Stop Him and Implement Socialism

Democrats seem to be offering only two reasons for why people should vote for them this year.

Elect us so that we...

1. Can Stop Donald Trump.

2. Implement a Socialist agenda.

Try as you might, you cannot find any other positive policy reasons or a realistic platform of ideas from Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and make the United States better.

Yes, I don't consider the Democratic Socialist agenda either positive or realistic.

Many Democrat candidates for the House state that their number one priority is to impeach Donald Trump.

When asked what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that would be the reason for an impeachment, they cannot provide an answer beyond "he is guilty of so much."

What would an impeachment due to the nation's business?

You can be assured that if Democrats take control of Congress there will be next to nothing of importance that will come out of Congress over the next two years.

There will be a lot of investigations and noise.

Little of substance will be accomplished.

If Democrats are able to pass some type of legislation they favor, it most certainly will be vetoed by the President.

That will be the reality if Democrats control Congress.

A vote for Democrats this year undoubtedly means that voters will be even more upset with what Congress is doing (or not doing) than they are today.

As it is, voters are already very dissatisfied with the way Congress is handling the nation's business.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll, only 21% of voters approved of the way Democrats in Congress were doing their job.  A massive 70% disapproved for a -49% net approval rating.

Source: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3965

Republicans in Congress did not fare much better.

26% approved of the job Republicans were doing compared to 62% who disapprove for a -35% net approval rating.

Source: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3965

Trump's net approval rating in the same poll looks relatively good at -26% compared to those bleak numbers.

What is interesting in looking at polling numbers right now on Trump's approval, and how it relates to the upcoming midterm Congressional elections, is comparing the approval numbers to actual results delivered over the last two years.

It is clear that Trump is taking a big hit for the Iran conflict and its related effect on gasoline prices.

This is most particularly hurting Trump with Independent voters who are also most susceptible to mainstream media headlines as they are typically the voters paying the least amount of attention to underlying facts and issues.

The Iran conflict caught them blindsided. Trump campaigned against "forever wars". 

He campaigned on a platform of freeing up domestic energy and lowering gas prices.

I can see where they are coming from. This is not what they voted for.

On the other hand,  I previously wrote that I could see the midterm fortunes of Trump and the Republicans improving if the Iran problem was solved between now and election day.

Take those issues away and Trump's record looks pretty good from most objective standards.

What should those who voted for Trump two years ago but are not happy be doing now?

My suggestion is to take a step back and don't let their vote be ruled by short term emotions.

Look at the facts and reality.

Getting control of immigration was Trump's signature issue.

The Biden administration told us that nothing could be done about it without new legislation.

Trump stopped the flow of illegals crossing the southern border almost immediately.

 

Source: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

The steady flow of illegals at the southern border has slowed to a trickle.

The Trump administration has also been prioritizing the removal of illegal aliens with criminal records, those who have overstayed temporary visas and tightening the rules regarding H1B visas.

All of this has resulted in the number of foreign born persons in the United States falling by an unprecedented 2.9 million people in the last two years.

It is the first time we have seen net negative migration to the United States since the 1930's.

There is nothing Trump has done on immigration that he did not say he was going to do.

Deporting criminal illegals may also be having some effects on crime rates.

The first six months of 2026 compared to the year earlier has shown major reductions in violent crimes in the United States.

We have also just seen the Census Bureau report the highest real (adjusted for inflation) annual household income in the nation's history---$87,460.

This broke the previous high that was reached in 2019.

 

Higher incomes and lower inflation with Trump in office compared to Biden has made a difference in real household incomes.

The percentage of people in poverty also reached a historic low in 2025.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-poverty-rate-102-2025-census-bureau-says-2026-09-15/

The record low poverty rates also extend to children, African Americans and Hispanics.

They have never been at lower levels in the nation's history.

Those high gas prices do hit you in the face at every street corner.

However, when adjusted for inflation and higher incomes today, it has been worse in the past.

I also remember when Biden was President the narrative was that he could do nothing about the high prices at the pump.

It did not matter that the spike was related to the Ukraine War which Biden's fingerprints were all over.

We have also seen prescription drugs prices decline for the first time in American history under Trump.

Source: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2101038712356282759

Stocks have recently been at all-time highs.

The S&P 500 is up 26% since Trump began his second term.

The NASDAQ is up 34%.

The current unemployment rate of 4.1% is also very close to the level that economists would consider to be full employment.

Yes, gasoline prices have increased significantly this year but retail sales (excluding gasoline) are showing signs of strength. 

People are somehow finding the money to spend even after spending more at the pump.

Retail sales (excluding gas station sales) in August, 2026 were 4.9% higher than a year before.

Source: https://wolfstreet.com/2026/09/16/despite-all-moaning-groaning-americans-not-in-the-mood-to-slow-down-retail-sales-surge-even-without-gasoline/

On top of all of this, the Atlanta Federal Reserve just revised its third quarter estimate of GDP growth to 5.1%. The retail sales figures for August undoubtedly had something to do with the upward revision.

If that number is realized it will be the highest quarterly GDP growth rate since 2021 when we were coming out of the Covid lockdowns.

Despite all of this, why do many Americans seem to believe that things are so bad?

A big reason is that the mainstream media tells them that. Every day and in every way.

I have written before about the University of Michigan Survey of Consumer Sentiment that has recently been at the lowest levels seen in the last 60 years.

Source: https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/charts.html

Think about that consumer sentiment index we are seeing right now.

That is lower than during any recession the last 60 years.

Lower than the 1979-1981 period when we had double digit inflation for three consecutive years.

Lower than the early 1980's when mortgage rates hit 18%.

Lower than the period between late 1982 and early 1983 when the employment rate was more than 10%.

Lower than when the entire economy was shut down with Covid.

Lower than in 2022 when inflation was running at over 8% per year.

How can sentiment be so far removed from reality?

All of this proves once again why it is so dangerous to allow the narrative and the emotions of the day to get in the way of making sound long term decisions.

Stop Trump?

You may be stopping a lot more than Trump.

You make not like his bombast and bravado. 

Forget the form. Don't ignore the substance and the facts.

Implement Socialism?

Take a look at the data above once again and tell me socialism is going to improve life for the majority of Americans.

Yes, things can always be improved. However, do the Democrats seriously believe that taking a hard left turn is the way to do that?

It pays to consider a little history at times like these.

Many people around the world through the years were told they needed to stop someone.

They succeeded but what they got was far worse.

The Russians got Stalin. The Germans got Hitler. The Iranians got the Ayatollah.

In North Korea and Venezuela the Socialist/Communists told everyone that they needed to embrace collectivism to improve their lives.

It didn't exactly work out very well for them.

Before North and South Korea went their separate political and economic paths, the people in the North had GDP per capita that was 30%-50% higher than the South.

Those paths have diverged a great deal over the years.

Venezuela went from being the richest country in South America to the poorest in the span of a single generation once the "Democrat Socialists" gained control.

 

 

Most people would be better served by putting short term emotions aside and vote with their long term interests and future in mind.

This quote by Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, summarizes it well.

If you are not familiar with Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged, that was published in 1957, you might want to read the blog post I wrote in 2011 after I finally sat myself down and read the nearly 1,200 page book.

It is a good reminder that voters should not just shrug and vote mindlessly this year.

Indeed, there are consequences in avoiding reality.

Climate, AI and Our Future

You may remember this headline or statements like it in the past.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/406670-trump-making-hurricanes-worse-by-not-addressing-climate-change-says/

Trump was going to cause more hurricanes and they were going to get worse by not addressing climate change

We heard it when he ran for President in 2016.

We heard it when was President as the headline above from 2018 shows.

We heard it in 2024 when he was running again.

It was all because Trump would not agree with the "humans are causing climate change" narrative.

In fact, the supposed "science guy", Bill Nye was on MSNBC  in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in October during the Presidential campaign and said the best way to stop future hurricanes like we saw in 2024 was to vote for Kamala Harris and Democrats.

Source: https://www.outkick.com/culture/voting-kamala-harris-vote-stop-hurricanes-bill-nye-says

"If you have young voters out there, encourage them to vote. People say ‘What can I do about climate change?’ If we were talking about it and associating it with big storms like this, that would be really good, but the main thing is vote," Nye, who now calls himself Climate Guy, told MSNBC.  

As Bill Nye spoke about this in 2024, he seems to have forgotten that in the previous 12 of 16 years Democrats had been in The White House and in many of those years also had majorities in Congress.

Despite that, they were not able to stop big storms from occurring despite spending billions and billions of dollars on "Green New Deal" projects.

We have seen the same climate change narrative repeated continually in the mainstream media over the years.

For example, consider these headlines from 2022, 2023 and 2024 from NPR.

All of this takes on a more interesting angle when we see reports from 2026 that there has not been a single hurricane in the Atlantic this year.

This has not occurred since the satellite era of weather forecasting began in 1966.

Source: New York Post

If we can make it to September 22 without a hurricane forming that record will stretch back 85 years.

There have only been two years in recorded history that there have been no Atlantic hurricanes.

If we can get beyond November 30--the official end of hurricane season---2026 will join 1907 and 1914 as the only years with no hurricanes.

It should be noted as well that in 2025  no hurricanes touched the U.S. mainland.

Since so many want to blame Trump for any bad things that happen with the weather, is it fair to give him credit for the decrease in hurricanes since he took office?

Perhaps it is due to renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America?

Of course, crediting Trump is just as ridiculous as blaming him.

The forces of nature overwhelm anything and everything that man might do to affect the climate.

No amount of carbon taxes, cap and trade, net zero or Green New Deal initiatives is going to change that. 

Let's not forget what AOC was telling everyone almost eight years ago when she was promoting spending trillions of dollars on that Green New Deal.

2030 was the end date. It is only four years away.

It now seems that climate change may be the least of our worries.

The news this week is that AI could kill us all by that time anyway.

Source: https://www.wthitv.com/2026/09/09/former-ai-employee-says-insiders-believe-technology-could-kill-us-all-by-decades-end/

Let's consider which of these two concerns (climate of AI) that we have a better chance of controlling.

Climate and weather was here before any of us set foot on earth.

Artificial Intelligence is completely and totally the product of mankind in the last few years.

Any questions?

Of course, the solutions to these threats to humanity are always supposed to be solved by more government control.

If there are no big problems for government to solve how big does government have to be?

Is that a reason there are so many threats that have to be controlled?

Hippocrates and Hormones

The Greek physician Hippocrates is traditionally regarded as the father of medicine.

The National Library of Medicine describes Hippocrates this way.

Hippocrates was the first physician in history to establish medicine as a science and to suggest the boundaries of physicians' behavior towards their patients. The Hippocratic Oath is applied in many healthcare systems worldwide as an ethical guide for doctors graduating from medical school. It determines modern medicine’s most significant values, such as physicians' specialization to avoid harm and respect patients’ privacy. 

Hippocrates literally established the idea of clinical medicine and surgery. His work set the foundation for most modern day specialties, such as surgery, urology, neurology, and acute medicine,

One of the major contributions that Hippocrates made to the practice of medicine was the importance of taking a holistic approach when diagnosing or treating a patient.

One of the most significant innovations of the founding father of clinical medicine was the holistic approach for the diagnosis and treatment of disease. This approach is based on the assumption that the human body is a sum of many parts that function in harmony and that if one part is ill, the balance will be affected and the whole person will suffer. Hippocrates considered that patients consisted of body, mind, and spirit and this is also the modern physicians' approach when treating a disease.

One of the ideas that Hippocrates had in taking account of the holistic approach was why was it that women had more emotional and physical distress than men?

Four centuries before Jesus Christ was born, Hippocrates understood that there were emotional differences between men and women in addition to the physical features and functions of males and females.

Hippocrates believed the hormonal or emotional differences in females was caused by the uterus wandering around the body and pressing on other organs.

He called this condition "hysteria" which meant uterus or womb in Greek.

We know now that the uterus does not wander around the body but it is generally agreed that hormonal issues in women can result in both physical and mental issues.

We have seen all of this play out in Massachusetts in recent months.

It has been hard to miss all of the media attention that the Lindsay Clancy case received in that state recently.

The mother of three strangled her three children and claimed it was due to postpartum depression and psychosis.

The criminal trial ended in a mistrial deadlocked with 11 jury members (mostly women) in favor of acquittal by reason of insanity and one male member opposed.

I did not follow the details of the case close enough to have a sound opinion of guilt or non-guilt in this case.

Unless you hear every piece of evidence that a juror hears in a trial it is impossible to say you are truly informed on all the issues in any case.

However, when I was in law school I found the insanity defense in the case of a murder trial to be one of the toughest issues to comprehend.

It goes without saying that in almost all cases outside of war, taking the life of another human being (particularly a child) suggests a certain level of insanity. The mind is obviously not operating normally in such a case.

The law recognizes this and the general rule for an insanity plea to be upheld is proof that the assailant did not know the difference between right and wrong.

In Massachusetts the standard is showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of their actions and could follow the law.

Clancy clearly had serious mental issues but did she know it was wrong to kill her children?

That is the fundamental question in this case.

One of the problems facing the jury in this case were the limitations based on state law.

A guilty verdict meant Clancy went to prison. A not guilty verdict by reason of insanity meant that she went to a mental institution for treatment. However, when doctors assessed she was no longer a threat to herself or others she would be free to return to society. There is no middle ground. This put the jurors in a tough spot.

Massachusetts would be better served with a verdict that would have allowed "guilty but mentally ill". This would have acknowledged diminished capacity at the time of murder, would provide mental health treatment in the prison system but when "cured" the defendant must serve out the remainder of any prison term given in the trial.

Postpartum depression and psychosis is not to be minimized. It is real and I have known women who have suffered from it.

However, does it absolve someone from murder?

PTSD is also very real for those who have been in war.

Would that mean that a father returning home from Afghanistan or Iraq could be found not guilty by reason of insanity for killing their children?

There is another interesting factor here in the issues of hormones affecting Clancy's mindset. 

The defense argument is that the hormonal effects of her postpartum issues overwhelmed her mind. As a result. she was incapable of controlling herself and discerning right from wrong.

However, we often talk about the hormones of young men going wild. This has never been an excuse for rape.

In fact, the Muslim religion is built on the fact that these hormonal urges are so strong that it mandates that women completely cover themselves from head to toe so as not to be a temptation and accelerant to those hormones in men.

Is there a double standard somehow involved here?

However, what is most interesting to me in this case is the emotional outpouring we have seen among other women who are vocal in their support of Lindsay Clancy.

Many of these women are not even willing to admit that Clancy killed her children. It seems they are incapable of accepting that a mother could kill her own children.

They believe her husband committed the crime even though her own attorney did not dispute that Clancy killed her own kids in his defense of her at the trial.

Hundreds of women turned out daily in Plymouth, MA to show their support for Clancy during the trial.

Clancy may have been not guilty by reason of insanity.

The fact remains that three children are dead. 

Does this justify any type of rally?

Source: https://kmph.com/news/nation-world/demonstrators-gathered-outside-courthouse-to-support-lindsay-clancy-aug-20-2026

You also have to ask what precedent will the Clancy case have on future murders by mothers?

If Clancy is eventually absolved of any criminal responsibility in her case what does it mean for other cases?

This is a summary of some of the killings by mothers of their children since Lindsay Clancy murdered her kids in 2023.

Dr. Naomi Wolf also raises the question of if a woman's hormones are an excuse for murder where does that leave the women's movement generally?

Source: https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/2098446812285976890

You also have this meme that shows an interesting contrast in the financial support in two cases involving mothers and fundraising for them after tragic events.

Lindsay Clancy has had over $1 million raised on her behalf on GoFundMe after killing her children..

A Swedish woman who was burned over 93% of her body in pulling all six of her children out of raging house fire in 2019 only raised a fraction of that in a fundraiser to assist her recovery.

You can read the full story of the accuracy of these claims at Snopes.com.

Yes, the Swedish did end up with more money in other fundraising efforts over the years but it did not come close to the Clancy money. 

Why the difference?

I don't have an answer.

It is difficult enough to process everything in the Clancy case. The sideshow surrounding it is even harder to understand.

It might be enough to further confuse Hippocrates on the effects of hormones on the female mind and body.

9/11 + 25

Today we recognize and remember the horrific events of September 11, 2001 on the 25th anniversary of that fateful day.

There is not a person who was alive on that day, beyond the youngest children, who do not remember where they were or what they were doing when they got the news of the attacks.

I remember it as if it was yesterday and I also recall how subdued and quiet it was in the days and weeks after 9/11. It was almost as if everyone was in a state of shock.

The quiet extended to the skies as for several days after 9/11 as all civilian aircraft were grounded so there were none of the familiar background sounds of a passing jet or airplane.

Mrs. BeeLine and I were invited to spend a night at a friend's lake house outside of Pittsburgh two weeks after 9/11. Our host had been fishing on the lake when the jet that ultimately crashed in Shanksville, PA flew very low over him as the passengers battled with the terrorists on board.

We attended a play at a small community theater during our visit not far from Shanksville and I remember how quiet the audience was before the performance and at intermission. There was no small talk and no laughter. It was as if everyone was waiting for the next shoe (or plane) to drop.

I flew from Pittsburgh to Portland, Maine about six weeks after 9/11. 

I remember how quiet the airport was as I walked to my gate. 

There also could not have been more than 10 passengers on the flight. 

When I arrived in Portland I walked through the same airport that the 19 Muslim terrorists had as they began their day before boarding flights to Boston, Newark and Dulles.

2,977 victims died on 9/11 in New York City, at the Pentagon and in that field in Shanksville after those terrorists got on their connecting flights and made the planes killing missiles.

If we did not know it before, 9/11 revealed the true fanaticism of elements of the Muslim religion and the wide gulf in our values.

We have continued to deal with that reality for most of the last 25 years including most directly over the last six months in Iran.

With all that in mind, what I find most interesting are the changes we have seen in the United States over the 25 years since 9/11.

New York City had a population that included 177,000 Muslims in 2001.

It now has over 1 million Muslims residing in the city.

New York City's mayor is now a Muslim socialist.

Many of Zohran Mamdani's supporters have anti-American views in addition to being anti-semitic and anti-Israel.

Another Muslim socialist is currently running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan.

There are two high profile House Democrats who are Muslim---Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashid Tlaib (D-MI)--who are known for anti-American rants from time to time.

The Muslim population in the United States has grown from an estimated 1.8 million in 2001 to 2.4 million in 2007 to 5.5 million in 2026.

Source: Pew Research Center

That increase in population is reflected in the number of mosques in the United States.

There are now over 3,150 mosques in the United States.

There were 50 in 1950.

All Muslims are obviously not Islamic extremists like those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville. This was stated over and over in the days after 9/11 to combat any Islamophobia.

However, what causes a young man to fly a plane into a building, strap on a suicide vest or take an automatic weapon into an opera house with the intent to kill or maim shouting "Allahu Akbar"?

Ten years ago I came across an interesting paper by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, "The Cause of Jihadist Terrorism and How to Combat It" in a publication by the Air Force Research Laboratory (credit to Viable Opposition for pointing me to this) that attempts to explain this question.

Dr. Hamid knows something about this subject because at one time he was an Islamic extremist himself in his native Egypt.

The radical Islam we see today has its roots in what is called the "Salafi Movement" within Islam. Its followers believe in taking a very fundamental approach to Islam. They believe that Islam has strayed from its roots and has become decadent over the years. 

They reject any religious innovation and support the implementation of sharia law. One of the key signs of spreading Salafism is for the women to wear the hijab, a key part in the imposition of sharia law.

Interestingly, Hamid sees the wearing of the hijab as an important indicator of increased radicalism in a Muslim community. This is how he describes how this takes hold.

The process begins with the propagation of Salafi jihadist ideology within a community. Increasing numbers of women begin to wear the hijab, which is both a symptom of Salafi proliferation and a catalyst for Islamism (see, e.g.,Mahmood, 2005). In turn, the proliferation of militant Salafism and the hijab contribute to the idea of passive terrorism, which occurs when moderate segments of the population decline to speak against or actively resist terrorism. 

The chart below shows the process of radicalization as well as the reinforcing cycle that continues to make the problem worse as time goes on. Hamid makes the point that while only a small percentage of Muslims become active terrorists, there are a very large number of what he calls "passive terrorists" who support the ideals of the cause but will never become violent.

However, it is a numbers game. The more adherents of Islam who follow the fundamentalist view of Salafism, the greater chance that a few more will become violent extremists. The first step in combating jihadist terrorism is to reduce the number of "passive terrorists" as Hamid calls them.

The solution to all of this is exceedingly complex. "No single, magical solution for defeating Islamism" exists according to Hamid.

However, Hamid sees a critical first step that can be taken is to weaken what he calls the "hijab phenomenon" .

Weakening the hijab phenomenon is pivotal to stopping the growth of Islamism at the ideological level. Wearing the hijab is discussed as a cultural phenomenon, rather than an individual choice, as many Muslim women are peaceful people (Hamid, 2007, pp.120-121). I have observed that, over the last few decades, terrorism was preceded by an increase in the prevalence of the hijab. In Sunni Muslim areas such as Kurdistan in Iraq, most women did not wear the hijab; these areas experienced fewer acts of terrorism than areas where the hijab was common, such as Al-Anbar Province.  

If it is a numbers game as Dr. Hamid suggests, we are losing badly.

25 years ago it was rare to see a woman wearing a hijab in the United States.

Today it is a everyday occurrence in many cities around the United States.

The Governor of New York was even wearing a hijab speaking two weeks before the 25th anniversary of 9/11.

Who would have ever thought 25 years ago that this is where we would be in 2026?

While it is true that Muslim extremists are a distinct minority it is rare that other Muslims criticize or call out the extremists.

Are mainstream Muslims afraid to do so or are there many more "passive terrorists" out there than we know?

Although there may be very few Muslims willing to be active terrorists we do know that substantial numbers in the United States favor the implementation of sharia law.

A 2024 survey showed that 39% of Muslims in the United States would support the implementation of sharia law.

In that sharia law is completely at odds with the traditional values of the American people and incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, this should give anyone pause in looking where we are in another 25 years.

One of the most interesting questions I have pondered in these pages over the years is why is it that over the last 50 years Christianity has gotten more liberal and tolerant and Islam has gotten more conservative and less tolerant?

It is a puzzling paradox as conventional thinking suggests that as societies age and mature they tend to become more progressive. For example, they advance from a primitive, barbaric system of justice to a system that recognizes individual rights and equal justice. They become less authoritarian and more flexible.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 25 years in the United States.

What will 9/11 + 50 look like?

Will Muslims in America become more tolerant, flexible and less accepting of strict Islam?

Will Muslims more willingly assimilate into American society?

Or will Christians, Jews and other religions in the United States become less tolerant and more forgiving in the face of attempts by Muslims to impose itself on the rest of society?

The 25 years since 9/11 suggests that the road ahead promises plenty of problems based on current trends.

More Than A Name

The media is all worked up because President Trump has signed an executive order renaming the section of Lake Ontario in United States territory to Lake America.

I personally think it is silly and needless.

However, there is no doubt that Trump does things like this to get under the skin of others---both the Canadians and liberals in America.

You could say there is a method in Trump's madness.

It is about more than a name.

Liberals are outraged.

"You cannot rename a lake with a name that goes back eons."

"How dare he!  Trump is changing history."

However, their reaction to all of it exposes a larger hypocrisy which undoubtedly is part of Trump's calculus in all of this.

The same people who argue we are living on stolen land conveniently forget other history.

The Native Mohawks tribes referred to the lake as Catarakui.

The Iroquois referred to it as "oniatarí:io" which meant "lake of shining waters" in their language. 

Somehow it ended up being Lake Ontario and the Mohawk name disappeared.

Map from 1774
Source: Library of Congress

The same can be said about Manhattan and New York City.

The lower part of Manhattan Island was a city named New Amsterdam when the Dutch controlled the area in the early 17th century.

When the British seized control in 1664 they renamed the city New York.

Times change. Attitudes change Names sometimes also change.

As has been said many times before, history is written by the victors.

Of course, those same liberals have not had any problem changing all sorts of names in the last few years.

History and legacy be damned.

Here are few examples of name changes that were pushed by liberals in one form or fashion to be more "politically correct" that I pulled together from a couple of different sources.

Sports Nicknames:

Washington Redskins---- Commanders

Cleveland Indians----Guardians

Stanford Indians ---- Cardinal

Edmonton Eskimos---- Elks

Miami Redskins---RedHawks

William and Mary Indians---- Tribe


Places and holidays:

Columbus Day --- Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Robert E. Lee High School --- John Lewis High

Jefferson Davis Highway--- Richmond Highway

Mount McKinley --- Denali

Fort Bragg ---Fort Liberty

Fort Hood --- Fort Cavazos

Fort Benning---Fort Moore

Fort Gordon---Fort Eisenhower

Brands and institutions:

Boy Scouts of America --- Scouting America

Aunt Jemima ---Pearl Milling Company

Uncle Ben’s --- Ben’s Original

Eskimo Pie --- Edy’s Pie

Land O’Lakes --- kept the land, dropped the Indian

Language and Terms:

Illegal alien --- undocumented immigrant

Hispanic --- Latinx (a term Hispanics never asked for and don’t use)

Mother ---- birthing person

Breastfeeding --- chestfeeding

Inmate / prisoner / convict --- justice-involved person

Ex-con --- returning citizen

Fat --- plus-sized

Master bedroom --- primary bedroom

Shooter---trigger puller

To put all of this in better context, compare the number of official geographic name changes made by the Biden administration compared to what the Trump administration had done prior to renaming Lake Ontario.

Most of the Biden era changes involved the removal of "Squaw" as a geographic name.

Until I did research for this blog post I did not know there was anything offensive about the word "Squaw".

 

In school I was taught that it just referred to a Native American female, most particularly a young, maiden woman.

I did not know that it was now considered a derogatory word.

Who knew? All of my contemporaries I asked about it did not know it was offensive either.

As a result, the Biden administration decided that "Squaw" had to be eliminated anywhere it was used in the name of a geographic location in the United States.

For example, Squaw Valley in California was renamed Yokuts Valley.

Squaw Lake in Colorado became Grizzly Lake.

Squaw Island in Wisconsin became Keyes Island.

This must also explain why "Mia" the Indian woman who graced the Land O Lakes packaging was eliminated several years ago.

Which packaging is more appealing? 

Admittedly, the Trump name changes (now 3) are higher profile but the bigger point is that time changes as does the acceptance of certain names.

It is just another example of how biased  and selective the outrage can be about names, history and legacies.

And a reminder there is always more than a name involved in these situations that usually can be traced back to politics in some form or fashion.

Celebrate Labor Day More Than Ever

Labor Day was established as a national holiday in 1894 after Congress in the Grover Cleveland administration passed a law to recognize, honor and celebrate the American labor movement.

Its origins dated back to 1882 in New York City when several labor organizations organized a voluntary parade and activities to raise the visibility and influence of the labor movement and the laboring classes.

In the late 1800's it was not unusual that many workers might work 12 hour days and six or seven day weeks to make a living.

The American union movement was attempting to gain strength and celebrating a "Labor Day" fit in well with their plans for wider recognition and respect.

The idea caught on and many other city labor centers followed suit in the next several years

Individual states began to pass legislation recognizing the day (Oregon was the first in 1887), and by the time Congress acted, 30 states had adopted some form of Labor Day

The political motivation was to repair relations with the labor union movement when there were considerable tensions as unions agitated for more influence.

Labor Day may have begun as something connected to the labor movement but it seems to me it needs to celebrated even more today.

Barely 5% of private sector workers today are members of a labor union. 

That compares to over 30% in the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Source: https://equitablegrowth.org/aligning-u-s-labor-law-with-worker-preferences-for-labor-representation/

On the other hand, over one-third of public sector workers (teachers, state, local and federal government employees) are in a union.

Source: https://jacobin.com/2022/01/labor-density-historical-comparison-strikes-weakness

Overall, the 15 million labor union members in the United States are split roughly 50% public sector and 50% private sector That amounts to 10% of the total workforce.

The large number of public sector union members is a big change from as recently as the 1960's when it was generally illegal for a public sector employee to even be in a union.

It is important to remember that there is no real legal or economic reason for the very existence of a public sector union in the first place. 

In fact, liberal luminaries in the 1930's such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia were opposed to public sector collective bargaining for the simple reason that it threatened the broad needs of the citizenry. This was the principal reason it was illegal for most government employees to unionize until well into the 1970's.

That is why you only see the public sector line above begin where it does.

Credit: https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/government-unions/what-was-fdr%e2%80%99s-stance-government-unions

The historical basis for unions in the private sector is based on insuring a balance of power to insure that workers receive a reasonable share of profits and work in safe and sanitary conditions. Governments don't have profits to share. They levy taxes to provide services to the public.

In addition, has anyone ever heard of a government worker toiling in a sweat shop? 

Governments also generally work in a monopoly situation meaning that if they provide poor service, no service, or they strike, there is no corresponding power by the consumer to go elsewhere as there is with a private sector business that is unionized.

Most importantly,  private sector unions are balanced against managers who have a natural incentive to push back on union demands. 

In the public sector no such tensions exists. More often than not the elected officials on the other side of the bargaining table are incentivized to give in to the unions for their own political survival. Democrats in particular know that they would not have been elected (nor will they be reelected) without that public sector union money flowing into their campaign coffers.

Why do I suggest that Labor Day needs to be celebrated more than ever today despite the decline of private sector unions?

It is because those that work and labor today (union or non-union, manufacturing, service, healthcare or anything else) are the ones who are paying taxes and pulling the wagon for everyone else.

These are the people who are making the United States work through their labor, sacrifice and tax payments.

And that number seems to get smaller every year.

The civilian labor participation rate (the adult population working) is only 61.4%.

20 years ago it was over 66%.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

Why are fewer people in the labor force?

Baby boomers have been retiring.

Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-this-years-social-security-cost-of-living-increase/

More people have a disability.

More people are just choosing to simply not work.

It means more people in the wagon. Fewer people pulling the wagon.

You can see the stark reality of this in these color coded maps of the United States that show the share of personal income in each county that comes from government transfers.

In 1970, not even 1% of counties relied on government transfers for 25% or more of its personal income.

In 2000, 10.4% did.

By 2022, 53% of all counties in the United States were relying on government money for over a quarter of their total personal income.

Credit: https://x.com/GreenPlusAnE/status/2094796289019871502

Those government transfers have to be covered by taxes on those who are in the labor force.

Or new debt that will ultimately have to be paid by someone laboring in the future.

Do you see why we need to celebrate Labor Day more than ever?

Hug someone who is working today.

Oh Canada!

Over the last couple of years I have written several times about the substantial challenges facing Canada.

Here are two examples.

Our Northern Neighbor Heading South?  in February, 2026

What's Next For Canada in May, 2025

The latest example of a misstep by the Liberals who have led the country for the last 11 years is attempting to start a trade war with the United States.

Take a look at Canada's trade numbers and tell me who is going to win any trade war between the two countries.

Source: https://x.com/trish_regan/status/2092429759158301013/photo/1

77% of Canada exports go to the United States.

Those exports represent 22% of Canada's total GDP.

In fact, more goods are exported from Canada to the United States each year than any goods that are transferred among the provinces of Canada.

Canada is also heavily reliant on those in the United States to hold its debt.

Canada has about 

For context, Canada's national federal debt is about $1 trillion.

Beyond all of that, Canada almost totally relies on the United State for its defense.

Canada had neglected spending money on defense for most of the last five decades although it is scheduled to finally spend the NATO required minimum 2% of GDP this year.

Of course, that only came about due to pressure from Trump on Canada and other NATO countries that were getting a free ride from the United States for many, many years.

Prime Minister Carney's actions in treating Trump's trade actions as an attack rather than a negotiation  seems politically calculated rather than being based on sound and rational policy.

Look at the trade numbers above if you don't believe that.

Carney seems to be only interested in playing to the liberal voters who dominate Canadian politics right now and who have a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Just 15% of Canadians have a positive approval of Trump.

What is really sad is that the majority in Canada want to blame Donald Trump for their problems when the reality is that they have done this to themselves by following the wrong leaders and the wrong policies.

It helpful to shift blame for Canada's problems and away from him.

Trump understands what Carney is doing as shown in this Truth Social post from yesterday.

Trump also knows that Carney is only going to accelerate Canada's decline.

I get it that the Canadians believe that Trump is threatening their sovereignty.

However, Trump doesn't have it in for Canada or its people.

He is just playing chess rather than checkers.

Trump understands that Canada has gotten the better part of the trade and defense aspects of the U.S-Canada relationship for a number of years.

For example, the U.S.-Canada trade balance got massively unbalanced during the Biden years.

Source: Grok

Trump  came into office in his second term desiring to bring some balance back to the relationship.

He also knows that Canada has been trying to assist China in circumventing Chinese tariffs by putting Chinese content and parts in goods manufactured in Canada.

Trump's request in the negotiations was merely that when a product comes in from Canada and is marked as "Made in Canada" that it really is true.

The U.S. wanted assurances that it was truly made with non-Chinese parts and labor so that the Chinese could not use Canada to circumvent U.S. tariffs on China.

This apparently is what Carney called an "attack". It would seem this would be something Carney should want for his country anyway.

Trump is also looking at Canada and the United States as a business man would rather than a politician.

Looked at from the perspective of a businessman like Trump. if the U.S. and Canada were corporations, they would be ideal candidates for a consolidation or merger.

It needs to be kept in mind that although Canada encompasses a larger geographic area than the United States, its population is only 40 million compared to 335 million in the U.S.

Further, 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

Canada is resource rich but does not have the population, manufacturing and technology infrastructure to take full advantage. Nor do they have the financial resources to maximize its assets.

The Canadian dollar is near 20 year lows in value relative to the U.S. dollar.

A Canadian only provides 72 cents $US at recent exchange rates.

15 years ago the Canadian dollar was trading as high as $1.08

Canadian/US Currency Exchange Rate
Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CADUSD=X/

The average Canadian has lost over 30% of their purchasing power over that period.

Consider the decline in the real GDP per capita and the standard of living in Canada compared to the United States since 2016.

Credit: https://x.com/WallStreetMav/status/2028326186783236412

The Justin Trudeau administration in Canada was disastrous to the financial well-being of average Canadians.

The Carney administration might end being worse.

In this era where economies of scale are more important than ever, and the cost of government services (especially defense) is growing more expensive every year, there is an argument that combining the United States and Canada would make sound economic sense.

A formal merger or annexation is probably not achievable but an economic union with open trade, a common currency and the ability for Americans and Canadians to travel and work freely by and between the two countries might not be out of the question.

This is clearly where Trump's thinking is leading him.

However, this would necessarily require a common policy on immigration that limits and controls this problem. There would also have to be some type of parity in government benefits.

Canada's current more liberal immigration policies make this impossible.

Almost 25% of Canada's population is foreign born compared to 15% in the United States.

If you include those who are first-generation Canadians (their parents were foreign born) that number is about 45%.

In the City of Toronto, 51% of the population is foreign born.

In Vancouver it is 43%.

No economic union or other consolidation would work unless there is full agreement on the immigration issue.

The media and others may want you to believe that Trump is a madman highlighting the possibilities described above.

However, the facts above show there is sound logic and arguments for everything Trump has talked about.

It is confusing to many because Trump is literally thinking two or three steps beyond where most everybody else is who are captured by conventional thinking and the status quo. 

We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in all of this.

There is too much history of harmony. goodwill and shared values between the two countries.

All I can say is "Oh Canada!" when I look at all of this.

Do Carney and Canadians fully understand the implications of the fight they seem to want to take on?

This guy on X sums it up pretty well.

What are they thinking?