Climate Justice?

A favorite theme of those in favor of open borders is that "migrant justice is climate justice" or immigration justice=environmental justice".

This excerpt from a blog post arguing that immigration justice and climate justice are inextricably linked is a typical example of how progressive leftists attempt to paint a narrative that an open border is virtuous.

Activists fighting for immigration justice and climate justice are beginning to recognize that their work is bound to one another, and we must all recognize that when immigration justice or climate justice is pushed forward, the other has a foundation to build on. Together they can catalyze a movement that pushes for a safe, fair, sustainable, and inclusive environment for all. 

Would it surprise you to learn that those are the words of a graduate of UC Berkeley with degrees in Environmental Economics & Policy, and Conservation & Resource Studies? Who would have thought  someone would have learned this studying at Berkeley?

Source: https://www.ecowatch.com/1-000-youth-take-to-the-streets-demanding-climate-justice-1882118334.html

Arguing that "immigration justice is climate justice" or that open borders in the United States contributes to a safe, sustainable environment might look good on a banner or make a cool sound bite during a street protest.

However, actual facts and reality leave no doubt that open borders do nothing insofar as solving or affecting climate change.

In addition, allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the United States is the last thing one would support if you were concerned about sustainability.

I continue to be surprised that Republicans don't make this point about illegal immigration and its adverse effects on sustainability in that it is such an important issue with Democrats and younger voters.

The immigration laws were established to provide order for our society. The laws were considered necessary to provide for the entrance of an established number of immigrants annually that could be assimilated without disrupting and degrading the experience of U.S. citizens and others who are rightfully here. In sum, the laws were enacted to foster sustainability for society.

Laws that have been completely ignored by the Biden administration for over three years.

Adding too many immigrants in a short period of time puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our water, our sewer systems, our roads, the electric grid, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

Add to this what it does to increase the financial strain on our schools and our health system and cost pressure on rents and housing costs, not to mention our law enforcement and justice system.

Illegal immigration is the worst thing you could be in favor of if you are concerned about sustainability in our society.

The argument that immigration justice is climate justice is also ludicrous on its face.

Open border advocates want us to believe that having millions of people migrating from countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti to the United States is going to help fight climate change and improve the global environment?

How does one come to that conclusion if they believe that human-induced carbon emissions are responsible for climate change?

If sustainability and the environment are primary goals, there should be no migration from low carbon emission countries to high carbon emission countries.

That should be obvious on its face.

Migrating people from low carbon to high carbon emission countries will increase overall global carbon emissions. It is an inescapable fact.

For example, the per capita carbon footprint in the United States is over four times that of Mexico and three times that of Venezuela. It is over 13 times that of El Salvador, 15 times that of Honduras and 53 times that of Haiti.

Why is that? There are few factories and other large productive facilities in those countries. There are limited conveniences like air conditioning. Homes and apartments are smaller. There are fewer vehicles per capita. Many need to walk to work or shop.

Why do migrants want to immigrate to the United States?

They are in search of a better life and prosperity.

Who can fault them for wanting to better themselves?

However, 99% of the population of the world would improve their lot in life by migrating to the United States.

Do we take them all? 

How is that sustainable?

That prosperity is fueled by energy—most of which is carbon-based,. a reality that will continue for some time into the future unless nuclear, solar or another source proves gains acceptance and proves to be affordable.

As I have written before, there is no such thing as a rich, low energy country.

Energy makes the world economy go. We need it for anything we want to do. It needs to be available and it needs to be affordable. The economy does not work without energy. The consumer cannot spend on other things in the economy if they are spending excessive amounts on energy. If the consumer doesn't spend, the economy does not grow. If the economy does not grow, more and more people go without jobs.

When muscle power was the prime energy source in the world we could produce very little. Firewood and domesticated animals improved our ability to produce. However, the introduction of energy sources like coal, oil and gas allowed us to greatly leverage our productive capacity. 

It is not a coincidence that the industrial revolution coincided with the introduction of so-called fossil fuels beginning with coal and moving on to oil and gas and the development of machines that were powered by these energy sources.

The argument is now being made that all of the migrants of the world who want to come to the United States must be allowed in because their home countries are becoming uninhabitable due to climate change.

Let's take a look at how that statement squares with real data.

Here is a chart that shows human deaths in Latin American and the Caribbean from so-called "climate-change disasters" between 1990 to 2023.

It clearly shows that the last ten years has seen far less deaths from climate change disasters in that ares of the world than in the previous twenty years.

Number of human deaths due to climate change-related disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean from 1990 to 2023
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1409757/number-of-human-deaths-due-to-climate-change-related-disasters-latin-america/

Where exactly is the climate crisis that is forcing people to flee their home countries to migrate to the United States?

An alternative argument is made that people are being forced to migrate due to the failures in the agricultural sector due to crop failures caused by extreme weather. Of course, agriculture supports many people in these countries.

However, in almost all Latin and Caribbean countries, crop production is higher (most recent data is 2021) than it was when compared to a base period of 2004-2006. In the chart below, 100 represents the crop index level in the base period. 

Source: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/crop_production_index/Latin-Am/

Haiti is an obvious exception, with crop production only amounting to about 77% of what it was in 2004-2006. However, this is largely a function of the political situation in the country. The same can be said to be true in socialist Venezuela.

Look no further than comparing the Dominican Republic and Haiti in the data above. These countries share the same island in the Caribbean. Crop production in the Dominican Republic is 20% higher than it was in the base period while Haiti is down almost 25%. Climate change is ravaging one end of the island but not the other?

For context, the crop production index for the United States in this data set is 100.8 and in Canada it is 82.8. The majority of the Latin American countries have actually seen crop production increases at levels higher than in the United States but they are being ravaged by climate change?. Almost all are better than Canada. Are we to consider Canadians as climate migrants as well?

Beyond all of this, open border advocates argue that allowing illegal migration in to the United States is still beneficial because the average migrant only utilizes about 80% of the resources and carbon emissions of U.S. citizens.

That might be true but it is still multiples more than these individuals would use in their home countries. 

One study estimated that a migrant in the United States produces on average four times the amount of carbon emission they would in their home country. 

If one is concerned about carbon emissions impacting the climate the last thing anyone should be in favor of us is taking in more illegals immigrants who will immediately expand their carbon footprint many times beyond what it would be in their home countries.

Do not be fooled by a false narrative.

Migrant justice is not climate justice.

There is also nothing sustainable about taking in 10+ million illegal immigrants over a three year period and claiming that it is beneficial for our environment or that of the world at large.

The assertion within that narrative is not supported by facts or logic.

Climate justice?

What about justice for the American citizens and legal immigrants who play by the rules and have to endure the chaos, crime and costs of the compounding effects of illegal immigration?

How about some justice for them?

For additional context read my previous blog post on "The Compounding Effects of Illegal Immigration".

Polling Potpourri----June 19, 2024 Edition

A big question in the wake of Donald Trump's conviction in the New York criminal trial last month was how this would play out in the polls and in the election in November.

This is what I wrote right after the verdict was rendered and the Democrats and mainstream media started referring to Trump as "a convicted felon".

It remains to be seen how the verdict will play into the decision process of the important swing voters.

Do they recoil at the thought of a "convicted felon" as President?

Or do they see what has happened to Trump to be the real threat to democracy and an attempt to undermine the Constitution?

Polling since the trial seems to indicate that the verdict in the New York court has had no discernible effect on the arc of the Presidential race.

A month ago, on May 19, Trump had a 1.1% advantage in the RealClearPolitics.com poll average.

Trump's advantage today is at +0.8%.

Comparing the numbers from before and after the verdict tells the same story in  looking at specific polling firms.

NPR/PBS/Marist had Biden +2 in mid-May.  Its most recent poll has the race tied.

Yahoo News had the race tied in mid-May. It now has Biden +2.

Reuters/Ipsos had the race tied in mid-May. It now has Trump +2.

Any changes appear to be just noise in the numbers rather than any fundamental shifts in the views of the electorate involving Donald Trump.

Trump's margin of +0.8% shows this is a very tight race right now.

However, it is also important to put that number in context with the 2016 and 2020 elections which also were exceedingly tight when the final results were in.

On the same date in 2016, Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by 5.8 pants.

In 2020, Trump trailed Joe Biden in June by 8.8 points.

Trump's narrow margin in the popular vote polling average suggests that Trump is in a much better place in the all important electoral college vote right now than he was in 2016 or 2020.

In fact, the RealClearPolitics.com poll average shows Trump leading in every key battleground state right now.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/nevada/trump-vs-biden

More significantly, polls in several states that are not considered Battleground states are starting to look competitive for Trump.

Consider Virginia, which Biden won by 10 points in 2020. A recent poll by Fox News shows Trump and Biden tied in Virginia after the New York verdict.

In Minnesota, Trump's internal pollster shows that Trump is actually leading Biden in that state.

Biden won Minnesota by 7 points in 2020.

A poll in Iowa by a highly respected pollster in that state has Trump +18.

Trump won Iowa by 8 points in 2020.

What do I find interesting in those three state polls?

Notice that in each of them there has been about a 10 point swing toward Trump between the 2020 popular vote in each state and current polling.

What does it take to get a 10 point margin swing in an election?

The most direct way to get that result is to have 5% of voters who supported a candidate switch their vote.

That takes 5% away from one candidate and adds 5% to other candidate amounting to a 10% total margin shift. 

Is it unreasonable to believe that 1 out of 20 of those who voted for Biden last time are willing to shift their vote to Trump based on the results of the last 3 and 1/2 years?

What groups do the polls show that Biden is most vulnerable in losing voters who supported him the last time?

Biden is showing weakness in a number of groups that have reliably voted Democrat for along time.

Young voters, Blacks, Women and Hispanics are seeing shifts in the polls away from Biden.

One of the more interesting takes I have seen on these shifts came from CNN data guru Harry Enten who recently provided an analysis comparing polling involving Black voters at this time in 2020 compared to today.

These are the numbers with Black voters that astounded the CNN data guru.

Biden has lost 16 points while Trump has picked up 14 points among Black voters overall according to Enten.

Link: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1802704780025794662

Enten looked deeper into the data to see where the erosion of Biden's support was coming from within the African American community.

It is most pronounced among young voters under the age of 50.

Biden had an 80 point margin over Trump with Black voters under age 50 in 2020.  Recent polling shows it to be down to just 37 points among these younger voters today. 

That can only be described as a seismic shift in support.

Will these voters come back to the Democrats by November?

If not, it is hard to see how Joe Biden can win.

It is polling like this that raises the question in my mind as to whether the Democrats can afford to keep Biden on the ticket.

Link: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1802704780025794662

I also continue to be astounded by the polling on the question of whether voters support a policy that would have the U.S. government start a new national program to deport all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally.

62% of all registered voters in a CBS poll taken between June 5-7 say they are favor of deporting all undocumented immigrants.

That includes 53% support with HISPANICS and 38% among self-identified Democrats.

There is no issue that draws a sharper contrast in policy views between Trump and Biden it is what the United States should be.doing about illegal immigration.

It is surprising that such a significant majority of registered voters are in agreement on what would be considered as about as a hard line position as you could get on this issue.

I think it shows the depth of frustration and concern that voters have about the border invasion under Biden.

If voters continue to hold the views reflected in this poll, Donald Trump is in a very strong position on this issue and in the election. Immigration continues to be a top 3 issue for many voters.

The next major item on the election schedule that could impact the race is the Trump-Biden debate scheduled for June 27.

After that, the sentencing of Trump scheduled for July 11 (four days before the start of the GOP convention) will draw a lot of voter attention.

Will the Judge in that case be so bold as to order Trump incarcerated, placed under house arrest or put under strict probationary rules that limit his travel while he is running for President of the United States?

How will that play with the American voters?

There are plenty of twists and turns ahead on the road to November.

Polls make for good conversation and blog content but only one poll counts in the end---that one is still more than four months away.

Stay tuned and stay in touch through BeeLine.

The Compounding Effects of Illegal Immigration

The immigration laws were established to provide order for our society. The laws were considered necessary to provide for the entrance of an established number of immigrants annually that could be assimilated without disrupting and degrading the experience of U.S. citizens and others who are rightfully here.

The compounding effects of uncontrolled immigration is the reason that the immigration laws were put on the books in the first place.

When the law is ignored or not enforced, chaos is sure to follow due to the compounding effects of large numbers of people the society is not prepared for.

Adding too many immigrants, too quickly,  puts added pressure on the social order if those immigrant numbers outpace the ability to integrate and assimilate them into the general population.

Too many immigrants puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our water, our sewer systems, our roads, the electric grid, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

Add to this what it does to increase the financial strain on our schools and our health system and cost pressure on rents and housing costs, not to mention our law enforcement and justice system.

What happens when AI and technology displaces many of the jobs that low-skilled immigrants are likely to hold? Are we importing a gigantic permanent underclass that will have to be supported by welfare and tax dollars for years and years to come?

Is this the underlying reason that Democrats have embraced open borders? Importing large number of people who will be dependent on the government for support provides future votes to support the Democrat party agenda.

Of course, we are seeing massive sums of tax dollars being used right now at the federal, state and local levels to house, feed and care for the masses of illegal immigrants who the Biden administration has allowed to cross the border.

A recent study estimated the federal and state costs for the transportation and care of illegal immigrants to be over $151 billion this year.

At the border, services provided to illegals include food, clothing, transport to airports or bus stations, medical care, legal aid, translation assistance and assistance with booking travel.

Although illegals are generally not eligible for welfare benefits, they can access emergency medical treatment under Medicaid and are eligible for various emergency food programs once they are in the country.

Of course, every dollar spent on these illegals is a dollar less that can be spent on U.S. citizens.

$151 billion is a lot of money.

For context, that is more money than was spent in 2023 on Social Security disability payments ($150 billion), veteran's programs ($148 billion) or the entire food stamp program ($135 billion). 

It is more money than is expected to be spent on all new highway and street construction in the United States this year ($132 billion) from all government sources.

The amount spent on illegals this year is more than the total amount that will be  spent on Pell Grants to assist lower and middle income students to attend college ($25 billion) AND all new student loans provided  in 2023 ($114 billion).

It is incredible what the United States could do with $!51+ billion if it was not spending it on illegal immigrants.

None of the above takes account of the enormous costs being borne by sanctuary cities and others localities for illegal immigrants.

In New York City alone, the city projects it will spend $12 billion between 2022 and 2025 to provide shelter, food and service to illegal immigrants.

A substantial portion of this sum is being spent to house illegals in hotels in New York City.

A recent article in the Federalist reported that 20% of all hotel rooms in New York City are currently being used to house illegal immigrants,

That is about 16,000 hotel rooms.

121 hotels in the city are being used exclusively to house illegals.

If you take 20% of hotel capacity off line in a city it will undoubtedly have an effect on prices as supply and demand is altered.

New York City has always been an expensive city in which to find lodging.

I used to travel to the Big Apple a great deal on business and know that first hand.

Although most of the migrants are being housed in economy or mid-tier hotels, when those options are taken off the market business travelers and tourists are forced to pay more. They either have to pay more at what were once "affordable" hotels or are forced to move up to more expensive options.

To give you an idea of what current prices are in New York City per night for a hotel room here are a few examples (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday nights to reflect both mid-week and weekend rates) according to Hotels.com.

I have stayed at all of these hotels at one time or the other over the years.

Mid-tier hotels near LaGaurdia and JFK airports are also getting about $300 per night.

The average price of a hotel room in the city is reported to be $301 per night.

Of course, this also does not include the substantial taxes that are levied on hotel rooms in New York City. Taxes are going to increase the per night rate by about 20% (see total cost above).

I once was in New York City for a night and then traveled to Ashland, Kentucky the next day for another business meeting. The taxes on my hotel in Manhattan alone were more than my hotel rate in Kentucky.

It is reported that the illegals in New York City are not just getting shelter at hotels in the city.

Sanctuary hotels also offer social freebies, according to the city’s Department of Homeless Services. Many hotels provide bilingual operational support services, including child care, job training, computer access, personal care items, and laundry service. Migrants can also receive trauma or mental health counseling.

Hotel room rates are just one example of the compounding effects of illegal immigration.

Far more troubling is what is going on in the labor market.

Yes, there is a need for immigrant labor in certain sectors of the economy.

However, how does the United States absorb 10+ million illegal immigrants into the labor market in three years without negatively impacting the jobs and wages of native born workers?

A UK firm, Standard Chartered recently released a research report that estimated that half of the job growth this fiscal year beginning in October, 2023 is the result of jobs that have gone to undocumented immigrants.

Source: https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1799608998561231342/photo/1

What is striking in this chart is comparing the job growth this year in undocumented immigrants (dark green) to legal immigrants (blue) and to native born workers (light green).

This research further amplifies what I have reported in the past about U.S. employment trends that show that all of the job growth in recent years has gone to foreign born workers.

It is true that some of this is due to the fact that native-born boomers are aging out of the workforce.

However, their children and grandchildren are not taking those jobs.

In the last four years, the number of foreign born workers has increased by approximately 4 million workers while the number of native born workers has been flat. 

A growing economy has masked the potential societal issues with this trend.

However, a slowing economy and a future recession will be a different story.

We may not see a recession next month or even within the next year. However, we will see one in the foreseeable future. 

We will then see the full force of the compounding effects of illegal immigration when millions who want to work can't find a job--both natives and immigrants.

At that point we are going to wish we had multiples of that $151 billion we spent last year on illegals to take care of a lot of joblessness and economic suffering.

The full compounding effects of illegal immigration is yet to come.

Father of the Year?

The public image of Joe Biden is that he is a decent, compassionate and caring human being.

"Good old Joe".

He is referred to as a wonderful father.

A recent CBS poll shows that Donald Trump's scores with voters were much higher on every attribute to describe the candidates with the exception of "compassionate".

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-biden-neck-and-neck-06-09-2024/

However, is that really true?

Is Joe Biden really a compassionate person and father?

This is a subject I addressed previously in these pages two weeks before the 2020 election and shortly after the Hunter Biden laptop story first appeared.

Of course, the mainstream media and most of social media censored the story as being Russian disinformation. The claim was bolstered by the claims of 51 ex-National Security "experts".

We now know that the laptop was very real. In fact, the FBI was in possession of the laptop and had already verified its authenticity before the 2020 election but remained silent about it. 

In fact, the laptop was just used as primary evidence in the trial that convicted Hunter Biden of lying on a federal gun application in 2018.

Would a compassionate father have run for President in 2020 knowing the addiction and other problems his son was having?

Let's revisit what I wrote on the eve of the 2020 election about Joe and Hunter Biden.

I am sorry to say that most of what I predicted has come true.

Hunter would have never gotten the scrutiny that he has but for Joe Biden running for President.

It got even worse when he was elected. Hunter's issues were put in an even bigger spotlight.

Joe Biden was selfish in running in 2020 considering Hunter's problems.

Joe Biden is just as selfish in 2024 running for re-election considering the nation's problems and his evident weaknesses in mind and body.

Neither of these makes Joe Biden a compassionate and caring person.

Or, in my mind, a candidate for any Father of the Year awards.

Read on and answer the question...

Would you rather have Donald Trump or Joe Biden as your father?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Excerpted from a blog post written October 21, 2020). Link to original blog post

The narrative about Biden is that he is a decent man. He is dedicated to his family. He cares deeply about you and our country. 

Let's unpack this as we look at the revelations and allegations surrounding what is on his son's laptop.

Is Joe Biden a decent man?

I have great sympathy for some of the personal challenges that Joe Biden has had to go through in his life. He lost his wife and infant daughter in a car accident shortly after his 1972 election to the United States Senate when he was 30 years old.

He was a widower before he was even sworn in with two young sons, Beau and Hunter, who had survived the auto accident.

It could not have been easy.

His older son, Beau, seems to have been selected to carry on his father's political legacy. Beau ran for and was elected Attorney General of Delaware in 2006. Beau announced his intention to run for Governor of Delaware in 2016. Unfortunately, brain cancer would end the young Biden's life in 2015.

In that his father and brother were both involved in politics it appears from what was on Hunter's laptop that keeping the family in money fell to the youngest son. Was Hunter used as the frontman to collect money and take care of his family?

This text message to his daughter Naomi suggests that may be the case.

Text message from Hunter Biden on his laptop to his daughter Naomi

You see something similar in another text message exchange with Naomi who was then a law student at Columbia and was pleading with her father (Hunter) to put emergency cash in her account.

This is from a Fox News story which wrote about the text exchange.

“Can you put 150 in my account it was just declined for lyft to airport sorry sorry sorry,” the now-26-year-old Columbia Law student asked.

“Yes I can but Naomi you ­really have to start to realize that once you are out of school the chances of you living like your father is a billionaire when he’s really given all his money away- is going to be a bit of a shock,” Hunter answered.

“I know I promise ill be much better this year!!!!!!!!!!! Promise,” Naomi wrote back.

You have to ask who exactly did Hunter give all his money away to?

What is clear from these text messages is that Hunter seems to have felt great pressure to produce for the family. That pressure seems to have fostered great resentment in Hunter.  He also clearly believes he is under appreciated.

Perhaps these are the reasons that Hunter descended into the addiction issues he has had.

We still don't know how this is going to play out.

There is a good reason that Joe Biden has put a lid on everything for four days in the home stretch of a Presidential campaign.

Biden is caught in a tough predicament in that he claims he never knew or discussed any of his son's foreign business interests with him. It appears that evidence is there to show that Hunter traded heavily on the Biden name, access and influence in return for the financial deals he got.

Joe needs to come up with an answer. His problem is that he is not completely certain what the questions will be once more of the contents of those emails are disclosed.

Will Joe attempt to throw Hunter under the bus in order to save his candidacy down the stretch? Is the only way out now to continue to claim he knew nothing about it but admit Hunter had possibly profited from his name? Biden might claim he is shocked that  he has discovered about his son but ask people to be sympathetic to him because of his addiction issues. Hunter only did what he did because of his addiction disease that he will now seek more treatment for.

I actually feel sorry for Hunter right now and concerned for him. He knows what is on that hard drive. It must not be easy to sleep or to face his father right now. It cannot be good considering his past troubles.

Is Joe Biden a decent man? I guess the voters will have to decide that for themselves.

However, looking at all of this you have to wonder why a decent man would have run in these circumstances if he were thinking about his son?

This is not going away for Hunter no matter what happens. In fact, the scrutiny and the consequences will be much greater for Hunter if Joe is elected than if he isn't.

Joe Biden knew his son was in a bad place with his addiction issues. He had to know that the millions of dollars that Hunter received for his foreign business deals were suspect even if he did not have his own hand in the till. He had to know what could happen to Hunter if it unraveled?

Decency? Why did Biden run? Was the fame and money worth more than his remaining son?

Think about that as you watch the debate and we see how this story unfolds.

Joe may survive. However, I am genuinely concerned about Hunter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, we know that Joe Biden did not need to answer any questions about the laptop in those final days of the election because the media censored the story.

It was dismissed as a fake Russian disinformation story.

Joe Biden even stood up at the last Trump-Biden debate and dismissed the entire laptop story as a Russian plant by referencing those "national security experts".

We also know that current Secretary of State Anthony Blinken coordinated getting all of those national security experts to sign on to that letter so that Biden would have cover to deny the laptop was real at the debate.

Joe Biden knew it was all a lie. He knew it was Hunter's laptop. Even worse, the FBI knew the laptop was Hunter's laptop as they had possessed it since 2019 and had already verified its contents.They stayed silent through it all.

USA Today columnist Ingrid Jacques provided a helpful summary of the history of all this last week. 

Looking back on this, what is truly astounding is how long it takes for the truth in many of these situations to be revealed.

It just shows you how powerful the establishment media and political cabal that protects Joe Biden and the Democrats is.

It is also interesting to look back and see the three things that Donald Trump has constantly preached to his children as they were growing up.

Trump reportedly has not ever used any of the three. However, I doubt that less than 1% of the population knows this about him.

No drugs.

No alcohol.

No cigarettes.

He was even shown telling this to 4-year old Barron Trump when Trump was on the Larry King show in 2010.

He asks many young people he meets on the campaign to repeat a pledge to him that they will avoid or abstain from all three.

You can't start the messaging early enough if you are Trump.

If Joe Biden had given this fatherly advice to Hunter he clearly did not listen.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/29/hunter-biden-high-drunk-name-father-joe-pressure-business/

Of course, let's not forget that Joe Biden, when confronted with many of the things Hunter has been accused of, including lying about his drug use on the gun application he was just convicted for, stated this last year.

“My son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him,” 

I guess that is true if you ignore the fact that Hunter was addicted to crack cocaine, he fathered an illegitimate child with a dancer at a D.C. men's club, he was in a legal battle trying to avoid paying the mother child support, used his political connections in D.C. on behalf of foreign principals and never registered this activity as required by law (FARA), lied on a federal gun application and apparently did not pay taxes on millions of dollars of income.

That may only be half of the story.

We may never know the full extent of Hunter's wrongdoings or how he traded on his father's influence.

Or how Joe Biden might have profited from it as well.

Happy Father's Day to all.

Forget about the election.

If you are picking a father, who would more likely put you on the right path and have your best interests at heart?

The People vs.The Politicians

Politicians have a lot of power to control our lives.

They can legislate, mandate and tax us in countless ways.

However, in free countries where voters have the power to elect their representatives, politicians do not have the ultimate power. That power belongs to the people.

The United States became the model for representative democracy when the U.S. Constitution was first written in 1787.

Many countries have adopted the principle in some form since that time. Prior to that, people were almost always governed by monarchs or dictators where they had not power.

It was a controversial idea when it was first introduced by our Founders. The power that the people can wield in any type of democracy is particularly threatening to the elites at the top of the power structure.

We often hear the complaint that our government is not responsive to the will of the people.

I understand why that is said. 

However, if there is a disconnect the responsibility rests more on the people than the politicians.

The people are sovereign in our system. Their power is absolute.  Unfortunately, too many people don't believe it. The simple fact is that politicians have no power unless the people provide it.

A politician is NOTHING unless they are elected. They only have power if they hold office. They cannot hold office unless they get more votes than their opponent.

Therefore, a politician is ALWAYS going to be focused primarily on gaining (or retaining) that power.

Laws that do not have public backing do not survive over the long term. Lawmakers who make laws that people do not support do not stay in office very long. Politicians who do not do the will of the people soon need to find other employment.

This seems to be lost on too many people who complain that they have no influence or power in the affairs of state. It may seem that way when you are just one vote. However, those votes add up quickly.

The reality is that the people too often lack the organization and voice to wield their power effectively.

Too many people do not raise their voices and those that do are disorganized.

However, when the people do raise their voices through their votes it can be terrifying to the politicians in power.

Consider the reactions of some politicians to the European Parliament elections over the weekend that saw conservative parties score gains in the election.

Ruling parties in France, Germany, Spain, Austria and Belgium all saw defeats. As a result, France’s President Macron dissolved parliament and has called for new elections to see if he can continue. Belgium's Prime Minister resigned.

Raphael Glucksman has been representing France in the European Parliament as a member of the socialist Green Party which lost seats in the election.

He sees the voters in Europe as "shaking our democracy"?

What? 

How can voters shake democracy when these people are the power behind the democracy?

The only thing the voters shook were the politicians.

A similar refrain was heard from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after the EU results.

Source: https://thepostmillennial.com/justin-trudeau-suggests-democratically-elected-right-wing-politicians-in-eu-elections-are-a-threat-to-democracy?utm_campaign=64466

We have arrived at the point that the people voting for the politicians and issues they care about is in itself "a threat to democracy"?

Where have we heard this before?

You can expect to hear a lot more about it between now and November.

You can also expect to hear a lot about the so-called "far right" as well.  Most of the stories about the EU elections refer to the group of parties who made gains in Europe as "far right".

How is it that people who want to protect their borders and culture, oppose rampant lawlessness, love their country, support free speech, question the woke agenda and are skeptical about a new world order are considered far right?

This is a great graphical representation of how the media and elites seem to view the political landscape these days

Credit: https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1800671558027055340/photo/1

I dare say that what we are seeing is not a threat to democracy but a threat to the power of certain politicians who have their own agendas that do not conform to those of their constituents.

Why is Trudeau concerned about the results in the EU?

It might have something to do with where he currently stands with his own voters in Canada.

A recent poll shows that only 27% of Canadians are satisfied with Trudeau's government compared to 66% who are dissatisfied. That puts Trudeau in a worse spot in Canada than Biden is in the United States where just hit a record low 37% in the FiveThirtyEight poll average. 

2024 may be a year in which it is determined who really is in power.

Is it the people or the politicians?

Many voters in Europe sent a warning to their politicians this past week.

What about the United States, Canada and other countries?

However, never count out the politicians.

They have a lot to lose and you can be sure they will not go down without an enormous fight and a lot of gnashing of teeth. 

Power is never relinquished easily.

Uncharted Territory

June is Pride Month.

If you have somehow missed properly recognizing it this month don't worry.

There are plenty of other opportunities to recognize the LGBTQ+ community another time as I pointed out in a blog post in April after Joe Biden put out a proclamation recognizing March 31 as the Transgender Day of Visibility.

It seems that he somehow forgot to make a proclamation about Easter falling on the same day this year.

Month of March---Bisexual Health Awareness Month

March 1---Zero Discrimination Day

March 31---Transgender Day of Visibility

April 12---Day of Silence

April 13---International Day of Pink (Opposing Homophobia)

April 26---Lesbian Visibility Day

May 16---Honor Our LGBT Elders Day

May 19--International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

May 19---Agender Pride Day

May 22---Harvey Milk Day

Maty 24---Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness and Visibility Day

Month of June---Pride Month

June 28---Stonewall Riots Day

June 28---Gay Pride Day

July 6---Omnisexual Visibility Day

July 11-17---Bisexual Awareness Week

July 14---International Non-Binary Day

July 16---International Drag Day

August 14---Gay Uncles Day

September 15-21---Bisexual Awareness Week

September 23---Bisexual Visibility Day

Month of October---LBGT History Month

October 11---National Coming Out Day

October 17-24---Genderfluid Visibility Week

October 19---Spirit Day ((Support for LGBTQ+ Youth)

October 20---International Pronoun Day

October 20-26---Asexual Awareness Week

October 26---Asexual Awareness Day

Month of November---Trans Awareness Month

November 6---Trans Parent Day

November 8---Intersex Solidarity Day

November 13-19---Trans Awareness Week

November 20---Trans Day of Awareness 

December 1---International AIDS Day

December 8---Pansexual Pride Day

One person did a calculation on X that determined that there are 145 calendar days in the year devoted to celebrating LGBTQ+ in some way.

If you wonder how there can be so much attention and visibility given to LGBTQ+ issues these days look no further at what we see from our best and brightest at the nation's colleges and universities.

The best estimate is that about 7% of the U.S. adult population is LGBTQ+.

However, among Gen Z it is reported to be about 20%.

The percentages are even higher at a number of Ivy League schools.

However, at a number of liberal arts colleges the percentage of LGBTQ+ students is even higher.

At Oberlin it is 71%.

It is 69% at Smith and 68% at Wellesley.

This data is from a survey of students conducted by College Pulse/Fire to assess free speech at 254 college campuses in the United States.

Credit: https://twitter.com/data_depot/status/1798846038469673408

The lowest percentages of LGBTQ+ identifying students were at the following colleges.

Liberty University  7%

Hillsdale  9%

Dayton  11%

Credit: https://twitter.com/data_depot/status/1798846038469673408

When you see these numbers you also get a better understanding as to why the Gen Z generation puts such a low value on having children.

To say that we are in uncharted territory is an understatement.

Can the country survive if these attitudes persist?

That seems to a valid question considering the views above from the Z generation.

Can the human race survive?

It will but the survivors may primarily worship Allah.

Muslims put a high value on having children and on their religious beliefs.

Compare global fertility rates by religion.

This is a projection of what the change will be in world religions over the next 25 years by Pew Research.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org

I am not sure that this projection by Pew took into account the shift in attitudes of the Gen Z generation in the United States and other countries on children.

Source:  https://www.pewresearch.org

Notice the number of Jews at the bottom of the charts.

If you think Antisemitism is bad today, we are heading further into uncharted territory there as well.

In the meantime, the LGBTQ+ students at these liberal colleges will presumably continue to support those who would deny them any rights based on their lifestyles. 

How do you square all of this? You can't. 

If these population trends continue they may find that Pride Month ends up being nothing more than a historical footnote.

Uncharted territory indeed.

Name Dropping

I cited a statistic recently in these pages that more than 40% of all newborn girls born in the United States have a name ending in "a".

In fact, 8 of the most popular 10 female names end with "a" and 6 of the first 7 for births recorded in 2023  do as well. Names such and Olivia, Emma, Amelia and Sophia.

Alexa was the the 32nd most popular name for a girl in 2015 . This was right about the same time that Amazon decided to name their voice assistant by the same name.

It led to a massive name drop. In 2023, Alexa ranked #604 in name popularity.

(All the names graphs below are from Namerology.com.)

Katrina is another name that has been dropping that ends with "a".

It was a fairly popular name in the 1980's reaching #101 in ranking. It began dropping in the 1990's with little chance for a comeback in the 2000's after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2004.

Katrina is now ranked #1872 in girls names.

Both are examples of how external events and news can affect the popularity of names.

The same is true with a few boys' names.

Did Walt Disney know what would the ramifications would be of his choice of the name of a cartoon character that was a duck? Of course, that name has not even seen a recovery despite (or perhaps because of) a President bearing that name.

#7 in the 1930's and #652 in 2023.

The same is true of the name Ronald after McDonald's first started using "Ronald McDonald" in its marketing.

Ronald was the #10 boys name in the 1940's, #15 in the 1950's, and #24 in the 1960's. 

It was #612 in 2023 barely ahead of Donald. That drop occurred despite another President who carried that name.

Perhaps we have reached a point that people have no interest in naming their children after any political figures.

For example, no one is naming their child Barack.

No one did it before Obama was President, while he was President or after he was President.

The name Hillary went out of favor right after the Clinton's became a household name.

However, when it comes to names, there is always another day,

Emma was the 2nd most popular baby name in 2023.

In the 1880's it was #3 until it dropped to #445 in the 1970's and recovered to became the #1 name in 2018.

I guess that 1970's parents did not want to name their baby girl Emma because that was the name of their grandmother's best friend. 

By the 2000's all of the old Emma's were gone and a new name trend began.

A similar name trend is seen with the name Henry. It was a top 10 name in the late 1800's. It was well out of the top 100 for the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's before making a comeback in the last 20 years. It has been a Top 10 name each of the last four years.

Theodore is a boys name that was a popular name in the early 20th century (Theodore Roosevelt) and has become a top 10 name recently. It was #7 in 2023.

You have to wonder whether "Theodore Cleaver" (or Beaver in the 1960's tv sitcom Leave It To Beaver) might have had something to that name drop though the decades?

The current generation knows little about Beaver so the name Theodore is not carrying the same baggage today that it did 40-50 years ago.

It is another example that names can drop and make a later comeback.

There used to be a lot more conformity in names than there is now. In 1950, only 5% of parents picked a name that was not in the Top 1000 baby names. In 2012, 27% of parents were completely weird and picked a name outside of the Top 1000.

In 2023, it was 29% overall. However, 35% of females born in 2023 were given a name outside the top 1000. For males it was 25%.

A big reason for the wider breadth of names is that technology and media have given exposure to many more names that parents are exposed to and can choose from.

In the 1800's many names came from the Bible. In the 1920's and 1930's movies opened up the name game and television started having an effect in the 1950's. Baby name books started appearing in the 60's and 70's for new parents to peruse.

The internet has totally changed the game in recent years with numerous web sites dedicated to baby names.

Of course, those names, once in circulation, begin to become more and more popular as the name is heard by more people. What begins as weird becomes cool with time. I first became aware of this baby name phenomenon when I read "Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner who dedicated an entire chapter to names almost 20 years ago. Here is what they wrote about name patterns.

There is a clear pattern at play; once a name catches on among high-income, highly educated parents, it starts working its way down the socioeconomic ladder. 

It isn't famous people who drive the name game. It is the family just a few blocks over, the one with the bigger house and newer car. 

Parents are reluctant to poach a name from someone too near---family members or close friends---but many parents whether they realize it or not, like the sound of names that sound "successful". 

But as a high-end name is adopted en masse, high-end parents begin to abandon it. Eventually, it is considered so common that even lower-end parents many not want it, whereby it falls out of the rotation entirely. The lower-end parents, meanwhile, go looking for the next name that the upper-class parents have broken in.

That is how a new name can suddenly come on the scene and become popular.

For example, consider the girl's name Bayleigh.

The name did not appear in any birth records until the late 1970's.

All it took was one couple who named their daughter Bayleigh.

The name pattern ultimately put that name in the top 1000 by 2012.

Most likely that name was first used in Ohio as this map of the United States reveals that is where the name Bayleigh is most popular.

More people have been exposed to the name in that area of the country.

The most popular boy's name in 2023 was Liam.

Liam is originally an Irish name that was almost never given to an American baby until the early 1980's and then skyrocketed in popularity in the 2000's.

I find it interesting that the name was not used before considering the substantial number of Irish immigrants that came into the country beginning in the mid-1800's.

Perhaps the Irish immigrants did not want to be reminded of their hardships in Ireland before they immigrated to the United States?

Did it take Liam Neeson to raise visibility of the name for the non-Irish?

Which names are dropping the fastest in popularity today according to Namerology.com founder Laura Wattenberg?

The 2023 analysis has not been published but the 2022 list of biggest name droppers (in terms of popularity) were as follows.

Girl Name Droppers

Ava

Aviana

Boy Name Droppers

Lincoln

Logan

Three names that were not selected by one parent for their child in the United States in 2022 for the first time since the 1800's.

Jannie

Berta

Thurman

One final note.

There does appear to be hope on the horizon.

The name Bee is making a comeback. It was a name that was fairly popular around 1900 for both males and females.

The influence of BeeLine apparently is limitless.