Blog

Harold A Black

Knoxville Focus

August 22, 2022

I was puzzled at first as to why the left started referring to women as “birthing persons.” Turns out it was part of the gender identity movement that the left is foisting on the rest of us. The left is trying to separate gender from sex. They say that a woman who identifies as a man can give birth. Instead of confirming that this woman is a woman, the pregnancy and birth, for the left, means that a so-called man can have a baby. Of course, this is nonsense. Despite the effort to change one’s gender by changing what we call ourselves, one’s gender is determined by biology and not by people. Your plumbing and chromosomes determine your gender but not your testosterone levels. If it were testosterone, then older males who have seen declines in their levels as they age would have to be reclassified. Males who are claiming to be women and reducing their testosterone still have male genitalia and the male chromosome. Also, the reduced testosterone levels for these newly minted “women” are well above that of 99 percent of women. Why not use the testosterone level of the majority of women and female genitalia as necessary to be defined as a woman? This is why the effort to blur gender is misguided and is baseless. Also, women who cannot give birth either for medical reasons or by virtue of aging are not “birthing persons”. So are they women or should we call them “former birthing persons”? 

Gender identity is one of the areas pushed upon the public by the Biden Administration. It’s Department of Education has proposed a rule “that would force federally funded schools to accommodate gender ideology in all school activities and programs. This change would mean requiring biological males to use women’s facilities, forcing faculty and students to use others’ preferred personal pronouns, and withholding funds from those institutions that refuse to comply.” Many colleges and universities are already far along this path so perhaps the rule is to force primary and secondary schools to comply. 

The most publicized case involving a college was of the University of Pennsylvania swimmer who decided he was a female so he could transform his mediocre performances as a male into being ranked number one as a female. It was amazing that he was allowed to do this. More amazing is that Penn has nominated him as “woman athlete of the year”. This is akin to Time naming Rachel Levine, Biden’s assistant secretary for health, as “Woman of the Year” despite the fact that she is a male. The Babylon Bee, the satirical site, more appropriately named him/her “Man of the Year.” The Penn swimmer still has male genitalia and still is attracted to women. There are reports from the genuinely female members of the swim team about their discomfort when he is using their locker room. Want to bet now that the transgender swimmer’s eligibility is up that she (he) will return to being a male? Penn’s women swimmers said that the transgender person was allowed on the team because the coach only cared about winning. Then I don’t know why Penn doesn’t field a transgender basketball team, soccer team, track team and a transgender team in every sport. They would dominate Ivy League “women’s” sports.

As I have said in the past, I would solve the bathroom/locker room controversy by putting pictures of genitalia on the doors and saying “If you look like this, then you enter here.” Then the men who claim to be women would still go into the men’s bathroom if their plumbing were still intact. I would also assign prison inmates based on their plumbing. That way males would not declare as females simply to get housed with women.

Lastly, those with positions similar to mine have been labeled “transphobic”. Since a phobia is defined as an irrational fear or aversion to something, I am not transphobic. I do not fear transpeople nor have an aversion to them. I am not irrational either. If I identified as a giraffe, that would not make me a giraffe.

Harold A Black

The cancel culture has claimed another victim in George Washington University. It has been known as the Colonials” and the name will continue until a new one is announced. The university said “For supporters, the term refers to those who lived in the American colonies, especially those who fought for independence and democracy. For opponents, Colonials means colonizers who stole land and resources from indigenous groups, killed or exiled Native peoples and introduced slavery into the colonies.” Obviously, the opponents won. However, for us black southerners, “Colonial” refers to what we called “light” bread which later we learned was properly called “white” bread. We never could figure out why wheat bread wasn’t called “dark” bread.

It’s a miracle that they did not decide to rename the university since Washington was a slave owner. New Orleans renamed Washington Elementary School after Charles Drew, the brilliant medical researcher who developed the first blood banks. Berkeley California’s school board changed the names of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington Schools. Pasadena renamed Washington Middle School after Octavia Butler – one of my favorite science fiction authors. My granddaughter’s high school in northern Virginia changed its name from Robert E. Lee to John Lewis High School. I found it amazing that Virginia would disown Jefferson and Robert E. Lee – although John Lewis was one of my heroes (along with Clarence Thomas, Tom Sowell and Milton Friedman). However, I am completely sympathetic to why black students would not want the name Robert E. Lee on their diplomas. I feel the same about the unrepentant racist registrar at the University of Georgia whose name is on my diploma. 

But were Washington and Jefferson unrepentant? In 1786, Washington wrote “I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees.” Of course, he never acted on his words, but freed his 123 slaves upon his death. Jefferson was elegant in his words about freedom. He authored the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal) and called slavery a moral depravity. Jefferson said that slavery was the greatest threat to the survival of the American republic and was contrary to the laws of nature. Yet he owned over 600 slaves and did not free them upon his death. Jefferson’s wealth and place in society were dependent upon his ownership of human beings and he was loath to give them up. Still his words inspire us despite his being deeply flawed.  

On the other hand, Washington, despite his slave ownership was a truly great man.  He led by example, commanding a rag tag army of nonprofessionals against the premiere army of his time. He overcame hardships, deprivations, desertions and defeats leading to a most improbable victory against all odds, making him our greatest national hero. He resisted efforts to make him king and refused to serve more than two terms as president which marked him as a unique leader. His old nemesis, George III remarked “If George Washington goes back to his farm, he will be the greatest character of his age.” Indeed, he gave up the presidency and went back to his farm. Washington was prosperous owning over 8,000 acres and 300 slaves. He could have sided with the Loyalists and not have rocked the boat – I am a direct descendent of one of his soldiers who was killed by Loyalists. Yet he accepted being a traitor to the crown to fight for independence. What would have happened to him if he had lost? He would have been fortunate to have died in battle. He certainly would not have wanted to be captured alive. He would have been taken to London and after being tortured, George III would have had him drawn and quartered. That is where each limb is tied to a horse and each horse was simultaneously whipped and run in each direction. I leave the rest to your imagination. Washington knew this and yet to potentially sacrifice everything to establish a new nation built on individual liberty and freedom makes him one whose name should be honored by us all, regardless of color.

Harold A Black

If “all politics is local” then what is Donald Trump doing endorsing 194 candidates since leaving office? His endorsement of J.D. Vance for the Republican nomination for senate in Ohio is credited as his signature win and his endorsement of losing candidates for governor, secretary of state, insurance commissioner, attorney general in Georgia and a congressional seat is cited as evidence of failure. Trump openly disliked the governor and secretary state of Georgia due to their not supporting his allegations of election fraud but his endorsements in the races for attorney general and insurance commissioner are head scratchers. Trump has endorsed candidates for state legislature, county commissioner, local judges, and even for mayor. Voters probably wonder what does Trump know about the issues important to voters in races for county commissioner?

If keeping score, Trump’s record thus far has been impressive. The loses have been Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina whose challenger was endorsed by virtually every elected North Carolina Republican; Herbster for governor in Nebraska who was accused of sexually assaulting several women; McGeachin for governor in Idaho who was running against the incumbent, Mace in South Carolina who was a popular incumbent endorsed by Nikki Haley and the five races in Georgia. The vast majority of Trump endorsements have been “safe” being for incumbents. Cawthorn is the only endorsed incumbent who lost. In Ohio Vance ran in a crowded field and received 32 percent of the vote. But the candidates who embraced MAGA won 56 percent of the total. Trump endorsed Oz in Pennsylvania. Oz’s opponent openly courted Trump for his endorsement. The third candidate in Pennsylvania campaigned as being the most MAGA of the bunch. In a race that pitted two incumbent representatives against each other in West Virginia, the Trump endorsed candidate won. Interestingly, that state’s only statewide elected Democrat, Joe Manchin endorsed the loser. In Alabama, Trump first endorsed Brooks for senate and then rescinded the endorsement and endorsed Brooks’ opponent, Britt. That Britt won over a six term congressman shows Trump’s strength in Alabama. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, five retired, Rice of South Carolina lost in the primary, Cheney (WY) is expected to lose, Valadao (CA) is in the general election, Beutler (WA) and Meijer (MI) face primary challengers on Aug 2.

So what are we to glean about the Trump endorsements? First, endorsing an incumbent is likely a no-lose situation except where the incumbent is scandal ridden. Second, endorsing someone running against a popular incumbent is likely to fail. Third, local voters are interested in local issues and although they may be Trump supporters, they are likely not to be swayed by an endorsement that runs contrary to their local interests. Fourth, the Trump has an enormous ego and takes things personally. He is petty and while his supporters back many of his policies, fewer support his personal vendettas. I would wager that if Trump ran against Biden, Georgia would overwhelmingly vote for Trump. Yet the same Georgia voters, voted against all four of Trump endorsed candidates. Fifth, my personal conclusion is that candidates that support MAGA issues will remain attractive to the majority of Trump voters but not necessarily Trump himself. Biden’s trying to link MAGA and Ultra-MAGA to white supremacy is a desperate attempt to divert attention from his administration’s failures and has gotten no traction among voters. Ironically, the most MAGA candidate in the Pennsylvania senate race was a black woman. 

The proof will be in the Republican primaries for president where MAGA candidates may be running against Trump himself. Given the choice of say a Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump, I would again wager that the voters would continue to embrace MAGA but would reject Donald Trump.

Harold A Black

The left has always loved the judiciary making policy that fail to make it through the legislature. However, when the Supreme Court stopped making policy and starting enforcing the law, the left cried foul. Three recent rulings drew its ire: the overturning of Roe, the ruling on the Second Amendment and the ruling on the overstepping of the EPA. In all of these cases, the left lost its mind – but more so on Roe. Maxine Waters (D-CA) truly earned the title of “Mad Max” when she proclaimed,” The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.” AOC called the court “illegitimate” and urged people to take to the streets. Tim Ryan (D-OH) who is running for the Senate said, “Today’s disastrous decision is the largest case of government overreach in my lifetime.” Ryan obviously has a short memory because Roe was the “largest case of overreach” in my lifetime. Twenty black congresswomen asked Biden to declare a national health emergency. Apparently, they wanted to continue the trend in New York City where the number of abortions exceed the number of live births. And the president proclaimed “With this decision a conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed from the majority of the country. They made the United States and outlier among developed nations or the world, but this decision must not be the final word. “Of course, as usual Biden was wrong. The US was an outlier with Roe being more permissive than countries other than China and North Korea. The decision was not “far removed from the majority of the country”. Biden went further when he said, “We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy,” With Biden joining the chorus of those on the left opposing the decision, so much for the rule of law. That Biden is sounding like a member of the Squad demeans the office of the president and may be the first time that a sitting president has openly opposed a ruling of the Supreme Court using language of open defiance.

What was interesting was that all of us knew the ruling was coming given its leak a month before. Therefore, it was confusing to me to see all the protests after the decision was announced. The protestors could not change the ruling and they only made fools of themselves at the homes of the justices and yelling in the streets of our cities. Elizabeth Warren acted as if she was going to have a heart attack and she and others proclaimed the Court as “illegitimate.” Some, like Biden, have claimed that the Court is the minority overriding the majority. AOC has argued that the justices were appointed by a president who did not win a majority of the votes in the presidential election and as such were illegitimate. Of course, she ignores the fact that the United States is a republic and not a democracy. She was perfectly content when the justices of a previous court enacted policy that she favored. The left may be wrong in claiming that the majority of Americans opposes the Supreme Court decision. Most Americans would likely agree that the legislation rests with the states rather than the federal government. I find it amusing that the same crowd that wants the federal government to made making abortion legal without restrictions also favors the federal government mandating vaccinations for COVID.

There are 26 states which had in place legislation to curb abortion once Roe was overturned. Twenty six is a majority – not a minority – of the states. Most Americans, the polls tell us favor early term abortions – prior to fetal viability – and most states will have similar laws. 

The left conveniently forgets that a republic is not governed by a supermajority. Rather it is governed by a majority of the majorities. Currently, there are 30 republican controlled state legislatures and only 17 democratic ones. Three are split. There are 28 republican governors and 22 democratic ones. Does that sound like a minority to you? The Democrats, because of California and New York, may be in the majority but they are the minority party in the majority of the states. California and New York do not dictate policy for the entire country. Thank goodness.

Harold A Black

I like Elon Musk. I appreciate his genius from his pioneering work with Tesla -daring to start an electric car company when none of the basic fundamentals made sense – to rescuing America’s space program with SpaceX, to providing internet access to Ukraine so the world would know what’s going on. I also like the fact that Musk is not one of those gutless billionaires who make clucking noises to the appease the left. Quite the contrary. He has engaged in Twitter spats with Elizabeth Warren who probably is in shock that someone would dare question her rants calculated to score points with the lemmings on the left. He has also had a very public feud with AOC which begs the question whether she will get rid of her Tesla. Speaking of which, in virtually every circumstance where a business or prominent individual has stood up to the left, the reaction has been to call for a boycott. Obviously, Musk is not afraid of the left and to date all calls to boycott Tesla have been mere whimpers producing a collective yawn. Some wanted to boycott Tesla when it moved its headquarters from California to Texas. There have been cries that Tesla’s labor policies are “racist” and anti-labor. The company has been accused of promoting genocide in China by opening a store in Xinjiang province, home of the Uyghurs. However, isn’t it interesting that the media won’t accuse Nike and Disney of the same thing? But then the left has always contradicted itself and its devotees have pretended not to notice.

Now Musk has bought Twitter and the left is atwitter making a collective fool of itself. It is accusing Musk of going to do what the what the left has been doing for years. The left is threatened that its hold on popular media is being infiltrated by someone not beholding to the left’s ideas of repression and collectiveness. It has railed at Musk being a billionaire even though Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is several times larger than Twitter and Zuckerberg spent over $400 million in the last election trying to elect democrats. Likewise Jeff Bezos is a friendly billionaire who bought the Washington Post and caused it to move even more to the left. Steve Jobs’ widow owns the Atlantic which once was a readable literary and cultural commentary magazine with diverse opinions and is now unreadable for those not on the left.

I find it interesting that the hysteria over Musk’s buying Twitter has accused him of being a racist and anti-transgender. Yet, those on the left are the consummate racists intent on keeping minorities on the government plantation while condemning their children to schools that I think are deliberately rigged to fail. True to their playbook no evidence of Musk’s “racism” has been forthcoming. I did not know freedom of speech was only favored by white straight males.

I am not on Twitter but will do so once I determine how Musk is going to transform it. I also do not own a Tesla and likely never will. I think Tesla’s are homely looking and too limiting. If I used a vehicle solely for commuting and had a garage charger, I might consider it, provided the manufacturers figured out how to make a dependable vehicle without such high frequencies of repair. However, I do not commute. I take long trips in my diesel Ford F250 often towing a fifth wheel. Even at 12 MPG when towing I can go almost 400 miles before refueling and refueling takes only minutes rather than hours. An EV simply can’t do that. I also have a large SUV and am proud of my carbon footprint. Again trips in the SUV with bags and two German shorthaired pointers require few fillups and less time wasted at some charging station. Given Musk’s track record, I am confident that he and his engineers will figure out solutions. One is to make the awful lithium-ion battery obsolete. There is new and exciting battery technology that utilizes sulfur rather than rare earth minerals and produces a range of almost 900 miles rather than a few hundred. That will be a game changer. Musk is already developing long range semi-tractor trucks with long haul capabilities with the ability to tow heavy loads.

Musk embodies capitalism and the innovative spirit, so to him I say “go on with your bad self.”

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.