Name Droppers

Most people know that a number of Hollywood stars started life with a name that was different than what we came to know them by.

Marilyn Monroe's birth name was Norma Jeane Mortenson.

John Wayne was Marion Robert Morrison.

Marion Morrison
 John Wayne
Credit: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Wayne

Judy Garland was born Frances Ethel Gumm

Dean Martin was Dino Paul Crocetti

Tony Curtis grew up as Bernard Schwartz to Hungarian Jewish parents in the Bronx.

Kirk Douglas was born Issur Danielovitch.

Issur Danielovitch
Kirk Douglas
Credit: Dispatch.com

Name changes are probably not as prevalent today but it still occurs.

Jamie Foxx started life as Eric Marlon Bishop

Eric Marlon Bishop
Jamie Foxx
Credit: Wikipedia

Tom Cruise was Thomas Cruise Mapother IV.

Michael Keaton was born Michael John Douglas but changed his name so as to not to be confused with Kirk's son Michael who really was a Danielovitch.

Michael Caine's real name was Maurice Joseph Micklewhite, Jr. 

Caine did not legally change his name until 2016 due to recurring airport security delays due to the discrepancy between his legal documents and the famous stage name that people knew him by.

Name droppers also occur in the music business.

Conway Twitty birth name was Harold Lloyd Jenkins.

Ringo Starr was really Richard Starkey.

Elton John was born Reginald Kenneth Dwight.

Of course, Lady Gaga was Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta.

It is not unusual to find name droppers among Hollywood and music personalities.

However, most people are not aware that we have had two Presidents in the last 50 years who started out life with a different name.

Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III.

His biological father died in an auto accident three months before he was born in 1946.

Clinton's mother remarried in 1950 to Roger Clinton and Bill was immediately referred to as a Clinton but he did not formally change his surname to what we now know as his name until he was age 15.

Would Clinton have been able to be elected named Blythe?

Gerald Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr. in 1913.

His parents separated just 16 days after his birth and divorced five months later.

Ford's mother remarried when he was 3 years old, and like Clinton, assumed his stepfather's surname but Ford did not formally change his name until he was 22 after completing college.

Would Ford have become President with a first name of Leslie?

The current Vice President has also had several names.

Vice President JD Vance's birth name was James Donald Bowman.

James Donald Bowman
James David Hamel
JD Vance

He later took the name of James David Hamel when adopted by his stepfather Robert Hamel when he was about 6 years old

Hamel was the name on JD's high school and college diploma and also the name he was known as when he served in the U.S. Marine Corps.

He did not take the name Vance until shortly before graduating from Yale Law School. Vance was the surname of his grandfather and grandmother who meant so much to him growing up.

Vance also got rid of the J.D. and went with the simpler JD for his first name.

Two of the biggest and wealthiest names in technology also began life with different names.

The biological parents of Steve Jobs were Abdulfattah Jandali and Joanne Schiebel. He was put up for adoption shortly after his birth. Although the name was never put on an official birth certificate his parents allegedly named him Abdul Leteef Jandali before giving him up for adoption to Paul and Clara Jobs.

Jeff Bezos was born to a teenage mother. His birth name was Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen owing to his biological father Ted Jorgensen.

Jeff's mother divorced Jorgensen when Jeff was 17 months old and married Cuban immigrant Mike Bezos two years later. Jeff was formally adopted by Bezos at age 4 and took that surname.

Did you know there were so many name droppers out there?

Now you know.

Democrat Socialism? Let's Start With The Screen Actors Guild

 There is so much truth in this quote by Thomas Sowell.

Our politics has evolved over the years such that Republicans and Democrats seem to view things in 100% terms no matter what the issue.

Independent voters find themselves in the middle of this.

Who and what is anyone supposed to believe?

In last week's election they chose to believe the likes of James Talarico, Abdul El-Sayed and others who believe the answer to our problems is to take a hard left turn.

A big reason I write BeeLine is to provide data, facts and context to the big issues we face to make better decisions on what to believe.

I have a friend who is a Republican who believes that the party would be more attractive to Independents with a little more humility by admitting that the answer to most issues is not known with 100% certainty.

There might be something to what he suggests considering the huge swing that Independent voters made to Democrats in the midterm election last week.

A big reason for the the success of Democrats was their messaging.

At the same time, my friend is continually amazed at the hypocrisy that seems to permeate the Democrat party.

There are so many things that Democrats want to impose on you that they are not willing to do themselves.

They want open borders into the United States but many party leaders live in walled mansions.

They want to raise your taxes to help the poor but are not generous with their own charitable contributions.

They say that climate change is an existential threat but buy expensive oceanfront properties and fly on private jets.

My friend would like for his two concerns packaged into one idea that I think is rather ingenious.

He suggests Republicans come out and, instead of warning about the dire consequences of voting for Democrat Socialists and their collectivist ideas, be more nuanced in their messaging.

He would also like to see Republicans confront Democrats on their hypocrisy in a more direct way.

His concept might come together as the Republicans saying something like this.

We think moving hard left as the Democrat Socialists want to do would be very bad for the country. History shows no examples where it has been successful in improving an overall society. 

However, we may be wrong.

Perhaps it just has not been implemented the right way by the right people.

At the same time, it would be very risky to adopt a hard left turn for the entire country if it turned out to the wrong idea.

What if the Democrats are not right?

To test who is right and wrong in this, we are willing to agree to a limited experiment to assess the concept so that everyone can see the results without risking everything we already have.

Since many in the entertainment industry in tv, films and music are heavily invested in the ideals of the Democrat party, we suggest that the Screen Actors Guild and SAG-AFTRA put in place a socialist economic model to see how it might work when tested under the complexities of real life.

This would seem to be a reasonable way that the broader body politic could assess the suitability of this economic, social and government model for broader use in the United States overall.

This might better answer the question as to what is the best model for the entire country moving forward.

As Republicans, we are willing to admit we may be wrong about this. 

Will the Democrats meets us halfway on this and persuade their supporters in the entertainment and music industries to implement this experiment?

Let's see how this all works in real world circumstances with a group committed to its ideals.

There is a real beauty to this idea.

We hear a lot about the imbalance of income and wealth between the rich and poor these days.

It is the primary driving narrative upon which almost the entire Democrat Socialist agenda is built.

Elon Musk is the preferred target.

Why does he have so much? Why does the 1% prosper why the other 99% struggle?

It is not fair.

However, there is a also huge divide between the haves and have nots in the entertainment industry.

For every Taylor Swift. Susan Sarandon, Ben Affleck, George Clooney, Sean Penn and John Legend there are thousands and thousands of struggling actors, singers and musicians attempting to eke out a living.

There is probably a larger divide between the superstars of entertainment and those struggling at the edges of that industry than any other group in the United States.

The only thing separating the haves and have nots in entertainment is often providence or happenstance because the levels of talents between the rich and poor are not objectively much different in many cases,

I have been to college plays where the acting talent was just as good as in a Broadway show.

I have heard singers in church that were the equal of the talent of performers in 50,000 seat stadiums.

Why not try an experiment where all the union members of SAG and SAG-AFTRA put their incomes into a common purse and the unions can then determine how much each member needs to live?

Would that not be fair method for the allocation of income and consistent with the ideals of Democrat Socialism?

Remember it was Karl Marx who said,

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

This is the foundational principle of progressive, liberal, socialist collectivist thought.

What better way to conduct this experiment than with those who are among the strongest and most vocal supporters of that political theory?

How does that theory work when confronted with the complexities or real life?

Of course, we do not have to guess how this would turn out.

It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

We also can be sure that the experiment challenge would never be accepted.

After all we should know by now when it comes to issues like this, it is ......

"Rules for thee, but not for me."

That is unfortunate, because if we could ever implement this experiment it would be certain to be one of the most entertaining and enlightening things we have ever witnessed.

I started this blog post with a Thomas Sowell quote.

It seems appropriate to end with another.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/1m5vug6/truth/

Truth or Choice?

Life used to be fairly simple.

It was generally acknowledged that there were men and there were women.

It was known that there were those who were gay (or possibly bisexual) but it was also known that this was a very small portion of the population.

This changed over the years due to movies and television shows from Hollywood that had gay characters and news media reports disproportionately focusing on gay rights, gay marriage and gay issues.

The result is that, even though most estimates still suggest that gays make up no more than 5% of the population, people believe that the number is much higher.

For example, Gallup surveys from 2011 to 2019 consistently found that when the American public was asked to estimate the number of gays and lesbians in the population, the average answer was around one in four.

I could not find where Gallup has asked this question since 2019.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/americans-greatly-overestimate-gay-population.aspx

Note that in the most recent survey, 35% of people surveyed believed the number to be more than 25%. Only 8% correctly stated that the number is less than 5%.

The whole issue has gotten more complicated in that we are not just talking about sexuality today. We have entered into an era where the science of two genders is also now being questioned every day.

This chart may help you keep up with all that is necessary to stay current on the topic.

Gallup has also surveyed people on their sexual identification for a number of years.

The most recent survey puts the percentage of U.S. adults on the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum at 9%.

That is double what it was just 10 years ago.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

The percent of gays and lesbians has not changed over the years. It hovers around 3%.

The growth is in everything else---particularly those who say they are bisexual.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

That increase is almost all due to the numbers of young adults today identifying somewhere on that LBGTQ+ spectrum.

23% of 18-29 years olds identify as such compared to only 2.3% of those age 65+.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

For women age 18-29 that number is 31.4% compared to just 11.4% for men.

You get a better sense of this when you consider the results of a survey of college students on their sexual identification at various campuses across the country.

Source: https://x.com/DisgracedProp/status/2098119354382450982/photo/1

86.1% of students at all-female Mount Holyoke identify as LGBTQ+.

It is 76.6% at Smith College which is also an all-women college.

The other colleges with high percentages of LGBTQ+ students are generally other all female  or considered to have very liberal student bodies.

On the other hand, that percent is around 4% at Wake Forest and South Carolina.

What is going on?

Is there something in the water?

Has basic biology changed?

Is mass psychosis involved?

How is it that the numbers of those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. has increased 10-fold in two generations?

I used to think that the holy grail for gay and other activists in this area was to have science once and for all determine that homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ behaviors were genetically determined. 

If people were "born that way" it makes it very difficult to question the lifestyle or behavior of any individual. It makes other people much more sympathetic than if the behavior is a choice.

I have been surprised in recent years to learn that some in the gay community, transgenders and others, were no longer interested in proving they were "born that way". 

They increasingly look at that view as denigrating "their choice". 

People in these communities see themselves living their truth through their choice and who they choose to be.

USA Today did a story on the background behind this change a few years ago.

Getting America to believe that people are born gay — that it’s not something that can be chosen or ever changed — has been central to the fight for gay rights. If someone can’t help being gay any more than they can help the color of their skin, the logic goes, denying them rights is wrong. But many members of the LGBTQ community reject this narrative, saying it only benefits people who feel their sexuality and gender are fixed rather than fluid, and questioning why the dignity of gay people should rest on the notion that they were gay from their very first breath. 

Not long after learning this I came across a story about doctors and scholars at Johns Hopkins University who published a 143-page report that concludes that there is insufficient scientific evidence to suggest that gay, bisexual or transgender people are born that way.

"Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits," the report reads." One environmental factor that appears to be correlated with non-heterosexuality is childhood sexual abuse victimization, which may also contribute to the higher rates."

An interesting part of the research was the study of 3,826 identical or same-sex fraternal twin pairs to see if any gene could be found that predetermined sexual orientation. Only about one in five sets of male and female identical twins that were studied resulted in both twins being same sex attracted. In sets of fraternal twins it was even lower.

"Summarizing the studies of twins, we can say that there is no reliable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a person's genes. But there is evidence that genes play a role in influencing sexual orientation," the report explains. "So the question 'Are gay people born that way?' requires clarification. There is virtually no evidence that anyone, gay or straight, is 'born that way' if that means their sexual orientation was genetically determined. But there is some evidence from the twin studies that certain genetic profiles probably increase the likelihood the person later identifies as gay or engages in same-sex sexual behavior."

In this way it appears that homosexual or transgender behaviors may not be much different than other things like drinking, drug use, gambling, adultery and other behaviors.

I think the research is clear that some people have a greater genetic predisposition to addictive behaviors than others. Some become addicted. Some don't. Some overcome it. Some never let the temptation get the best of them in the first place.

Donald Trump saw what alcohol did to his older brother when he was still a very young man. As a result, he made the decision early in his life that he would never drink. He did not want to take the chance that what he saw happen to his brother could happen to him. He did not want to take the chance that he might be genetically predisposed the same way his brother was who died from the effects of alcoholism at age 42.

We often hear alcoholism referred to as an illness. The same with other addictive behaviors. However, you do not hear anyone saying that these are "normal" behaviors.

I am not sure where the LGBTTQQIAPP activists are heading with their push back on "born that way".

I have no ill will against anyone. I also try not to judge anyone. The Lord Almighty will judge us all. We are all human beings with failures. What an adult does in the privacy of their home is their business.

We live in an age when people want us to respect their truth.

I am more interested in following and respecting the truth.

They may be the same. They may be quite different.

One thing that is true is that for thousands of years of human history the type of behaviors that are being promoted by the LGBTTQQIAPP activists have been considered sins by many religions around the world.

At the very least, they have been considered abnormal behaviors. Is that a "truth" that we now find to have been wrong only within the last couple of decades? If so, where is the science that supports that new "truth"?

I am quite sympathetic to the argument that I have heard from gays and others who strongly believe this is who they are and have been since childhood. They persuasively argue that they would not choose that lifestyle and suffer the discrimination and disdain they encounter that goes with it. 

However, I am waiting for the science to back them up. The study I cited above pretty strongly puts their argument on the wrong side of science right now.

It will be an interesting subject to keep our eyes on in future years to see if we get better answers.

Those answers could also lead to much different views on this subject.

We may find that, indeed, there is a genetic reason for every LGBTTQQIAPP person to claim they were born that way.

We may find the opposite.

Is there a real truth?

Or is all of this just a choice?

2026 Midterm Post Mortem

Election night turned out to a bad night for Republicans.

A very bad night.

It did not surprise me that the Democrats did well.

History was on their side.

I had written previously that the Democrats had a lot going for them.

It has proven to be difficult for the party in power in The White House to not suffer congressional losses in the midterm elections.

Combine that will an unpopular Iran War and high gas prices and it was never going to be easy for Republicans.

What did surprise me was the scope of the losses the Republicans took across the board.

The final numbers of losses are still being tallied but as I write this the Democrats have picked up 39 House seats and 7 in the Senate.

This compares to average midterm losses for the incumbent party of 26 House seats and 4 Senate seats.

No matter how you look at it, it was a political whooping.

However, it is hardly unprecedented.

Consider what we have seen in recent history.

If we go back further, even FDR saw Republicans pick up 81 seats and 7 Senate seats in the 1938 midterms halfway through his second term.

When you see voting moves like this it doesn't necessarily say to me that we are seeing a political realignment in these votes in the country.

After all, Clinton, Obama and FDR all won reelection two years after these huge defeats for their party.

Votes like this are intended to send a strong message to the party in power that the people do not believe they are getting what they were promised.

The people are sovereign in our system.  They possess the supreme or ultimate power to do anything they want.

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

Our Constitution also insures that change can be made fairly rapidly.

The entire House of Representatives has to stand for a vote every two years.

Our Founders established the two year House erm so that the People could quickly send a message if they did not like what was going on.

FDR took office in 1932 with the promise that he was going to end the depression. By 1938, things were not much better economically and FDR continued to overreach. For example. he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.

The Democrats paid the price in 1938.

Clinton ran as a centrist in 1992 and quickly pushed a liberal agenda when he got into office.

The Democrats paid the price in 1994.

Obama ran in 2008 telling everyone he was going to reform healthcare and save every family $2500 a year.

The Democrats paid the price in 2010.

Trump made two big promises in 2024 that voters remembered.

He was going to keep the United States out of foreign wars and he was going to bring inflation down.

Inflation is down but gas prices are not.

Trump might have been able to survive the fallout from Iran if he had set expectations better at the outset of the campaign and he had not spent many wasted months in stop and go negotiations with Iran.

The voters tired of it and punished the Republicans at the ballot box.

How did we end up with Trump and the Republicans going from positive popular vote margins two years ago to the numbers we saw on election day?

A big part was turnout.

Democrats turned out like it was a Presidential year.

Republicans turned out like it was a normal midterm election where the turnout is typically about 2/3 of the Presidential year.

This chart leaves little doubt that Democrats were motivated to send a message to Trump and the Republicans.

Many Republicans saw no reason to vote.

However, turnout alone does not fully explain the election results.

There were obviously a number of turncoats who voted for Trump in 2024 but voted for a Democrat in 2026.

Some were undoubtedly Republicans who were either not happy with Trump or the Republican Congress who could not seem to be able to come together on important issues such as the SAVE Act.

An NBC News exit poll puts that number at 7% of voters.

At the same time, 2% of Harris voters in 2024 voted for Republicans in 2026.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-elections/exit-polls

That 5% net change does not seem like much but if you take the 49.8%-47.3% margin Trump had and take 5% away and give it to a Democrat you now have a 44.8%-52.3% outcome.

A 1.5% vote margin advantage for Republicans becomes a 7.5% disadvantage.

However, there appears to be a larger number of turncoats who were Independents who voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2024 but abandoned them in the midterm elections.

Trump lost by 3 points to self-described Independents in 2024.

Republicans lost Independents by 26 points in 2026.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-elections/exit-polls

If you are that far underwater with Independents it is hard to win any election when they represent about 1/3 of voters.

Even considering all of that, there are some real head scratchers in the data.

Where did 19 million additional  Democrat votes come from between 2022 and 2026?

Republican votes were basically the same.

Kamala Harris got 75 million votes two years ago.

Trump received 77.3 million.

Democrats captured 94% of Kamala's votes in 2026

Republicans only captured 72% of Trump's.

The other interesting factoid I noticed is how much early voting has changed the political game.

In fact, the final vote tallies revealed that the Democrats had banked so many votes in early voting that even if every vote on election day in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas had been for the Republicans the Democrat Senate candidate would still have won!

Here is how the actual votes broke down in Texas between early and election day votes.

79% of the votes were cast early.

 These elections were over before we even got to election day.

The concept of a single election day seems to be long gone.

What were the issues that moved voters?

This quadrant chart uses the NBC News exit poll to show how important issues were to voters.

Controlling immigration is still a strong issue for Republicans.

It is also not a surprise that those that felt strongly about the Iran War voted for Democrats.

However, what is really surprising is that Government Corruption was a strong issue for Democrats.

They must believe that Trump is corrupt because that is what you hear on MSNOW, CNN or mainstream media outlets.

On the other side of the coin, what about all the corruption that DOGE unearthed involving NGO's?

What about the Medicaid fraud we are finding out about?

The fraud with Obamacare?

How about the fraud tied to the Somalis in Minnesota and elsewhere?

The Democrats put these programs in place and have turned a blind eye for years on how these programs have been abused.

Do the voters really believe that the Democrats have any interest in cleaning up the rampant corruption in government?

Their core belief is to create an even bigger government bureaucracy.

The problem that Democrats will have going forward is that for the most part they did not offer any solutions to the issues that motivated voters.

How do they fix the cost of living when it is big government deficits and easy money that has largely fueled it?

How do they lower gas prices when they want to ban oil and gas drilling?

They may be able to stop funding the Iran War but what happens if Iran deploys a nuclear weapon in the next two years?

How do they stop AI and data center development when most construction jobs are now dependent on that spending and the nation's future economic prospects are largely tied to AI. It would be like stopping the railroads in the 1800's, the electric grid in the early 1900's or the internet in the 1990's.

The concerns are real of what the new found Democrat power will mean.

Did anyone see the stock market on Thursday?

It has already been proven that voters have a very short memory.

The Democrats may find they won a battle but lost the war.

It will be interesting how they use their new found power.

I don't imagine voters (most particularly those key Independents) are looking for the Democrats to spend the next couple of years investigating Trump and trying to drive him from office.

Democrats would be much smarter to try to find common ground and work with Trump who loves to make deals.

Was there any Republican who came out a winner in Midterms?

I would suggest it was Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida.

DeSantis has rarely been mentioned lately when anyone talks about 2028.

J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio have gotten all the attention.

Tuesday night's results should elevate DeSantis in those conversations.

Florida is the one state that was able to withstand the blue wave.

DeSantis also cannot be tied to Iran, inflation or Trump like Vance and Rubio can.

DeSantis also now can commit time to be a full time candidate for the Republican nomination in 2028 if he chooses to run. Vance and Rubio do not have that luxury right now.

I have often said that a year can be an eternity in politics.

That was proven true on Tuesday night.

A year ago there wasn't anybody I knew that was predicting these results.

In another year or two everything could be turned on its head again.

Enjoy the ride.

I suspect it will be a wild one.

Midterm Election Musings 2026

We have reached election day in the United States.

I wrote two weeks ago that this is the most difficult election I have ever seen in attempting to predict the outcome.

Polls and opinions about the results we are going to see come tomorrow are all over the map.

You would think that with the advent of early voting and the betting markets that we would have a better idea of what to expect.

All of this additional information seems to has just created more confusion.

As I wrote two weeks ago, this race will most likely be determined on turnout.

This is especially important in midterm elections when the number who vote is lower than in Presidential years.

On average since the 1930's, only about two thirds who vote in a Presidential year show up and vote in the midterms two years later.

Source: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/national-turnout-rates-graph/

The party that can get their voters to the polls (either early or on election day) is likely to win.

Who do the Democrats need to turn out?

Young and minority voters are critical.

Who do the Republicans need to vote?

Those who voted for Trump in 2024 and older white voters.

Republicans also have to hope that white, working class voters who were traditional Democrats, until Trump came on the scene, do not return to their Democratic roots.

Republicans are facing significant headwinds.

First, the President's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterms.

Second, prices at the gas pump right now are a daily reminder that things have not gone well in Iran.

On Christmas eve last year I filled up my car at Costco for $2.20 per gallon.

Recent prices are almost double that number.

This is a problem for Trump and Republicans.

As usual, early voting favors the Democrats.

Republicans need a big turnout today to overcome the turnout advantage that Democrats have in most states from early voting.

Two recent polls suggest that the Republicans also have some things going for them.

An NBC News poll that was just released this week showed that, despite the drag of gasoline prices, Republicans are +2 on the economy, +5 on controlling government corruption and +11 on immigration.

Democrats are only +1 on controlling inflation and +5 on the War in Iran.

Link: https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2117325612855476694

In that same poll Republicans actually have a higher favorable rating than Democrats.

Link: https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/2117325612855476694

Those are not the types of numbers that suggest a Blue Wave.

A New York Times/Siena poll also found that late deciders in key Senate races were choosing the Republican candidate by a margin of 9 points.

 

The bottom line is that there is almost no final result in the House or Senate that would surprise me other than Republicans picking up seats in both chambers or the Democrats doing better than historical midterm averages  (net gains of 26 House seats and 4 Senate seats).

As for the critical Senate races in key swing states I would expect almost all of them could be decided by low single digit margins no matter who wins.

Regardless of who wins I do not see it having much effect on what Trump does over the next two years.

He will pursue his agenda.

He is indefatigable.

He never quits.

Those are the only things I am sure of on this morning of this election day.

I wrote this in 2019 when Trump was being attacked from all sides.

Say what you want about Donald Trump but the thing that sets him apart is that he is not afraid to take action. He is not afraid to face criticism. He is unrelenting. He persistently works to achieve his objectives. There is no quit in him.

There has been no politician like him in my lifetime. Perhaps that is because he did not spend a lifetime as a politician. Perhaps that is because he doesn't really need the job. Perhaps that is because he is an arrogant egomaniac. I don't know why he does what he does.

What I do know it that he is indefatigable. He relentlessly pushes his agenda forward. That, more than anything, defines who he is and why he should never be underestimated. That is also why the Democrats and liberal media despise and fear him so much.

 It will be as true tomorrow no matter what happens tonight.

Revisiting Roe v. Wade

This is a picture of women celebrating as Governor Maura Healy recently signed legislation legalizing abortion up to birth in Massachusetts.

This new law takes effect on November 10 in that state.

Source: Google AI

The irony in looking at this photo is that I am sure most of these women were peddling hysteria to other women in the past that if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would mean abortion would be banned in the United States.

Of course, that was not true. The ruling merely returned it to states like Massachusetts which now has a law that allows abortion without any gestational limits at all.

That propaganda was so effective that abortion became one of the most important issues for women in many elections over the last 50 years.

Abortion is a controversial topic and views are very divided about it.

It is a difficult issue because it involves the balancing of rights.

Where do you draw the line between balancing the right to life of an unborn child with the rights of a mother to choose whether she wants to carry and care for that child that was conceived in her body?

Which right is to be given precedence? The right of a woman to choose or the right of the baby to live?

I have written about the subject several times in these pages over the years.

There has been no issue that has been more emotional (on both sides) for the last 50 years.

Most national surveys show that voters want abortion to be legal but with limits.

For example, a Gallup national survey in 2023 (a year after Roe vs. Wade was overturned) found that 69% of voters said abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

However, there was only 37% support for abortion in the second trimester,

And only 22% supported abortion in the third trimester.

Those views closely match what the law is in most other countries in the world,

Most of Europe limits abortion to the first trimester.

Only 8 of 193 U.N. countries allow abortion on demand into the third trimester.

Only 15 permit abortion on demand past 15 weeks of gestation.

Source: https://lozierinstitute.org/gestational-limits-on-abortion-in-the-united-states-compared-to-international-norms/

That now includes the United States in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade.

However, opinions differ significantly by state.

10 states plus the District of Columbia will have no gestational limits on abortion when the Massachusetts law takes effect on November 10.

Oregon, Colorado. Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, New Mexico, Maryland, New Jersey and Alaska are other states that have made abortions up to birth legal,

Those in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas have opposing views.

They are among 13 states in which abortion has been generally banned.

The map below shows the status of abortion limits across the country as of August, 2026.

To again reinforce how divided the nation is on the issue.

About half of the states have gestational limits that are equal to or stricter than the Roe v. Wade standards.

Half have limits today that are more liberal than the standards under Roe v. Wade.

Source: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/

The final irony in all of this is that the number of abortions in the United States is actually higher now than it was when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Source: Google AI

You would never know that based on the continuing political environment and emotion on the issue from the Left.

Think about all of this.

The United States generally has a national abortion law that is less restrictive than 96% of the rest of nations in the world.

Abortions have actually gone up since Roe v. Wade was reversed.

Why does abortion even continue to be an issue?

In Massachusetts, abortion was already legal up to fetal viability before the new law was passed.

Fetal viability no longer matters. There is no gestational limit. Abortion is permitted up to birth. 

Is it hard to look at this and not see that an important line has been crossed.

There no longer in attempt to balance the right of a woman to choose and the right of a baby to live.

This is something to celebrate?

Electoral College Education

The Democrat Socialists want to get rid of the Electoral College.

So do many Democrats. Of course, now they are almost one in the same.

Kamala Harris says we need to revisit the Electoral College. That means she is in favor of abolishing it.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6005239-harris-suggests-electoral-college-revisit/

There seem to be many Americans who do not understand the logic behind the electoral college and the genius of our Founders in devising this system of electing our President.

I still recall my son coming home from school some 30 years ago with a homework assignment from his 6th grade teacher. She asked everyone in the class to write a letter to Congress asking that body to vote for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and replace it with a popular election vote. 

She had taken it upon herself to have the entire class take this project on as a way to "teach" them about the U.S. Constitution.

Needless to say, this was not teaching. It was her attempt to indoctrinate her students with her point of view. I was not pleased and I sent a note back to her telling her that my son would not participate in the assignment. 

In my view, the electoral college was just fine. After all, our country is called "The United States of America" for a reason.

It might be time for a little electoral college education for those not familiar with all the reasons why we don't use the popular vote for President/Vice President.

I was in Sydney, Australia earlier this year being driven to the airport by a Russian emigree. 

Upon finding out I was American he said he loved the United States but was confused about one thing--the electoral college. He asked me to explain why it was used.

I summarized a little bit of what follows for his education. 

Our founders had very good reasons to adopt the electoral system of electing our President/Vice President instead of by popular vote.

Article 2, Sec.1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the method of choosing electors.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Our founders were very distrustful of a full democracy. That is why they established the constitutional republic that we have.

The reason was simple. A democracy can be very susceptible to the whims and impulses of the general public. A democracy is also likely to run roughshod over minority rights. These concerns were at the heart of almost every decision made in writing our Constitution.

I have written about this previously, including one of my favorite blog posts of all time, "Improper and Wicked Projects". If you have not read it before, you should. It might actually shock you on how well our Founders understood human nature.  Power, politics, greed, fallibilities, bias, conflicting interests, oppression. There is nothing going on today that they did not anticipate.

Because of theses concerns it made sense to place an intermediary group of electors between the popular vote and the election of the President in order to protect against these risks. It was also important that this group of electors would be independent of any pre-established body like the legislature.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist Paper #68 that explained the reasoning behind "The Mode of Electing the President".

It seems a little ironic today with all the outpouring of love for Alexander Hamilton by the liberal left (largely based on the popular Broadway play), and its criticism of the electoral college process, that Hamilton was the chief defender of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers.

It is also ironic that Hamilton stated that the electoral college method laid out in the constitution was probably the least criticized section in the entire document as ratification was being discussed by the various states. This is how he began Federalist Paper #68.

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. 

This is how Hamilton went on to explain the key points of the electoral college system.

First, he explained why it was important for the people to have a vote in the process even though that role would only be to delegate the final choice to an independent body free of conflicts. Note also that no elected official may serve as an elector. The electors were also expected to apply discernment and reason to their choice. This is the argument that the anti-Trump people used in trying to get Trump electors to vote for someone else and be so-called "Faithless Electors".

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

The electors would, as is the case in other aspects of our republican government, provide an additional level of discernment and investigation as well as insuring that the vote is not a pure popularity contest but one in which a majority of the union of states is supportive of. They wanted to insure that the President was elected by the United States, not just the people from several states with large populations.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. 

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Our founders were particularly concerned about the danger of the legislature being too beholden to one of their own and any possible corruption in the election of the President as well as possible influence in the election by foreign governments. This is another reason for the electoral college and the focus on the decentralization of the vote by each state's electors rather than by popular vote or by a vote in the legislative body as would be the case in a parliamentary system.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. 

The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

The concern was so great about the centralization of power and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the electoral body that the Constitution even requires that the electors meet in their respective states rather than in one central location. There is little doubt that the Founders would be horrified of the attention and abuse the electors received from anti-Trump liberals leading up to the electoral vote leading to his first term. Everything they did was to prevent something like this as explained below.

Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 3

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot...

Again, there was a rationale for this by the Founders as well. They believed that having the electors vote at one time and in one place for the President presented too much risk for turmoil.

And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

It is clear that one of the reasons that the Founders preferred the electoral college was that they were concerned that the people of the 18th century would not have a good sense of the character and qualifications of the candidates for President. Most would never see or hear the candidates in person. They could not truly judge their suitability in an age with no radio, television or internet. That is why it made sense to have the added comfort of electors who might know the candidates better to insure that the President is up to the job.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. 

Of course, in the media age of today this no longer is the issue it was in the 18th century. Candidates are in the public eye and are subject to constant media scrutiny. Voters do not have the same reason to not know who they are voting for. This is where the argument for the anti-Trump forces that wanted to cite Hamilton in encouraging "Faithless Electors" falls apart.

If this was the only reason for the electoral college there would be a good argument to disband it and move to a popular vote.

However, the bigger reason for the electoral college involves the issue of decentralization and the importance of state rights in our governance. After all, as I told my son's teacher 20 years ago, we are The United States of America for a reason.

We are hearing a lot today that the electoral college is unfair because it diminishes the large states like California and New York and provides advantages to smaller states. However, this was also the case in 1787 as it is today. In fact, small states actually had bigger advantages at the beginning of our nation than they do today.

For example, California and New York (per the 2020 census on which current electoral votes are determined by) have a population of 60  million. That is 18.1% of the total population and provides 84 electoral votes out of 538 electors (15.6%). However, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have just over 1.2  million in population between them (4/10 of 1% of total U.S. population) but they each get 3 electoral votes (1.1% of the total for their combined 6 electoral votes out of the 538 total).

However, in the first U.S. census (1790) after the Constitution was ratified, the two largest states in the union, Virginia and Pennsylvania had about 33% of the population and had 36 of 132 electoral votes (27%) in the Presidential election of George Washington in 1792 . On the other hand, Rhode Island and Delaware similarly only had 3/10th of 1% of the total U.S population at that time but their electoral votes were equal to about 5% of total electoral votes.

It should be noted that one of the reasons that Virginia was hurt in its allocation of electoral votes was because the Founders penalized states that had slaves. States with a slave population (the only state with no slaves counted in the 1790 census was Massachusetts. New York had 21,000 slaves, almost as many as Georgia's 29,000) were only given credit for 3/5 of this population for purposes of seats in the House of Representatives and the electoral college.

You get a real sense of why the Founders designed the Constitution the way they did when you see the 2016 election results presented in a different perspective.

One or two large states can make a big, big difference in the popular vote results.

That was true in 1790 just as it is true today.

The Founders clearly did not want any one state to have an outsized influence on the election of the President.

Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 if the 49 states other than California are considered.

His popular vote margin would have been 4 million votes if New York was also excluded.

           2016 Popular Vote                                                  2016 Popular Vote excluding California

Or consider this county by county graphic. Trump won 2,626 counties. Clinton won 487.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

2020 looked like this between Trump and Biden. Trump won 2,558 counties and Biden won 551.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

This is a map of 2024. Trump won 2,661 counties. Kamala Harris won 451.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

The Founders wanted a President of the United States of America. 

Not of two or three large states. Or a dozen big cities.

The electoral college makes sure that this happens.

If it were not for the electoral college every candidate would just campaign in the big cities in the states  with the largest number of voters.

Every action in office would also be influenced to a large degree by huge urban populations.

The Founders understood this when the Constitution was formulated and saw that a President elected by popular vote would be detrimental to our union of states.

In 2026 we are still seeing the wisdom of what our Founders were thinking in 1787. 

Again, there was almost nothing they did not anticipate.

Those that are educated about why the electoral college was adopted understand its importance.

However, you can be sure that the Democrats are going to push very hard to convince people that it is not democratic.

Why?

They can see the shifts in population from blue states to red states that are taking place.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/28/2030-electoral-college-projections-00750488

Ten or more electoral votes could shift from blue states to red states for the 2032 election.

Democrats do not want to abolish the electoral college based on some deeply held principle.

They believe they need to do it for their political survival.

Everyone should understand the underlying motivation of those who oppose the electoral college as well as being better educated of why our Founders designed the system the way they did.

Guns or Butter?

It is popular for liberal Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed and others to say this.

Why do we always have money to fund wars but we never have enough for the public good?

Has the United States been ignoring the public good in favor of national security and defense?

Let's look at a chronology of spending priorities of the federal government from 1945 to 2025 in 10 year increments.

You can view the entire sequence of years from 1940 to 2025 at this link.

In 1945, as the United States was finishing World War II, Defense spending accounted for almost 90% of federal government expenditures.

Social programs did not even account for 1% of total spending.

In 1955, even though the U.S. was beyond World War II and Korea, Defense still consumed 62% of federal spending due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Income Security (welfare) was 7.4% and Social Security was 6.5% of total federal spending.

By 1965 National Defense had declined to 42.8% despite spending on the Vietnam War and the space program.

Social Security had risen to 15% of the budget and Income Security was 8%.

Social spending was destined to dramatically increase from this point forward with the passage of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp and other social programs during the Lyndon Johnson administration.

 g

National Defense declined to 26% of federal spending in 1975 after the end of the Vietnam War.

Social Security was up to 20% and Income Security had increased to 15%.

Medicare and Medicaid were still well down the list of spending items.

Ronald Reagan arrested the slide in Defense Spending but the additional spending just kept the percent spent on Defense at the same level in 1985 as it was a decade earlier.

Medicare broke into the top 5 spending categories for the first time.

Social Security, Income Security and Medicare consumed 40% of all federal spending compared to 27% for Defense.

Social Security had overtaken Defense as the largest category of federal spending in 1995.

Over twice as much was being spent on social programs as was spent on National Defense.

In 2005, despite being involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11, Defense was down to 20% of federal spending.

The United States was spending more on both Social Security and Health Care (Medicare and Medicaid) than it was on Defense.

2015 saw Defense spending decline to 16% of federal spending.

Social Security and Medicare were taking up 40% of the federal budget as Baby Boomers started to retire.

Income Security and Medicaid for the poor was taking up another 27%.

That brings us to about where we are today.

Defense is down to 16% of federal spending and has almost dropped out of the Top 5 spending categories.

We are actually spending more on interest on the federal debt than on Defense.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Income Security consumed over half of the federal budget.

Income Security took another 9%.

60%+ spent on these social programs compared to just 13% on Defense.

t

How can anyone honestly say that if was not for "wars" and national security that we would be able to properly fund social programs?

When I look at these numbers you wonder how anyone survived without the trillions of dollars that we are now spending on social programs.

However, somehow people did.

For decades there has been a debate about the appropriate tradeoff between "guns and butter".

What is the appropriate level of spending between defense and social programs?

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp

There is little doubt that liberals will continue to argue that not enough is being spent on social programs no matter what the real numbers are.

Guns or butter?

The reality is that butter won the political argument a long time ago.

85 years of federal spending proves that.

A more detailed breakdown of spending for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026 is below.

Credit: https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2113654691959656928