Blog

Harold A Black

Clarence Thomas is one of my living heroes, along with Thomas Sowell. Other heroes have been Milton Friedman and John Lewis. I admired Milton Friedman for showing how basic economics can be applied to solve everyday problems and John Lewis for his courage during the Civil Rights Era. What I admire about Clarence Thomas is that he makes no apologies for his love of America and love of the Constitution. He interprets the Constitution as written and disavows those who wish that it is a “living document.” With the additions of Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh to the court, this has become Thomas’ court and not that of John Roberts. Consider the important rulings in this term of the court: abortion, the Second Amendment, the overreach of the administrative state, public prayer and school choice. The rulings on Roe and on the Second Amendment were particularly satisfying for Thomas. However, Thomas’ position that the court should interpret the law and not make policy is embedded in all of these major decisions. 

Thomas, conservatives and even some liberal jurists have long recognized that Roe was a flawed ruling. In the past, the Court has not overturned Roe and merely tweaked it. In its ruling on Casey, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14rh Amendment allowed abortions prior to fetal viability. The Dobbs case challenged Casey stating that technology had shifted viability to 15 weeks. After hearing the arguments on Dobbs, the court ruled 6-3 for Dobbs and 5-4 to overturn Roe. This was a victory for Thomas who from the beginning had long sought to overturn Roe on Constitutional grounds. What was particularly interesting is that the minority opinion espoused by Kagan did not object on the basis of the law but argued for Roe to continue because it had been on the books for 50 years. Although the left sought to characterize the Court’s ruling as making abortion illegal, it did no such thing. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote, the Constitution is neutral on abortion which now is returned to the states and is no longer the province of the Federal government. 

The second victory for Thomas was a second amendment case in which he wrote the majority opinion. The court ruled 6-3 that the New York restrictions on concealed carry were unconstitutional. Previously, the court had overturned New Yok restrictions on the right to self-defense in the home. In the ruling against the restrictions on concealed carry, Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment did not draw a home/public distinction with respect to the right to bear arms. Like the ruling on abortion Joe Biden condemned the ruling by the court arguing more for the effects of the ruling as opposed to its legal standing. Also troubling have been the rants from elected officials on the left attacking the justices personally and their calling them “illegitimate”. So much for the rule of law.

Although the left’s attack on Kavanaugh and Barrett have been vicious, those on Thomas have been beyond the pale. They have been particularly vitriolic in large part because he is black. Some have called for his impeachment and worse yet others have said that he should be assassinated. Other black conservatives like Sen Tim Scott, Bob Woodson, Jason Riley and Glenn Loury have been verbally attacked but none to the degree of Clarence Thomas. Yet Thomas is steadfast in his beliefs and in his interpretation of the Constitution. He has not wavered and been inconsistent like some Republican appointees such as David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and now Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts. For that, the left hates him. In another time, Thomas would merit inclusion in John Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. For his strength of convictions and defiance of those who try to intimidate him, Clarence Thomas remains one of my living heroes.

Harold A Black

Knoxville Focus

Apparently, the federal czars fittfully trying to manage the economy have forgotten that economics tells us that prices are determined by changes in both supply and demand. Only the Federal Reserve appears to be participating in fighting inflation while the Biden administration is acting just the opposite. The Fed is trying to lessen aggregate demand by raising its Fed funds target rate and cutting back on its securities portfolio. Although the media keeps saying that the Fed raises interest rates, it controls the movement of only two rates: the fed funds rate and the rate on Treasury bills. The market determines the rates on everything else. If the Fed wants to attack inflation, it tries to curtail bank lending by decreasing bank reserves. This reduces the amount that banks can lend. The fed funds rate is the rate on reserves lending by depository institutions to other depository institutions. In our economy, the banks hold reserves at the Fed and can lend “excess reserves” – those reserves that are in excess of what the Fed requires. The excess reserves when loaned out are the primary source of the nation’s money supply. If the Fed wants to slow down the economy, it raises the Fed Funds rate by selling Treasury securities to the banks. The banks pay for the securities with their reserves, causing reserves to fall. This decrease in bank reserves means that less money can be lent out and the money supply falls. The decrease in the supply of reserves causes the Fed Funds rate to increase and the sale of Treasury securities causes the rate on Treasurys to increase as well. The Fed funds rate and the Treasury bill rates are benchmark rates and the rates charged by lenders are tied to those rates. If the banks’ cost of funds increase, the banks will raise their lending rates. This increase in rates makes it more expensive for consumers and businesses to borrow so they should borrow less. Less borrowing translates to less spending and the overall decrease in demand lowers prices and lower prices mean lower inflation.

However, inflation can also be fought by addressing the other factor that sets prices, namely supply. Prices can be lowered by decreasing demand, increasing supply or a combination of the two. Much of today’s inflation is caused by a decrease in the supply of energy and the Fed’s increase in the money supply. Biden has said “I want every American to know that I’m taking inflation very seriously and it’s my top domestic priority.” Really? My Dad once said, “that sounds good – if you are interested in sounds.” Biden actions belie his words. Deliberately decreasing the supply of oil and signing trillion dollar spending bills increase aggregate demand are inflationary. 

If the administration were serious about inflation – which it isn’t – it would aggressively move to increase the supply of oil and natural gas. It would also decrease government spending. Yet the Biden administration continues to pursue inflationary policies by restricting the supply of energy and pushing for another trillion dollar spending bill. These actions will make inflation worse. Thus, while the Fed is attempting to slow down inflation by decreasing demand,  Biden is doing the opposite by restricting the supply of energy and trying to spend more. The result of his actions coupled with the Fed’s is analogous to driving a car with one foot on the accelerator while the other foot is on the brake. 

Biden is forcing the Fed to act more aggressively than otherwise. Biden and his administration have demonstrated that they do not care about the crippling effects of higher energy costs on businesses – especially small businesses – and to consumers – especially low income consumers. They obviously don’t want to alter their agenda. If they stopped their inflationary actions, the Fed could likely achieve its soft landing – decreasing inflation without triggering a recession. But it looks like the administration is trying to keep the left happy while placing the burden of stopping the inflation solely on the Fed. 

Harold A Black

June 27, 2022

Somebody named Joy Behar on something called “The View” made the following incredibly dumb statement: “Once Black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change. Trust me.” She apparently must think that reports of all of the shootings in our cities are fake news and that blacks are mostly using switchblades. In fact, over a quarter of gun owners in the country are black. Behar and her fellow progressives should salute black gun ownership as an example of diversity since only 13% of the population is black. Behar is also supposed to have said that “Republicans will finally ban guns when black people finally get some”. Again, a very dumb statement. She must have been thinking about Democrats, not Republicans. The gun control laws in the south were enacted in order to keep blacks from being able to protect themselves against the racial tyranny emanating from white Democrats. Martin Luther King, Jr was denied a gun permit. So was my father. But he kept a handgun in the house and carried one with him when we traveled. Dad always wore a coat and tie saying that white people treated him better if he were “dressed up”. He also knew that he would be arrested for protecting his family with a gun, but he was willing to take that chance. Luckily, he never had to. 

From 1900 through the Civil Rights Era there were 675 lynchings in Georgia. This is the period that I call “The Reign of Terror.” It was when a white could murder a black and likely not spend a day behind bars. On the rare occasion of an arrest, all the judges were white as were all the jurors. Acquittal was guaranteed. In 1914, there was a lynching in my mother’s family in Jones County, GA. A white mob attacked a cousin and his son and killed them. My cousins were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The killers were well known in the community and were never prosecuted. In those days, white mobs would gather after a crime was committed and have a “picnic.” The term “picnic” in the Jim Crow era referred to lynch mobs picking a black person to hang or punish for some crime whether they committed it or not. It’s a wonder that the word “picnic” still survives in today’s cancel culture world.

The southern gun control laws applied only to handguns. My grandfather was a farmer. He and his neighbors had an arsenal of rifles and shotguns. He hunted at every opportunity and I have fond memories of tagging along plinking with a .22. My mother told the story that when he went to Detroit to join relatives and work in the automobile factories during World War II, he came back to Georgia because he couldn’t find any rabbits to hunt. Mother also told the story of a cousin seeking refuge at the farm after being threatened by whites who said he was looking askance at a white woman. My grandfather called his neighbors and a few relatives. They sat on the front porch armed to the teeth. Mom said that the lynch mob came near the farmhouse, saw the reception and then went away. The cousin moved to nearby Macon and didn’t come back to Jones County.

Statistics show that blacks are now buying guns at a faster clip than other groups. In large part the progressive’s “defund the police” movement is the reason. Urban blacks want more police rather than fewer. If the politicians, who have their own personal protection, are not willing to protect black neighborhoods, then the residents have to protect themselves. Yesterday’s blacks were prohibited from protecting themselves from the white Democrats who wrote the Jim Crow laws, used force to impose segregation and violence to keep blacks “in their place.” Like the southern Democrats of old, today’s progressives want to keep blacks in their place by restricting gun ownership. Not so for the Republicans. Contrary to what Joy Behar says, Republicans welcome black gun ownership in part because it is good to see that at least some Democrats embrace the Second Amendment.

Harold A Black

July 11, 2022

When Joe Biden said in the final presidential debate that he was going to “end fossil fuels” I thought he would lose the energy producing states. I was wrong. Pennsylvania and New Mexico voted for him despite their dependence on energy production. So Biden is just keeping a campaign promise that he made on more than one occasion. In New Hampshire he said, “I guarantee you we are going to end fossil fuels.” From his first actions shutting down the Keystone pipeline to canceling leases, Biden has made it crystal clear that he wants the price of gasoline and natural gas to be so high as to make “renewables” competitive. That he is succeeding can be seen in West Knoxville with all the Teslas running around. I’ve even seen an electric Mustang and one Rivian pickup– which for some reason reminds me of an Edsel.

Biden has no intention of “fixing” the crisis he created. It’s not Putin. It’s not greedy oil. It’s not the tooth fairy. It’s Joe Biden. He will release gas from the strategic reserves, make overtures to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in order to pretend that he is doing something. He is only pretending to address the problem that he created. He is not about to undo any of his previous actions. That he is play acting is obvious when last month he canceled oil and gas leases in the face of rising gas prices. Biden and the Democrats view climate change as an “existential threat” and is pompous enough to think that they can avert it. Democrats are more than three times as likely as Republicans to view climate change as an imminent threat to humanity’s existence.

I was asked by a dear friend why are gas prices so high and going even higher. Economics tells us that under these conditions, more producers come into the market and increase supply, bringing prices down. Why isn’t this happening? It is because the government is not allowing the market to operate efficiently. First, virtually all government agencies have a climate change agenda and are contributing to keeping gas prices high. That makes additional investments in fossil fuels tentative at best. Investors do not like uncertainty and even though the Democrats are likely to be voted out, it is highly unlikely that they will stay out. Like the Terminator, they will be back and those monies if invested in fossil fuels will be not able to generate acceptable returns. Second, even if the producers were willing to invest in energy production, they would find it difficult to acquire financing. The financial regulators are discouraging energy investments and loans. Moreover, the United States and 20 other countries have pledged not to fund international fossil fuel projects. Third, the private sector plays an outsized role in keeping prices high. Forty of the world’s largest banks have formed the “Sustainable Markets Initiative” and its Net Zero Banking Alliance pledged to align lending and investments with net zero emissions by 2030. No wonder Big Oil is sending earnings to shareholders as increased dividends rather than investing in drilling and exploration. Moreover, the three largest fund managers, Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard who control over $20 trillion in assets are placing “woke” policies above return. Blackrock and State Street are members of the Climate Action 100 which pushes fossil fuel companies to show how they will meet carbon emissions goals. Blackrock’s CEO wants to achieve 75% zero carbon investments by 2030. The fund managers investment are pushing ESG (environmental, societal, and governance) investing. Blackrock is also insisting that firms that have diverse boards and engage in something called the Gender Initiative. Mind you that none of this has anything to do with firm profitability. Indeed, Elon Musk and Blackrock’s former sustainable investing chief have said that ESG investing is a scam. ESG products command higher fees that add to the profitability of the investment firms but not the returns to their managed portfolios. Several of the large pension funds have pushed back. Texas which has $2 billion of its pensions at Blackrock has threatened to drop the company if it persists in its “woke” agenda. Other Republican run states have joined Texas to compel Blackrock to support and invest in the fossil fuel industry. However, Texas and other pension funds may be best served by moving their monies to a fund manager who seeks to maximize returns. Regardless, get used to high oil and gas prices because on this issue the Greenie Weenies have won.

Harold A Black

June 6, 2022

I can’t really explain why the Uvalde shootings have affected me more than other shootings including Buffalo. Maybe its because every year I deer hunt near Eagle Pass, TX (the epicenter of the illegal migrant crisis) and the deer processor is in Uvalde. The rancher where I hunt has three children in school in Uvalde. Although his kids are not in the school where the shootings occurred – the twins are in middle school and the oldest is in high school – I still sent him a text wondering as to their mental state. Everyone I have met in Uvalde has been polite and courteous. It is a small town with only a couple of traffic lights on the main highway through town. Although I’ve only stopped for gas, groceries and various stuff at the local Walmart, Uvalde reminds me of “small time USA”. Although predominately Hispanic-American, conversations were like what you would find almost anywhere on main street USA. One of the women at the deer processor said that she had moved back home after living for a while in the big city -San Antonio. She said that San Antonio was just too big for her and that she missed the closeness of community that was Uvalde. That closeness is what makes the Uvalde shootings especially painful. In a town of only 16,000, most likely every resident knew someone directly affected by the shootings.

After the shootings, the politicians repeated their usual refrains and called for legislation that have nothing to do with the shootings. They want “assault” rifles banned yet most would not be able to define what is an assault rifle. They simply think that if it looks somewhat like an AR-15, then it must be bad. They also want universal background checks even if most shooters have passed such checks and use rifles, shotguns and handguns rather than “assault-type” weapons.

We also hear that the US is the only country where mass shootings occur. Of course that is not even close to being true. We also hear that the US leads the world in mass shootings. Again that depends on how mass shootings are defined. Given different definitions the US ranks from first to 62^ndmaking most discussions about rankings meaningless. When talking about the recent mass shootings, the president bemoaned the power of the gun lobby as if the NRA suddenly disappeared, then mass shootings would vanish.

The facts are that if – as commonly defined – a mass shooting involves the shooting of 4 people – then most are domestic disputes involving handguns. The media almost gleefully reported the Buffalo shooting as that of a white supremacist and one source erroneously reported the Uvalde shooting as such even though the shooter was Hispanic. Although President Biden loves to spring out the white supremacist label saying that “White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison … running through our body politic.” But most of us realize that “white supremacy is the Left’s dog whistle for “conservatives.” One oft-cited source notes that over the past 10 years “extremists” have committed a total of 244 killings. Of the 244 reported killings, 76 were in prison and only 86 were classified as “ideological”. However, that source omits 8 mass killings including 4 by black nationalists leaving one to doubt its veracity. Regardless, last year there were 791 murders in Chicago alone – none of which were committed by a white supremacist. But those mainly black on black killings are not deemed newsworthy by our politicians or by the media and are largely ignored. 

After the Uvalde shootings Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren declared gun violence as a “national emergency.” Yet is it really? Why don’t they say the same thing about fentanyl with its 100,000 deaths per year? Or 2 million illegal aliens crossing our southern border? Yes, school shootings are a national tragedy but drugs and the border are our national emergencies.

Harold A Black

Knoxville Focus

July 4, 2022

Happy Birthday America. It’s your 246^th birthday. America is unique. Never before had a country been established with the individual, rather than the government, as its nexus. In America, the government was to protect the liberty of the people. America was founded as a religious nation and its citizens’ rights came from God and not from the government. Thus, what God had bestowed no man could rend asunder.

The Declaration of Independence reads: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

The Founding Fathers realized that over time governments become entrenched and would seek to limit individual liberty. To guarantee the freedom of the individual, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution constitute the Bill of Rights. Although the country was founded as a Christian nation, the Founding Fathers guaranteed freedom of religion and took pains to separate religion from the state. It is remarkable that the Founders did not seek to impose their views if those views would limit liberty of others.

That the Bill of Rights is now under assault is an indication that there are those who wish to abrogate the freedoms and liberties of their fellow citizens. There are those who seek to limit freedom of speech – if that speech conflicts with their views. There are those who wish to limit gun ownership and there are those who wish to limit religion – especially if that religion is Christianity. These people wish to terminate the America envisioned and established by the Founding Fathers and replace it with a tyrannical and overbearing government that places the state ahead of its citizens.

In order to keep tyranny at bay, the Founding Fathers established the country as a republic rather than a democracy. Knowing that democracy invariably leads to mob rule, the Founders created a government with checks and balances where the rights of the minority were enshrined. Presidents were elected not by the masses but by electors in the Electoral College whose numbers were determined by the number of representatives plus senators in each state. The Congress was composed of a House of Representatives determined by the Census and the Senate where each state had two senators regardless of the population of their state. Constitutional controversies were adjudicated ultimately by the Supreme Court which was shielded from political whims by lifetime appointments.

The genius of the Founding Fathers made America unique and with that uniqueness comes American exceptionalism. That exceptionalism is the product of individual freedom and the primacy of the individual over the government. It leads to American ingenuity and innovativeness. It encourages all to pursue the American dream and gives us pride in being American regardless of how we look.

I will never make excuses for America for America does not falter. Some of its citizens and some of its politicians are the ones who stray. Detractors criticize the Founding Fathers as a bunch of privileged old white men, some of whom owned slaves. Those critics are fools. They should read the founding documents. They should read the Federalist Papers. The Constitution does not grant advantages to old white men. It does not say all old white men are created equal. Self-serving old white men would not have written the founding documents.

Yes there were slave holders amongst them but also abolitionists like Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Roger Sherman. Many hated slavery but knew that in order to form the country, slavery would have to exist. Even Thomas Jefferson introduced in 1784 a proviso outlawing slavery in the new northwest territories (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan). They knew that one day slavery would end and that all men who are equal under God would become equal under the law. Those who today attempt to impose their morals to our history are being dishonest at best and are trying to use it as an excuse to tear down the foundations of freedom. Here are the words of Thomas Jefferson written to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. 

“All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them.” Do those sound like the words of a privileged old white man?

I bear witness to the greatness of America and its uniqueness. As a grateful American who knew his great grandmother and she was a slave, thank you America. I love you.

The powers that be have conspired against fossil fuel production and are pushing renewable energy (sans nuclear) and electric cars down our throats. More and more auto manufacturers are announcing that they will go completely electric, even though there is little demand from consumers. The world’s largest banks have formed a consortium that will limit lending to fossil fuel producers. The largest money managers have pledged 75% green portfolios by 2050. The G-20 countries have agreed not to lend to international fossil fuel projects. The big oil companies are pivoting to go green as are the power companies who have seen the writing on the wall. The smaller energy producers will go bankrupt lessening energy competition and driving prices up even more. The government is deliberately driving the price of oil and gas up to make renewables and electric cars more competitive. 

It doesn’t matter that the infrastructure does not exist to support widespread adoption of electric vehicles and that solar and wind are grossly inefficient. It also doesn’t matter that the actions of governments, money managers and banks are impoverishing millions by reducing their real income through higher energy prices. It doesn’t seem to matter that driving up the cost of agricultural produce is causing food shortages worldwide and that starvation is rising. The Green Elites could care less. They profess to care about the environment and that climate change is an “existential threat.” True is, they could care less about the environment. The governments are pushing a green agenda because it increases their power. The money managers push the green agenda because it means bigger fees. The banks are reacting to the regulatory pressures from their governmental agencies. The energy producers are trying to stay in business and the big producers will never object to having fewer competitors as the small producers are forced out of business.

The question is whether the energy producing states will stand for losing their primary source of revenue and the primary source of employment in their states. I would be shocked if these states sat idly by and let themselves be bankrupted by the federal government. I expect that these states may want to call a meeting amongst themselves to at least broach the idea of succession. A county made up of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wyoming, western Pennsylvania, the Dakotas, New Mexico, Colorado and Kentucky would be large enough for auto companies to continue to produce internal combustion engines. If not, then I would suspect that there will be startups that will meet the demand.

Harold A Black

The Congress is diverse. Not just in race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and politics but in degree of ideology with members on the far far right and some on the far far left. I have a dear friend who describes Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) as a “right-wing nut job.” Even the most loyal Republican would admit that some of her comments are a bit bizarre. But the removal of her from all committees was extreme – even for the Democrats.  On the far far left is the “Squad”. When asked about one of the Squad’s members, Mondaire Jones (D-NY), after his comments following the Uvalde shootings my friend described him as a “left-wing nut job.” In case you missed it, Jones ranted at the Republicans, “You will not stop us from passing gun control. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand. We will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of our communities.” Now isn’t that interesting? I can find no similar statements by him after any of the killings and increased crime in his hometown of New York City. Yet, in response to a shooting in Texas, he is willing to remake constructs of the American republic to suit his views. Jones forgets the old adage “what goes around comes around”. Recall that if Harry Reid had not gotten rid of the filibuster for Federal judges in order to make it easier for Obama appointees to get through the Senate, we would not have Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett on the Supreme Court.

Biden and a myriad of politicians commented on the Uvalde shootings. Biden wanted a ban of assault rifles and at a minimum an increase in the age at which the guns could be purchased. He was not interested in “hardening “the schools. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s comments on the shootings were mostly ignored by the media. Green tweeted “Joe Biden wants to ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” yet Democrats refuse to prosecute violent crimes in Democrat cities all over the country and refuse to protect your children at school with armed security. Same Democrats are protected by armed guards daily.”

Her tweet devastates Mondaire Jones, Joe Biden and the Democrats. Greene notes their hypocrisy for remaining silent while mainly black adults and kids are wounded and killed daily in our major cities. Last year Houston had 473 homicides, Philadelphia had 559, New York, 488 and in Chicago there have been 1,184 people shot as of June 1. Where is the outrage? The silence from the Democrats shows that they do not care one whit about shootings and their victims. What they care about is gun control. As Shelby Steele notes, “The left gets power from fighting white evil not black despair.”

Greene’s second point is brilliant. If Joe Biden does not see the benefit in hardening our schools, then he should remove the barriers in front of the White House. Gone should be the concrete structures that are there to prevent a vehicle from entering the White House grounds with a bomb. All metal detectors should be removed from the doors and the Secret Service personnel should be disarmed. The same is true for the security accorded congressional Democrats. As Greene points out “Same Democrats are protected by armed guards daily.” I think that many people feel that at a minimum, our children deserve the same protection as our politicians.

Redistricting is likely to cost Jones his seat in Congress. On the other hand, Greene, who is constantly ridiculed by the mainstream media won her primary by over 70 percent of the vote. Apparently, her constituents do not care if she is a “right-wing nut job.”

Lastly, I would love to see a debate between the “right-wing nut jobs” and the “left-wing nut jobs”. Wouldn’t Greene, Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar and Thomas Massie versus AOC, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush and Mondaire Jones be great theatre?

The French Election and the international Revolt Against the Ruling “Elites”

Harold A Black

May 2, 2022

The latest French election shows voter discontent with the establishment. The incumbent was primarily challenged by the same far right candidate that was soundly vanquished in the last election. However, this year, the election was closer than predicted with the ruling party garnering less than 50% of the vote dictating a second round runoff. The challenger’s party was openly racist and pro-Nazi when it was founded with its sole issue being the massive immigration of Muslims into France. Today its rhetoric is softer. The party now speaks of independence from the European Union, the removal of French forces from the command of NATO and amending the French constitution to limit immigration. 

In last week’s runoff, the opposition party ended up with less than 50 percent of the vote but the French discontentment was still evident. It is almost identical to the discontentment with the Biden Administration. The Wall Street Journal called the discontent a “cultural alienation from a progressive hegemony in the West’s academic, media and artistic institutions” and “resistance to the new religion of universal climate change compliance with its costly implications for energy customers and seething fury with the little autocrats in government and health bureaucracies decreeing lockdowns, masks and vaccine mandates. … “underlying it all, righteous indignation at the arrogance of unaccountable elites who dismiss opposition to their authority as the product of bigotry and ignorance and denounce anyone displaying it as a traitor or a domestic terrorist.” Sound familia?

The incumbent, Emmanuel Macron won but acknowledged that many voted for him as the lesser of two evils. A few on the American Left have said that if Macron could be re-elected with his low popularity then there is hope for Biden. I am no expert on the sagacity of French leadership but Macron is no Joe Biden. Here our problems are compounded by the ineptitude of our leadership. We, too, must endure the left’s obsession over climate change, open borders and Covid mandates. Add to that Afghanistan, gender identity, transgender athletes, Critical Race Theory, the woke military, inflation, shutting down pipelines, shackling oil and gas, the ‘Build Back Better’ fiasco, the surge in crime and the war on parents where the attorney general was investigating parents attending PTA meetings as domestic terrorists. 

The difference between the French election and our forthcoming election is that the opposition is projected to win. If Republicans win both the House and the Senate, then Biden will try to enact his changes through edict – something that the progressives in Congress have been urging all along. No Biden budget would pass both Houses. No radical progressive would be confirmed by the Senate. Republicans would have the power to effectively shut down the Biden agenda and throttle back actions taken by those in the administration who think that climate change is the “existential crisis of our time.” I find it remarkable that so much damage has been done to our economy and our national psyche in so short a time. 

We are confronted with elected officials who want to severely curtail our freedoms, re-write the Constitution, pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Electoral College, abolish the Senate, cancel our culture, muzzle free speech and annul the second amendment. We take to heart the words of Abraham Lincoln: “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Amen.

Knoxville Focus

Henry John Temple once said “Countries don’t have permanent friends only permanent interests.” How else to explain how our once enemies (Japan and Germany) are our friends and our once friends (China and Russia) are our enemies? The same is true in politics where once the right favored easing immigration in order to attract cheap labor and the left opposed it. Bernie Sanders once said that open borders was a Koch Brothers proposal. Of course now he embraces it. On the right, freedom of movement of people (labor) across borders was equated with freedom of movement of capital. Thus, classical economists provided the rationale behind the desire of big businesses to have a freer flow of immigrants. On the other hand, the most fierce opposition to freer immigration was by the labor unions – for obvious reasons. Less immigration meant fewer competitors and higher wages for union members.

Now the script has flipped with the left favoring open borders and the right opposing it. A closer look at the supporters on the left reveals billionaires such as Bill Gates and the executives of “woke” corporations such as Nike and those that employ large numbers of immigrant labor. These workers may be well educated with technical expertise and be in areas where there is a shortage of native born workers. The workers may also be at the bottom of the skill ladder and work at low wages. The rich on the left need their gardeners, maids, nannys and cooks as well as IT and AI experts. The right, on the other hand, has latched onto the exploitive nature of open borders and security issues such as drug trafficking, sex trafficking, entry of criminals and terrorists. 

So there is an empirical issue here. Is there evidence that areas with high numbers of illegals have lower wages than other areas? If there is a wage differential, does it persist over all skill levels? Asia, Mexico, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean, Canada and the rest of the world have been exporters of educated professionals to the United States, in essence making those countries poorer and ours better off. Some on the left and the right might say that this is a good thing for America. But today’s argument is not over the well educated immigrants but over the masses who show up at our southern border. What percentage of those people are professionals? In a survey of “unauthorized” residents of the United States, it was reported that 24 percent had the equivalence of a high school education, 12 percent had some college and 18 percent had college degree or higher. Of course, many illegals with higher education may have to work in areas other than where they have expertise. One would think that doctors and lawyers would not be able to practice legally in the United States. I am less certain about engineers and architects.

I have a soft spot for those who trek hundreds of miles, leave their homes with few possessions in search of a better life for themselves and their families. For many immigrant groups, the second generation will in many cases be more American than the native born. They will be capitalists, well educated and English speaking. However, for me, the most important reason not to have open borders is that such a policy overwhelms the border states. There are real costs to social services, education and health care. There are costs associated with law enforcement and crime. That those residents on the border do not welcome the influx can be seen in the changing politics at the border where increasing numbers of residents have switched party allegiance and are electing Republicans rather than Democrats. We have laws on the books that need to be enforced and laws that need to be written. However, neither party appears willing to tackle the issue. The Democrats are fearful of alienating the far left in their ranks and the Republicans appear to want to keep the issue alive for political reasons.

Lastly, the FBI defines a Ponzi scheme as one that “promise high financial returns or dividends not available through traditional investments. Instead of investing the funds of victims, however, the con artist pays “dividends” to initial investors using the funds of subsequent investors.” That sounds like Social Security to me and its looming insolvency may be another reason why the Left favors open borders.