Age Limits Needed Now More Than Ever

In December, 84 year old Nancy Pelosi broke her hip after falling in Luxembourg while on a Congressional trip.

82 year old Senator Mitch McConnell fell last week on some stairs in the U.S. Capitol and has been using a wheelchair since the fall.

Rep. John Larson (D-CT), 76, had a medical episode while speaking on the House floor on Monday.

These medical incidents with older members of Congress highlight the question of whether there should be some form of term limits for federal officeholders.

The average ages of our elected officials has been getting older and older over the years.

Joe Biden was the oldest President to ever serve. Donald Trump is now the second oldest.

Members of the House and Senate are on average 10 years older today than they were in 1980.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/congress-age-2025-third-oldest-us-history-rcna185742

The average House member is now 57.7 years old.

In the Senate, the average age is 63.8 years.

20% of the House is 70 years or older. 44% are age 60 or older.

More than one-third of the Senate is 70+ years and two-thirds is 60 years of age or older.

Source: https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-is-the-119th-congress

Many believe the answer to this is to implement term limits for Congress as is already the case for the office of President of the United States.

I am not in favor of term limits.

16 states have implemented term limits for their legislatures with mixed results.

Term limits do prevent political entrenchment and allow for more turnover and fresh blood into the political arena.

However, it comes with a loss of institutional knowledge and experience. This actually can increase the influence of non-elected bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Term limits also seem to lead to a revolving door of politicians leaving one office and then running for another office. This is what I have seen in Ohio since term limits were introduced in the state over 30 years ago.

A State Rep serves 8 years (the term limit) and then runs for a State Senate seat and serves 8 years (the term limit). They then run again for the State House or a County Commission seat. They just bounce from one office to the other.

The biggest asset a politician has is name identification. That "asset"is why so few politicians are not willing to retire and just step away.  It is a "use it or lose it" situation.  Most do not want to lose the power and prestige they have accumulated in office.

My view is that instead of term limits we should consider age limits for federal offices.

This makes a lot more sense than term limits in that it would allow for the institutional knowledge and experience to be retained but force retirement at certain ages.

Many corporations have mandatory retirement ages for their top officers or board members in order to infuse new blood and opportunity into the organization.

The U.S. Constitution establishes minimum ages for federal offices. It would seem to follow that we should have maximum ages as well.

My proposal is that the maximum age for each federal office should be the minimum age + 40.

House---age 25 + 40 = 65

Senate----age 30 + 40= 70

President--- age 35 + 40= 75

I wrote about this idea in these pages in 2018.

This seems to be a good time to republish that blog post.

Almost all of the same arguments still apply.

However, living through the last four years with Joe Biden has actually given us a real life example of  why it is a common sense idea.

We have seen the very real damage that can be done when someone assumes an office they are ill-equipped by age to handle.

Age limits make a lot more sense than term limits in my view.

It is time for more people to start talking about the idea.

Age Limits Rather Than Term Limits?

(originally published May 20, 2018)

We hear a lot about the need for term limits for our elected representatives.

In fact, President Trump recently reiterated his support for Congressional term limits.

I have mixed feelings about term limits. I like the fact that it forces new blood and new ideas into the our political system but I also see value in having those with institutional experience in charge to provide the necessary leadership and perspective to the legislative process.

We have had legislative term limits in Ohio since 1992 (limit of no more than four successive 2-year terms in the House and two successive 4-year terms in the Senate) but I have seen little evidence that it has had much effect on the political class. It seems to have mainly created a lot of political gamesmanship. A House member is term-limited and then moves to the Senate. A Senator becomes a County Commissioner and then comes back and runs again for the Senate.

As I wrote in "It's All In The Name", the largest asset a politician has is their name identification. The substantial "asset value" that a politician has in his or her name is also the reason why so many politicians have a hard time stepping away. They know they have an "asset" and they want to use it. It really becomes a question of "use it or lose it."

The Toledo Blade did a story in 2015 on why "Term limits do little to oust Ohio lawmakers"  where it reported on the political games being played because of those term limits.

It's been two decades since Ohio voters amended their constitution to cap the number of consecutive years a state lawmaker can hold his office.

But today, five state representatives and a senator who were here in the General Assembly when the term-limits clock first started ticking are still here, their service uninterrupted as they've jumped from one chamber to the other and back again.

Two will have 30 or more years under their belts by the end of the current session.

Term limits were very popular in the 1990's. 14 of the 15 states that now have term limits on the books enacted that provision during that decade. Nebraska was the last to enact term limits in 2000.

After thinking about all of this I believe that it might make more sense to consider age limits or a mandatory retirement age rather than Congressional term limits.

I know that it would spark cries of ageism and all the rest but it would prevent some of the problems with term limits while also providing the opportunity to infuse new blood into Congress from time to time.

It seems that I am not the only one thinking about this. Consider this question that was put to Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on the CNN Town Hall this week that was hosted by Chris Cuomo.

CUOMO: "I have something for you along these lines. You gave as you good segue there. I want to bring in Mary Pat, retired, lives in Maryland. Mary Pat, what is your question? A beautiful scarf you have on."MARY PAT: "Leader Pelosi, quorum.us says more than half the senators running for re-election this year are over 65 years old. If they win, their term of service will be six years. Their constituents are about 20 years younger. Isn't it time for some members to return to private service and to encourage younger folks run for office so --"[ applause ]

I am certainly not suggesting that there is a certain age at which someone is not fit to serve. For example, consider this story and video of 83-year old Senator Chuck Grassley pounding out 19 push ups to best a teenage student at an Iowa school meeting. No one should say that Grassley is not fit to serve.

It just seems logical that at some point the decisions affecting the nation and its future should be turned over to the next generation. Does it make sense for an 80-year old to be voting on legislation that will affect the lives of those much younger who will have to live under those laws for a much longer time than that Senator?

It should also be remembered that the U.S. Constitution already has an established minimum age criteria for the U.S. House (25 years), Senate (30 years) and President (35 years). Our Founders saw the wisdom of that minimum age to insure that there would be a basic level of maturity and life experience in our elected leaders. Perhaps there should also be a maximum as well?

It is also not uncommon to see required retirement ages in the corporate world for CEO's and Board members. It seems to be understood that at some point there comes a time when you should step aside for the good of the organization to let a new generations of leaders have their opportunity.

My suggestion would be to cap the maximum age at which a federal elected official could be sworn into office at 40 years from the minimum age to serve that is currently established in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, a House member could not be more than 65 years of age or a Senator older than 70 when beginning a new term of service. I would add an age 75 limit to the President in addition to the term limit already in place. This effectively would mean that there would be no House members older than 67, Senate members older than 76 or a President who was 79 or older based on the required retirement age limit.

What effect would this have if it was in place right now?

President Trump would still be eligible to run for re-election in 2020 as he would  be under the age 75 age limit on Inauguration Day January 20, 2021. (Trump will not be age 75 until June 14, 2021)

Interestingly, not one of the 45 Presidents we have had would have been precluded from serving if this provision had been in place from the beginning of the nation's founding.

However, this provision would prevent Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden from running for President in 2020 if it were in effect. It would also mean that Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren could run in 2020 but each would be precluded from running for re-election in 2024 as they would be beyond the age limit on Inauguration Day 2025. If you are a Democrat can you honestly say that it is a bad idea to have these people step aside and allow for some fresh faces in the party?

The biggest effect would be on the U.S. Senate.

There are currently 7 Senators that are at least 80 years of age. (Shelby-AL, McCain-AZ, Feinstein-CA, Grassley-IA, Roberts-KA, Inhofe-OK, Hatch-UT.

There are an additional 18 Senators that are at least 70 years of age.

The average age of a Senator right now is 61 and the U.S Representative average is 57. These are both about the oldest averages in our nation's history. By comparison, as recently as 1981, the average Senator's age was 53 and the average Representative was 49. On average, both are now 8 years older than they were 35 years ago.

Quorum recently did a study for the 115th Congress and found that in 44 of U.S House districts the age of the Representative was at least double the median age of those they represented. In 38 of the 44 districts the Representative won re-election with at least 60% of the vote. Name ID is everything and the reality is that most of these politicians are not leaving the pay, privileges and perks of Congress voluntarily. It is almost as if they have a lifetime taxpayer-paid annuity.

There are merits to term limits but they also have inherent limitations.

Perhaps it is time to start thinking about retirement age limits instead?

Beware DOGE

 I always believed that there was some amount of waste, fraud and corruption in federal government spending.

However, the early results that are being reported by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE") team are beyond anything I could have imagined.

DOGE is finding that much of federal spending is being done without any internal controls whatsoever.

Congress appropriates money to a department, a budget is established by OMB for that department and then the department just starts sending bills to Treasury to pay. 

It's never reconciled against anything. There's no Controller. They can never pass audits because there is nothing to check the requests for payments against. You can't audit something you can't reconcile.

Elon Musk reported over the weekend that the most basic controls are not in place with Social Security.

The same SS# you can be used many times over.

The fact that the Social Security database is not de-duplicated is an invitation and gateway to fraud.

This means that Social Security payments could be made to multiple individuals using the same number.

It also means that hundreds of illegal immigrants could use the same SS# to gain employment.

There could not be a more basic internal control than this one and it is not in place.

It has also been disclosed that large amounts appear to be going to support mainstream media sites from USAID.

Billions and billions in foreign aid spending which has often been spent in direct contravention of U.S. foreign policy goals.

Billions that went to support NGO's (non-government organizations) that could not have operated without government funding.

A few examples.

To be fair, some of this money appears to have been paid for subscriptions. However, DOGE found that millions and millions of dollars are being spent for media and software subscriptions that were never used.

This funding appears to have been done to buy and control the media narrative.

$310 million for a Palestinian cement factory while we knew that Hamas was building a web of terror tunnels to use to threaten Israel and destabilize the Middle East.

The Red Cross received millions of USAID which then used the money to provide maps and resources to migrants to travel to the U.S. border and then enter the country illegally.

Credit: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1887622776569110726

Another recent study found that there are over 35,000 nonprofits in the United States that receive over half of their money from government grants.

Catholic Charities was the biggest beneficiary of facilitating the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

One of the worst examples I have seen is the recent report from the CBO that found that $516 billion of spending in fiscal 2024 was for items for which appropriation congressional authority had expired.

In other words, there was absolutely no legislative authority for the spending but it was done anyway.

In effect, it appears that almost every aspect of federal spending is on automatic pilot.

Elon Musk recently posted this graphic on X.

That is so true for the deep state bureaucrats who have been living off of the federal government's largesse.

However, the deep state and the Democrats are starting to fight back against Musk and Trump now that they see their free spending ways under such threat.

Let's look a a few of the claims that are being made in an attempt to make the public at large fear DOGE more than the billions and billions of their tax dollars being wasted.

Elon Musk and his team DOGE team are unelected

Yes, this is true. However, Donald Trump was elected and he stated very clearly throughout the campaign that he was going to bring Elon Musk and his team in to form a Department of Government Efficiency. There was no bait and switch. Trump was very transparent about what he wanted to do.

In addition, a CBS News poll that was just released shows that 70% of voters agree that Donald Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do during the campaign.

DOGE is unconstitutional because it was never authorized by Congress

Trump was one step ahead of the critics on this one.

Trump did not actually create a new agency. He repurposed an existing agency that was already authorized by Congress and repurposed its mission.

The existing agency was the United States Digital Service which was established during the Obama years to make government software and systems more effective. It was already funded and the President has the power to appoint the administrator (Musk) without additional Congressional approval.

The initial focus of DOGE is focused on the financial systems to understand exactly how the federal payment systems work. This is the necessary first step into any audit.

Trump merely changed the name of an existing agency. Note that the United States Digital Service became the United States DOGE Service. The USDS is still the USDS.

Those who want to challenge DOGE on constitutional grounds are not going to have an easy time of it.

Elon Musk has a conflict of interest in serving as head of DOGE

Some argue that Musk should be disqualified because he has a conflict of interest in heading DOGE. It is not clear to me what the conflict is. He does have contracts with the federal government with SpaceX. However, the United States would not even have a space program today if it were not for Musk.

It is also a true that Musk would have probably done much better financially with the Democrats in power than Trump. They wanted to limit oil and gas in every way possible and provide subsidies for electric vehicles. These positions would have both benefited Musk much more than Trump's policies would.

It is also true that EVERYONE has a conflict of some type when it comes to the federal government.  Does any federal government employee have any interest in limiting government spending? The power of every elected federal official comes from the power of the purse. Taking tax dollars and spending them. Can they be trusted to audit themselves?

Consider as well that Trump and Musk are both working for free. Trump's net worth has dropped by about half since he first got into politics. Tesla's stock price is down by almost 15% since Trump took office. If Trump and Musk got involved in this to get rich they made a bad call.

Now compare them to people like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell since they got involved in politics and government.

It is hard to imagine anyone would be less conflicted than Musk. Would a federal government auditor be better than Musk in finding waste? In addition, Musk is probably the nation's largest taxpayer. Who would have a greater interest in seeing that their tax dollars were spent wisely?

Consider as well that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency of the federal government that has been around for a century and is supposed to be doing what DOGE is doing.

Source: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does

The GAO employs over 3,000 people.

DOGE has about 20 and has done more in less than a month than the GAO has ever been able to do.

Who is conflicted more?

Musk has a bunch of 21-25 year olds working for DOGE. What could they know?

One is 19 years old which caused someone to ask what is a 19 year an expert at?

That caused Michael Dell to reply this way.

By the way, for the record...

Bill Gates also started Microsoft when he was 19.

Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook when he was 19.

Steve Jobs started Apple when he was 20.

Perhaps it is not a bad idea to have some younger people take a fresh look at things, don't you think?

How can we trust  Musk and the DOGE team looking at the sensitive government and personal information in the Treasury Department system?

Democrats are arguing that it is of the highest concern that Elon Musk and DOGE not have access to Treasury Department and other systems.

They argue that your personal data may be compromised.

They even got a federal judge (an Obama appointee) to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Saturday to prevent DOGE (or any federal appointee) from accessing any Treasury Department records.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/federal-judge-blocks-elon-musks-doge-from-accessing-treasury-records-after-democratic-ags-file-lawsuit

This would mean even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could not access records in his own department.

However, how are you supposed to be able to audit anything if you cannot look at any records?

Do you see that what they really want is to have no one looking into what is going on.

In the meantime, Democrats tried to sweep under the rug the fact that a little over a month ago Chinese hackers accessed thousands of Treasury files.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/15/chinese-hackers-treasury-files-yellen-00198506

Those same Democrats made barely a peep about that Treasury access but Elon Musk and DOGE is a existential  threat to the personal data of Americans?

Please bear in mind that Elon Musk was also one of the founders of PayPal. He knows something about data security. In addition, what earthly reasons would the world's richest man have for compromising your social security number anyway? I would argue that there is much more risk to you in having that data in the hands of the federal government than it is with DOGE.

Take a step back from all of this and consider what all of this means.

Those who are complaining the loudest about DOGE are those who clearly have the most to hide.

What is wrong about an outsider auditing and analyzing where our tax dollars are going?

In the end, DOGE is essentially an advisory role. It can uncover things and make recommendations but any real reforms are going to have to get through Congress and/or approved by President Trump.

There is accountability to the people's elected representatives.

Why are the Deep State and the Democrats attacking Musk and DOGE so viciously?

It makes no sense unless they have no interest in transparency.

Why should be people be mad about DOGE?

That is like being angry at a bank's auditors who audit your bank account and found out the bank has been stealing from your account for years.

Instead of being outraged at the bank for stealing from you, you become angry at the auditor for bringing it to your attention.

How does that make sense?

It doesn't.

Do not be fooled by the misdirection and misinformation about DOGE.

It is the deep state that should beware of DOGE.

Not the taxpayers paying the bills.

Why? Why? Why?

 President Trump signed an executive order protecting children from medical interventions that attempt to "transition" a child from one sex to the other shortly after taking office.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/

Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.  This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.

Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding.  Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.

Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.

Predictably, transgender activists have initiated protests at hospitals that perform these procedures and the order has been challenged in federal court.

Actress Cynthia Nixon, who use to star in the tv series "Sex and the City", was one the headline speakers at a protest in New York City.

It seems that almost everyone she knows is trans or gay.

Yes, what are the odds?

Link: https://x.com/scarlett4kids/status/1886657000903180518

'Most importantly, I am here today as the mother of a proud trans man,' Nixon said as the packed crowd in St. Vartan park roared.

'I am here today as the aunt of a proud trans man,' she continued. 'My best friend's kid is trans and my kid's best friend is trans.'

'My wife and I - our lives are filled with the most amazing, beautiful, brave trans people - young and old, but especially young.'

 

This is Nixon and her "proud trans man" taken at "his" college graduation six years ago.

I have followed the transgender issue for a number of years and written about it in these pages before.

For the entirety of human history until the last 15 years or so it was accepted by almost everyone that there were only two genders. It was generally accepted that those who believed that they were transgender suffered from a mental defect not a biological one.

However, over the last 15 years much has changed. Science has been ignored because of politics. A number of gender clinics have opened across the country catering solely to children with transgender issues. Are we to believe that this has all resulted from genetic errors? Are we to believe all of these transgender issues just suddenly materialized out of thin air over the last decade?

This issue is not confined to the United States. Consider this data from the National Health Service in the UK.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14319709/British-children-suffer-gender-distress-study-reveals-trans-ideology.html

British children are 50 times more likely to suffer from 'gender distress' than ten years ago, a new NHS study has revealed.  

Analysis of NHS GP records showed that in 2011 just 200 people under the age of 18 identified as transgender or struggled with gender dysphoria, this is compared with more than 10,000 in 2021.

This is a massive jump from around from 1 in 60,000 under 18s in 2011 to 1 in 1200 in 2021. 

In 1979, Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins put a stop to all gender reassignment surgeries at that hospital based on his findings that almost all transgender issues involved mental illness. Many elite medical centers followed suit.

McHugh still believed transgenderism was a mental disorder 40 years later even though he was attacked regularly by the LGBT community. His own hospital reversed course due to the political environment and has been doing gender reassignment surgeries.

At age 93, I see no evidence that Dr. McHugh has changed his views today.

The science has not changed. However, the politics has.

We see it in the statistics that Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation cites in this commentary from 2018 titled "The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based On Ideology, Not Science".

80% to 95% of children with gender dysphoria will come to embrace and affirm their bodily sex.

41% who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives.

People who have sex transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die from suicide.

If you doubt that politics took over the science on this issue consider the following questions.

Would it be proper to encourage someone with anorexia to be on a low-calorie diet or to have their stomach stapled?

Would we allow someone with xenomelia (the feeling that one or more limbs do not belong) to be encouraged to have an amputation?

Of course not.

The biology of the body is immutable. The human mind can be altered and change. The human mind is also very powerful. It can make us believe many things that are not true. 

We don't allow a person to amputate their own arm or leg merely because in their mind they do not believe the reality of their own biology.

The same is true of those who suffer with anorexia. These individuals starve themselves as they believe in their mind that they are overweight. We don't ignore the biology, agree with them and take their nourishment away to cater to their delusion. 

In each case, we treat their mental illness with concern and compassion for their long-term wellbeing.

We do not affirm their delusion and let them do long-term harm to themselves. We certainly should  not allow that if they are minor children with a brain that is not fully developed with a lifetime ahead of them.

Trump's order does not in any way effect what a consenting adult over the age of 18 wants to do to their body.

It is limited to those 18 and under who have their entire life ahead of them and may not fully understand the irreversible effects that gender reassignment procedures will have on their future lives.

It escapes me as to why anyone believes that such life altering treatments for minors can be a good idea. If a fully consenting 25 or 35 year old wants to do it, an argument can be made that is their choice. However, it seems to me to be the height of malpractice to do this to a minor in which neurological science shows that those under age 19 do not have anything close to a fully developed brain.

Why is any of this controversial?

Why do transgender activists see it as so important to be doing gender reassignment to children?

Why can't these irreversible procedures be delayed a few years to insure that it really conforms to who they are?

Why is this just not plain old common sense?

Why is it that those who believe this are the ones who are called crazy, cruel and callous?

Lost In Space

The breadth and pace of the Trump agenda since he took office is something to behold.

It is unlike anything I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Trump is involved in so many issues and is involved at such high levels of change it is hard to keep up.

I had to chuckle when I saw Elon Musk's comment on a list of actions/accomplishments that Trump has been working on in his two short weeks in office.

What is more astounding is the popular support the Trump agenda is seeing in public polling.

Yes, Trump won the popular vote.

However, he did not win by these margins.

The Trump effect is also benefiting the Republican party at large.

Approval ratings of political parties are rarely positive. Most people do not look at them kindly.

A recent Quinnipiac poll was absolutely brutal for the Democrat party compared to the Republicans.

Republican Party: 43% favorable, 45% unfavorable (-2)

Democratic Party: 31% favorable, 57% unfavorable (-26)

Credit: https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/1884679073953178046

A recent McLaughlin poll that asked how people were inclined to vote in the 2026 mid-term elections was just as bad for Democrats.

Republicans are +8 in that polling.

Trump has revived the Republican brand in a big way.

Most importantly, he has converted his political victory into momentum for his policy agenda

The popular approval that Trump is receiving for his policy agenda seems to also be giving him additional support in the Senate for his cabinet nominations.

At one time it was believed that Trump would have a difficult time getting some of his more controversial nominees confirmed.

He already has gotten Pete Hegseth confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Pam Bondi was confirmed as Attorney General last night. 

Trump's other cabinet nominees who were considered to possibly have trouble being confirmed all now have betting odds favoring their confirmation at 96% or higher.

Tulsi Gabbard advanced through the Intelligence Committee and RFK. Jr. got a majority vote from the Finance Committee yesterday.

Source: https://polymarket.com/event/which-trump-picks-will-be-confirmed?tid=1738717193996

Any Republican who wants to cross Trump right now may be cutting their political career short.

In addition, do not discount the effect that the findings of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency "DOGE") is having on all of this. 

The waste and corruption that seems to have been going on at USAID is especially damaging to the Democrats who promoted this agency so strongly over the years. However, it also says a lot about the Republicans who stood by and let it happen. 

At the same time, Democrats seem to not know what to do or how to respond to the Trump agenda.

Right now they have no coherent message that is resonating with the majority of voters.

Some might say they seem to be "Lost in the Wilderness".

Considering the involvement of Elon Musk in the Trump agenda it is probably more on point to say they are "Lost in Space".

"Lost in Space" was a 1960's tv series about the Robinsons who were a pioneering family of space colonists who were struggling to survive in the depths of space. 

Their space colony mission had been sabotaged by Dr. Zachary Smith, a flight surgeon for the U.S. space agency, who was also working as an undercover agent for an unnamed hostile nation. 

Dr, Smith ended up being trapped on the spacecraft before it launched joining the Robinsons and one U.S. Space Corps major who accompanied the family on the space odyssey for three seasons on the CBS television network.

I cannot help thinking about how the "Lost in Space" tv series is in some respects a metaphor for the predicament the Democrat party finds itself in right now.

The Democrats are lost and don't seem to know where they are going or how they are going to get there.

In many respects, Joe Biden, with the assistance of many, many Democrats over the last decade or so, sabotaged their mission completely.

How did a party that for so many years represented the working man, who fought against special interests and privilege, and shared the traditional values of most Americans, get so far off track?

Why did Democrats think that a winning agenda could be built around open borders, ignoring our vast energy resources, supporting every WOKE idea you could imagine, blaming America for every ill in the world and arguing that American was never great to begin with?

Last week the Democrat National Committee met to elect new leadership.

However, the election was stopped after the first four positions were filled (two males and two females) to state that the DNC rules required that there had to be a non-binary person on the leadership team to meet the rules of gender balance.

Does that not speak volumes itself?

Link: https://x.com/justin_hart/status/1885854554182357121

It should be added that the DNC Chairman vote began with an introduction that contained an acknowledgement that the United States was built on indigenous stolen lands that had been stewarded for many centuries by tribal nations.

This acknowledgment was stated as part of the core values of the DNC.

Link: https://x.com/AlanJacobyJr/status/1885866414042497127

Was there any acknowledgment at the DNC meeting that the 2024 election losses might have been due to fact that they were wrong about any issues of importance to Americans?

Could it have been the election was lost due to the open border, inflation, crime, the coverup of Biden's condition or the demand that biological men should be able to play women's sports?

That does not seem to have crossed any minds at the DNC.

Why Democrats believe they lost?

It was solely due to racism and misogyny.

Link: https://x.com/CollinsforTX/status/1885482752234885399

What does new DNC Chairman Ken Martin believe is the more important thing to focus on in the wake of their losses?

There is nothing wrong with the policies of the Democrat party.

He wants a post-election review to largely focus on "tactics and messaging".

From The New York Times.

Credit: https://x.com/SonofHas/status/1886465446163185685

The thing I remember most about the "Lost in Space" tv series is when the precocious 9 or 10 year Will Robinson would be exploring a new planet accompanied by the family's helpful robot.

Invariably Will would wander somewhere or do something he should not be doing and the robot would kick into action with this warning...

"DANGER! Will Robinson. DANGER!

Is there anyone in the Democrat party who is willing to speak up about the danger they face?

It is hard to not see that if they continue on the same trajectory without a course correction they may be "Lost in Space" forever.

This and That---February 3, 2025 Edition

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

O Canada!!!

Canada looks to be facing some tough decisions about its future.

The United States has just implemented a 25% tariff on most goods coming from Canada.

President Trump has stated that this tariff will be in place until Canada tightens border security into the United States concerning illegal aliens and illicit drugs (primarily fentanyl) coming into the United States.

This has the potential to be disastrous for the Canadian economy.

22% of Canada's GDP comes from exports to the United States.

U.S. exports to Canada represent only 1.5% of its GDP.

Those numbers do not provide Canada much leverage in implementing retaliatory tariffs in response.

Keep an eye on the CDN-US dollar exchange rate. The only way out for Canada may be to devalue their currency. It is already down over 8% in the last year.

Source: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=CAD&to=USD&view=1Y

The tariff issue is just the beginning of Canada's problems.

Under Justin Trudeau's open border policy, almost one-third of the population of Canada is now foreign born. This is more than double what the U.S. share of foreign born is now (15.6%) which is still the highest in the history of the United States.

Source: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1885487809600913529/photo/1

If the children of two foreign born parents are added to the total (Canada also has birthright citizenship),  HALF of the Canadian population has strong foreign roots and little attachment to the country.

Even worse, the immigration that has occurred recently in Canada has been predominantly male.

Males now outnumber females in the age 20-29 age demographic by 10%.

Source: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1883763800157139133

Does common sense suggest that this is good for Canadian society in the long-term?

Does it also not make sense as to why Trump is as concerned about the Canadian border as he is the Mexican border when you see what has happened in Canada the last few years?

How many are looking at Canada as a way station into the United States?

Canada has the opportunity to make some changes in its direction this year. 

The Liberal Party first needs to replace Justin Trudeau as its leader now that he has announced his resignation. A new party leader is expected to be elected by the end of March.

That new party leader will then presumably represent the Liberal Party in the national election that is scheduled for October, 2025.

As of right now the Conservatives have an overwhelming lead in the popular vote polling.

Credit: https://x.com/surveilz/status/1886029780820038021

This would translate to an overwhelming number of Parliamentary seats for the CPC.

Credit: https://x.com/surveilz/status/1886029780820038021

It promises to be a very interesting year in Canada.

A Coming Population Surge in Central and South America?

When you look at the following graph you have to ask if the Democrats had been able to continue their open borders policy whether anyone would have been left in Central and South America in another four years.

An incredible 6.5% of the entire population of Nicaragua came to the U.S. in the last four years.

It was 6.1% for Cuba and 5.9% for Honduras.

Haitian immigrants received a lot of attention during the 2024 election but only 4% of that nation's population made it to the U.S. during the Biden years.

Source: https://x.com/fentasyl/status/1885512801084420511

I am sure that most of these people believed that they were getting a one way trip to the United States.

Donald Trump seems determined to make sure it is a round trip.

The most recent poll on this issue conducted by the Democracy Institute after deportations began shows that Americans support mass deportations by a 62%-35% margin.

Source: https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/162039/donald-trump-immigration-plans-poll-democracy-institute

That is about as strong a consensus we have seen in this country on any controversial issue in a long time.

Those Central and South American countries may be seeing a surge in population the next four years.

Why Are Women Not Paying Their Student Loan Debt?

Men are paying back their student loan debt but women are not.

Why is this?

It is an interesting question.

Is it because many more young women are Democrats than young men and they believed it when they were told that Joe Biden or AOC was going to cancel their debt?

Is it because women are more likely to major in college studies that tend to lead to lower paid jobs? Many more gender studies, communications, psychology and other fluffy majors that are a dime a dozen leading to lower pay jobs. Men are more likely to major in STEM courses that are in higher demand with higher pay.

Is it because more women take out loans for cosmetology, medical assistant and other associate degrees from for-profit schools that often turn out be bad education investments?

Whatever it is, this is not a good look.

Most Popular Attractions in the United States

This is an interesting graphic showing the most popular attraction in every state.

Credit: https://x.com/fasc1nate/status/1885765079624192259

What I found most interesting is that according to this the most popular attraction in the United States is the Mall of America in Minnesota with 40,000,000 annual visitors.

That is more than...

Times Square in New York   37,600,000

Las Vegas Strip in Nevada   30,000,000

National Mall and Memorial Park in D.C.  25,000,000

Faneuil Hall Marketplace in Massachusetts  20,000,000

Disney World in Florida   17,063,000

Disneyland in California   14,721,000

Who knew?

Is It Really That Rainy in London?

London, England has a reputation as being gray and wet a lot of the time.

It is undeserved.

The entire eastern half of the United States gets more annual rainfall than London does.

Source: https://x.com/_fat_ugly_rat_/status/1885144704192246125

In the United States, Seattle is viewed similarly to London.

However, both Dallas and Tulsa get more rain in an average than Seattle does.

Source: https://x.com/_fat_ugly_rat_/status/1885144704192246125

Again, who knew?

Now you do.