29. BIDEN TAKES COMMAND

CHALLENGES FACING THE AMERICAN NATION

Clearly, voting in America was formerly viewed as a citizen's duty … as well as one of our basic rights.  The system depended on citizens taking an active role in electing their representatives … to make sure that these representatives truly represented their constituencies … and not just themselves (as the world of politics can so easily become).

But just as so much of the idea of American citizenship has become over the years … the duty part has dropped away, leaving only the basic rights part of voting still standing in Americans' understanding of things.  And as such, every effort has been made to make this right as trouble-free as possible … so it no longer feels like something of a duty.

This in turn has caused a huge debate to develop.  It's well known that some people are more likely to vote than others in any election.  And this difference in level of citizenship action has tended to favor Republicans over Democrats.  Thus the Republicans have been in no hurry to see voting made ever easier and easier for those who otherwise would not bother to vote, whereas this is has become matter of urgency for the Democrats.  They need the votes of the stay-at-home types in order to win elections.  Thus "voter reform" is a hot political issue!

Trump actually made it that hot issue in the 2020 elections … claiming high levels of voter fraud because some states had made voting so easy that there was no way of checking to see who voted and if they voted properly.  Trump was hardly able to make his case that he lost the election because of such voter fraud.  But it did leave the question still standing as to how indeed do we see that dead people don't vote (as they have been known to do in the past!) or that people do not vote in two different districts, or that other people don't vote "for them" in mailed-in ballots.  So Republicans want the voting system tightened up, at least security-wise.

Democrats – including Biden – complain that moves to tighten voting laws is just racism come back to life in the form of "Jim Crow on steroids" (his words) … especially as it was Georgia that took to being more specific as to the span and boundaries of voting ... including requiring voters to be able to show personal identification in order to vote.

Attacking Georgia was hardly fair, as the new Georgia law made voting less restrictive than, for instance, New Jersey's voting laws … the latter usually a reliably Democratic Party state.  But no one was complaining about New Jersey's voting laws.  And Biden's (and others') charge that tight voting regulations was "racism" was itself just politics … and, in Biden's citing specific examples of Georgia's "abuses," flat out wrong.

But it's typical of how deeply divided America is today … over virtually every issue to come before the country.  Tremendous pressure has been applied by "civil rights" groups (Democratic Party activists) calling for a boycott of corporations such as Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines operating out of Georgia.  The pressure even got the Major League Baseball organization to pull its All-Star Game out of Atlanta because of the new law … moving the game to Colorado – which has essentially the same voting rules as Georgia!  American Airlines and Dell (and increasingly many other public-opinion sensitive corporations) have taken this opportunity to demonstrate their "political correctness" in strongly opposing the Georgia voting issue.  And Texas seems to be headed for the same problem as it tightens up on voter identification.

All the tension over this issue finally took the specific form of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives' "For the People Act" (H.R.1) … which passed in early March (2021), narrowly and along nearly purely party lines, 220-210.  Needless to say, the bill got stalled up in the Republican-Democrat balanced Senate.

The bill claimed that by putting the power to supervise the nation's elections in the hands of Washington authorities, this would do away with such things as gerrymandering (revising the voting districts in order to favor one party over another), reduce the influence of money in political campaigns, and in general strengthen the ethics rules for federal officeholders.  That sounded good … provided that typically partisan political rationalizing as to how such reforms would actually take effect did not enter into the dynamic.

All of this has been justified by the Democrats as simply advancing "civil rights" … specifically as Biden himself states, "to protect the right to vote, the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen our democracy" and seemingly had nothing to do with securing a tighter hold of the Democratic Party over the nation's elections.  But it's funny how the vote went along almost purely Democratic-Republican lines.  And attitudes pro and con have followed the same, very predictable patterns in the way the American press reacted to all this.

What seems bothersome about this political proposal is the way that it eliminates identity checks necessary to assure the impossibility of double-voting, ballot harvesting, etc.  But most importantly, it is understood by resistant Republicans as designed to eliminate the check to see that a person voting is actually an American citizen … and not one of the illegal immigrants that Biden has allowed to flood the country.  It is well-known that these immigrants are most likely to be very strong Democratic-Party supporters … because of the "generosity" of the Democrats in meeting the hopes and expectations of this highly state-dependent immigrant sector of the American population.

Most tragically, however, it is designed to undo the "restrictive provisions" of the states and local authorities … meaning, to undo one more piece of the nation's federal structure (individual state power balancing national or central power) by taking away a critical piece of state and local power … in favor of a greater concentration of political power in Washington, D.C.

In early January of 2021, a bill was introduced with 202 co-sponsors (Democrats, naturally) to create a new state entitled, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth (named after Frederick Douglass) … with two voting Senators and one Representative allotted it … members of the Democratic Party to be sure.1 Whether this would require amending the Constitution (changing the provisions of the 23rd Amendment) or not is debatable … and how the American voting public at large stands on this matter also seems debatable – depending of course on whose poll you consult.  Of course, Biden and Harris are also supporters of this action. 1Ever since Washington, D.C. was given the right to choose its own presidential electors in 1961 (the 23rd Amendment), D.C. has been the strongest Democratic Party supporting constituency in the nation.  This is hardly surprising, as the Democratic Party represents perfectly the idea that the immense Washington bureaucracy should be running the country.  In fact it is surprising that there are any Republicans at all in this district!  Thus in the 2020 elections, the Democrat Biden received 92.15% of D.C.'s vote, compared to the Republican Trump's 5.4%, a D.C. voting spread identical to that of the 2016 race between Hillary Clinton and Trump. "REFORMING" THE SUPREME COURT In early April (2021) Biden issued an executive order setting up a 36-member presidential commission to look into the matter of the Supreme Court.  The last time that the Supreme Court supposedly needed some updating was back in 1975 when President Ford set up just such a commission of 10 members drawn from the Department of Justice to look into matters of structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  Biden's commission includes no members of the Department of Justice ... but does include members with well-known political sentiments about the fact that since Trump appointed three "originalist" justices to the Court, the Left has had its path of judicial legislation (getting its ideological agenda put in effect by the federal courts when it had no chance of doing so in Congress) cut off. There has been talk about the need to expand the Court by adding four more justices … which would give Biden the opportunity to appoint justices who could swing the Court balance back to a majority of "progressive" justices willing to be more accommodating to the idea of judicial legislation. However what it is exactly that Biden's commission is supposed to achieve remains unclear.  "Reforming" the Supreme Court is a tricky matter.  FDR attempted this back in 1937 … and it all blew up in his face politically.  So Biden knows that he has to go slowly on this matter. Findings of the Commission, released in October (2021) made no recommendations about an increase in the number of justices ... explaining the various complications that might arise from just such an act.  It did consider other issues as well, such as term limits for the justices and a clear identification of the justices' political party (and thus ideological) affiliations. THE DEBATE OVER HIGH-TECH'S CENSORING OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS Twitter, one of the internet's biggest online communities, banned Trump from access to its operations, citing various legal/moral reasons for doing so.  Whatever.  But it certainly shut down the voice of one of America's leaders, like him or not ... according to Twitter's own decision on the matter.  That's tremendous power.  Does it belong in a free country? Apparently, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and other companies agreed with Twitter … tightening up some of their own rules and regulations concerning the communications that flow through their operations.  Certainly Facebook cuts out postings it considers inappropriate, for whatever reasons it deems necessary. But how does this not become simply the enforcement of political correctness on the portions of the American conversation that flows through these huge (almost monopolistic) operations?  For instance, what kinds of books could Amazon advertise, even move to the front in its presentations … and what kinds could it push to the back of its listings … or even exclude altogether.  That's tremendous power. Some have proposed anti-trust action or "trust-busting" to be waged against these huge, almost monopolistic, organizations.  But the legislation that authorizes such governmental action does not really address the kinds of dynamics these companies represent.  Furthermore, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows these companies to do exactly the kind of censoring that has raised this issue in the first place. But then also, does government regulation of these companies designed to keep that conversation "free" not itself potentially pose a threat to free speech?  Twitter and the others qualify as "private" companies.  Do we want private companies coming under government control of what it allows and does not allow?  But how private are they when they hold such full control over the public conversation? So the debate is very complicated.  It is also heating up considerably … right in keeping with the heated political division in America that is also deepening considerably. THE FEDERAL STATE'S GROWING SHARE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY Biden and the Democrats have pushed hard for a multi-trillion-dollar federal "infrastructure" program put forward by the Democrat-controlled House – which the Senate has done its best (complements of a Democrat and Republican balance in the number of seats each holds in the Senate) to pare down in size ... to avoid a further expansion of the government's debt – as of this writing almost $28 trillion and still climbing rapidly. Biden claims he will bring a $3.5 trillion budget closer to a balance by enacting new corporate taxes, raising the rate from 21% to 28% of corporate earnings … with the Republicans replying that to maintain corporate profitability, companies will be required to raise the prices of their goods and services to cover the new tax expenses, thus adding to an inflation rate that is already growing rapidly. Furthermore, the Republicans want the Democrats to cut back on their "infrastructure" shift to this larger governmental role in managing or controlling the American economy … claiming that the Biden plan simply moves the country closer to Socialism.  But the Democrats answer that these measures are badly needed … in order to move to a "carbon-free" energy world, improve local water-treatment operations, improve American education, and increase welfare support (the latter very important especially if the Democrats are going to be welcoming masses of immigrants to the country). On the other hand, the Republicans have indicated that they were willing to support about 30% of that figure … focused solely on "physical infrastructure," such as roads and bridges. Meanwhile, Democrats are complaining about how unfair it is that the Republicans are employing the filibuster rule to stall action on the program … even though they certainly were big supporters of the filibuster when the Republicans previously held the majority in the Senate.  There exists the possibility of getting around the filibuster by employing special "budgetary" techniques.  But even then, with a 50-50 vote split in the Senate (which however Vice President Harris could break with her vote), trying to get around this opposition sets a precedent that the Democrats realize that they might regret in the future. In short, "infrastructure" has become largely a matter of ideology and politics … and not just about material development of the nation by the federal government – which itself had only very limited constitutional support prior to Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society. Going into the year 2022, the Published National Debt was 29.7 trillion dollars ... and growing rapidly.  Actually the American tendency to be in debt greatly exceeds even this governmental problem ... as total US debt (private as well as public) is estimated to be over 140 trillion dollars (and also growing rapidly!).  Projections are that this trend will only continue in the many years ahead ... as borrowing has become a financial habit of both the US government and the American people themselves. The last time federal spending was brought under control was during the years of the Clinton Administration (1990s)  ...  thanks to the strangle-hold the conservative Republican leader Gingrich had on government spending (which was not at all appreciated at the time by either the Democrats in Congress or the Liberal press!) Notice the actual decline in the mid-1990s to the beginning of the 2000s of the percentage of the US national debt in relationship to the nation's economic output  (its GDP or Gross Domestic Product) cellpadding="0" This is happening at the same time as a huge inflation in energy costs Not surprisingly, the Saudi's took advantage of Biden's cutback on America's oil production ... by announcing their own  jump in oil prices Gas prices skyrocket – in Arizona (above) and California (below) to a 7-year high  (late-2021) MORE MINDLESS GUN VIOLENCE HITS AMERICA A young man, Salvador Ramos, 18,  went on a shooting spree with an AR-15 at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas – May 24, 2022. Nineteen children and two teachers were killed (he shot in the face, but did not kill, his grandmother ... before heading for his rampage at the school) Los Angeles Times Uvalde Police take their time going after the shooter waiting for well over an hour ... while the shooting inside continues ... before entering the classroom to shoot and kill the shooter   New York Times (from a school security camera) Salvador Ramos texting his plans to do the shooting with the gun he got for his 18th birthday. THE LEFT-RIGHT SPLIT IN AMERICA DEEPENS Protesters gather outside Kavanaugh's Maryland home – May 18, 2022.  Someone had revealed that the Supreme Court was about to overturn Roe v. Wade National Review Angry pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court building – June 24, 2022 The Mainichi – Japan's National Daily Democratic Reps. Nydia Velazquez, Ilhan Omar, Jackie Speier, Carolyn Maloney, and Alma Adams march from the Capitol to the Supreme Court to protest Roe v. Wade decision ...  and to be arrested (along with 11 other Congresswomen) – July 19, 2022 CNN GOING AFTER TRUMP The anti-Trump movement in Congress continues ... led by Congress's House Select Committee (created in July of 2021) which has been investigating the January 6th events ... and which is trying to come up with criminal charges against Trump (fraud, criminal conspiracy) which will put him out of political business and possibly even away in prison. The Nancy-Pelosi-appointed House Committee is made up of 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans. One of the Republicans is Liz Cheney ... who clearly wants to see Trump put away ... and the other is Adam Kinzinger ... the only two Republicans willing to serve on the committee. Serious charges (which include prison terms) are also being aimed at Trump officials for "contempt of Congress"  when they have been ignoring the committee's subpoenas demanding their appearance before the committee. THE AFGHANISTAN DISASTER  (APRIL – AUGUST 2021) First of all, it must be noted that Trump, not Biden, was the one who initiated the idea of a full termination of American involvement in Afghanistan, when in February of 2020 Trump negotiated an American pullout with the Taliban, scheduled for May 1st of 2021 – Trump presuming to be reelected in the coming November elections and thus able to preside over this event. Bush Jr.'s decision in 2001 to send the US military into Afghanistan after al Qaeda – and then resorting to pro-Western nation-building in that country when nothing came of the anti-al-Qaeda effort – was a terrible idea ... on a number of fronts. Billions of dollars would have to be devoted to curbing the Taliban's power … and building some kind of pro-Western political system in Afghanistan to counter the Taliban.  And once the program was put in place, it would take years, even generations, of ongoing American support to lay the cultural groundwork that would give this nation-building effort some degree of sustainability.  After all, American troops are still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kosovo … serving just such a purpose: protecting the social groundwork laid out by an America that in the mid-20th-century took up major responsibilities as one of the world's global superpowers. In short, nation-building is a huge responsibility that should never be undertaken on the basis of a mere political whim.  And pulling out abruptly for a mere short-term political gain can have only one result: social catastrophe. What seems to have inspired Trump to undertake this pullout was that Americans had tired deeply of the country's involvement in an Afghanistan that seemed to have no further relevance to American politics. But worse, Trump seemed to have believed that the Taliban would of its own hold to the various conditions (support of an orderly American pullout and certain personal freedoms for the Afghans even after the American departure) of the agreement – and thus began to pull American troops out of Afghanistan, with only 2500 still left in the country as of the end of his presidency … and even those still on schedule for a final pullout in May. In coming to office as president, Biden took up the same policy … although there were advisors who warned him of the dangers of a full pullout.  But Biden assured even the press, which now was awakened to the potential problems involved in a full pullout, that he expected the Taliban to respect the terms of the agreement. However, he simply would not face up to the fact that with the removal of the American troops, America would have no means to enforce the terms of that agreement.  So, just a few months into his presidency (April), he announced a full American pullout, to be completed by the end of the coming August. With this announcement, political morale of the pro-American Afghan social-political system began to collapse.  Indeed, the speed of the Taliban takeover of regions, towns and villages apparently surprised even the Taliban.  And as the end-of-August deadline approached, the country's capital, Kabul, resembled the scene of Saigon when in the mid-1970s Congress terminated American support of the South Vietnamese society and government.  It was a horrible scene of people grabbing onto airplanes as they began their takeoff from the country. However, by the end of the month thousands of people, locals as well as American citizens, were brought out of the country.  Yet shamefully, with the last American soldier pulled out, large amounts of military equipment remained left behind (supposedly dismantled … but also quite able to be repaired by clever hands).  And by no means were all the people who would certainly be hunted down by the Taliban airlifted out of the country … likely including some Americans still remaining in the country.  All in all, it was a grand American disaster. And China had to be loving to watch America sneak off from a serious global responsibility … quick to bring notice to the rest of the world that it would be wise not to put trust in America's promise of great-power protection.  And indeed, America was not looking at all like a great power at that point. Did the president(s) of the United States not understand any of this dynamic? What did they think they were achieving from this tactical retreat?  Was there some hidden strategic advantage to be gained that would compensate for the obvious political loss from this move?  If so, it would remain a mystery. And again ... China had to be loving all of this!   Biden, on April 14th, announcing his intention of pulling out all American military support from Afghanistan as of the end of August (2021) America was therefore invited to watch a disaster that had all the characteristics of a similar American pullout from Vietnam a half-century ago.  Not pretty! Panic sets in as Biden's August pullout date approaches Horrible panic on the part of Afghans who had hoped to be able to escape a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan Some refugees made it all the way to Dulles Airport in DC Taliban who have taken control of the Afghan President's Office – August 2021 Taliban leader Anas Haqqani surveying some of the military equipment the Taliban has inherited Go on to the next section:  Trump ... Round Two   Miles H. Hodges