Too Many Victims and Lawyers

            I have a problem: I am an embarrassed (at least I’ve been told I should be) member of the privileged class. Let’s see. I am a straight, middle class, white male; I’ve been married only once and never divorced; I’m also a Christian and an American citizen; I have never felt victim of religious bigotry or discrimination in education, the workplace, or public accommodations. So, I have no need for a divorce lawyer, the ACLU, the EEOC, or a Civil Rights advocate.

            What else. I sleep under the roof of my own home, so I don’t need government housing assistance. I have a mortgage and make car payments every month, do not have insurmountable debts, and don’t owe the IRS any money. So, I don’t need welfare, Social Services, or a lawyer to plead for debt relief.

            Other than for a couple of speeding tickets, I have never been arrested for anything (but I did get stopped for jaywalking in Dallas once). So, I don’t need a criminal lawyer.

            I have not always been happy with my medical treatment, but I never thought it was the result of malpractice. And I do not have mesothelioma or any serious injury from an altercation, a fall, or an automobile accident. So, I am not much of a target for that segment of the legal profession that feeds off the physical misery of others.

            Now, I’ve had my share of bumps and bruises like everybody else. But I’ve never felt the urge to run to the nearest courthouse to claim that my rights (real or imaginary) had been violated. I’ve never felt aggrieved enough to protest in the streets. When I was a student, I never asked for a safe space free of offensive speech or ideas. I could have filed charges against someone who stole from me once, but never did because he had been my friend. A long time ago I could have reported inappropriate advances by a priest, but it never occurred to me to do so. In fact, I have never considered myself a victim. It never occurred to me.

            I suppose the courts and the legal profession exist for a good reason. There really are victims who need protection and ills that need to be redressed, just as there are bad people who deserve punishment. But we should all ask ourselves why we have allowed our country to become so suit crazy. Why do we have so many people who see themselves as victims in need of lawyers to make them whole? Why are words like inequality, discrimination, hate, and victimhood so prominent in our national discourse? I prefer to see Americans not as victims, but as beneficiaries of their country’s great abundance and limitless opportunity.

The Debates

            On February 25^th I tuned into the Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina. I had avoided watching the previous one, but this one promised not to bore me. Well, I managed to watch the entire show. I wasn’t bored, but neither was I impressed by the candidates or the moderators.

            Instead of using their time on their policy positions, the candidates attacked each other, aiming their fire mostly at pack leader Bernie Sanders and impostor Michael Bloomberg. The moderators set time limits on speeches, but they were largely ignored. Senator Warren was the most obnoxious in refusing to abide by the rules. The moderators were also unable to stop the constant interruptions by candidates who wanted the stage. All in all, the candidates acted like undisciplined brats.

            What bothered me most, though, was the lying. Bloomberg lied about disclosing his tax returns, having only allowed reporters to view redacted versions for a few hours. Steyer lied about his returns, too; fact-checking showed he has withheld every page showing where all his money came from.

            Bloomberg also lied about “Stop & Frisk,” a policy he championed while mayor of New York. He claimed to have reduced the incidents by 95%, but that was after increasing them by 600%. Besides, he didn’t stop the practice when he realized it was wrong, but because a judge ruled it unconstitutional.

            Elizabeth Warren repeated the lie about getting fired for being pregnant, but the biggest and most frequent liar was Bernie Sanders. He lied when he accused the United States of incarcerating more people than China, totally ignoring the 1.5 million Uyghurs who have been rounded up, killed, and tortured.

            Sanders misled viewers when he offered a Yale University study as proof of his claims on Medicare for All. He didn’t mention that several other studies have refuted his claim; and he failed to mention that the Yale study had been written by one of his supporters.

            Sanders continued to lie about numbers when he stated that 500,000 homeless people sleep on the streets every night, including 30,000 veterans. He neglected to mention that of the 500,000, some 350,000 sleep in shelters and the number of homeless veterans is actually 15,000.

            If Bernie Sanders becomes the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party, he will be destroyed. Not just for his repeated lies, but for his love of socialist regimes, like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. His support is well documented, and the most damning evidence has not even surfaced yet.

A View on the Second Amendment

            Our neighbor to the north has been very active lately in its push to restrict our rights under the Second Amendment. On February 20, Virginia lawmakers announced their agreement on a “red flag” law backed by Governor Northam.

            On its surface, the bill seems to appeal to common sense. It would allow law enforcement officers to take away guns from anyone they regard as a threat to use a firearm to commit a crime. Sounds simple enough. So, what’s the problem?

            First, we’re not talking here about the Michael Bloomberg “stop and frisk” policy that had cops targeting suspicious dudes walking around in bad neighborhoods. We’re talking about authorities breaking into people’s homes to search for guns.

            Well, Virginia legislators had qualms about cops behaving like the Gestapo, so they agreed that an officer should first get what’s euphemistically called an “emergency risk protection order” from a judge, short for permission to do it. Then, the officer should politely say, “Please give up your guns.” Which, of course, implies, “Or else I’ll break down the door and take them, whether you like it or not.”

            Legislators had qualms about that, too, so their bill now says to law enforcement officers the equivalent of, “Make sure you get a warrant first, so you can wave it in the guy’s face as you enter his house.”

            Second, there was the matter of what kind of guns qualify for seizure. That’s a whole other matter highlighted by the appearance of thousands of gun owners at a rally at the Virginia Capitol on January 20. That was a pretty clear signal to the pinheads in Richmond that seizing guns of any kind from legal gun owners would be more than a little problem. So, legislators had to find a way around the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment. That’s where the “red flag” law comes in.

            The “red flag” law is not about people using guns to defend themselves in their homes. No, it’s about mentally ill souls who might shoot up a school. Or, heaven forbid, place a revolver to their temple and blow their brains out. After all, isn’t the rate of suicides going up?

            Third, having identified the category of people subject to the “red flag” law, and having assured cops by waving a warrant they are legally permitted to take action against a mentally ill gun owner, there remained the question of who determines beforehand that the targeted individual actually meets the criterion for mental illness. That’s a toughie, because police officers may not have the required qualifications to make that determination, and besides, they have better things to do than to conduct an investigation.        

            Ah! But the legislators found a way around that. Let’s give the seized-gun owner the right to a hearing to determine if his guns are to be kept longer than 14 days. Republican opponents said, “But what does the fellow do to protect his home in the meantime?”

            Forgive the sarcasm in my interpretation of this “red flag” law. But it seems to me that Virginia’s Democratic legislators, with the backing of the governor, are really looking to legitimize the seizure of guns—from anybody, for any reason, at any time—in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Period.

            American citizens aren’t going to stand for this. The gun-owner rally in Richmond was the first sign of their determination. Now, localities are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Some counties are even looking to secede from the state and proclaim allegiance to West Virginia.

            Closer to us, Commissioners for Chowan County passed a resolution on the 17^th of February in support of the Second Amendment. It says, in effect, that they will oppose any North Carolina legislation affecting the Second Amendment right of citizens to bear arms. Perquimans County Commissioners should do the same.

            Democrats want a fight? Bring it on.

           

           

Politics, Politics, Politics

            Are we fed up with politics yet? There are plenty of signs that Americans are suffering from a severe case of blather infection. Dismal TV ratings of the Impeachment trial should have been sufficient evidence that most people are just tuning out the noise coming out of Washington. And it’s not just inside the Beltway that lies and insults masquerade as heathy political discourse. It is a presidential election year, after all.

            There were once 20 or so Democratic candidates of some national stature trying to convince us of their superior ability to lead the nation.  Most of them, like Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, Bill DeBlasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Spartacus Booker discovered early on that their outsize egos could not magically produce favorable polling numbers or donor enthusiasm. Others, like Julian Castro and John Delaney just didn’t know when to quit. Their charred candidacies soon joined those of Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bennett littering the field of casualties after Iowa and New Hampshire.

            The list of survivors will continue to shrink. The next to go should be Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer who have never been taken seriously, followed by Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren whose once-shining stars now look more like sputtering candles. Which leaves the Final Four.

            I like Amy Klobuchar. She’s strong on policy and would give Donald Trump a good fight, but her coffers are nearly empty. Mayor Pete did well in Iowa and New Hampshire but may not survive the coming attacks on his lack of experience and weak policy positions, not to mention his vulnerability on social issues. Bernie Sanders has deep pockets and a solid base of clueless young enthusiasts. He will also likely pick up what’s left of Warren’s supporters after she retreats to her Massachusetts teepee. That will bring the contest down to Bernie and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

            I wonder where the mainstream media will come down on this. Its left leanings would favor Sanders, but the Democratic Party, which enjoys the full support of the media, is horrified at the prospect of Bernie at the head of the ticket in November. Will the Party direct its sycophants at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC to abandon Sanders in favor of Michael Bloomberg, someone who is attempting to buy his way into the Oval Office?

            Meanwhile, President Trump should have clear sailing. Bolstered by a booming economy and a series of successes here and abroad, he is likely to pile up supporters all the way to November. He should win re-election in a landslide. Or will he? What could possibly derail his high-speed train to victory?

            I’ve always maintained that Donald Trump’s greatest enemy is Donald Trump. He is the reason Republicans lost control on the House in 2018, and he may end up causing Republicans to lose the Senate this year. Even if he stays in the White House, he will not be able to govern without the cooperation of a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

            The president’s problem and ultimate vulnerability is his management style. His monumental ego has made it impossible for him to admit that sometimes he’s not the smartest person in the room.  He prefers giving impromptu press conferences to letting his press secretary handle them; he tweets rather than relying on his Communications staff; and he tends to follow his instincts rather than advisors who may be more knowledgeable than he is. That explains why he has lost so many good people and turned some frustrated White House staffers against him.

            The latest evidence of the president’s recklessness is his alienation of Attorney General William Barr to the point where Barr vented publicly that Trump’s constant Twitter commentary makes it impossible for him do his job. Barr, in my opinion, is the Trump administration’s single greatest asset. The president cannot afford to lose him. But he will if he doesn’t learn to keep his mouth shut and let his people do their jobs.

Papal Politics

            I like Pope Francis. He is “a good guy.” But he faces a host of problems. From the day he was elected in 2013 he has had to deal with the Vatican’s widespread misuse of Vatican finances and the financial mismanagement of its vast real estate holdings. The old guard in the Curia, the Vatican’s administrative body, has been plagued with evidence of greed, cronyism, and mismanagement as well. Worst of all, the pope himself has been accused of not dealing forthrightly with widespread sexual abuses in the church and cover-ups by, and even in some cases, among senior prelates.

            Of late, Pope Francis has found himself in the middle of quarrels between liberal and conservative factions that could go so far as to result in schism if not resolved. Sensitive issues include pastoral celibacy, married priests, and discriminatory treatment of women in the church. The pope himself has ruffled some traditionalist feathers by floating a proposal for ordaining married men in parts of the world that are suffering from an acute shortage of priests.

            If there is one area where the pope has shown superior sensibilities, it is in addressing extreme poverty in the world. Drawing on his experience of life in Argentina, a country with a wide gap between the wealthy and the poor, the pope has never been bashful, even now, about mingling with the poor. And he has always taken the lead in proposing solutions to poverty. Unfortunately, his proposals are too often at odds with reality.

            The pope believes that there is a widening gap between the extremely rich and the extremely poor. Poverty, in his view, is on the increase, and the poor are getting poorer. He places the blame squarely on the greed of the wealthy and concludes that the accumulation of wealth is a sin made possible by structures of sins, such as tax havens and tax cuts for the rich. 

            Francis sees wealth redistribution, therefore, as the essential solution to world poverty, a view shared by socialists around the world. But this solution rests on one basic and false premise, that there is a widening gap between the extremely rich and the extremely poor. The pope is simply wrong.

            Pope Francis does not know economics. If he took time to bone up on the facts, he would realize that the world is currently experiencing the lowest prevalence of extreme poverty ever recorded in human history, and that extreme poverty is falling rapidly and falling across every single poverty line. Data from the World Bank points to a dramatic increase in per capita income worldwide, a level three times higher today than it was in 1990.

            Moreover, according to the Brookings Institute, in free market economies that favor wealth creation such as the United States, extreme poverty has virtually been eradicated. Here, as in other countries with free markets, there is no such thing as a tiny sliver of extremely wealthy people at the top and a huge mass of very poor people at the bottom. The fact is that the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle.

            It’s a pity the pope’s experience has led him to have a lasting antipathy for capitalism and an unwillingness to concede that it has benefitted the poor as well as the rich. In spite of his severe myopia when it comes to economics, I still think that Pope Francis is a good guy. I just hope that he will come to realize someday that capitalism is the solution to poverty, not its cause.

           

The Moral Dimension of Politics

          There is no debating the point: the Democrats are not having fun these days.  In just one week they had an embarrassing fiasco in Iowa, President Trump’s impeachment acquittal, and a blowback against Speaker Pelosi for her disgraceful insult of the president after his State of the Union address.

            The Iowa caucus exposed the incompetence of the Democratic Party, while focusing the nation’s attention on its effort to destroy Bernie Sanders, just as it did when he ran against Hillary four years ago. The Party, facing utter disaster in November with Bernie at the head of the ticket, is desperate. It even changed the rules so that Michael Bloomberg can participate in the next debate, standing on a box to do so.

            Mitch McConnell was right when he said that President Trump’s impeachment was an insult to the intelligence of the American people. The House prosecutors failed abjectly to prove their case. If they succeeded at anything, it was in putting television viewers to sleep. But look to Hollywood to award an Oscar to Adam Schiff for a lifetime achievement in raising the art form of prevarication to an entirely new level.

            And then Nancy tore up the speech. Maybe she was trying to energize the party’s base; the somnolent bunch surely needed a boost after sitting on their hands for an hour and a half. But I think it was more than that: she was demonstrating her anger and disgust at a president she hates. “A spontaneous expression of anger,” said CNN. “A small act of civil disobedience,” said another media apologist. That’s all it was.

            Nancy, for her part, said it was simply the courteous thing to do—and that after she had disrespectfully broken with tradition in the way she introduced the president to the assembled Congress. In truth, she hates the president. She hates him for winning—in 2016, in the exoneration of the Mueller Report, in the booming economy, in the impeachment acquittal, in refusing to shake her hand. And she hates him for lying. For one raised as good Catholic, lying is a moral failing. That’s why she says she prays for the president.

            The left goes one further on moral grounds: it calls the president evil. John Legend, Omarosa, Abby Huntsman, even U.S. Congressman Ted Lieu head a long list of accusers stretching from Hollywood to Washington.

            Is it any surprise then that our counter-punching president fights back? Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are horrible persons. They are evil and corrupt. Judge Kavanaugh’s critics were evil, too. And a mocking jab at Speaker Pelosi: “I don’t like people who say ‘I pray for you’ when you know that is not so.” He said this at a prayer breakfast last week with Pelosi sitting at the head table, grimacing and shaking her head. Probably because he didn’t bring a printed copy of his remarks for her to tear up.