the government over several months. 

Continuing resolutions maintain government funding at current levels, but often supplemental appropriations are shoehorned into a CR.  These stopgap gimmicks allow lawmakers to spend while obfuscating the full impact on deficits. This lack of transparency would not be tolerated in any business.

For all the brouhaha over CR's, these appropriation measures only cover discretionary spending. The hefty money is federal outlays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation and other entitlement programs. Funding is mandated by statues.  

These programs accounted for $4.6 trillion in spending in 2023, about 73% of the federal budget. Unless Congress tackles mandatory appropriations, spending will reach the stratosphere.  Lawmakers of both parties are deathly afraid of the political blowback of even suggesting a reduction in programs. 

Representatives and Senators are easily spooked.  Mention "government shutdown," defaulting on the national debt," or "reducing food stamps" and lawmakers capitulate. They prefer political theatre and gamesmanship to tackling the unpalatable but essential choices to restore fiscal integrity. 

What will it take to restore financial sanity?  Most likely an economic meltdown.  Short of a financial Armageddon, the solution is for voters to quit electing the same people to Congress and expecting a different outcome.  If voters make balancing the budget their top priority, there is hope for change. 

Organized Theft Buffeting Retail Industry

An epidemic of theft, fraud and robberies are forcing the shuttering of retail stores across many cities.  Walmart is closing stores in Chicago and New York City. Target shut down nine stores in four cities, including Portland and Seattle. Big box chains are abandoning downtown San Francisco.  

A CVS Pharmacy, located in Washington, D.C., has been ransacked so many times by mobs of teenagers that the firm announced it is abandoning the store next month.  A spokesman said groups of as many 45 teenagers regularly clean out the store, leaving rows of empty shelves.  

The crime wave is a burgeoning threat to the $1.3 trillion retail industry, according to a report by the National Retail Federation (NRF). Longstanding risks such as robbery and in-store theft are not the only problems. The industry also has been battered by return fraud, gift card fraud and payment fraud.

Petty theft and shoplifting are overshadowed by the emergence of gangs of organized criminals operating in major cities.  Teams of thieves smash stolen cars into stores and haul away hundreds of goods.  The criminals resell the merchandise on the black market to make a profit.  

NRF research found 70% of retailers reported an increase in organized crime incidents over the last five years.  The data shows 38% of organized crime occurred in-store, while 45% transpires en route from the distribution center to the retailer's store. 

The survey of retailers found that 48% of stores reduced operating hours because of crime. Another 29.7% trimmed product selection and 28.1% reported closing specific store locations.  Scores of Mom and Pop stores have been the hardest hit by criminal activity.

"Retailers are seeing unprecedented levels of theft coupled with rampant crime in their stores, and the situation is only becoming more dire," said NRF, VP David Johnson. "Far beyond the financial impact of these crimes, the violence and concerns for employee and customer safety are our priority."

Leaders from the retail industry testified before a Congressional Committee in December, detailing the scope of the problem.  Increased violence involving theft is causing injury to employees and consumers, the death of some retail associates and a fear of working or shopping in high-crime locations, they said. 

The NRF is lobbying Congress to pass a Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, to crack down on organized retail crime.  The bipartisan legislation, if approved, would create an intra-agency group within Homeland Security to coordinate with other federal law enforcement agencies to rein in crime.

Financial losses are soaring for retailers. Retailers were hit with $112.1 billion in retail theft in 2022, the latest annual data available.   Shoplifting losses grew 19.4% over 2021. Retailers lost an additional $84.9 billion in fraudulent sales returns, which represent a mushrooming concern for the industry. 

In the absence of 2023 numbers, William Blair Investment Banking analyzed NRF data and estimated that retailers absorbed $142 billion in inventory shrinkage and theft losses, a jump of 25% from 2022. Shrinkage is a retail industry term for the difference between inventory and actual physical goods.  

Large organizations of professional shoplifters are taking advantage of soft-on-crime policies in big cities to steal store goods and resell the merchandise openly on the streets, sometimes not far from the scene of the crime. The lucrative nature of the theft is encouraging more individuals to turn to crime. 

In California, home to the largest increase in organized theft, the state passed a law that stipulates stealing merchandise worth $950 or less is a misdemeanor.  It often means that law enforcement likely won't bother to investigate and prosecutors will let offenders off, even if police arrest someone.

Transnational criminal organizations crossing the southern border are contributing to the rising tide of theft in both urban and rural areas, Texas Rep. August Pfluger told a Congressional hearing.  Lenient crime legislation, no cash bail laws, reduced police presence and weak-kneed district attorneys are all to blame for the explosion of retail theft.

Many legacy news outlets and social justice advocates blame retailers, accusing them of manipulating theft data to camouflage a decline in profits.  Since most retailers are regulated by the Securities & Exchange Commission, auditors would have ferreted out these irregularities. 

There are liberals in Congress, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has repeatedly claimed that the spike in retail theft is evidence that desperate families are shoplifting food because of rampant hunger. The data undermines her attempt to raise sympathy for thieves.

Retail industry statistics show that among the most stolen items are athletic clothes, mobile devices, denim, cosmetics, handbags, jackets, sneakers, mechanic tools, beauty aids, alcohol, candy, gum and energy drinks.  Hunger may be a real issue in New York, but these items won't feed a family. 

The real victims are consumers--you and me--who end up paying for the thievery.  Retailers losses are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.  Without a sea change, stores will be forced to hire more armed guards and lock up merchandise to protect inventory, souring the shopping experience.

It's time to quit coddling criminals and declare war on organized theft. Since 2022, nine states have passed laws to impose harsher penalties for organized retail crime.  Inexplicably, states hardest hit, such as California and New York as well as the District of Columbia, continue their ineffective approaches.

Communities need to demand more police presence, stronger prosecutors and tougher laws.  Hard working Americans should not have to pay for the criminal spree sweeping the retail industry.  

Top 12 Predictions For 2024

Stock in prognosticators plunged in 2023.  Almost no one forecast last year would be a boon for the stock market.  Wall Street experts predicted doom and gloom, including the likelihood of an economic recession.  Despite bank failures and accelerated interest rate hikes, bulls trampled market angst. 

Many forecasters might be in hibernation after last year's experience, especially those who suffer from Atelophobia (the fear of being wrong). Against the current backdrop of wars, political chaos and global disorder, it will be challenging for prognosticators to divine a vision in a world of dense fog.    

Your writer has many flaws but doesn't suffer from failure anxiety nor does he shy from predictions.  My confidence is bolstered by picking the S&P would increase 20% in 2023.  The index finished with a gain of 24%.  With 2023 gone and forgotten, here are the Top 12 forecasts for 2024:

1. The economy defied predictions of a recession last year, but the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow a modest 1.9% for 2024.  Consumer spending was the driver for economic growth last year, however, signs point to a retreat.  Consumer debt is at a historic level of $1.3 trillion and credit card rates are near 20% APR.  After a robust 2023 and the usual Christmas splurge, consumer spending will taper off, but will not crater. Consumer spending accounts for about 70% of GDP.

2. The stock market rocketed higher in the final months of 2023, driven by the Magnificent Seven: Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Nividia, Tesla and Alphabet while the rest of the stocks were stuck in limbo.  Adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)  juiced average gains of 100% for the seven as PE ratios reached the stratosphere. This year Wall Street will be looking closer at AI revenues not just shiny forecasts.  Overall, the seven and a few big tech stocks will outperform the overall market, but the growth will be pale in comparison to last year. Presidential elections are usually good for markets, but the three major indices will give back much of last year's supersized gains, finishing with mixed results.  The NASDAQ will eke out a single digit gain.    

3. The Federal Reserve will lower rates twice in 2024, with reductions in the second and fourth quarters, surprising Wall Street and roiling the markets. After teasing three rate reductions, beginning in the first quarter, the Fed turns cautious as stubborn inflation remains above the preferred target of 2% throughout the year.  The nation's fiscal deficit will nudge $1.9  trillion, worrying Fed governors enough to temper major reductions in interest rates. Each rate cut will be a tepid 25 basis points with more promised in 2025. There is one caveat: If the economy weakens in an election year, the Fed may bow to political pressure and vote to cut rates four times. 

4. Major union contracts will help stoke inflationary pressure. Unions won big increases at UPS, the Big Three automakers and Hollywood studios last year but a full-year of costs will hit corporate bottom lines this year, leading to price increases.  There are several big contracts to be negotiated this year, including at AT&T, Boeing, American Airlines flight attendants, postal workers and Anheuser-Busch.  Wage hikes and offsetting price increases are a major risk to inflation.    

5. Momentum in the job market wanes from 2022-2023 levels because the economy has fully absorbed the labor displacement caused by the pandemic. While some industries cannot find enough workers, other sectors are beginning to layoff employees in the face of softer demand and rising expenses. Job growth in December was driven by payroll gains in state and local governments and healthcare. The job quitting surge will gradually return to normal levels. As a result of these issues, unemployment will drift higher throughout the year, reaching 4.1% in the fourth quarter.

6. With housing affordability metrics already at a 40-year low, sales of residential property will flatline. More Americans will choose renting because home values in many markets continue to rise amid tight supply.  About 75% of Americans have mortgage rates locked in at 4% or lower, presenting another headwind for a rebound in the housing sector.  One optimistic scenario: Soft sales may actually lower home prices, triggering a fourth quarter uptick.

7. Geopolitical risks are increasingly creating global economic shudders.  Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East coupled with saber rattling by North Korea are a powder keg waiting to explode. The widening of conflict in the Middle East will disrupt shipping of goods, trigger supply chain bottlenecks and destabilize global oil supply.  An unintended incident may spark an increased military escalation. Meanwhile, Russia will make significant progress in its ongoing war against Ukraine, dashing hopes for a peace agreement.

8 Local TV stations, supported by the National Association of Broadcasters,  will increase lobbying of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate streaming services as the agency does cable companies.  With cord cutting showing no signs of abating, there is an urgency to the effort. Streaming services currently have agreements with the major networks for carriage, but local TV outlets claim the deals are too low to support their operations. Streaming services are fighting back with their own powerhouse lobbying effort, which will quash the regulatory push. 

9.  Investments in data hubs skyrockets as global business demand soars for online content, cloud services and artificial intelligence.    Data centers are already experiencing a once-in-a-generation growth making it financially attractive to add more capacity.  Unless capacity increases, the rapid development of generative AI applications will be adversely effected. The big cloud companies--Amazon, Microsoft and Google--cannot expand fast enough to handle skyrocketing demand. 

10. China resorts to using political upheaval in Taiwan to bring the island nation closer to Beijing's rule, much as it did in Hong Kong.  The Communist regime will continue its hostile military provocations around Taiwan to spook democratic independence. Chairman Xi Jinping has vowed to bring Taiwan under Communist control. With the Chinese economy melting down, the leader needs a distraction to rally his country. There is no better time to act than 2024 with the U.S. military occupied with the Middle East.  

11. Small and regional banks with significant exposure to commercial real estate will be under increasing pressure, fueling a handful of bailouts.  With $550 billion of maturing commercial real estate debt this year, losses are forecast to mount for lenders and investors. Commercial real estate faces other turbulence, including the highest vacancy rate since 1979.  The national vacancy rate hit 19.6% in the fourth quarter.  Since the pandemic, remote work has become so ingrained at many companies which will hollow out office buildings.    

12.  There is at least a fifty-fifty chance that neither President Joe Biden nor former President Donald Trump will be on the general election ballot in November.  Biden's age, historically low poll numbers and his erosion with the Democratic Party base will prompt the donor class to back an alternative.  The most likely scenario: the president will bow out at the Democratic Party National Convention.  Trump and his Mount Everest of legal problems will deal a fatal blow to his candidacy.  The Department of Justice is determined to jail Trump by mid-year and major GOP donors are lining up to support Nikki Haley.  Predicting a winner in November is impossible without knowing the nominees. Republicans take back the Senate but lose the House by a handful of seats.