Author: haroldblackphd

Chuck Schumer wants amnesty for illegals and a path to citizenship for “all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.” Now 11 million is the number that has been used for at least the past 10 years. I guess we are to assume that the million plus coming across our southern border each year somehow does not add to the total and those already here haven’t had any babies. In reality the number is likely closer to or greater than 30 million. Schumer said that we need new citizens because “We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to.” On this point he is correct. The fertility rate has to be 2.1 to just maintain population at its current level. A rate above 2.1 means population is growing. A rate below 2.1 means that population is falling. Western Europe and Japan have had fertility rates well below replacement for several decades now and their populations are in decline. The fertility rate in the United States is 1.6. So Schumer is correct but has conveniently forgot that one of the reasons for the decline in the birth rate has been the 61 million abortions performed in the United States since Roe. Around 1 million babies are aborted each year and some major cities actually have had more abortions than live births.

The decline in birth rates is across all races and ethnicities. A report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics found that births dropped by 4% among white, black and Latina women, 9% for Asian women, 3% for Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders and 7% for Native American and Alaska native women. Families are getting smaller. Birth rates have fallen amongst teenagers and the average age of new mothers has increased.

Thus, more and more new immigrants are needed to come into the country since apparently once they get here, they stop having as many babies. Actually, birth rates are in decline throughout much of the world. Globally, birth rates are projected to fall below replacement by 2070. Ninety countries are expected to have these lower birth rates with only some African countries and Pakistan are expected to maintain a growing population. China which once had a one child policy has reversed itself. Under the old policy, Chinese families had a cultural preference for male children and aborted female fetuses. This skewed the population with too few females and Chinese population is falling by 400,000 per year. Now the Chinese are providing incentives for three children households.

Importantly, the decreasing birth rates have an immediate impact on social security. In the 1960s there were 6 workers per retiree.  That ratio is decreasing. As early as 2035 there will be only two workers per retiree. Also there will be 78 million people over the age of 65 and 76 million under the age of 18. That means that fewer workers pay into the system to support retirees. In order to maintain the payout to retirees, the worker contributions must increase which may become untenable and pit worker against retiree. At a fertility rate of 1.6, the amount of unfunded social security obligations rise to $4 trillion on top of the $17 trillion predicted to occur between 2035 and 2095. This is a demographic time bomb.

The obvious solution is to reform social security. The alternatives are to increase contributions – likely the employer contribution to minimize the political blowback, to decrease payouts – highly unlikely – or to change the program from the current pay-as-you-go system. Now social security payments come from current contributions. That is why the interest return on contributions over a lifetime is a miniscule 1.23 percent. Imagine that a private investment firm told you that if you invest at the same level as your social security contributions over a 30 year term, you would get a return of 1.2 percent! You would be irrational to do so. That is why social security is a mandatory government imposed program. It fails the market test. Instead of a change like adjusting the inflation index or a more radical market based reform, the most likely change would be to increase the age at which retirees can receive full benefits. When enacted only 54% of 21-year-old men and 61% of 21-year-old women lived to age 65. In 2019, 81% of 21-year-old men and 89% of 21-year-old women lived to age 65. Raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 would cut the deficit by one third.

Harold A Black

Most people I know were disappointed in the results of the midterm election. The pundits almost unanimously predicted a “red wave” with the Republicans picking up as many as 65 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. Instead, the Republicans will go from 213 seats in the House to only 221 seats. In the Senate the Republicans will actually lose a seat and go from 50 seats to 49. How did this happen? It has always been the case that incumbency is hard to beat and that only swing districts are in play. How else would those representatives on the far right and far left be consistently returned to office? As a result, prior to the election I thought – like the pundits – that the Republicans would retake control of the House. However, the House is the least important body in the legislature. I know that all the spending bills originate there, but the Senate has veto power and the filibuster if all else fails. The Senate is the most important legislative body largely because of its veto power and it is where the President’s nominees are vetted. With the Democrats still in control of the Senate, expect to see a continuation of the types of appointments made by this President. Biden’s cabinet is the least capable, least qualified of any cabinet within modern history. Expect to see more judges appointed who view the Constitution as a “living” document and who are unwilling or incapable of telling us what a woman is. Expect more nominees nominated on the basis of race, gender and sexual identity rather than qualifications. All of this will continue unabated given the makeup of the Senate. 

I thought since all of this was obvious, that the Republicans would concentrate their efforts on winning the Senate. But befitting the title “the stupid party” the Republicans did not aggressively contest the vulnerable Democratic seats in New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia. The two open seats were held by Republicans and I thought that the Republicans would hold Ohio but lose Pennsylvania. They would hold Ohio because a popular Republican governor was running for reelection and would have coat tails for the Senate candidate. They would lose Pennsylvania because the Republican candidate for governor was weak and destined to lose while the candidate for Senate was roundly disliked. As my colleague Rep. Duncan pointed out, if the results of the primary were different the Republicans would have easily won the seat in Pennsylvania. The final candidate won the nomination because he was the darling of the conservative media and endorsed by Trump. That led to him losing to perhaps the worse candidate in recent memory. Voters in Pennsylvania preferred a person with the most radical agenda, one who was against fracking and for releasing hardened criminals to the Republican candidate. Go figure. 

Throughout all the campaigns, one thing was evident: the Republicans were greatly outspent. Although Trump had amassed $100 million in his PAC, he did not spend his money to support the very candidates that he had endorsed in Georgia, Arizona, New Hampshire and Nevada. The Democrats actually spent $53 million to boost the weakest far right candidates in the primaries to have them run against their own weak incumbents. The strategy seemed to work, largely in part because the Republicans did not counter their spending efforts. As to funding, the Democrats spent $73 million in Arizona. The Republicans spent $9 million. In Nevada Republicans were outspent $46 million to $12 million. In New Hampshire it was $36 million to $2 million. In Pennsylvania, $52 million to $32 million and in Georgia $75 million to $32 million. Admittedly, money is not everything but these numbers are hard to ignore. Moreover, the Republicans actuallyfunded the campaign for the senator from Alaska who voted to impeach Trump even though the seat was going to stay in Republican hands. To do this while not funding the Trump endorsed candidates could only mean one thing. The Republican establishment hates Donald Trump more than it wants to regain control of the Senate.

In this election cycle, there has been a notable swing of Latino voters to the Republican party. One reason has been abortion. Fifty five percent of Latinos are Catholic and the shift has signified the Latinos displeasure with the Democrats’ stand on abortion. Also a shift has occurred amongst Latinos along the southern border as a reaction against the open border policies of the 

Biden administration. Latinos have also left the Democratic party because the Democrats are largely pandering to blacks while ignoring Latinos. 

Black voters have largely remained loyal Democrats even though there has been some movement of black males to the Republicans. Polling has shown that black voters are primarily concerned with crime, inflation, healthcare, and education which should give imply a more sizable shift to the Republicans. The surge in crime has occurred mainly in Democrat run cities partly due to the low bail agenda of many Democrat district attorneys. Inflation was triggered by the profligate spending policies of the Biden administration along with its war on domestic energy. Since education is important to the black electorate, Republicans should emphasize charter schools as an alternative to the failed public school system where most black children are being held captive. That charter schools are important is illustrated by the first campaign for governor by Florida’s Ron DeSantis. He campaigned as a strong advocate for charter schools while his Democratic opponent (who was black) was against charter schools. The percentage of black voters who voted for DeSantis was decisive in a close election. I was amazed that every Republican candidate did not emphasis education in this campaign. Yet few did.

Inflation is an important issue to both blacks and Latinos who generally have lower incomes than do whites and are more adversely affected by price increases given that a higher percentage of incomes are spent on basic necessities. This too seems to me to be an important issue for emphasis. Placing the increase in prices squarely on the Democrats should persuade black voters to reconsider their allegiance. Certainly, inflation, crime and education impact minority populations greater than whites. Every campaign ad should stress these points ad nauseum.

It has been said that black voters have generally been ignored by the Republicans and taken for granted by the Democrats. It is ironic that Donald Trump, roundly cited as being racist by the Democrats and the mainstream media made inroads primarily with black male voters. Yet Joe Biden still garnered 90 percent of the black vote. Stevie Wonder’s Big Brother said it best “I live in the ghetto. You just come to visit me ‘round election time.”

If the concerns of black voters are obvious the question is why aren’t the Republicans addressing them? They may think it is no use, that black voters will vote Democrat regardless. This is despite that while Democrats make sympathetic clucking noises, most problems faced by blacks are a product of Democrat policies. The failing schools are in large part due to the teachers’ unions being more interested in wokeness than in education. Ninety-five percent of the union’s contributions go to the Democrats. The sharp increase in crime is tied to actions like no bail and defund the police. Inflation is squarely on the Democrats. While the Republicans have emphasized the economy in this election – and the economy is the number one issue for all groups – they have not drilled down to its adverse impact on minorities. 

In a sense both parties are ignoring blacks. The Democrats continue to take blacks for granted while the Republicans are assuming that just a small shift in those who consider the Democrats at fault will be enough to win elections. However, I think the reason is that blacks are on the verge of becoming politically irrelevant. Latinos are now the largest minority in this country and have become more important politically than blacks. Even though they are currently underrepresented in the Senate, House and governorships, that will change going forward. Also where Latinos are a significant number of voters, their politicians have little interest in aligning themselves with blacks. Just like areas where there are concentrations of Jewish voters and areas where there are large Muslim populations, blacks will remain important in some cities and states where they constitute a majority or significant minority. However, their overall importance is being diminished. In the future, even the Democrats may not only “come ‘round at election time”.

Harold A Black

I don’t understand the term “cultural appropriation”. Sure I know that the dictionary says “adoption of certain language, behavior, clothing, or tradition belonging to a minority culture or social group by a dominant culture or group in a way that is exploitative, disrespectful, or stereotypical.” That means that the left equates cultural appropriation with white supremacy since minorities by definition cannot culturally appropriate. So its ok for a black person to appear in a play in whiteface or wear the tribal dress of a native American at Halloween. But whites are criticized for wearing dreadlocks – even though it’s a stunning look on certain women. But blacks speak English, wear suits, ties and shoes without being accused of cultural appropriation. Given all the black men who shave their heads, I am surprised that the cultural police don’t condemn head shaving whites. What about all the blacks, men and women, who are sporting blond dreds? Are they appropriating white culture?

Joe Biden wants the Atlanta Braves to change their name and get rid of the tomahawk chop. Even I admit that the Braves were inappropriate early on with Chief Knock-A-Homa and his teepee in center field. I hated that caricature and the gap tooth Indian brave on the Cleveland Indians logo. But I don’t want the Braves to change their name even though I am more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.  I don’t know which of the 157 distinct tribes but its most likely Cherokee. What about music? Should white musicians be “allowed” to play jazz? Or blues? But, of course, its ok for blacks to play bluegrass or country like Charlie Pride or The Carolina Chocolate Drops.

As Halloween approached several universities cautioned their students about wearing costumes that “appropriated” culture. Students were warned against costumes that were “racist, crude, or culturally insensitive.” I guess this means that you should not go dressed as a Mexican wearing a sombrero and a serape. Heaven forbid if that costume hinted of illegal crossing! Don’t wear feathers and warpaint unless you are a Native American. No blackface, no dreadlocks, no transphobic (dress on a straight guy). I wonder if its ok to dress up like a nun or priest? And please don’t show up looking like you are homeless. Its absurd because some people are going to be offended no matter what. Take for example the white chemistry professor who is being “investigated” by her university for going to a Halloween party dressed as Michael Jackson and dancing to “Thriller.” What’s wrong with that? She probably wasn’t in blackface since Jackson whitened his skin. When I went to vote, there is a museum at the polling place and one of the workers showed up in a costume dressed like a witch. She had vivid green hair, a stovetop hat and a flowing black gown. I am sure she offended witches. But she looked wonderful. However, there are some costumes that even I would find offensive: Nazis, Klu Klux Klan, slaves, Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo, snaggle tooth Indians, minstrel shows.

What about entertainment? I can’t remember the last time I saw an old Tarzan movie. Still the funniest scene was when Tarzan was in New York and got out a cab and proclaimed the hotel valet was from some African tribe. My father loved Sanford and Son but not the old Amos and Andy shows. Could a revival of All in the Family even be considered? What about the Beverly Hillbillies or Gomer Pyle? Was the dominate culture being insensitive to southern rural white folk? But the left is selective in who it criticizes. I don’t recall seeing them condemn Hillary Clinton for mimicking a black accent or Joe Biden telling a black audience that electing a republican will “put y’all back in chains.” As a country we have allowed the small minority who get offended at the least imagined slight to dictate for the rest of us. We have lost our sense of humor. To get it back, we are just going to have to stop being so sensitive and just ignore those who always bemoan “hurtful” actions that make them feel “threatened.” 

November 2022

The democrats did a bang up job this election is pandering to the youth vote. The young had no skin in the game so the issues important to most adults were of no consequence to the youth. They don’t worry about inflation because their parents pay the bills. So energy and food prices don’t register with them. They are woefully ignorant of world events so Afghanistan didn’t matter. The have bought into the gender equity, climate change, trans, CRT stuff so those issues didn’t matter either. However, the two areas that the democrats brilliantly exploited that do matter to the youth are abortion and student loans. By railing about abortion, the young listened. It is no surprise that abortion clinics tend to be near college campuses and that the pro abortion rhetoric and the threat that republicans if in power would move to pass anti-abortion legislation resounded with the young. Also Biden’s bogus student debt forgiveness plan was brilliant. Republicans were against it – loudly so. It was no wonder than the young voted in greater numbers than any year since 2018 for the democrats and against the republicans. In tight races, their vote made a difference.

Did you see where Biden’s “non-binary” nuclear official – the deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition at the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy – was charged with stealing a $2,500 suitcase at an airport luggage carousel? He/she/it or is it they/them took the bag, removed the ID and claimed it as it’s (their) own. She/he/it/they/them has resigned. It is difficult to be tolerant toward “them” and pretending that “they” are normal folk. 

Crypto for me has always simply been a money laundering scheme. I am amazed that any rational being would be “invested” in it. I’m reminded of what P. T. Barnum said.

In the “there they go again” file is the World Health Organization renaming monkeypox, Mpox to counter some perceived stigma. The disease once mostly in parts of Africa spread around the world by gay male sex. Instead of Mpox what about Gpox instead?

Some people have wondered why so many billionaires are liberals and contribute to leftist causes. It would seem irrational, since many on the left act as if they despise the wealthy. I think the billionaires see a bigger picture and are trying to insinuate themselves into big government politicians. I call it American socialism where big business and big government align themselves to impose their might on the populace. Small businesses will be squeezed out (Donald Trump anyone?), competition diminished both economically and politically. It’s the government from Hell.

Don’t you get tired of people apologizing? You will never find me apologizing. If I said it I meant it. If some folk don’t like it – tough.

My Dad never thought their would be a black president or a black senator or a black governor in Georgia in his lifetime. He was right. My mother felt the same way and voted solely for that reason for Obama – the first time only. She also lived to see Raphael Warnock elected to the Senate. Only she did not vote for him. Both of my parents would be amazed that both candidates for Senator from Georgia are black. Obviously a case of systemic racism.

When the progressives sought to try to make the rest of us think that all minorities are just alike, they invented the term “people of color.” It didn’t matter that the term never made any sense, they foisted it on us anyway pretending that all minorities were oppressed and hence united in the cause. Yet minorities differ more than they are alike. The discrimination faced by Asian-Americans is different from blacks and Hispanics. Asians are being discriminated against in education but not in the classic sense. While blacks were once denied admission to schools on the lie that they were unqualified, Asians are being denied admission because they are too qualified. Entrance into elite secondary schools and universities is being limited because the schools would have – in their eyes – too many Asians and too few blacks and Hispanics. Thus, the schools want more people of color, so long as those colors are black and brown.

Instead of taking steps to address the root cause of the problem – improving the basic education of blacks and Hispanics – the bureaucrats have resorted to limiting the admission of Asians. Standards are changed, with test scores and standardized tests being deemphasized and replaced by subjective personal characteristics. When I was an active researcher in lending discrimination, I found that all of the lawsuits alleging discrimination in lending excluded Asians from their samples. If Asians were included, then the statistical evidence of discrimination would disappear. If Asian outcomes were compared to whites, then the statistics would often indicate that whites were being discriminated against. Thus, Asians are to be excluded from “people of color” because they have somehow triumphed over oppression.

Minorities are also different politically. While blacks remain mostly loyal Democrats, Asians are revitalizing the Republican Party in California. Lumping all Hispanics together is simply dumb. Hispanics are not a homogeneous group. Cuban-Americans are solidly Republican while Puerto Ricans are typically Democrats. Hispanic residents in border towns have reacted to the illegal immigrant invasion by voting for Republicans. Arizona, Texas and Florida all have solid numbers of Republican Hispanics while Democrats remain entrenched in California, New Mexico, New York and Illinois. Yet even in those states and nationwide, Republicans are showing strong gains in Hispanic communities. There is even some movement among blacks as economic conditions, crime and education are replacing social issues for black voters.

The recent brouhaha in Los Angeles vividly calls into question the supposed unity of “people of color”. The city is mostly Hispanic and solidly Democratic. There is an ugly rift not only between the whites and the Hispanics but also between the Hispanics and blacks. The racial spoils are being fought over. Since the Hispanics are in the majority among the city’s politicians, they have made themselves the favorite minority to the exclusion of blacks.

It used to be the case that the advocates of “people of color” envisioned a united front against “white supremacy.” Instead, one minority group is not pitted against another in a racial spoils battle. This should come as no surprise. Since the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., there have been few leaders in the minority communities that have preached about a harmonious coexistence between races working together to make all better off. Rather instead of trying to make the economic pie larger, the groups are acting as if it is a zero sum game where in order to make one group better off you must make the others worse off. 

The Biden Administration is a major culprit in the schism between the races with its obsession over diversity, equity and inclusion. Asians and Hispanics know that the Biden initiatives are aimed at blacks and at the very vocal LBGTQ advocates. Asians know that they are being excluded because they do not fit the poor and downtrodden mold. That Hispanics are being pandered to less than blacks is curious since they are the largest minority. No wonder they are demanding more of the spoils pie. The result is that “people of color” has been exposed as a leftwing pipe dream. It has never existed as a unified entity and now more than ever the term should be relegated to the scrap heap.

The Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in a case about racial preferences. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (where I once was a faculty member) are accused of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. The students lost in a lower court but their appeal is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. That the students lost was a surprise and the reasoning of the lower court was a bit bizarre. Data had shown – with no argument from the defendants – that a black applicant in the lowest quartile had a statistically better chance of admission to Harvard than an Asian applicant in the highest quartile. Clearly the Asian applicant was subject to discrimination. The court agreed but yet still ruled in case of Harvard. The Supreme Court had ruled previously in 2003 in Grutter versus Bollinger that schools could use race on a limited and temporary basis as one consideration for admission. The same is true in a ruling in 2013 permitting the University of Texas to reject white applicants in favor of blacks. In the Harvard case, the university argued that Asians consistently scored lower on “personal quality” ratings – a subjective evaluation. It is amazing that the court considered this argument as persuasive. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not prove that the evaluation results were due to racism. It seems to me that the burden of proof should have been on the university. It is akin to rejecting a black applicant due to the biases of the evaluator. No wonder the Supreme Court is hearing the case on appeal.

Harvard is quite experienced in this area. In the early 1900s, it discriminated against Jews as the percentage of Jewish students rose significantly from 7 percent in 1900 to 27% in 1925. Adopting similar criteria as today’s Harvard, Jewish enrollment fell by half by 1935. As we fast forward, colleges who wished to diversity the racial composition of their student body found that reliance on standardized test scores for admission disadvantaged black and Hispanic applicants. The same was true for GPAs as a criterion for admission to elite public high schools. Thus, school systems in Fairfax County, Virginia, San Francisco and New York changed their admissions criteria that resulted in a diminution of Asian enrollment and an increase in black and Hispanic students. Again the courts will have to decide the appropriateness of such policies.

It is not surprising that the education establishment has come down almost 100 percent behind the continuation of race based admissions. In the briefs filed in the court, not one university supported the position of the Asian students. These schools contend that without race based preferences they would be unable to obtain their desired racial mix. Indeed, most schools contend that being racially blind would reduce their populations of blacks and Hispanics by half. But could admission actually help or harm these students? Evidence suggests that the admission of lower qualified blacks and Hispanics is harmful to those admitted. These critics point to higher dropout rates and lower GPAs than these students would have achieved at a lesser university. I am of a different view. Many of my black students during my university years were first generation college students and just wanted a chance to succeed at a more rigorous institution. Many of them excelled while many did not. One of my doctoral students was admitted with the lowest GPA and test scores in his class. After struggling the first year, he excelled and received his Ph.D. prompting one professor to admit he was wrong to base admissions solely on test scores. My suggestion harks back to a different era. When I was in high school in the late 1950s, HBCUs offered an on campus one year pre-college program to smart black students with low test scores from the all black secondary schools in the segregated south. That pre-college program was intensive instruction in math, English and the basic sciences. At the successful completion of the program, the students were admitted to the freshman class. One of those students I know went on to earn a Ph.D. In physics from Cal Tech – the genius school. So why not have the elite universities devote a small portion of their considerable endowments to replicate the one year pre-college curriculum of the HBCUs? That way there would be no need for continuing ironic discrimination against Asian-Americans in order to achieve “diversity” at their expense.

The Wall Street Journal had an article about a nurse who was fired because she refused to take a test to reveal any implicit bias. Her reasons mainly involved her insisting she was not biased in the administration of her duties. Moreover the most common administered test of implicit bias is notoriously uneven, indicating bias one time and no bias another time for the same individual. While I am sympathetic to her view, I would love to take such a test because I would be curious to find any implicit biasness. 

I know what are my explicit biases. I do not like “progressives”. I do not like those who hate the Constitution and the foundations of our republic. I don’t like those who prefer mob rule. I don’t like socialists. I do not like communists. I do not like fascists. I don’t like racists. I don’t like white supremacists. I hate the rebel flag. I don’t like Black Lives Matter. I don’t like those who hate the first amendment. I don’t like those who want to annul the second amendment. I don’t like those who hate the Founding Fathers. I don’t like Critical Race Theory. I don’t like the Green New Deal. I do not like the Squad. I don’t like those who think minorities are victims. I don’t like the cancel culture. I don’t like the “woke” military. I don’t like “spokesmen”. I don’t like those who would perform transgender surgeries on children. I don’t like discretionary monetary policy. I don’t like the politicization of the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the Department of “Justice.” I don’t like “settled science.” I don’t like the term “misinformation” or those who use it on conflicting evidence. I don’t like those who would silence opinions on campuses, in schools, in the press, in the media or anywhere in the universe. I don’t like open borders. I don’t like inflation. I don’t like teacher’s unions. I don’t like colleges of “education.” I don’t care for those who are not intellectually curious. I don’t like the dumbing down of education at all levels. I hate it that our kids can’t read or do math or write coherent sentences. I do not like the uptick in crime. I do not like low or no bail for repeat offenders. I do not like those who just are too nice to say no to those who are saying that every white person is racist. I don’t like those attempting to change our language (re: Latinx and womxn). I don’t care for vaccine mandates or mask mandates or lockdowns or those government officials who abuse their authority. I don’t like violent movie trailers. I don’t like snobs. I don’t like climate change zealots. I don’t like ESG or woke corporations. I don’t like whiners who always feel “threaten” or are “hurtful”. I don’t care for those who want to know my pronouns. 

So I admit my explicit biases. But that does not mean that I treat people differently in my professional capacity. When I was in a leadership role in the federal government, I consciously made it a point to treat everyone fairly. As a professor I endeavored to do the same – although students may not have agreed. It was the work that mattered and not who they voted for in the past election. I have strong beliefs and those are built on my upbring and my education in economics and finance. Anyone who loves the basics of those disciplines tends to be laissez-faire and pro-markets. Given that those principles are baked into the foundation of this country (read Alexander Hamilton), one also understands the power and freedom for all built into our founding documents. I occasionally get an email saying “How can you write what you do because you are black?” My answers is always “I write what I do because I am black.” I have always said “prove me wrong.” If you do, then I will adopt your opinion.

Those are some of my explicit biases. What are my implicit biases and if I have any, then so what?

Liz Chaney

Liz Chaney has completely lost it. She is sending $500,000 in attack ads to Arizona to try to defeat Kari Lake. She also is endorsing a democrat Elissa Slotkin in a Michigan congressional race. In both races, the republicans questioned the outcome of the presidential race. So I guess that is consistent with her obsessing about Trump and her participation in the sham January 6 witch hunt ( no offense to witches). What is Chaney doing? She will likely change to being an official democrat rather than a de facto one. Perhaps she will run again for the congress but this time from her native Virginia. Although she represented Wyoming in the congress, she was born in Madison, Wisconsin and grew up in northern Virginia while her father was a representative from Wyoming. I don’t believe that she has ever lived in Wyoming for any length of time.

Cultural Appropriation

I don’t understand the term “cultural appropriation”. Sure I know what the dictionary says “adoption of certain language, behavior, clothing, or tradition belonging to a minority culture or social group by a dominant culture or group in a way that is exploitative, disrespectful, or stereotypical.” That means a minority cannot culturally appropriate? So its ok for a black person to appear in a play in whiteface? Or wear the tribal dress of a native American at Halloween?

Whites are being criticized for wearing dreadlocks – even though it’s a stunning lock on certain women – but blacks can speak English, wear western suits, ties, shoes without being accused of cultural appropriation. Joe Biden wants the Atlanta Braves to change their name and get rid of the tomahawk chop. I guess the same would be true for Florida State which originated the chop. Even I admit that the Braves were inappropriate early on with the Chief Knock-A-Homa and his teepee in center field. I hated that caricature and the gap tooth Indian brave that resided there. I also hated the Cleveland Indians logo – which also featured a gap tooth Indian. But I don’t want the Braves to change their name even though I am 1 percent Native American (I don’t know which of the 157 distinct tribes but its most likely Cherokee. What about music? Should white musicians be “allowed” to play jazz? Or blues? But, of course, its ok for blacks to play bluegrass or country (The Carolina Chocolate Drops).

Joe Biden

I don’t recall a more disastrous first two years of a presidency than Joe Biden’s. His administration deliberately tanked the economy in the name of climate change. The anti-fossil fuel strategy transformed the country from energy independence to importing a million barrels of oil a day. Its attack on refineries has led to a critical shortage of diesel fuel which imperils the entire economy and may be enough to plunge the country into a depression – rather than a mere recession. Afghanistan, COVID mismanagement, energy prices, inflation, supply chain woes, baby formula, low labor force participation rates, immigration, fentanyl, IRS, DOJ, FBI, woke military, woke Fed – did I leave anything out? That this administration will be in power for two more years is truly scary. Republican takeover of the House and Senate will lessen some of this lunacy but not all. Biden, like Obama before him, will test the limits of executive actions (perhaps the president has too much power). Yet 40% of voters approve of his administration and would vote for him again. What am I missing? As goes the Chinese curse: we live in interesting times.

Harold A Black

That the Left overplays its hand seems to be universal. In this country, the majority of its citizens do not approve of the Biden Administration. Pushing gender identity and Critical Race Theory in all cabinet departments, including the military, the Afghanistan fiasco, the open southern border, vaccines mandates, turning the FBI into domestic terrorists, prosecuting those who vocally disagree with the administration, disastrous energy policy, failures in foreign policy, inflation, energy prices, the surge in crime, drug deaths, supply chain fiasco, baby formula shortage, the war on parents protesting federal dictates to their schools, the incredible preponderance of executive orders and the massive increase in spending mostly payoffs to their supporters have created an economic disaster that few of us thought could occur in such a short period of time. Most pundits predict that the voters will repudiate the Democrats in the midterm elections and vote in a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. Personally, I don’t understand how anyone could vote for a Democrat who does not repudiate Biden’s policies. Yet their silence is deafening. The Democrats are trying to run on abortion and against Donald Trump. One of my friends says that the only good thing Biden has done was to defeat Donald Trump and would vote again for Biden if Trump runs. 

In Europe, right wing parties have arisen in response to the socialists in the EU and won elections in Poland, Sweden and Italy. I found it amusing the reactions to Italy from both the left and the right in this country. Those on the left called the party with the most votes – the Brothers of Italy – a fascist organization due to its past. Yet Democrats were this country’s most vocal racists. They opposed the freeing of the slaves and rioted when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced. Democrats were the Klu Klux Klan, the Dixiecrats and Jim Crow. Yet the Democrats dismiss as fascists the Brothers of Italy when they themselves are the political descendants of racists. Those on the right have talked about the massive victory in Italy and that American politicians should take heed and speak directly to the issues. Yet the Brothers of Italy only received 26% of the vote – not exactly a ringing vote of confidence. It is only when all the votes of their coalition are totaled do they reach 44%, still not a ringing vote of confidence. However, what is notable is that Italy’s soon to be prime minister, Giorgia Meloni does not mince words. She preaches God, family and country. For that, the mainstream media smears her and her party as far right fascists. 

Here in this country, few of the leaders of the Republican party are like Meloni. Their utterances are milquetoast. Sure there are some representatives and senators who do not mince words. Yet their legislative leaders have sat on their hands while the Biden Administration is undermining the foundations of the country and literally ripping the country apart. You would think that the Republican leadership would shut down the business of the government while the border remains wide open, while Biden is throwing billions at his green energy cronies and attempting to alter the social fabric of the country. But they are not. I think that there would be a more resounding victory if Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell took their cue from Meloni and emphasized God, family and country. They have a template from Harriet Hageman who handed Liz Chaney an emphatic beatdown. Her “fed up” speech was one of the best I have ever heard (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5026082/user-clip-harriet-hageman-fed-speech). I know McCarthy and McConnell are looking forward to becoming majority leaders but I wish for stronger leadership from the Republicans.