A Trump supporter attends the former president’s rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
Too many Americans believe that elections are fixed. That is a problem for the survival of the American democracy.
In a survey by The Washington Post of 19 of the most closely watched statewide races in the country, the contrast between Republican and Democratic candidates was stark. While seven GOP nominees committed to accepting the outcomes in their contests, 12 either refused to commit or declined to respond. On the Democratic side, all 19 nominees contacted by The Post said they would accept the outcome.
President Joe Biden gave a speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on September 1, 2022 about democracy in America. In that speech he said
“And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.”
“They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.”
The Washington Post survey proves that many GOP candidates are in opposition to the idea of winners and losers in every election. That should frighten everyone. It frightens me.
The worship of Donald Trump has resulted in loyal Americans willing to destroy the American democracy. Many of those supporters of Trump are still in government service. Thus the destruction of phone records and email messages before the June 6 insurrection, during the insurrection, and days following that insurrection is no surprise.
The advocacy group American Oversight sought the texts through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, to learn more about the attack. The group requested emails, texts and calendar invitations for former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, his former acting chief of staff Kash Patel and former Defense Department general counsel Paul Ney.
“It now appears as if multiple federal agencies may have failed to preserve records surrounding the January 6th attack on the Capitol,” Heather Sawyer, executive director at American Oversight, said in a statement. “There are still too many open questions about the role of the Pentagon, Secret Service, and others before and during the attack.”
American Oversight says on its website that it is “a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog that uses public records requests backed by litigation to fight corruption, drive accountability, and defend democracy.”
It appears that there were and probably still are people in the Federal government that are intent on protecting Donald Trump and his lieutenants from prosecution related to the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The Department of Justice will likely bring criminal charges against those who intentionally destroyed those records. The Guardian reports the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, has been asked to investigate yet another deletion of text messages and other communications by senior officials on 6 January 2021, this time by the Pentagon.
The stage included the leading candidates in all the national polls with the exception of Senator Elizabeth Warren who had participated in the Night One debate. Joe Biden has clearly led in all the polls. Kamala Harris seemed to be fading after her initial declaration of candidacy. Harris’ poll numbers showed her with about 6% of supporters versus Biden’s 32%.
Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the Easter Prayer Breakfast in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, April 4, 2012, in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Personally I lack enthusiasm for Biden who I view as old and out of touch with today’s Democratic activists. My reasoning: 1) The job of president is difficult and the stress could easily kill him. 2) Without young activists to help in a campaign, Donald Trump will overwhelm a less than enthusiastic Democratic Party challenger. Is it any wonder that Trump is rooting for Biden to win the nomination?
Eric Swalwell’s attack on Biden when he said “Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago. He’s still right today. If we’re going to solve the issues of automation, pass the torch. If we’re going to solve the issues of climate chaos, pass the torch. If we’re going to solve the issue of student loan debt, pass the torch. If we’re going to end gun violence for families who are fearful of sending their kids to school, pass the torch.”
From the transcript of the debate Kamala Harris said the following.
“Okay. On the issue of race I couldn’t agree more that this is an issue that is still not being talked about truthfully and honestly. There is not a black man I know, be he a relative, a friend, or a coworker who has not been the subject of some form of profiling or discrimination.”
“I do not believe you are a racist,” Harris began, turning to face Biden. But, she added, “it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
“And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
Biden, sputtering in response, declared Harris’ accusation “a mischaracterization of my position across the board.” He rattled off civil rights measures he had supported in his long career as a senator and tried to defend his opposition to busing during the 1970s and 1980s.
“I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education,” he said, reprising the states’-rights position that he, as a senator from a border state with a history of segregation, had taken decades earlier.
Harris shot back: “That’s where the federal government must step in, that’s why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act … because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”
Joe Biden’s responses were weak throughout the debate. I can imagine Kamala Harris using her prosecutor skills to overwhelm Donald Trump in a debate.
The U.S.A. ranks 36th from the top in math in the world.
Common Core is the academic standards now being implemented in 43 states and Washington, D.C. Common Core was created by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. It was not created by the Federal government.
Jeb Bush was in support of Common Core until he realized that many Republicans oppose it. Now, based upon his comment at last Thursday’s debate, he only supports higher standards but not federally created ones.
The question is how does the United States compare with other nations? You can find the information you want to support your preconceived answer to this question.
Compared to other countries, we fail in math and science.
In the growing global marketplace, students will need to excel in both math and science to compete internationally as engineers, scientists, physicians, and creative entrepreneurs. Yet, in a 2012 analysis of student performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the U.S. placed 27th out of 34 countries in math performance and 20th in science performance.4
Of course you can deny studentsfirst claims. They might have an agenda that really is not intended to help students excel. I just can’t find it.
The 36th ranking was developed by The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, results from PISA 2012. This is not news. It was discussed by Fareed Zakaria on his CNN GPS progam. The discrepancy between 27th and 36th probably lies in the evaluation of separate parts of China.
The leading nations or cities were:
Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-China
Japan
13. Canada
16. Germany
17. Viet Nam
25. France
26. United Kingdom
34. Russian Federation
36. United States
Those fighters against common core seem to want to defend their preference for mediocrity.
The 223rd and final C-17 cargo plane was delivered to the Air Force last week. The plane was manufactured at Boeing (the old Douglas Aircraft facility) in Long Beach, California. That’s the last airplane manufacturing facility in Southern California. The plant will be closed by 2015 and will result in the loss of 3,000 jobs.
Here is the problem. While Boeing cited sequestration, the Pentagon has made it clear for several years that it didn’t require more C-17s. However, lawmakers pushed through more orders to preserve jobs.
As reported in Businessweek, October 29, 2009, “Every year since 2006, the Pentagon has said that it has enough C-17s. And every year, Congress overrules the military and authorizes funds for additional planes. In October the Senate approved $2.5 billion in the 2010 budget for 10 more C-17s, which would bring the fleet to 215.”
The United States has created high paying jobs by ordering complex technology and other aerospace/biotech products from American companies. To a great extent the military-industrial complex has been the driver of jobs.
We give $1.3 billion of aid to Egypt in the form of military hardware. We even gave Russia $126 million in aid in 2010.
Top Recipients of U.S. Military Aid, FY2010
Country
$ U.S. millions
Afghanistan
6,800.3
Israel
2,799.5
Egypt
1,301.9
Iraq
1,006.0
Pakistan
913.9
Jordan
303.8
Somalia
204.0
Colombia
185.8
Russia
126.8
Sudan
104.9
Mexico
96.0
Poland
55.6
Is this the only way we can provide our citizens with good jobs?
Our willingness to allow everyone to have a gun is part of what makes the United States an exceptional country. Freedom of press, freedom of religion, democracy is in all of the countries listed below and many more.
Despite the latest killing in Washington D.C., Americans view their right to bear arms as a vital part of their freedom. Thus even the killing in Newtown, Connecticut of 20 small children and their teachers is the price we pay for that freedom.
I disagree with this philosophy but it is the will of the majority.
According to GunPolicy.org, run by Philip Alpers, a firearms analyst at The University of Sydney, the United States is unusual with what Alpers described as the “two pillars” of gun control: licensing gun owners and registering weapons.
“You are basically the only country in the developed world that doesn’t license gun owners across the board and you are almost alone in not registering guns across the board,” Alpers said. “It’s very difficult to compare [the U.S.] with others, because you simply don’t have those things.” New Zealand and Canada are the other developed countries that don’t register guns across the board, Alpers said. The two countries register handguns and military-style semi-automatics, but not rifles and shotguns.
Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms — which includes homicides, suicide and accidents — was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.
A map showing homicides rates form an article in the Washington Post December 14,2012.
Here’s how several other prosperous nations deal with the issue: The United Kingdom In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. In 2009 there were 138 gun deaths in the U.K, where there are 6.7 firearms for every 100 people. One reason contributing to this is the U.K.’s strict gun laws. According to an English rifle and gun club legal center, any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate.
Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited.
The only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles, all termed “Section 1” firearms.
To gain a firearm certificate, applicants must be over age 14, and must demonstrate they have satisfactory security and “good reason” to own a rifle. Applicants must declare all criminal convictions and name two references to support the application. Applications must be renewed every five years.
The requirements are largely the same for a shotgun certificate, although the applicant doesn’t need two references, only one counter-signatory — and there is no minimum age.
Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can’t even handle a gun for five years. If the sentence involved more than three years in prison, there is a lifetime ban. Canada
The U.S.’s neighbor to the north also has outstandingly low gun casualty statistics. In 2009, there were 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun homicide — only 173 people. Still, the ownership is comparatively high — there are 23.8 firearms per 100 people in the country. There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories.
Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant’s spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license, and licenses are denied to applicants with any past history of domestic violence. Buyers in private sales of weapons must pass official background checks.
Canadian civilians aren’t allowed to possess automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun. Most semi-automatic assault weapons are also banned. As a result of exemptions, several kinds of assault weapons are still legal in Canada, although this has been the source of some controversy. Japan
Japan’s gun policies are notoriously strict. Civilians cannot possess handguns, automatic assault weapons, semi-automatic assault weapons, military rifles, or machine guns. Japanese civilians aren’t even allowed to own swords. Without a license, a Japanese citizen isn’t even permitted to touch a firearm. Failure to follow this law can result in up to 10 years in prison.
What is legal are hunting rifles and shotguns, but those can only be obtained after an exhaustive application process. An aspiring gun-toucher must first take an all-day class and pass both written and practical exams. Then, applicants are required to go to the hospital for a mental health test, and provide police with a medical certificate attesting their mental health and drug-free status.
The police then investigate the applicants ;background, relatives and group affiliations. Involvement in some political or activist organizations is grounds for categorical denial of license application.
Only after all that can a Japanese citizen buy a gun. Even then, gun-owners are required to store the gun in a locker, store ammunition in a separate locked safe, and provide for the police a map of the location of the locker,
Gun owners must then submit to annual inspections of the rifle or shotguns and retake the shooting range class and written exam every three years. Australia
Australia had 30 gun homicides in 2010, which amounted to 0.13 gun deaths for each 100,000 people. Australians hold 3-3.5 million guns, a rate of 15 guns for every 100 people.
Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.
In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.
Here’s what they did: Pro-gun Conservative John Howard pushed through an ambitious gun control program. The laws banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and instituted strict licensing rules involving background checks and waiting periods for purchases.
The conservative government also instituted a buyback program, where people were paid for turning in newly illegal automatic and semi-automatic rifles; 650,000 weapons were voluntarily handed in and destroyed at a cost of roughly $359.6 million.
The president’s speech dealing with Syria clearly defined our moral outrage and our leadership in enforcing internationally accepted norms. Unfortunately America’s history dealing with Muslim countries has been a failure.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt are all realities. Despite America’s efforts to help those nations transition to democracies, all have been a failure.
Even if this proposed attack on Syria will be significant, it is unlikely to change Bashar al-Assad’s behavior.
If the president really does believe that the United States has a moral responsibility to deal a significant blow against Syria, he could have acted without congressional approval. Other presidents have acted in the past without that approval.
He still can act today without that approval. He won’t. Why? He does not have the backbone.
Just this past December everyone was talking about the killing at Newtown, Connecticut. Then there were the Marathon Bombers. And just two days ago there were hundreds of parades and demonstrations over the George Zimmerman verdict.
I was certain that “Justice for Trayvon Martin” would not be easily forgotten. But the birth of a new prince in England has pushed everything off the front page. Even “Hardball with Chris Matthews” devoted his entire program to the birth.
So my question is, How important are the daily stories presented in the news? The media wants us to believe that the current story really is the consequential event. They keep feeding us with a non-stop flow of tragedy and drama that suits their need to obtain advertising revenue. And what does the public do? We watch and listen to every bit of information no matter how trivial.
The newspapers are not much better than television and radio. Washington Post’s front page article “For some, a drive across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is a harrowing experience” may be interesting to some people but is this a front page story? The Los Angeles Times Column One story “The NRA newest Sensation” tells of a Black man who is also a member of the organization. Both stories might be interesting to some people but is this front page news? To me it is trivial events that have little bearing on anyone other than their immediate families and maybe not even them.
Is it any wonder that so many of us have turned off the news broadcasts and canceled our newspapers?
Forgiving someone after breaking a law is amnesty. Both Republicans and Democrats are interested in Hispanic votes for their party. Neither cares about the well being of the country. The Los Angeles Times reports that The $46-billion security package in the immigration bill would benefit aerospace, technology and security companies, as well as border states. This is an unnecessary expenditure.
We can obtain substantially reduced illegal entry into the United States by denying undocumented workers employment.
Emphasis is on Hispanics because they are the largest group of illegal aliens. It has been reported that 40% of those in the country illegally are not from Latin America. Under current federal law, it is illegal for any employer to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work in the United States. For first offenders, there is a $250-$2,000 fine per illegal employee. For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee. If the administration simply enforced the law there would be no problem and amnesty would not be an issue.
So why haven’t we simply enforced existing laws? My guess is that leading members of both political parties do not have the stomach to deny anyone a job. In addition companies that hire illegal aliens have a lobby that is successfully impeding government action against employers.
We need a new immigration law that provides for both migrant workers and high tech workers. The Senate bill would encourage more illegal immigration.
Coast Contact 