Career Advice

We are in graduation season and many young men and women are thinking about what they want to do with their life.

I came across this article by Visual Capitalist that took data from the 2018 Jobs Rated Report by CareerCast.com on the most common careers based on median income, stress, growth outlook and workplace environment, and used it to rank 100 common careers from best to worst.

If someone is looking just to make a lot of money the best career choices are Military General ($215,117), Surgeon ($208,000), Senior Corporate Executive ($183,270) and Dentist ($158,120).

I found this kind of humorous because who chooses a career as a Military General or a Senior Corporate Executive? I think there are quite a few steps on a career path that leads in that direction before you get those high levels of compensation. However, I would not consider a Military General to be a "career". Shouldn't that career be that of a military officer?

The same is true for Surgeons and Dentists. It takes a lot of education and training before you can expect to be pulling in the big bucks in these "careers".

Of course, this data might be directed to younger audiences who seem to have a distorted view of the career paths. For example, a recent survey found that 75% of Gen Z workers believe they should be entitled to a promotion in their first year on the job. With promotions every year it should not take long to go from the shop floor to the "C" Suite or private to General.

What are the five best career choices according to the CareerCast.com data?

They all have decent pay, nice workplace environments, low stress and good career growth prospects.

Notice that in each of these careers the low stress is probably due to the fact that these jobs likely have very limited needs to interface with the public and angry consumers. For the most part they are also not under intense time deadlines in their jobs.

If you are like me and are not quite sure what a "Genetic Counselor" does, here is a description of the career provided by RaiseMe.com. This was definitely not something you could major in when I was in college 50 years ago.

Genetic counselors assess individual or family risk for a variety of inherited conditions, such as genetic disorders and birth defects. They provide information and support to other healthcare providers, or to individuals and families concerned with the risk of inherited conditions.

What are the worst career choices? Low pay, poor workplace environment, high stress and poor career growth prospects.

Some interesting observations on median salaries in the various careers.

A garbage collector ($36,160) makes more than an actor ($33,580).

A member of the clergy ($47,100) makes more than a broadcaster ($40,910).

An air traffic controller ($124,450) makes more than an airline pilot ($119,930).

Any young person considering a career should understand that some careers appear more glamorous than they really are when it comes to paying the bills.

Keep this in mind as well in taking on student loan debt.

Here is a summary ranking that compares pay and stress by Visual Capitalist.

Over the years that I have observed many people and their careers. This includes time when I was a Human Resources executive and nurturing those careers was part of my professional responsibilities.

Too often I observed two extremes when it came to the career paths of many people I encountered.

There were too many people who seemingly gave little thought to their career and random circumstances ended up controlling their lives. They wanted to be in public relations and ended up selling fire suppression systems. They wandered into something and it captured them for life. They did not choose a career. The career chose them by pure chance.

You also have the other extreme where someone is always looking for the perfect career choice and never finds it. They get three degrees and yet they are never satisfied with their career. They are always dissatisfied with where they are and what they are doing.

For most people I think the reality is there are a range of good career choices in which they can excel. The best thing they can do is pick one with some care and consideration and then make it great with passion, purpose and hard work.

You can't lose with that career advice whether you are a bank teller, taxi driver, genetic counselor or candlestick maker.

The Indefatigable Donald Trump

The United States has been struggling with illegal immigration over its southern border for decades.

There is little doubt that a significant reason that Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election was due to his tough stance on doing something about the issue.

Over two years into his term as President the flow of illegals storming the border has actually reached crisis levels. This is particularly true for those who are attempting to take advantage of asylum requests and those who understand our liberal rules for those traveling with children. They are using loopholes in our law to insure that they get into the country knowing they will not be turned away.

If you doubt that, look at this chart of illegals apprehended at the border traveling with children.

Let's put the numbers above in context. Last month saw 130,000 illegals apprehended at the southern border. This does not include those that eluded capture. That equates to over 1.5 million illegals on an annualized basis. Under current immigration law, the current annual limit for legal immigrants per year is only 1.1 million. Even at that, the 1.1 million legal limit is well above the number of immigrants that any other country in the world is accepting.

It is not hyperbole to look at these numbers and conclude that we are under invasion at our southern border.

I believe that a big reason for the surge in the illegal immigration we have seen is due to Donald Trump. How could that be when there has been no person that has been more vocal about stopping illegal immigration?

Could it be that the people in these countries believe Donald Trump?

Could it be that people in these countries believe that Trump will get his wall or change the law?

Could it be that these people believe that time is running short if they want to get into the United States?

As a result, we have seen this unprecedented surge.

If they do believe that Donald Trump is serious about illegal immigration I would suggest they are most astute.

If there is anything that people should have learned about Donald Trump by now is that he is a man who is not easily deterred from the goals he establishes for himself.

If there is one word that I would use to describe Donald Trump it is this one. Indefatigable.

Source: The Free Dictionary

We saw it again last week when he announced he would be imposing a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports into the United States, and that tariff would increase by an additional 5% per month to a maximum of 25%, until Mexico agreed to steps to help curb illegal immigration.

Predictably, Trump's action was met by widespread criticism. This included many Senate Republicans. Most said it would not work. Tariffs are not the way to negotiate. It would raise prices on American consumers. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah.

Trump undertook all of this as he was also visiting the United Kingdom, Ireland and France as part of D-Day remembrances.

It took less than a week for Mexico to announce that it would take stronger measures to stem the flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S. border including deploying 6,000 troops to the Guatemalan border where many from Central America cross into Mexico on the way to the United States. In turn, Trump announced that he would indefinitely suspend the tariffs pending these actions.

Predictably, the New York Times was out with a story shortly after the agreement was reached that Mexico had agreed to most of the measures months in advance of the tariff announcement. The story was clearly meant to minimize Trump's accomplishment.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to characterize what Trump accomplished with the Mexican agreement as "caving in" on the issue. Of course, if Trump had gone ahead with the tariffs after Mexico agreed to take action he would have called him unhinged and unfit to be President.

I have no doubt that some or all of the measures had been under discussion with Mexico for months.

However, talk always gets a lot of currency in Washington, DC and in diplomatic circles. I think most people outside the beltway are more interested in results and action. That includes Donald Trump.

What has been missing from Mexico on this issue has been concrete action. We now see something. Whether it translates into results remains to be seen. However, if we don't see results I have no doubt that Donald Trump will take additional actions.

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.

The Longest Day Remembered

Today we celebrate and remember the heroes of D-Day, June 6, 1944, 75 years later.

Two years ago I was was able to fulfill a longstanding wish to visit the beaches of Normandy where American, British and Canadian forces came ashore in their quest to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II.

It was a memorable experience to tour the beaches and fields where so many brave men fought and died for the cause of freedom and to pay respects at the American Cemetery to those who fell on that day.

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

You cannot help but feel emotion as you look at the beautiful views and countryside while also thinking about the bravery, commitment and sacrifice that was made 75 years ago.

I am re-posting a blog post I wrote six years ago about that day.

There are no words to describe how grateful I am to all those who embarked on that journey across the English Channel on that day. For all too many it was not their longest day---it was their last day.


The Longest Day
(originally published June 6, 2013)


June 6. The Longest Day.

Credit:Wikipedia

How many people today remember the significance of this day?

My first real exposure to the events and sacrifices of that day were in 1962 when my father took me to see the movie, The Longest Day, about the Normandy invasion of Europe.  He was a WWII veteran and he wanted to make sure that I understood what went on that day.  He told me after the movie, "I hope you never have to go through anything like that but you need to appreciate the sacrifices these men made for you."

Over 6,000 Americans lost their lives that day 69 years ago on the beaches of northern France.  By contrast, that is roughly equal to the total lives lost in over ten years of the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was a day of incalculable horror and heroism.

I hope we never forget men of courage like Walter Taylor who pushed forward as so many others fell (or drowned) around them.

This article from the examiner.com, "Remembering D-Day", written two years ago by Christopher Coughlin is worth the read (link not active in 2019).  You might also want to read this 1960 account of the "First Wave at Omaha Beach" by S.L.A. Marshall, the U.S. Army's chief historian, for a more comprehensive view of what transpired on those beaches that day.


From "Remembering D-Day".

History shows that on June 6, 1944, 160,000 US and allied troops were involved in Operation Overlord, the code name for the invasion of Europe. It was and remains the largest amphibious operation in history.

June 6th was also expected to be one of the most lethal days for US troops in American history, with carnage unheard of since the American Civil War.

Allied high command was so concerned about the anticipated, epic levels of violence, destruction and death that would meet the first wave of troops that they were reluctant to assign veterans of other invasions, fearing the men would be overwhelmed and break down. As a result, two of the three US divisions assigned to hit the beaches at Normandy had never been in combat.

And as history turned out, the high command's expectations of violence were more than justified.
At Omaha Beach, the US 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions, and the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions, faced the veteran German 352nd Infantry Division, one of the best trained units in the German army.
Through acts of commission and omission, the majority of the allied landing craft missed their assigned sectors on Omaha Beach, causing confusion, and in some instances, landing American troops directly in front of German machine gunners.

As a result, casualties among the first wave of troops were nothing short of catastrophic, where surviving American solders were leaderless, isolated and traumatized by the violence surrounding them. The situation was so grave that senior commanders considered abandoning Omaha altogether.
But from the unspeakable carnage came a profound courage.

This is where Lt. Walter Taylor enters the story.

Slowly, small units of infantry, based on nothing more than individual initiative and survival instinct, formed up as ad hoc groups, and began to move the 1,000 yards off the beach to dunes to take on the German pillboxes and establish an allied foothold in Europe.

It was at that critical time of decision that Lt. Walter Taylor, Company B (or Baker), 116th Infantry, of the 29th Division, landed with the second wave.

Coming ashore, Taylor didn’t know that his commanding officers were already dead.

But, seeing the chaos, Taylor immediately took the initiative.

He led a group of men off the beach, crawling past the obstacles, barbed wire and mine fields, and eventually over the sea wall.

He continued to lead his men straight up the bluff and into the town of Vierville, where he engaged the Germans in a two-hour fire fight, and won without losing a man.

It was only later, meeting up with other elements of Baker Company, that Taylor realized that he was in command. The sergeant did a head count – there were only 28 men out of the original 240.
Undeterred, Taylor proceeded to lead the 28 men inland against an imposing German fortification with rock walls and artillery proof tunnels.

Taylor engaged the Germans there and continued the fight throughout the day, leading a force mixed from his company and several Rangers, trying to reach goals outlined in the Overlord plan for Day 1. This despite the fact, borne out on Normandy, that no battle plan survives the beginning of the battle.

By nightfall, Taylor and his men made camp near the village of Louvieres. An allied runner found them with a message to fall back to meet up with the remnants of the battalion, closer to the sea.

Taylor had led his men to a place a half a mile ahead of the rest of the United States Army in Europe. It was an incredible accomplishment.

From the "First Wave at Omaha Beach"

Taylor is a luminous figure in the story of D Day, one of the forty-seven immortals of Omaha who, by their dauntless initiative at widely separated points along the beach, saved the landing from total stagnation and disaster. Courage and luck are his in extraordinary measure.

Later, still under the spell, Price (one of Taylor's men) paid the perfect tribute to Taylor. He said: "We saw no sign of fear in him. Watching him made men of us. Marching or fighting, he was leading. We followed him because there was nothing else to do."

Thousands of Americans were spilled onto Omaha Beach. The high ground was won by a handful of men like Taylor who on that day burned with a flame bright beyond common understanding.

God bless Walter Taylor and all the courageous men who stormed the beaches of Normandy 69 years ago today.  We all owe them a debt of gratitude.  May the memory of their service and sacrifice never be forgotten. Let's hope that the flame that burned bright by their actions should never be extinguished


Second Lieutenant Walter P. Taylor, United States Army, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy while serving with the 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division, in action against enemy forces on 6 June 1944. Second Lieutenant Taylor's intrepid actions, personal bravery and zealous devotion to duty exemplify the highest traditions of the military forces of the United States and reflect great credit upon himself, the 29th Infantry Division, and the United States Army.
General Orders: Headquarters, Ninth U.S. Army, General Orders No. 75 (1944)

Action Date: 6-Jun-44

Service: Army

Rank: Second Lieutenant

Regiment: 116th Infantry Regiment

Division: 29th Infantry Division

Source: Military Times Wall of Valor


Postscript: After I wrote this blog post 6 years ago the son of Walter Taylor posted this comment on my blog to complete the story.

"Walter P Taylor Jr who received the DSC on D-Day did survive the war but not until he received two purple hearts. One at St Lo and another in Belgium. Walter married my mother who was serving in the American Red Cross in Nice France. Lt Walter P Taylor was reassigned there at the very end of the war as part of a detail to detain "very bad Germans and Frenchmen" for the occupation forces. Walter was assigned here because he spoke fluent German. Walter studied German in high school and was sent to Germany in 1936 as an exchange student. Walter who was born in 1915 died in 1973. Pictures and documents available."

Geoff Taylor sudbury3333@gmail.com


I also received this comment from Nicolas Bulte on this blog post post in February, 2018 (almost 5 years after I wrote the original blog post and several months after I had visited the Normandy).  I wish he had seem my blog post earlier. It would have been nice to connect.

"I'm the owner of the farm-manour house of l'Ormel in Vierville where Lt. W. Taylor took shelter and so courageously distinguished himself on D-Day. Very happy to welcome you here if you happen to pass by Normandy and grateful for any additional information you may have about this particular action."

It all goes to show you what a wondrous thing the internet is.

18 Miles From Mother

Demography is destiny.

It is a window to the future that is too often overlooked or ignored.  The long-term trends are often the most difficult to see in the 24 hour news cycle world we live in today.  In this day and age, when there is so much focus on the trees (even the leaves at times!), demography forces you to look at the forest.

Demography starts with births.

I have watched trends in births over the years and have written about those trends from time to time in BeeLine.

I have even maintained my own chart of U.S. births over the years. The CDC recently released its preliminary report on 2018 births and this is my updated chart on births going back to 1950.

As you can see, we are generally in a period of declining births in the United States right now.

We reached a peak of 4.32 million births in 2007 and the CDC's preliminary numbers show that births were down to 3.78 million in 2018. That is actually the lowest number of births in the United States in 32 years.

The fertility rate dropped to 59.0 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 which is also the lowest number ever in the United States. The total fertility rate (TFR), which is the estimate of the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime, dropped to 1.73. This is also a new low. A 2.1 TFR is necessary for a given generation to replace itself.

Teen birth rates continue to drop to record lows and women between the ages of 30-34 have the highest fertility rates but more babies are actually being born to women between ages 25-29 (there are more women in this age cohort).

The birth data also pretty clearly tells us that Whites will become a minority of the population in the United States within 25 years. Demography is destiny.

Whites only comprised 51.5% of total births in 2018. Hispanics comprised almost a quarter of all births and Blacks were about 15% of all births. The balance were primarily Asian.

However, the percentages by state vary considerably.

In California, only 26.6% of all births were White in 2018.

In Texas, it was only 33.1%.

Other states in which White births were less than half of total births were Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York.

What are the states where Whites still make up more than 75% of all births?

West Virginia and Vermont both had Whites accounting for 91% of all births. Other states that were 75% or higher were Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming.

However, most of these states have low populations to begin with. Despite the fact that Texas and California had the lowest percentage of White births, these large states actually had the most White births in pure numbers. There were 125,000 White births in Texas to lead the nation. California had 121,000.

Ohio is the only relatively large population state that had high numbers of White births (97,000) and those births also made up over 70% of all births.

There is no data on the number of births that were to mothers who were born outside the United States in these preliminary birth numbers for 2018. I have researched this topic previously and found that this data specifically does not attempt to separate out births of children to illegal immigrant mothers.

Over the past few years approximately one-fourth of births in the United States have been to immigrant mothers. The best estimate I have found is that about 8% of all births in the United States are to illegal immigrant mothers. This would be about 300,000 births.

Tracking this data seems to be politically incorrect today. However, Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas (the hospital JFK was taken to after he was shot) reported that 70% of the 16,000 births there in 2006 were to illegal immigrant mothers. You have to wonder what that number would be today.

We also don't know the number of women who travel to the United States specifically to give birth to gain citizenship for their child and then return to their home country. This is called "birth tourism". One estimate puts this number at over 30,000 annually. It is particularly popular with Chinese and Russian women. I spoke to someone last year who said they were on a flight from Shanghai to LA in which a majority of the women on the plane were pregnant and planning to deliver their baby in the United States. Earlier this year 19 people were charged in three "birth tourism" schemes in Southern California.

Miami is the preferred birth city for Russian women. This AP article states there are 30 birth tourism companies operating in South Florida alone!

Why is this possible? Birthright citizenship for the new baby.

However, birthright citizenship not only provides citizenship to the new baby but also provides a pathway for the parents and other family members to gain future USA citizenship due to the family immigration and the chain migration rules under current immigration law. (I use the term "law" loosely because most of the time it is difficult to see how the "law"is being enforced)

After all, we shouldn't expect that the mother of that child is looking to separate herself from her child over the course of their lifetimes.

That is not the American way.

If you don't believe that, consider this interesting fact I recently came across.

The typical adult American lives just 18 miles from their mother. 

18 miles!

In some areas of the country it is just 6 miles.

We hear a lot about the independent spirit of those in the Mountain states like Colorado, Wyoming and Idaho. It really is true looking at the graph below. People in these states live a median distance of 44 miles from their mother.

The typical American adult lives just 18 miles from their mother
Credit: The New York Times

Demography is destiny.

Data on births point to a starkly different population make-up in the United States in future years.

Immigration trends (legal and illegal) will accelerate that destiny even faster than births alone will.

The physical look of Americans will change dramatically compared to the past. It remains to be seen whether these new Americans will adopt and embrace the philosophical framework that has made America the greatest country to ever exist on the face of the earth

The United States is a nation of immigrants. It has prospered and succeeded because the immigrants who came here over the years embraced their new country, its principles and ideals. Will that continue to be the case? If it is not, the United States of America may be unrecognizable compared to what we know it to be today.

We will have to wait and see where that destiny takes us.

We will also have to wait and see if those future Americans are still living just 18 miles from their mother.

A Rising Tide

If there is one thing that is true in politics is that people vote their pocketbooks before anything else.

People care about what goes in their wallet---and what is taken out of it.

Whether you like Donald Trump or not, the economy and the effects it has on individual American voters, will undoubtedly be the biggest factor in whether Trump is re-elected or not.

For example, look at the historical record of Presidential elections over the last 100 years when an incumbent was running for re-election.

There is not one example where the incumbent lost when there was no recession in the two years before election day. On the other hand, every incumbent lost but one (Calvin Coolidge in 1924) when there was a recession during that period.

Current economic indicators and the power of incumbency are why three modelers recently predicted that President Trump will win re-election in 2020.

Steven Rattner, a former appointee in the Obama administration, recently wrote a column in The New York Times pointing to the models.

Ray Fair of Yale favors Trump to win based on a model that combines incumbency and gross domestic product growth rates.

Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics’s chief economist, has also said Trump is poised to win based on an analysis of 12 models, while Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics made a similar prediction based on an Electoral College analysis.

Rattner concedes the numbers are in Trump's favor but wonders whether Trump can overcome the poor perception that many voters have of him.

Other political observers also concede the great economy right now but say that economy is not treating people equally based on region of the country, race, ethnicity or income class.

This seems to be a popular Democrat talking point but is it true?

This chart from The Pew Charitable Trusts shows that there are state differences in personal income growth but not one state saw inflation-adjusted income fall last year. (Rhode Island was even). To put that number in context, in 2013 40 states saw personal incomes fall.

In which voter groups was Trump the weakest in 2016?

Women, 18-34 aged voters, Blacks and Hispanics.

Do these voting groups believe they are better or worse off than today than in 2016?

I thought this internal data from a recent Quinnipiac poll was also interesting.

Women      46%-24% Better

18-34         58%-18% Better

Blacks        30%-30% Better

Hispanics   55%-23% Better

Of course, in this highly partisan day and age it is difficult for many people to separate their political views from their economic outlook.

Notice that by 80%-6% Republicans say they are better off. By 54%-20% Independents say the same. However, 35% of Democrats say they are worse off compared to only 27% who say they are better off since Trump was elected. It is as if Republicans and Democrats are living in two different countries.

Notice as as well that we keep hearing about the financial challenges for those 18-34. We hear about Millennials living in the basement of their parents. We hear about their student crushing student loan. We hear about their reported dislike of Trump. However, this age group, more than any other, says they are better off with Trump that they were when Obama was President in 2016?

Rasmussen was also out with a poll last week that found that Trump's approval rating with Black voters is up to 36%. Bear in mind that Trump had a 19% approval rating with African Americans at this time last year. He also only got 8% of the Black vote in 2016.

Are you beginning to understand the importance of someone's pocketbook?

Finally, as to the poor perception that voters have of Trump.

This is undoubtedly true but it was also true when he was elected in 2016. A recent Gallup poll actually shows that more Americans believe that Trump has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have today than they did two years ago. Trump is at 40% on this score today compared to 33% in 2017. In particular, notice that all groups have moved towards Trump's style over the last two years.

Voters seem to care more about results and where Trump stands on the issues rather than personality.

When it comes to the issues there has also been a decided shift in more voters agreeing with Trump compared to two years ago. 47% are in general agreement with Trump on the issues that matter to them most compared to 39% two years ago. This improvement is also across all groups.

Do you remember that right after Trump' election that there was a constant drumbeat of doom and despair from Democrats as to what a disaster Trump would be as President?

I wrote at that time that the Democrats really did fear a Trump Presidency. However, they did not dare say the real reason they were fearful. Their biggest fear was that he would be successful.

Their fears have been realized.

It has been said that a rising tide raises all boats.

A rising economic tide undoubtedly also raises political perceptions and fortunes.

Will that tide stay up through 2020?

That, more than anything else, will determine the electoral fortunes of Donald Trump next year.

The Democrats are left with hoping the economy craters or they find a way to impeach him.

Neither are good choices for the country. I doubt the Democrats care. It is all about power.

Bias, Rights and Facts

The things I like to do best in BeeLine is expose bias in the left-leaning news media and to provide necessary context to the issues of the day. By doing that it is my hope that you will better understand the real truth about the issues of the day.

There is no better way to do that than with a few examples involving the abortion issue. As I have written before, there is no more emotional, contentious and divisive issue in America today. Much of it was avoidable if we had let the constitutional process play out as our Founders intended our system of governance to work. In that we circumvented that process we now find ourselves with some states now stating that abortion is legal up to and through birth. Others are stating that it is illegal in almost all cases, including incest and rape.

All of this has occurred because we let nine judges decide a fundamental issue balancing the right to life of an unborn child with the rights of a mother to choose whether she wants carry and care for that child.

In that nine judges decided the initial case, nine judges can decide it a different way. This has led those favoring abortion in some states to move to the most radical positions they can think of on the premise that a federal right to abortion could be limited by the Supreme Court. At the same time, pro-life interests in other states have reacted to this abortion expansion by passing legislation that extensively restricts abortions in their states.

Let's look at the "reporting" of this issue in the media for any signs of bias.

Let's start with NPR. Yes, the NPR that is taxpayer-supported and should absolutely not be showing any bias in its reporting.

The Washington Examiner's Quin Hillyer reports that "NPRs coverage of abortion is pregnant with bias."

It seems that NPR recently sent out a memo to all of its reporters and correspondents on how to refer to various terms in the abortion debate. It claimed it was seeking to remain "neutral" in its reporting. You can be the judge of that.

Here are a few examples.

NPR reports are never to refer to babies in the womb. They are to be referred to as a fetus as "babies are not babies until they are born".

NPR reports are not to use the term "unborn" because it implies there is a baby inside the womb rather than a fetus.

NPR reports are not to use the term "abortion clinics" to describe where abortions are performed. They are to be referred to as "medical or health clinics that perform abortions".

NPR is not to use the term "partial birth abortion" to describe the procedure where the baby is partially delivered outside the womb before its skull contents are vacuumed out while still in the mother. This is to be referred to as an "intact dilation and extraction medical procedure".

NPR is also not to use the term "late term abortion" as it conveys that the fetus is viable.

NPR does not want the term "pro-life" or "pro-choice" to be used in reports. Its reports should only refer to "abortion rights advocate" or "abortion rights opponent".

I thought the suggested usage on the last item is particularly telling. NPR is claiming to be neutral but is claiming that abortion is a right. Moreover, there are good guys advocating for that "right" and bad guys opposing" that "right".  Of course, there is no mention of any rights of the developing human being inside the womb. How is that neutral? I can think of no better example of inherent bias. It appears that they can't even see bias when it is right in front of them.

Not to be undone, The New York Times published this op-ed by a doctor who specializes in performing abortions late in pregnancy.

Pregnancy kills but abortion saves lives?

There is no doubt that women do die every year due to pregnancy-related deaths. How many are there?

The CDC reports there are about 700 deaths per year as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.

The CDC preliminary report for 2018 states there were 3.8 million births last year.

That puts the incidence of a pregnancy-related death at .0018421053 based on the number of live births.

Contrast this with the fact that there were an estimated 879,000 abortions in the United States in 2017 (the most recent year that data is available).

This would mean there were actually around 4.7 million pregnancies when you add these numbers to the live births above and the 24,000 still births we have in a typical year.

Let's put deaths from pregnancy and abortions in context.

There is about one death resulting from every 6,714 pregnancies.  .014894251%

On the other hand, almost one in five pregnancies ends with an abortion.  19%

Abortion is justified because it save lives? What is the greater threat to life?

The "health of the mother" is the principal argument that many make for the justification for abortion as seen in the New York Times op-ed.

Rape, incest and a serious fetal abnormality are also often given as reasons to justify abortions.

How often are these actually a reason for an abortion?

The State of Florida records a reason for every abortion performed in the state. These are the results for the 70,083 that were performed in 2018.

State of Florida
Reasons for Abortions, 2018
Credit: Abort73.com

These numbers closely track a national survey that was done in 2016 by Wm. Robert Johnston.

Reasons Given For Abortions in the USA
by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 18 January 2016

All of this should show what is really true.

Abortion is really not about the life or health of the mother. It is not about rape, incest or fetal health.

It is about choice. It is about rights.

It is really about one question.

Does a woman have the right to put her rights above the right of the life growing within her?

If so, is there a point at which those rights end and the right to life of her baby take precedence?

Is it at conception? The point at which a fetal heartbeat is heard? The point at which the child would be viable outside the womb? At birth? After birth?

Tough questions involving a very tough issue. It always is when you start balancing "rights".

Just make sure you understand the bias inherent in much of what you see and read on the issue.

You also need to understand the facts behind the issue and be able to put those facts in the proper context.

As I have stated in the past, the balancing of those "rights" is not an issue for any one man or woman to decide. Or nine men and women on the Supreme Court. Or NPR, The New York Times or the National Right to Life Committee for that matter.

It should only be decided by a true consensus of the governed. That appears to be what is occurring now at the state level with New York seeing a woman's rights continuing up to and through birth and Alabama seeing the child's rights beginning when its heartbeat is heard.

In that we did not follow the federal constitutional process that was established for this type of issue we now find ourselves in the place we are today.

After 46 years would you not expect it to be a better place?

The Founders did everything in their power to keep us from getting to this place. Such is the result when you try to short-circuit and short change our constitutional process.

Doubling Down

Now that the Mueller Report has cleared Donald Trump of any collusion with Russia in the 2016 election the Democrats seemingly have changed their tune. Mueller was everything for them before his report came out. Now they seem to think he missed something.

Mueller spent almost two years and over $35 million investigating what the Democrats and mainstream media said was collusion with the Russians. The Democrats and media also claimed that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice over his alleged "crimes".

Over those two years Special Counsel Mueller employed 19 lawyers who were supported by a team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff.

Mueller and his team issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, made 13 requests for foreign government for evidence, and interviewed 500 witnesses.

Nothing was found by Mueller to warrant any charges against Trump in that two year investigation.

It should be remembered that for two years Trump vociferously denied all the charges. For this he was called a liar, a reprobate and unworthy of the office by both Democrats and the mainstream media.

Has anyone heard any apologies because they got it so wrong?

We have not only not heard any apologies but the Democrats are now saying that Trump is engaged in a "cover up."

Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week.

"We do believe that it's important to follow the facts," the California Democrat said. "We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe that the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up."

This all seems to stem from the fact that Trump refuses to release his tax returns to Congress and he has invoked executive privilege to prevent his former White House Counsel (who already testified for over 30 hours with Mueller) from appearing before a Congressional hearing.

The Democrats apparently have decided to forego its legislative responsibility in favor or doing nothing but investigating, investigating and investigating some more.

The Democrats claim that they need to see Trump's tax returns in order to see if he had any financial dealings with the Russians that resulted in collusion. 

I find this interesting because just last week President Trump filed an 88 page financial disclosure as is required for all federal executive branch officeholders. Most anything that the Democrats say they want to know about Trump can be found in that document.

While it is true that a tax return can be helpful in discerning some details better than a financial disclosure statement, I generally believe that the latter is more revealing than the former for someone like Trump. This is the case because a tax return only documents personal income and deductible expenses. For example, if an asset is not producing any current income it never would show up on a tax return. A debt would not be disclosed unless interest was paid and deducted on the return.

Trump's personal tax returns would also be very limited in understanding his entire financial picture. They would only provide details related to his specific individual items and any sole proprietor income. They would not provide any detail on income, expenses or debt on those things held in partnerships, limited liability companies or corporations. The financial disclosure is much more informative for someone like Trump who has significant and wide ranging business interests.

So how is it that the Democrats are claiming "cover up" in the same week that Trump filed an 88 page financial disclosure form?

I think you can figure out the answer to that question.

As to the financial disclosure, here is the page relating to all of Trump's liabilities. It reflects outstanding debt of at least $315 million.

I would put the entire Trump income and asset schedule in here as well but they take up 18 pages in the report. This is the first page of that section of the financial disclosure. Note the disclosure shows both estimated value and annual income of all assets within a range. A tax return would generally only reflect income.

There are an additional 7 pages related to other assets and income which relate primarily to checking, savings, money market accounts and stock investments. Again, these list values and income.

This is the first page of that schedule.

One of the more interesting items I found in the financial disclosure is that Trump is receiving pension payments from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. These combine for almost $100,000 in annual payments.

You might think that his membership in these two unions was tied to the beginning of his role in The Apprentice which began in 2008.

However, he actually began participating in these plans in 1992 and 1989, respectively, as shown in Part 3 of the financial disclosure.

Trump is credited with 22 acting roles on imdb.com dating back to 1989.

Will there ever be a time when enough is enough with the Democrats in Congress?

They had a special counsel investigating Trump for two years who found nothing on Russia collusion or anything else and the Democrats then conclude that Trump must be covering something up?

A recent poll by CBS News found that by a 58%/37% margin Americans say they have heard enough about Mueller and Trump. 53% of those surveyed want Democrats to drop the investigations of Trump and move on to other issues.

However, among Democrats, 73% want Congressional Democrats to keep investigating. Democrats in Congress have to decide between angering their base or further frustrating the rest of America with their endless investigations of Trump while doing no legislating. That is why Trump is now referring to them as the "Do Nothing" party.

Incredibly, the percentage of Democrats who want to continue investigating Trump is higher today among Democrats than it was before the Mueller report was completed and cleared Trump and his campaign of any Russian collusion whatsoever.

How is that possible if not for Congressional Democrats and a complicit mainstream media who fed the false Russia collusion narrative to their base for two years and now can't find a way to retreat graciously. They seem to think they have no choice but to double down and maintain the support of their base. Democrats also seem to be pushing for more investigations of Trump to deflect attention from the Justice Department investigations of those who promoted (and possibly even created) the Russian collusion smear to drive Trump from office. (the so-called "insurance policy").

Unfortunately, all is proceeding as I predicted in October, 2018 shortly before the mid-term elections.

I made two predictions of what would occur if the Democrats captured a majority of seats in the House of the Representatives in my post "A Consequential Election" that appear to have proven accurate.

The first was that we would see almost nothing done legislatively for two years because all the Democrats would want to do were endless investigations of Trump.

If we think we see chaos in Washington now, think for a second what things will look like with a Democrat Congress.

I can assure you that there will be almost nothing of value done legislatively for the next two years with the Democrats in control.

Will we get a Congress focused on legislation or on investigations? 

The second prediction was that a Democrat takeover of Congress would embolden Democrats to pursue a much more radical and progressive agenda. That would also carryover to the candidates who would announce they were running for President in 2020. We should expect much more radical views from the candidates as well if Democrats took over Congress. That is exactly what we have seen. The Democrats believe the country has turned hard left because of their gains in Congress and the social media attention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has received.

The consequences of this election will also go far in shaping the list of potential 2018 Presidential contenders.

Will we get a radical or a realist as the Democrat Presidential nominee in 2020?

It remains to be seen whether this is a correct reading of the electorate.  

Democrats have been very good in the past at "covering up" their own views in order to get elected. For example, they would say they were personally against abortion but they believed women should have the choice. They would never say they wanted to raise your taxes or take away your private healthcare. They would never tell you they wanted to double the price of gasoline or triple your utility bills.

Of course, that it exactly what they wanted to do. They just knew they could not get elected saying it.

Those days are gone. There is no "cover up" involving what most Democrat candidates want to do and how far left their views are any more. It is all out there for everyone to see.

The Democrats are doubling down on Trump and doubling down on their radical, progressive agenda.

Will this result in the end of Trump or the end of the Democrat party as we know it? 

We will learn a lot about these questions over the next 18 months.

There is no question that the Democrats are obsessed with finding a way to get rid of Donald Trump. However, they could actually die as a national party as they attempt to do it. Such are the risks of doubling down.

Lifting Us Up

Memorial Day began as a day of remembrance for those who perished in the Civil War.  It originally was called "Decoration Day", a term I still remember my grandparents using to refer to the day. That was because the origins dated back to ceremonies where the graves of those who died in battle were decorated with flowers to honor their service and memories.

The late May date was chosen for Decoration Day as that was the time in which most flowers were in full bloom.

Memorial Day started to be used as the name for the holiday in the 1880's but the name did not start to gain popular acceptance until after World War II. It did not officially become "Memorial Day" until Congress declared that the official name in 1967.

I became very aware of its origins and the divide that still existed between North and South when I attended law school at Emory University in Atlanta in the early 1970's. Memorial Day was not even recognized as a holiday at the school and in much of Atlanta at that time.

It originally was celebrated on May 30 of each year which I also remember. The holiday was established as the last Monday in May by an Act of Congress that took effect in 1971. Despite that, my law school classes were still held as usual in 1973 on Memorial Day as if it was any other day. That was a little difficult for a Yankee like me to understand. I recall that it was not until the following year that Georgia fully joined the union in celebrating Memorial Day.

Lest we ever think about forgetting, these are the numbers of Americans who have laid their lives down for our freedom over the years.

Credit: Wikipedia.com

I have featured Angela Pan's photography in BeeLine previously. Angela is based in Washington, D.C. and some of her best work features the the monuments and memorials in our capital city. Featuring her photographs has become a BeeLine tradition on Memorial Day.

These images truly honor the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our freedom through the years.

Vietnam War Memorial
Credit: Angela Pan

Arlington National Cemetery
Credit: Angela Pan

Iwo Jima Memorial
Credit; Angela Pan

We should also not forget that the sacrifices of these men and women have ultimately allowed us to be better in the end. Those losses allowed the rest of us to gain more and achieve more. They have truly lifted us up.

I came across a great example of that this week when I saw this image of the Golden Bridge in Da Nang, Vietnam. The area around the bridge is actually the site of the famous American military base during the Vietnam War. Notice that the hands "holding up" the bridge were apparently carved from stone outcroppings.

Golden Bridge
Da Nang, Vietnam

Here is another image which shows an overview of the bridge. To think that something so magnificent has been built in area today which was so central during the Vietnam War and the death and destruction that accompanied it speaks volumes.

Golden Bridge
Credit: BoredPanda.com

I can think of nothing better that represents how those who have sacrificed have lifted the rest of us up.

May we never forget.

Communists and Coincidences

Many members of the younger generation today seem to be intrigued with socialism or communism.

A 2018 poll found that 52% of Millennials would prefer to live in a socialist (46%) or communist (6%) country rather than a capitalist (40%) one. If that is not a shock consider that 8% of Millennials would prefer to live in a fascist country.

Those approval numbers drop dramatically for older generations as you can see from the chart below. Could this be because those that are older saw the horrors and human toll of the socialist and communist states of Russia, East Germany, China, North Korea and Cuba in much more graphic detail in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's while they were coming of age?

I also find it interesting that those in Gen Z (those born between 1995-2015) have more negative views about socialism, communism and fascism than their older brothers and sisters. Could this be because the college indoctrination process by left-wing faculty has not yet been completed on this generation?

Why do I bring this up?

When I was growing up it would be extremely rare for any member of my generation to express socialist or communist views. The red threat was real and people took it seriously. Identifying as a communist or socialist or voting for a Communist party candidate was way, way out there. Someone who did it was on the furthest reaches of radicalism in that day and age. Young people my age might have protested the Vietnam War but almost none embraced communism.

I have known for a long time that former CIA Director John Brennan admitted that he voted for the Communist Party candidate Gus Hall for President of the United States when he was in college in 1976.

John Brennan is also the same guy who converted to Islam after he was young CIA analyst.

It always amazed me that Brennan could have a top secret security clearance and get the CIA's top job with his background.

What I did not know until recently is that former FBI Director James Comey also admitted he was a communist in his college years as reported in this New York magazine article from 2003. If he was joking it certainly is not apparent in the article.

“In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

You have to ask the same questions about James Comey. How did he ever become Director of the FBI with that in his background?

John Brennan and James Comey
Credit: EpochTimes

Is it not pretty extraordinary that two men who grew up in the same era as I did were infatuated with communism in their college years (which was extremely rare in those years) and both ascended to the top national security and law enforcement functions in the United States?

Is it not also extraordinary that both were appointed to these top jobs by Barack Obama?

Is it also just a coincidence (not to also mention extraordinary) that Brennan and Comey appear to have been at the center of the efforts of the FBI and CIA to spy on Donald Trump's campaign and at the forefront of pushing the discredited Russia collusion narrative from the beginning.

Of course, what is more extraordinary is that two guys who seemingly were enraptured with the communist ideals of Russia in the 1970's were the ringleaders trying to smear Trump of colluding with Russia today.

Now that the spying and smears that were directed at Trump and his campaign are coming to light, it appears that Brennan and Comey are are pointing fingers at each other as this FoxNews.com article headline points out.

The launch of a formal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation -- being led by one of the Justice Department’s toughest prosecutors -- has touched off a new round of behind-the-scenes finger-pointing among Obama administration officials who could have some explaining to do about efforts to surveil the Trump campaign.

A key dispute that flared this week concerns whether then-FBI Director James Comey or then-CIA Director John Brennan  -- or both of them -- pushed the unverified Steele dossier containing claims about President Trump and his relationship to Russia. The dossier’s more sensational claims were never substantiated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team.

All of it is quite extraordinary...and laden with a lot of coincidences.

It will be very, very interesting to see how this plays out.

As a wise friend of mine used to say to me often,

"There is such a thing as coincidence in the world, it just is extraordinarily rare."

Celebrating Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence.

Credit:Wikipedia Commons

He served as the Secretary of State for George Washington.

He was Vice President of the United States under John Adams.

He was the third President of the United States.

When Jefferson was President he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase that doubled the territory of the United States.

Credit:Britannica.com

He founded the University of Virginia.

Jefferson also invented and improved many innovations including the cipher wheel, polygraph, swivel chair, dumbwaiter and iron plow.

There have been few men that have had more impact on the history of the United States than Jefferson.

Despite all of this, left-wing students from Hofstra University have been pressuring the university administration to remove a statue of Jefferson that stands in front of the student union. They argue that Jefferson represents "slavery and racism."

“Jefferson’s values aided in the construction of institutionalized racism and justified the subjugation of black people in the United States. "

If that isn't bad enough along comes Democrat Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg (the Mayor of South Bend, IN) weighing in on Jefferson by stating that he thinks annual Democrat political fundraising dinners bearing Jefferson's name (Jefferson or Jefferson-Jackson dinners)  as well as buildings bearing his name be renamed.

Those dinners are so named to pay homage to Jefferson (and Jackson) who the Democrats claim as the founder(s) of the party. The Republicans have similar dinners named for Lincoln who is considered the founder of the GOP.

Mayor Pete cautions he would not go so far as to remove Jefferson from the history books. He also seems to be fine with the Jefferson Memorial right now. However, where does all of this nonsense stop?

I find this particularly interesting because, if you look at the history books, Thomas Jefferson actually did as much to try to end slavery as anyone during the time he was alive.

Many are not aware that in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson included a provision that attacked slavery and the King's actions in "suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence

This passage was deleted in the final Declaration that was approved but I think it pretty clearly shows that Jefferson was not aiding in "the construction of institutionalized racism and subjugation of racism".  He was actually attempting to deconstruct it.

This is how www.blackpast.org  describes the "The Deleted Passage of the Declaration of Independence".

When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early  summer of 1776.  Jefferson’s passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document.  It was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George’s incitement of “domestic insurrections among us.”  Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. 

Why did Jefferson and other Founding Fathers accede to removing this language. Quite simply, if they were to be successful in breaking away from Great Britain, and gaining independence, all 13 colonies had to be totally united. Everyone who put their name on the Declaration of Independence was literally putting their their life, livelihood and fortune on the line. As Benjamin Franklin famously told those that were assembled to sign the Declaration on July 4, 1776,

"We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

The larger goal of independence from Great Britain took precedence as it was not possible to move forward with only 11 of 13 colonies united on the issue of slavery. Tough compromises are necessary on tough issues. Moving forward allows for a fight for another day. Retaining the status quo accomplished nothing for the cause of freedom in the 1770's---for anyone---colonists or slaves.

Jefferson was later instrumental in making sure there was a ban on slavery in the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 and it was Jefferson who as President initiated the legislation that banned the importation of any more slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did own slaves. So did George Washington and Andrew Jackson for that matter.

In other words, the two people that the Democrats celebrate as the founders of their party were both slave owners. If they are serious, why don't they wash away both of those names and change the name of the Democrat party while they are at? Everything is tainted if you look at it that way Mayor Pete and these left wingers see it.

Of course, the reality is that all men are imperfect. Jefferson and Washington and our founders inherited a world that was imperfect but they did their best to change it for the better.

Did they make it perfect? Were they perfect? No.

However, they made it a whole lot better than it was. They also established a foundation of freedom that endures today. Should that not account for a fair and balanced view of the contributions of Jefferson, Washington and others who founded the United States at great risk and cost to themselves?

The framework they established also provided a model that has provided rights and freedom for billions of other people on this earth that was unheard of before these men made that Declaration in 1776.

This subject should not even be the subject of any debate after nearly 250 years.

Jefferson, Washington and the others should be celebrated, not denigrated.